Liberty and Tyranny

A Casual Examination of State and Religion Through the True Lens of Liberty and the Establishment of Ideal Ethics.

Liberty and Tyranny establishes what is true and ideal concerning life and existence. All intents, actions, and purposes fall into one of two categories, either consistent with liberty or tyranny, either imposing or unimposing.

The book establishes the principles that allow all beings to be free as well as how these principles relate to the establishment of systems, economic, political, and social. Liberty being the nature of the creation, as well as true and ideal for human beings, we can infer the nature of the creator based on his creation, where these observations come from and are established. We take the ruler of liberty and we measure the words and concepts of religion to determine their origin: consistent with the supreme; or the product of man’s imagination, proliferated for the purpose of man having control over man.

I am offering the BETA version of the book below online and may self publish a paperback. I will be restructuring the concepts into a form that will thoroughly illustrate the philosophical foundation of liberty at the exclusion of contrasting the basics of liberty with tyranny. I haven’t decided on a name but have been loosely building the outline for the project in my head.

I intend to strengthen some of the notes and perhaps adjust some of the content. New notes were thrown together somewhat hastefully, whereas I’d prefer to have an essay for each example serving as evidence to substantiate a point. As you’ll notice when you begin reading the notes, there are multiple examples and explanations provided in order to substantiate statements which may seem contrary to popular perception, eventhough these statements are not controversial in consideration of history and facts. In the establishment of the murder, theft, and tyranny imposed on the rest of the world by the United States I have a few examples which are detailed, and others where I offer I only a paragraph. The goal is to turn those paragraphs into essays.

Liberty and Tyranny is the first of the blue book collection. All blue books pertain to liberty as the foundational truth, ideal, and measure. In this, there isn’t likely to be any other books that expand on the concept, but books may grow of out of liberty as the measure. For example, this first book casually analyzes the state, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddahism through the lens of liberty. Additional books in the blue book series can consist of any subject under the lens of liberty, as Liberty and Tyranny establishes liberty as true and ideal.

Liberty and Tyranny

Liberty is defined as the scope or capacity to do as one pleases.

Ideal is liberty and liberty is true.

Liberty is ideal because what is it that everyone wants?

Everyone wants to do what they want to do.

Liberty is true because any creature possessing the means and ability can do anything they choose unless they are imposed upon by another creature.
Liberty is true because unlike the superstitions that baselessly assert super natural forces influence the happenings on this planet, all the results are caused by the free will of the creatures on this planet, and the interaction of the host bodies in the solar system.

Liberty consists of boundaries (not being imposed upon) and opportunities to acquire the abilities, and the means, to do as one pleases. Of course an opportunity to acquire the abilities (education), requires the means (money) for an environment conducive to learning and intellectual development.

Additionally, as individuals who are all part of a larger collective, that have erected systems, liberty consists of having influence over collective decision making (laws, production) and collective appropriations (the allocation of tax dollars).

These principles are embodied in the rhetoric and spoken doctrine of the United States, but are absent in the systems, policies, and practices of the country. A nation founded by wealth, for wealth, (1) which has adapted to maintain underclass contentment while preserving a class based power structure. (2) When wealth and industry decide who you can vote for, no matter who you vote for that candidate serves the interest of the wealth and industries that put them in a position to be elected. When your government serves the interest of wealth and industry, they nominate and confirm supreme court justices that will interpret the constitution in the interest of wealth and industry. And when the supreme court justices rely on the writing of founders who created a nation to governed by wealth, who abhorred democracy, unless it was democracy for the wealthy at the exclusion of disadvantaged people, you have a plutocracy that masquerades as a republic, and most people do not have influence over collective decision making or public appropriations.

Without a sum of money larger than what is available to most people, an individual is without influence in decisions of production, is unable to create an opportunity for himself, and must rely on others to create an opportunity for him. This allows those with to dictate the terms by which one can have an opportunity. (3) As a result, most of the people in this country have little left over after they pay their bills. Evidence for this point can be found in the fact that the bottom 50% of the country possess “practically nothing” in terms of wealth and the bottom 80% very little compared to what is held by the top 20%.(4) Wealth is surplus income, meaning a small amount of wealth indicates an income that is nearly equal to expenses. This is to say most of the opportunities do not suffice for wealth creation as expenses are generally equal to or greater than the income derived from these opportunities.

In short, we are talking about boundaries and opportunities to make money. With boundaries encompassing more than individual imposition but also collective imposition. Collective imposition can be understood as people who benefit from, participate in, or who are ignorant or indifferent to a system that traps disadvantaged people in disadvantaged circumstances.

We can point to an example here or there of people who have overcame great beginning disadvantages but these people are the exception not the norm. Those exceptions are paraded through the minds of Americans in an effort to reinforce the myth that America is built upon fair principles and systems. I don’t disagree that anyone can “make it”, but the truth is, that not everyone can “make it”, and most will not. Social mobility is very limited in the United States, with most people ending up not far from where they started.(5) The point is, that tyranny is not only a basis of reasoning in dealing with others on an individual basis, but the role an individual plays in collective imposition by benefiting from systems that impose on others.
While there are many issues that fall under the category of boundary issues, one worth mentioning is deception. There are exceptions, but generally, deception imposes on the liberty of the one being deceived as one cannot be free to take advantage of opportunity when they think something is when it isn’t or something isn’t when it is.

Collectively, the people of the United States are as thoroughly deceived as any people on this planet, past or present. Reality is a product of popular perception, not facts and logic. With few exceptions The American Myth is deeply impressed on every citizen in the United States. The myth states generally that America is right, that the political system is correct, fair, democratic, representative; that opportunity is available to all if they have drive and a good work ethic. The myth implies American intentions abroad are good. In a word, the myth is the “goodness” of America.
The reality is the exact opposite. Foreign policy is motivated by ensuring the markets of foreign nations are accessible by US corporations for investment, i.e. the exploitation of labor and resources. Included in achieving that goal is ensuring there are places to apply pressure from. There are no equal relationships with the United States among nations, only subordinate nations and varying degrees of enemy states.

The people of the United States are unable to think about their responsibility for the murder, theft, and tyranny they impose on the rest of the world, (6) or even the tyranny experienced by the underclasses, because their social reality excludes it as a possibility.

Social reality is self perpetuating. A child’s first impressions in life come from the parents, who inherited impressions that lead to false conclusions consistent with the American myth. Soon the children are introduced to other sources, generally endorsed by their parents, religion, school, family, television, movies, etc. Their peers are exposed to the same impressions, with minor differences, maybe Catholic not Baptist, republican not democrat, but all impressions re-enforcing the American myth, or not challenging it. Myth aspects are solidified through the seeming diversity of controversy that exists within the myth. Plainly, if everyone you come in contact with, and everything you see is full of shit, you are going to be full of shit, and that shit is going to harden, because it is ceaselessly reinforced.
Liberty is a thought process, the consideration of boundaries, balance, and opportunity. All intents, actions, results, and purposes are either imposing or unimposing, the creation of opportunity or the denial of opportunity, progress towards correcting an imbalance or exacerbating an imbalance, consistent with liberty or tyranny. Although I have expressed liberty as boundaries, opportunity, and balance, opportunity and balance are actually boundaries issues as I alluded to previously, but chose to write the fractional aspects for ease of understanding. The application of liberty requires only the respect of boundaries.

I am a member of species that is tyrannical, authoritarian, deceptive and deceived, intellectually dulled, and headed eyes wide open into an avoidable extinction.

Liberty as Law

What distinguishes intelligent life from primitive life is the ability of intelligent life to manipulate energy with understanding of the processes.
In order for intelligent life to evolve it must evolve from primitive life. The death of primitive life and other organic materials causes fossil fuels to exist for any intelligent life that evolves. Because intelligent life is defined by it’s ability to manipulate energy, fossil fuels will eventually be discovered and used as an energy source.

The result which is observable over the last century is the changing of the atmospheric composition,(7) leading to the changing of the climate,(8) causing the host planet to become uninhabitable for the species that is unable to transition to a carbon neutral energy source.

In our solar system there is a variety of conditions that exist on planets and moons. There is no significantly evolved life on any of these bodies. This is means an earth like planet and conditions are required for simple life to evolve into complex and intelligent life. The key points of this paragraph and the preceding is 1: a distinguishing characteristic of intelligent life is its ability to consciously manipulate energy 2: an earthlike planet is necessary for the evolution of intelligent life. 3: there will be fossil fuels, and an intelligent species will discover and exploit them as sources of energy. 4: the usage of fossil fuels will reduce habitability and eventually cause the host planet to become uninhabitable for the species if they fail to recognize the changing climate and make a prompt transition to renewable energy.

What causes an intelligent species to fail in making the transition? We are the example of a species failing to make this transition.

Among a species that was free, and first and foremost free of deception, this species would understand the ramifications of continued indifference to climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels. They fail to recognize the magnitude of the threat for two reasons.

The first is deception concerning the problem itself, where denial of climate change is as valid as the acknowledgement of climate change. This is accomplished by the class interest benefitting from control of the species primary source of energy, through manipulation of the public, by those who wield power because they possess money, because they control energy, which there is ceaseless demand for. I don’t think there is much controversy over the great degree of influence the oil, gas, and coal industry has in government,(9) or who is funding the biased research of people with scientific credentials but without scientific integrity who serve as the basis for climate denial propaganda.(10)

10 years ago, the deception concerning the extent of the problem was probably the greatest impediment for human beings to act in their own best interest. Today, the greatest impediment is the obfuscation of power and processes, where the general public is intentionally confused about political and economic processes,(11) as well as science, which creates not only reliance, but also blind confidence in the perceived authorities in those fields. By this I mean among most people in the United States, they have internalized blindly, the sentiments of Kennedy, “no problem of human destiny is beyond human beings”. In this, just as there have been no mass life altering issues for present generations in this country, it is presumed they will never be confronted by any. But more than this, they believe whatever problem confronts us, these really smart and well intended people are going to solve it. This is false due to the enormity of the problem and the inability of science to address it (in that it is an economic and political problem not a technological problem), and an earth with a global average temperature 4 degrees Celsius warmer than preindustrial times, is an earth that is not habitable for human beings;(12) a problem of human destiny (it is human destiny on the most probable trajectory), that is beyond human beings. Not that averting 4 degrees warming is beyond human beings, but if we exceed 2 degrees warming, 4 and more is to follow, and human survival in a world with a global average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average, is beyond human beings.

Even if the entire country understood the significance of climate change, the people would still be powerless to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The reason being, most people are without the means to participate in decisions of production. Deciding production requires money, and a people without money are disenfranchised from decisions of production. Which is of course compounded by the problem of legislative decisions, including tax appropriations. Legislative representation requires money, and most people are without sums or even a pool of sums, capable of competing against the entrenched industrial interests who dominate the market of government.

The little that has been done, has been done to benefit private industry. Public funds for subsides and loans used to build infrastructure that is owned privately. (13) Infrastructure that is then used to generate energy that will be sold back to the very public who paid for it. It makes good sense to me that if the public pays for the infrastructure, the public should own the infrastructure. A separate argument from the point that enough is not being done, a point that will be solidified in the following paragraph, but something that cannot be omitted when government action on climate change is mentioned. And we cannot mention government action concerning climate change without acknowledging governments encouragement of fossil fuel usage.

This may be the only significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans, not that either is motivated by human duty to limit carbon emissions, only that the oil companies give far less money to Democrats, and industries that benefit from the implementation of renewable energy and the transition from oil, give money to the Democrats. But as much as the Obama administration was for limiting greenhouse gases, his administration supported increased consumption of natural gas, when in most applications, natural gas is worse than oil and coal. (14) The point is, an interest is only attended to because of the money behind it, and then it is PR’d to the public as something representing a popular interest. Government is a market, not a forum for serving public interest.

The bottom line is the only way to maintain a co2 concentration in the atmosphere of below 580ppm, which may allow human beings to maintain a global average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius or below the preindustrial average, is to reduce carbon emissions by 40 to 70 percent by mid century. (15) But, human beings globally, have failed to achieve even a 1 percent decrease, with the greatest achievement being a little over a 1 percent decrease in the increase of annual carbon emissions. (16) There is no reason to believe we will meet even the lower end of this goal based on the power structure and our present trajectory.

What causes this failure? The domination of resources and decision making powers by one group over the rest. In short tyranny. It is reasonable to infer from the basis of failure, that a world that applied principles of liberty, with institutions that reflected these principles, would be capable of making this transition. A world where the masses weren’t manipulated through popular information leading people to a false popular perception or reality; not only concerning climate change, but concerning the processes of political and economic decision making.

A world where truth is not manufactured, but where it is understood as a component of maintaining liberty, as a boundary, where no one wants to live with the disadvantage of being deceived, and so deception is recognized as an imposition on liberty.

A world where the masses are not left to rely on the few who possess the means to decide production and the terms by which an individual can be productive, but where individuals, as well as institutions can decide what they will produce. Not only what, but how they will produce in the interest of sustainability, inclusive of maintaining the habitability of the earth for future generations; and where those who participate in production, are individually enriched by those efforts to empower themselves individually through money. And as I have written previously, a more prosperous working class, is a greener working class, because there is a cost to decreasing one’s carbon footprint. A person is only as green as they can afford to be.

A world where “every man having not farthing, has a voice that is equal with all others”(17) in matters of the state; this world is organized where deception and obfuscation, has not tainted the opinion of the individual, where his or her voice represents an interest or an idea that is contrary to his or her own interest.

Liberty is a law of nature because any species that exists in tyranny, even covertly, will destroy itself. A law of the universe because intelligent life, outside of our solar system, will mimic the evolution of life on earth. Because intelligent and even non-intelligent complex life requires the same components and conditions as is found on earth. If life could evolve in conditions that were different from what we find on earth, then we would find complex life existing elsewhere in our solar system. The point being, any intelligent life is probably similar to humans, but more importantly, must value, act, and its systems must reflect liberty, or they will cease to exist.

Chapter 1 Notes of Substantiation and Reference

1: Robert A Mcguire, using a quantitative technique called multivariate logit regression found “The types of economic interest that mattered for the choice of specific issues were likely to have counted for a substantial portion of the overall wealth or represent the primary livelihood of the founders… Had there been among the ratifiers, fewer merchants, more debtors, more slave owners, more delegates from among the less-commercial areas,… there would have been no ratification of the constitution…The modern evidence suggests that constitutions are the products of the interests of those who design and adopt them.” (The Political Economy of the Constitution, by Robert A. McGuire, University of Akron, pp 23,26, and 29.) If most people’s interest was not congurent with the interests of those who voted to ratify the constitution, and if those interests would have decided the fate of the constitution, they would have decided it differently, then we recognize the constitution is a product of an elite minority agenda.

McGuire also wrote “Many others question an economic interpretation because they question whether the founders were really attempting to solely, or even to principally, enhance their personal wealth, or the wealth of those they represented, as a result of adopting the Constitution. Of course, the founders were not.” (McGuire pg31)
I do not see how this is obvious? While it is difficult to argue any decision has a sole motivation, given the number of possible foreseen consequences of any particular action, if an individual’s votes can be largely predicted based on his economic interest, then his economic interest is demonstrated to be a governing principle; and since this principle carries more weight than other principles, then principally, how were the founders attempting to do anything but enhance their personal wealth (and protecting it) through the adoption of the Constitution? McGuire also wrote in the same paper “quantitative studies contend that the Constitution was neither drafted nor ratified by a group of disinterested non-partisan demigods motivated only, or even principally by high minded political principles to promote the nation’s best interest”. (McGuire pg22)

If you are attempting to create a national government, not disinterested, but interested in your economic interest, as is observable by your voting tendency, and not principally motivated by high minded political principles to promote the nation’s best interest, then principally, you are attempting to enhance your wealth as a result of adopting the Constitution. Which is why it is not obvious to me the founders weren’t attempting to do that based on what I read.

The only reason for my criticism, is to anticipate the response from “those individuals who view the founders through rose colored glasses”. Who may contend through portions of McGuires quoted material, that I am taking the work out of context. “Others question an economic interpretation because they question whether political principles, philosophies, and beliefs can be ignored in an attempt to understand the design of the Constitution. Of course, they cannot.” (McGuire pg31) I do not disagree but what were these “political principles, philosophies, and beliefs”?

On guarding against factions, James Madison, in The Federalist Papers Vol.10 wrote:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community …the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”
As Madison admits “the most common and durable source of factions” is the haves and have nots, which makes clear the right they were most concerned with being impacted by factions or democracy was the right of property. If you are persuaded by liberty, and you foresaw an issue between those who have property and those who are without, knowing the extent to which individual liberty has its roots in property, the goal would be to ensure equal opportunity exists for all people to acquire property, not to ensure that those with property, are protected from those without property. The only way the interests of “a majority”, could be “adversed” “to the interests of the community” is if “the community” consisted of some elite minority.

As explained by Madison “In England, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place… Landholders ought to have a share in the government to protect these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority poor and this body should be the senate”. (Constitutional Convention, June 26th 1787, Words of the Founding Fathers, Steve Coffman McFarland, Aug 3, 2012, Page 86)

If you are interested in a republic, you create a single body for legislation which allows “the delegation of government to a small group of people elected by the rest”. The argument against a more democratic system of government is fear that populist whims will negatively impact the liberty of all. The issue is, for examples to support the argument against a more pure democratic system you have to go back to Greece. The actual problem for the founders is their class only represented a small portion of the population and they could not maintain power or have their interest represented disproportionate to their numbers in a more democratic system. More democratic does not have to mean one elected body for representation, but in settings where there is one elected body, with one executive, like every US city, we don’t see democratic hysteria harming liberty. This probably has as much to do with the fact that even local governments in this country are largely directed by money, and because a majority just shy of a totality, is either too ignorant to know what their interest is, or have been trained to adopt an interest that is actually against their own interest. People are blind to it even as they view it eyes wide open.

They call it checks and balances, and the purpose is to check the interest of the majority by a wealthy minority, and ensure the balance of power rests with those who hold wealth. Again, in the beginning, many states had property requirements to hold office, and senators were elected by the representatives of states. The senate was quite literally as Madison wrote, “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority poor.” Even today, where senators are elected popularly, you still have a choice of candidates that is in a position to be elected because of the wealth that puts them in a position to be elected. A number of people so small (51 to 60) that it facilitates the ease by which the minority interest of wealth can be protected.

Of course, the senate is only one check on popular interest, the other is the president. One person within whom powers are invested to decree (through executive order) or prevent legislation from moving forward (veto).

Staggered term limits of 2 years in the house, 4 years for the president, and 6 years for the senate also contribute to curbing the power of popular interest.

Reinforced by Adams attitude against limiting suffrage which also has the effect of protecting the minority of the opulent against the majority poor, “it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; …every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”(Mc Farland pg 231, First heard in Noam Chomsky Boston University Lecture)
What do we call a system where every man having not a farthing has a voice less than equal with those possessed of wealth? The word plutocracy comes from the Greek words Ploutos meaning wealth, and kratos meaning power, dominion, rule. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy Source: “Plutocracy”. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 13 October 2012.) If men without money should not have a voice, then consequently men with wealth have power have dominion, or rule over a state established according to that principle. While this is only one founder’s opinion on the matter, it isn’t difficult to understand the dominating intent, and the consistent results with which this country was founded.

Why should wealth be represented disproportionate to the number of people who possess it? Principally, democracy is not only about arriving at what appears to be the best collective decision, but for the purpose of limiting dissatisfaction, after all, fundamentally, if a decision is going to create a problem for one individual out of 100, is it better that the one individual is dissatisfied for every 99 satisfied? Or for 99 to be dissatisfied for every 1 to be satisfied? Presuming the 99 wouldn’t have an issue being dissatisfied if they were the one who was affected as the one would be affected. I have heard arguments that the beauty of the constitution, is that 99 cannot get together to take away the rights of 1. Is it beautiful still when 1 is able to take away the rights of the 99? Why should they be powerless to remedy an imposition on their liberty by him or her exercising his liberty?
Most know that democracy was not chief among the “political principles, philosophies, and beliefs” at least if we consider democracy in the broader sense, where everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the collective decisions that form the rules that govern society, assign tax spending, and policies carried out in the name of the collective. Madison explains that a republic exists when there is “the delegation of government…to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” Since the country was founded with restrictions on voting, according to race, class, gender and even religion, the delegation of government to this small number of citizens, is not elected “by the rest”, and therefore you did not have a republic according to Madison’s definition. Some may argue these restrictions were restrictions by the states, but at the convention, the only reason voting qualifications and office holding qualifications were left to the states was because there was no easy way to reconcile the different economic interests of the period. Those possessed, were economically possessed of different qualifications, so to impose one qualification would limit other interests possessed of different qualifications. (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. Macmillan Company 1921, pg 164 ““Several Propositions”, says Mr. S. H. Miller, were made in the federal convention in regard to property qualifications…if it was made high enough for the south, it would not be applicable to the eastern states.” Pg 165 “Propositions to establish property qualifications were defeated, not because they were believed to be inherently opposed to the genius of American government, but for economic reasons.”)

In 1791, Madison writes to Jefferson, “The subscriptions are consequently a mere scramble for so much public plunder. It pretty clearly appears, also in what proportion public debt lies in this country, what sort of hands hold it, are by whom the people of the United States are to be governed.” (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-20-02-0266 Madison to Jefferson, July 10th 1791) This is a clear admission that the government was designed intent on being governed by wealth. How else do we correlate the acknowledgment that those who held public debt would be enriched and the next statement “in what proportion public debt lies in this country… are by whom the people of the United States are to be governed”? An admission of governance by wealth, from the chief architect of the system. And these are the kind of statements that cause the intentions with which this country was founded on inconsistent with a republic, democracy, or liberty in opportunity for all. Otherwise, the financial enrichment of a few through the federal government assuming state notes, would have nothing to do with “whom the people of the United States are to be governed”, unless you were establishing a system to be governed by wealth; then the fortune they made through “public plunder”, qualifies them as those who have power rule or dominion.

As Oliver Ellsworth predicted, in his argument against allowing southern states to continue importing slaves “As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless”. (Slavery and Sectional Strife in the Early American Repbulic, 1776-1821. 2010 Gary John Kornblith) No need to import slaves, because the system we are creating will lead to a mass of poor people who will be desperate for work. And is there a time in this nation’s history when this has not been true? Ellsworth was also from among those who held a significant amount of public debt. (Beard 1921 pg 88,89, “he appears in December, 1791 with 1330.50 in deferred sixes, 2660.98 in funded sixes, 1995.75 in 3 percents.” Source: MS. Treasury Department: Connecticut Loan Office Ledgers A, B, and C. Folio 21 in each volume.)

It is difficult to argue that the constitution was created and drafted by men who were ethical, despite their deification in the minds of men who proudly display the American flag on the rear of their pick up trucks. Consider Oliver Ellsworth, who being possessed of investments and arguing and voting for clauses having a direct effect on his personal investments and the opposite effect on most of the people in the country is a conflict of interest. Something that is not exclusive to Ellsworth and even delegates that did not hold state debt were compromised by having people close to them who did. The point is, if the one arguing and voting for something will cause him to experience prosperity and the people he represents to be the one’s providing that prosperity, he cannot represent the interest of the people because in doing so, he harms his own interest, or in representing his own interest he harms the interest of the people. Of course history tells which interest was represented.

Most American’s were against the constitution, but as was then, as is now, most American’s didn’t have much say in the affairs of their states and the unification of the states. Patrick Henry said “I believe it to be a fact that the great body of yeomanry (small farmers) are in decided opposition to it (constitution). I may say with confidence, that for 19 counties adjacent to each other 9/10ths of people are conscientiously opposed to it…You have not solid reality, the hearts and hands of the men who are to be governed. Have gentleman no respect for the actual dispositions of the people in the adopting states? Look at Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. These two great states have raised great objections to that government as we do. There was a majority of only 19 in Massachusetts. We are told, that only 10,000 were represented in Pennsylvania, although 70,000 had a right to be represented.” (The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber, and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Canonic URL: http//rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/RNCN-02-10-02-0002-0013-0001 [accessed 11 Feb 2013] Original source: Ratification by the States, Volume X: Virginia, No. 3 )

The dominant political principles, philosophies, and beliefs embraced by the delegates who ratified the Constitution were oligarchic, plutocratic, and otherwise erecting a power structure that is economically despotic. Whatever term you choose to apply, the minority rule conclusion is accurate. It was rule by a specialized class, as in they had wealth, and so they established a system to ensure that wealth would control matters of the state, and the state would protect those with wealth as well as help them achieve more wealth. “In order to set up national government, Hamilton and his colleagues had to make plans, not on the theory that men would cooperate because they had a sense of common interest, but on the theory that men could be governed… It is a fair guess that if everyone had always regarded the Constitution as did the authors of it, the Constitution would have been violently overthrown, because loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to democracy would have seemed incompatible… Jefferson referred to his election as “the great revolution of 1800,” but more than anything else it was a revolution in the mind. No great policy was altered… the Constitution was, in spirit, rewritten… chiefly by looking at it through another set of stereotypes, the facade was no longer permitted to look oligarchic” (Public Opinion. 1922, by Walter Lippmann, Chapter 18)

I don’t mean to deviate too far from the purpose of this substantiation, but I must anticipate the response of the lowest common denominator and offer the rebuttal despite the fact that those who would offer this response are among those whose comprehension skills are rivaled by middle school reading levels. (The average American reads at a 7th to 8th grade level) The grown children that comprise the great majority of this country, probably as well as the educated grown children, state intellectuals, career academics still searching for their first original thought, may concede that the US was founded as a plutocracy, that it came into being against the interest of the majority of people, but it is the most powerful and prosperous country in the world, and this is the system that created the nations prosperity and power. Followed by chants of USA, USA, USA!!!

We shouldn’t forget that it was less than 100 years ago that the United States was close to collapse during the depression, where social concessions had to be made to content the masses and avoid a violent end of capitalism. FDR “It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.” (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Transwiki/American_history_quotes_New_Deal 7th quotation.)

Much of the success of the United States came after WWII. The war itself helped to increase the industrial capabilities of the nation, but also left the US in a clear position of dominance in the world as every other developed nation was devastated by the war. The aftermath details will be explained in another section of notes, but the point being is, the Nazis are more responsible for American power and prosperity in the world today than the system of American government.

Power, prosperity, and freedom is relative. What is the merit of being in the most powerful and prosperous country in the world if you are homeless or spend most of your life working an unfulfilling job that provides little more than the basic necessities of life? What is the merit of being in the freest nation in the world if you are incarcerated? What is the benefit of being in the most powerful country in the world when you are without power to participate in decisions of opportunity, legislation, collective spending, or foreign policy? What purpose does it serve to have freedom of speech when your speech, whether written, spoken or otherwise expressed, is suppressed, drown out by the waves of dominant attention directing propaganda, or cannot be comprehended by a population that has been gutted of the ability to read and think beyond what is required for pleasing a master for an external award or avoiding the figurative lash? How is a right a right when it requires means that elude the opportunities of most people for that right to be upheld?

2: This substantiation draws on data I used in other material, which is why the note is based on the 2012 election and not the 2016 election. It leans heavily on a 2013 paper published by the most prominent academic authority on the subject of money in politics Thomas Ferguson, along with his esteemed colleagues Paul Jorgenson, and Lie Chen. The trio has published a new paper (1/2018, which I only discovered 12/2018) in the series, presumably examining the role of money in politics in the 2016 election that I haven’t had the pleasure to read, as my life has been filled with time and attention consuming tasks necessary for maintaining necessities of life. (The details of which will be available in the book I am writing after I finish this called Orion: 2018)

The reason I am mentioning this is because the material I am drawing on is not dated. It is a snap shot less than a decade old with no significant changes occurring in regard to the exercise of power in elections. In fact, I could draw on data from the 2008, 2004, 2000 elections and so on and so forth, and each election would support the conclusions that contribute to the substantiation of the fact that wealth and wealth through industry direct legislative power at the exclusion of the underclasses, which means the United States does not have a popular form of government because the amount of wealth required for influence in government is held by at most a few tenths of a percentage of the population, and is expressed most visibly and directly through the corporations they own. Of course pre citizens united may look differently than post citizens united, and pre-1994 may look different than post 1994, and pre Mark Hanna (the 19th century campaign manager quoted as saying “the two things necessary for a successful campaign are money, and I forget the other”) may be different than post Mark Hanna, but at no point in US history, is there a time when the United States has been a government that has not been directed by the interests of wealth.

Some would argue incorrectly that civil rights for black people, women’s suffrage, and the new deal were times when the government was directed by a popular interest and not the interests of wealth. However, in order to maintain the power structure, as was the case in the midst of the depression, concessions have to be made to prevent popular discontent from erupting and striping the power of wealth to direct; these were systemic threats that could be addressed without altering the systemic order. In this, popular interests are served to serve the most fundamental interest of wealth, which is preserving a system where wealth directs power.

Some of the content in this note was written during the Obama Administration, and so it is critical of the administration that held power when this was compiled, but the content should not be misconstrued as me having rightest leanings simply because I am critical of democrats. I do tend to be more critical of democrats because they rhetorically pander to the interests of the disadvantaged and poor but their actions are consistent with the interest of their financiers. Whereas republicans openly express they are for the interests of wealth and lie only when they imply policies will help the middle class. In short, the republicans require very little exposure because they expose themselves.

The United States government is today, and has been to greater and slightly lesser extents historically, a facilitator of wealth to power: meaning legislative power is directed by wealth or economic power. The voice of an individual, or even a group in this government, is equal to the amount of money they have relative to competing interests. If the competing interest is industry as a whole, there simply isn’t enough wealth existing in the bottom 80% of the population to compete. ( Source: Note 4) To put it another way, a majority of the population has no representation in the federal government.

“Almost two thirds of itemized financing for the president’s (Obama) campaign came from donors contributing more than $10,000, while over 70 percent of the Romney campaign’s itemized financing came from donors of that scale…Both major party presidential hopefuls…rely on donors giving 1000 or more for about 90% of their funding… The relatively thin stream of small contributions does not suffice to float (conventionally managed) national campaigns, and all insiders know it.” (Party Competition and Industrial Structure in the 2012 Elections: Who’s Really Driving the Taxi to the Dark Side? Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Lie Chen. Pg 13) In this Ferguson and his associates find that a presidential candidate requires donor contributions that exceed $10,000 for a majority of itemized campaign funds, which implies without these donors, the candidate is not going to be a serious contender. How many American’s can afford $10,000 to have a political voice? Over half the population does not have $500 in savings. (CNN Money: 6 In 10 Americans Don’t have $500 in Their Savings, by Katheryn Vasel 1/12/2017 https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings/index.html Source: Bankrate Survey).

Populist candidates competing for the republican presidential nomination (Paul, Bachman, and Cain), considered populous based on the fact that nearly or over half of their contributions came from unitemized donations of less than 200 dollars, were unable to remain competitive through these small donations: (Ferguson, Jorgenson, Chen: “…the sums raised were not nearly enough to keep them competitive.” Percentage of donations to candidates that were less than 200 dollars. Paul: 48%, Cain: 57% Bachmann: 73%) This attests to the fact mentioned in the first paragraph, that many small donations are not sufficient to compete against big donors in political races.

While small donations are not altogether insignificant as a total, when compared to overall money raised, as with the Obama campaign, who received a little over a third of overall funding in 2012 from donations smaller than 200 dollars, they are insignificant in terms of carrying an interest; it is unorganized money, anonymous donations, the result of rhetoric that people mistakenly associate with their own interests. In other words, no one is going to the white house with a 50-dollar receipt and using it as leverage for policies by tactfully implying next year they’re going to let that 50 ride on the other guy.

Since a presidential candidate relies on donations in excess of 10,000 dollars for the bulk of his relevant or itemized donations in order to be competitive, to attempt to carry forward policies which were popular, but adverse to the interest of these wealthy donors, would effectively remove him from being a viable candidate. A president represents the interest of wealth to power or he doesn’t become president.

To go further in regard to the president being a facilitator of wealth to power, would be to analyze policy, and I’m sure there is probably a wealth of research dedicated to policy and polling. While not meaningless, is less meaningful than an analysis of policy and benefit, since the opinions of many Americans are formed based on media campaigns concerning policy, and have little to do with the public’s understanding of who benefits from such policies, or the details. While a detailed and systematic analysis eludes the scope of this note and this effort to establish that the federal government is the facilitator of wealth to power, and always has been, I will provide one example in brevity.

In regard to public opinion, in October 2009, the Washington Post reported 57% of people supported a public option for health coverage under the affordable care act, and also cited an ABC Poll from a few months earlier claiming 62% favored a competing government health insurance option.( Most Support Public Options for Health Insurance Polls Find. Washington Post, 10/20/2009 by Dan Balz and John Cohen) In August of the same year, the New York Times Reported “Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates.” (Obama is Taking an Active Role on Talks on Health Care Plan. New York Times, 08/12/2009, byDavid D Kirkpatrick) The interest of industry and money clearly won out in legislation, over both the opinion of the public, the benefit to the public, and presidential rhetoric.

What we ended up with while still something of use to some people, and a burden to others, is a subsidy to the health care sector. The funneling of public funds in the form of vouchers to private companies, which are more expensive than public premiums.

The 80/20 rule served no purpose, as health care economist Uwe Reinhardt explains “insurers skim off
15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits” (Health Insurance Industry Fudges Data to Downplay its Astronomical Profits. Think Progress, by Igor Volsky) which is also confirmed by 2009 SEC filings of 5 of the largest health insurance firms which report medical loss ratios of just over 81 to 85 percent, (http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf Page 7) meaning the 80/20 rule is consistent with the industry norm and is unimposing.

Not surprisingly, the health care sector made good on their end of the deal strongly supporting the Obama campaign in 2012 (Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen pp 16,17 70% of money from the Health Insurance Sector went to Obama, even though 100% of large firms supported both candidates.), and while certainly there are many other pieces of legislation and policy that demonstrate a clearer link between money and politics, I chose this example as it takes the form of popular legislation, but is really just business legislation with short term positive effects for some of the public.

In electing representatives and senators, big money actually plays a bigger role in campaign funding than in presidential elections. “Donations from individuals giving $200 or less make up a fairly small wedge in the fund-raising pie: a little over 10 percent of the money collected by House members and about 15 percent for senators.” (https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php) The remaining 85 to 90 percent of funds came from less than 3/10s of 1 percent of the population, (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php “…based on contributions from individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2013-2014 cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on 12/14/14.”). So once again, in most cases, if you represent the interest of your constituents over the interest of the minority that fund your campaign, your service will be short lived.

Without the support of wealth candidacy has been shown to be not serious, meaning if a representative is not acting exclusively on behalf of the wealth that positioned him to be competitive, he is limited in representing non-moneyed interests by moneyed interests. In other words, he can consider representing the general public only if doing so does not put him up against moneyed interests; or, anytime there is a conflict of interest, between the general public and wealth, he has to cast his vote with wealth, otherwise he will not be reelected. The only way the general public does not have a problem with this, is if they believe the interest of the haves, and the have not’s is the same; which they are not, despite the republican line of reasoning that if public policy creates an environment where the ultra wealthy are given advantages, this will lead to more opportunities for the poor who will prosper from the trickle down. (2012 Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen pg 6. (Ferguson, Thomas. 1995. “Deduced and Abandoned: Rational Expectations, the Investment Theory of Political Parties, and the Myth of the Median Voter.” Pp. 377-419 in Golden Rule, edited by T. Ferguson. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.) “mounting evidence that when the preferences of the affluent are controlled for, the policy preferences of poor and middle income Americans typically count for little or nothing.” And the founders of this nation did not believe these interests were the same either, reminiscent of Federalist Paper vol 10:“…those who hold and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society…“ (Those who have, are in a position to dictate the terms by which those without may have. The interest of those who have not is to have. It is not in the interest of those who have, for the have nots to have, because then the haves lose the power to dictate the terms of opportunity. And worse yet, it creates competition. The interests are distinct not because those without want what those with have, but because those with do not want those without to have, because in doing so, they lose the ability to dictate the terms of distribution, in an owner worker relationship as well as the ability to direct government in a system of government created by wealth for wealth.)

The argument is corporations and wealth are simply supporting the candidate or party who will do the best job for the nation as a whole. If principally, the parties are different, why would the same firm support both parties, and especially in presidential elections both candidates? Hmmm. They both cannot be equally representing your interest, otherwise they cease to be different, and then even worse where is the choice? And if they are the same, then it would certainly make more sense not to fund either, since whichever candidate is elected will be representing your interest. Of course, the answer is the one we all know, quid pro quo: money for legislative and policy favors. Most legislators do very little legislating, most are rubber stamps for sale. Somehow there is still a debate about whether or not money in politics is ruining our democracy? How can you ruin what you never had? Even if you contend the US has been at some point democratic, surely at this point that ship has sailed for those who swear to seeing it at the dock.

If we look at the 2012 presidential election, the 9 largest health insurance companies gave money to both candidates, defense and air industry as a whole collectively split their money right down the middle between Obama and Romney, the largest investment banks and hedge funds did about the same thing with 48% of their contributions going to Obama, and across nearly every sector of the economy the largest players supported both candidates. (Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen pg 16)
“Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support. That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period…”. I like the comparison between the total amount received by corporations, and the total amount spent on social security, because it begs the question of how Americans would feel, if they considered that about what is taken from their check in social security tax, is about the same amount they pay to supplement the profits and ensure the success of large corporations? “After examining 14 million records…we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government… (and some corporations) received 1,000 times or more” (Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests, Spend Billions, Get Trillions. Sunlight Foundation , by Bill Allison and Sarah Harkins, 11/17/14 http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interestsspend-billions-get-trillions/) And many unknown companies who are not large enough to invest in politics had to rely on markets to get a return on their investment.

A Kansas University study found that companies who lobbied for a tax holiday provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 received “in excess of $220 for every 1 dollar spent.” (Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Analysis Under the American Jobs Creation Act by Raquel Alexander, Susan Scholz, and Stephen Mazza. University of Kansas, Lawrence. Pg 1)

It seems the common ideal shared by wealth and the politician is that wealth should be the measure by which one can gauge his representation. When money is spent politically, it is spent for the purpose of remuneration in the form of legislation and policy.

Because it is rarely possible to be elected to the federal government without big money, and the only way to attract and obtain big money is to subordinate yourself to the interest of big money; and those interests are fundamentally distinct from the interest of the general population who is without big money, then we have to conclude the federal government is the facilitator of wealth to power. Those without wealth are without meaningful representation, and policy is decided almost exclusively at most a few tenths of a percentage of the population. The United States is today, what it was intended to be by founders of the country: by wealth for wealth.
3: The defining feature of capitalism is that decision of production is made by individuals with money, where they may open a business for the purpose of providing a product or service. Money can be capital but capital is generally any asset involved in the completion of a product or service that contributes to a profit. Yes, if you mow lawns your lawn mower is capital, but all capital can be purchased with money which is why decisions of production are based on money or access as to it.

A population who has neither money nor significant access to it which represents a significant amount of the population (see note 4 in this section) such a people is unable to create their own opportunities. This causes most of the population to rely on the few who have both money and access to it who decide production.

4: Capital: In the 21st Century, 2012, by Thomas Piketty pg 244, “…the bottom 50 percent of the wealth distribution owns nothing at all, or almost nothing (always less than 10 and generally not more than 5 % of total wealth)…” US bottom 50% 5% of total wealth: table 7.2, pp 248,249. 1% of financial wealth. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Bottom 80%: 11% of total wealth, only 5% of financial wealth. Since the bottom 50% have only 1% of financial wealth, then the middle 30% possess 4% of financial wealth. Source: Wolf E.N (2012) “The Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of the Middle Class”.)

5: Social mobility measured by income according to quintiles we begin with the bottom 20% of income earners. Of those who come from the bottom 20%, 39% will stay in the bottom 20%. 28% will move to 20 to 40%, which to some, being a little more than 1 in 4 people is evidence of the opportunity for mobility. However, from where in the bottom to where in the next bracket are you moving? Is it mobility if your income is 17, 18, or 19% and suddenly you find yourself 22, 23, or 24%? In both aspects of mobility, possessing the means to create opportunity and an improvement in the quality of life, the effects are nearly unperceivable, but for the reinforcement of the American Myth, these are numbers that qualify the great opportunity that exists as a result of the US economic and political system. We should bear this in mind for all brackets because what you will see, is that most mobility, what little there is of it, takes place from one bracket to the next, and rarely do people move two brackets.

15% of the bottom 20% made their way to the 40 to 60% of income earners. Surely this is mobility of significance, even if it is reached by only about 1 in 8 people at the bottom? The bottom 60% possess only 1.9% of wealth. Which tells us what about their income? It tells us that the income of someone in the bottom 60% rarely earns enough for the creation of wealth. Wealth is surplus income, meaning those without wealth have an income that barely meets their expenses. Now, the bottom 60% of wealth holders may not be the same as the bottom 60% of income earners, but chances are there are very few who earn higher or lower incomes and are any significant degree different on the scale of wealth holders.

11% of the bottom 20% will reach 60 to 80% of income earners. Where one falls in this quintile is of great significance. In terms of wealth holdings, 60 to 70% possess 3.2% of wealth, which is slightly more than the entire bottom 60% combined, and roughly about a third of what this decile would possess if all wealth was distributed evenly.

Only 7% of people who begin in the bottom 20% will make it to the top 20%. Moving from the bottom 20% to the bottom 40 or even the bottom 50% is mobility of very little significance. The bottom 50% possess 1.2% of wealth which tells us people in the bottom half of income earners are without an adequate amount of income to meet expenses and have money left over. The bottom 40% possess -1.2 percent of wealth, meaning their income is not sufficient to meet their expenses and have what most consider to be necessities they go without. 2 out of 3 people who begin in the bottom 20% of income earners are going to stay poor, as even achieving mobility to the upper echelon of the next bracket at 40% still leaves you without the ability to accumulate wealth. The bottom 50% possess only 1.2 % of wealth, while the next decile (60%) possess only 2%.

Some may contend that I am trying to not give credit to the mobility that is taking place, but I acknowledge the movement, even if it is only moving from the top of one quintile to the bottom of the next, but what I am bringing to peoples attention is the significance of this mobility. What do the numbers mean to the people being counted? I’m simply pointing out that in many cases movement between quintiles that has little or no impact on an individual’s quality of life is irrelevant movement and speaks to the limited amount of opportunity that exists for Americans in the bottom 60% of income earners and wealth holders. 2/3rd remain poor, and only about 12.5% (movement to the top 80 to 100 and ½ of 60 to 80, counting 70 and up as half) or 1 in 8 will reach a comfort class and be capable of creating their own opportunity to a meaningful degree.

Of those who begin in the 20 to 40% range, 18% will decline into to the bottom 20%, 35% will remain in the 20 to 40% range, meaning over half will stay the same or be worse off. 24% will reach the next quintile, 40 to 60% of income earners mobility that doesn’t become significant if we are talking about a few points from the high 30s to the low 40s, or much of a difference overall until we reach the 50s, where some in this income range are able to at least meet their expenses. 13% will reach 60 to 80%, and 10% will reach 80 to 100. I will comment on the trend as we progress through the remainder of the numbers.

Of those beginning in the 60 to 80 percentile, 39% will remain there and 37% will enter the top bracket. Those in the 60 to 80 percent of income earners are in the comfort class and once you’re in the comfort class, remaining there and moving up is not that difficult. Which speaks to the advantages the comfort class has over the rest of the population, generally free of the constant stress and struggle of meeting necessary expenses, the stability that accompanies an income sufficient to provide for your needs and save money. Money that can be used to create opportunity. Once in the top 20% of income earners 80% will remain there, with 12% who were probably near border anyway falling to 60 to 80%, which is still comfort class. Only 8% will ever see an income level ranking in the bottom 60%.

As I have stressed in other areas, an individuals ability to create their own opportunity depends on the money they possess or have access to which is demonstrated by the fact that there is little economic mobility for the bottom 60 to 70% of the country. Reminiscent of the Adam Smith truism that with a small amount of money one can grow a large fortune but the difficult thing is finding the little to begin with.

This data comes from the DC area and I chose it because the semi -recent studies I seen on national social mobility lack the straightforward information of who goes where that is present in this study. Far from cherry picked however, as an intergenerational study from a UC Berkely paper cites a Cambridge source that follows the income from 1979 to 2000 and demonstrates that 45% of people born to the poorest quintile remain in the poorest quintile with 27% moving to the next highest quintile which would be even more supportive to substantiating the assertion “social mobility is very limited in the United States with most people ending up where they started or not far from it”. Some would say the data is not current which is a somewhat fair criticism except for the fact that it is still in line with the most recent data. What I liked about the DC study is it is a very large sample size (22,000) of the overall people it represents (693,000).

The truth is, all social mobility studies tell us very little about social mobility. It tells us people from a very large group have achieved enough of a gain to qualify them to be considered part of another very large group. What they do not tell us is how far those people went. This relates back to what I wrote above that someone who is 18 to 19% and becomes 21 to 22% has represented social mobility when the real income gain may be as little as $30 per week. In consideration of economic security the same applies, if someone is in the low 80s and descend into the high 70s the slide is not that significant but it is suggestive that someone from the top can fall. I would risk asserting that scarcely are any of the top 20% of income earners who descend into the lower classifications from the top 10%, and likely none are from the top 5%. This should not represent mobility. What is needed is a study that shows individuals who make x amount per year now make x amount per year. The data exists but it is expressed in these large groupings either due to academic laziness and ease of expression, to obscure results, or the deficiency of the trained academic mind to recognize a flaw in an orthodox method of study and analysis, and creatively overcome the flaw to provide more useful information to the public.

The greatest deficiency of this note is comparing income groupings to wealth holding groupings. I did assert that the middle and bottom of wealth holders probably correspond to the middle and bottom of income earners and I know this is not completely accurate, but risked the assertion because I haven’t seen a study of the comparison and feel like it cannot be that far off. Of course there will be exceptions of rare people have been living thrifty on 30k per year and saved $50 a week for 20 years. The same as there are probably exceptions of someone earning 100k per year and has little more than a house and a few cars to show for it.

I rarely cite income numbers and groupings because wealth is a better indicator of ones quality of life. At what point does one become able to meet their expenses and have money left over? This is the reason why my class distinctions break down differently than common groupings. I typically view distinctions beginning in the bottom 80% compared to the top 20% because of how little financial wealth is held by the bottom 80%, roughly 4% from 50% to 80%, less than 1% for the bottom 50%, and 95% held by the top 20%. Then I distinguish between the top 20% in 19.9% and the .1%. You have a large underclass with varying degrees of quality and opportunity in life represented by the bottom 80%, despite the overlap of the 70 to 80% being the bottom members of the comfort class. The 19.9 percent representing the affluent comfort class, and the .1 percent representing the ruling class. Financial wealth is more important than wealth overall because financial wealth represents assets that are easily convertible into cash, which either is, or is easily convertible to capital and ones ability to create their own opportunity. Whereas overall wealth includes assets that serve a purpose of necessity like a car or house.

More telling than income mobility would be wealth mobility and even more telling would be financial wealth mobility. But using wealth as the measure of mobility would be a fruitless endeavor because it would demonstrate that there is nearly no mobility for the bottom 70 to 80%. A few percentage points representing people who accumulate near the middle and upper middle, with probably 10ths of a percentage point for those at the bottom ever achieving any holdings of any significance.

The article from The Atlantic, written by Alana Semuels, entitled “Poor at 20, Poor for Life” dated July 16th 2014 quotes the findings of a research paper written by economists Michael D. Carr and Emily E. Wiemers of The University of Massachusetts, Boston. The research consisted of comparisons between two 15 year periods and measured how social mobility decreased from one span (1981 to 1996 compared to 1993 to 2008). Carr found “the probability of ending where you start has gone up, and the probability of moving up from where you start has gone down”. Contrary to popular belief, education did not have a bearing on ending up better than where you started, as a college education did not lead to increased economic mobility.

6: In the substantiation of death, destruction, imposition, the well of US history is deep and filled with examples. If you serve the interests of your people over the interests of the United States and your country is a nation of some resource of value to the US, or you are in an important position strategically to a nation that has a resource of value to the US, your service will likely be shortlived. To summarize US foreign policy in a sentence, all US foreign policy is undertaken to ensure the markets of foreign nations are accessible by US corporations for the exploitation of labor and resources. In some cases, foreign policy is the result of ensuring a strategic foothold from whence to apply pressure to ensure market accessibility. In other cases foreign policy involves limiting influence in a region that would hinder access to foreign markets or disturb reliance on the US and thus upset a market advantage for US corporation.
Woodrow Wilson: “Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market the flag of his nation must follow him and the doors of the nation which are closed against him must be battered down, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. No useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

The quote is significant not because these are the words of a US president, but because it is consistent with US history and policy both preceding the quote and since the quote. Initially I began writing a history of US foreign policy, but such a history is generally beyond the scope of this note’s purpose, which is the substantiation of murder, theft, and tyranny perpetrated by this nation, which the people of this nation are culpable. I like to demonstrate that it has been a policy of a nation created by wealth for wealth to impose their will as often as they are able to for the aforementioned purposes, and it is not an innovation on the system but an ingrained element of it. But for this note, in the interest of relevant culpability for people alive today, we will focus the attention on a few events from the last 30 years that demonstrate US foreign policy.

The United States targeted civilian infrastructure in Iraq in 1991, and in 1990 led the imposition of UN sanctions, resulting in over a million casualties including 500,000 children under the age of 5. A document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities” dated January 22, 1991, explains how the United States understood the effects of their actions, including the fact that it would primarily be children who would make up a bulk of the casualties. The following are excerpts from the Defense Intelligence Agency document which were published in an article by Thomas Nagy, demonstrating the foreseeable genocidal nature of the sanctions.
“Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline,”

“Importation of chlorine has been embargoed [by sanctions]”

“Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low.”

“[Iraq’s rivers] contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.”

“Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants,”

“Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.”

“Acute diarrhea brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect particularly children, or by rotavirus, which will also affect particularly children,”

“Iraq has made a considerable effort to supply pure water to its population”

(UN sanctions that the US held firmly in place along with the support of Britain, even as the rest of the world was in near unanimity they be lifted or significantly modified. Global Policy Forum “UN Security Council: Disagreements and Debates on the sancitons. https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/sanctions/case-study-sanctions-against-iraq/42125.html) for humanitarian reasons, no adequate solution exists for Iraq’s water purification dilemma.”( “The Role of “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities”, in Halting One Genocide and Preventing Others”, by Thomas Nagy, Association of Genocide Scholars, June 12th 2001. Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities, Defense Intelligence Agency to CENCOM, January 1991. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html)

The reason the United States decided to punish the population was to make conditions so difficult the population would overthrow Saddam Hussein. Chances are, even if the will existed, the task was beyond the capabilities of the population to accomplish. As a Pentagon strategist told the Washington Post regarding the bombing that took place that damaged civilian infrastructure, which exacerbated the sanctions and paved the way for maximum torment, “The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear…They do live there, and ultimately people have some control over what goes on in their country.” An Airforce Planner: “We wanted to let people know, get rid of this guy and we’ll be more than happy to assist in rebuilding. We’re not going to tolerate Saddam Hussain or his regime. Fix that and we’ll fix your electricity.” And “Colonel John A. Warden III wrote in air power journal, “[Destruction] of these [electric power] facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.”( Nemesis by Chalmers Johnson, pp26,27, all three quotes and fills were taken from his book to serve as examples for commentary in the paragraph and the following paragraph. 100,000 civilians was a figure from the early 90s after 1991 bombings.

While the record is for the most part plain, that the United States sought the removal of Saddam and punished the civilian population in an effort to achieve those ends, the pretext used to maintain support in the US, was Saddam refused to comply with security council resolutions. James Rubin State Department spokesperson stated in November of 1998 “The Security Council has set out a very simple path to resolve this situation. And all it requires is him doing what he agreed to do, cooperating with UNSCOM-not refusing cooperation with UNSCOM-but providing them the information they need.”( http://iraqwar.org/impossible.htm) Among the obstacles of compliance which included returning Kuwaiti property, was proving that no nuclear weapons program existed in Iraq. Iraq was largely compliant with inspections, but in the summer of 1996, according to Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector who took part in inspections in Iraq, witnessed a coup attempt first hand, that was being planned through UNSCOM, but was uncovered by Iraqi intelligence.(Guardian “The Coup That Wasn’t” 9/27/2005 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/28/iraq.military Interview with Scott Ritter UN Weapons Inspector, member of UNSCOM) Beyond this, is understanding that you cannot prove not to possess something. If I accuse you of possessing a gun, I can search your person, you can allow me to search your home, your car, perhaps your storage, your mothers, your brothers, and I can keep insisting that you must have it somewhere else. If we run out of places to search, I can simply accuse you of moving it to an area we already searched after it was searched, and repeat the process.

At the end of 1996 with international pressure growing over the humanitarian crisis taking place, as a result of the US led sanctions in Iraq, the oil for food program was developed, which was seen as a step towards relaxing the sanctions. The program was unsuccessful in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi population. Stanley Heller, an investigative journalist for the Nation in 2001 responds to a claim that “Iraq has more than sufficient funds to meet its needs”: “That’s a downright falsehood. Iraq doesn’t get a dime. All the money for the oil sales goes into a UN- controlled account in New York. Iraq arranges contracts for goods, but it gets only the goods that the United States allows to be imported. The $13.3 billion is for five years, less than $3 billion a year. Compare that to 1989, before sanctions, when Iraq’s imports were $11 billion for that year alone.”( Killing Sanctions in Iraq, The Nation, Stanley Heller, Jan. 21st 2002. http://www.thenation.com/article/killing-sanctions-iraq/) Heller also mentions that while Iraq provided over 40 billion dollars worth of oil, the account was credited only 13.3 billion dollars.

And if the program was adequate to meet the needs of Iraq, we would expect the individual overseeing it’s implementation to applaud the humanitarian effort. Yet what happened was the opposite, and Dennis Halliday resigned, because he thought in abandoning his role in the program, he could accomplish more good speaking out against it, and the conditions he witnessed on the ground, where he testified that up 6000 children were dying per month (200 per day) due to the sanctions, despite the food for oil program. After resigning in 1998 Halliday stated “The conditions in Iraq are appalling. Malnutrition is running at about 30 percent for children under 5 years old. In terms of mortality, probably 5 or 6 thousand children are dying per month. This is directly attributable to the impact of sanctions, which have caused the breakdown of the clean water system, health facilities and all the things that young children require. All of this is just not acceptable. I don’t want to administer a program that results in these kind of figures. Sanctions are being sustained by member states, knowing of this calamity. I wanted to be in a position to speak out on sanctions and the dreadful impact that they are having on the people-particularly the children-and the future of Iraq.” (https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170/42023.html)

The United States knew what the impact of the sanctions would be for the population in Iraq, and continued with the genocidal policy to achieve a political goal. Punishing the population who was likely powerless to remove Saddam. Yet in the 80s, US supported and aided in a war against Iran, where up to 750,000 Iranians died.( Death Tolls of the Iraq-Iran War, by Charles Kurzman, 10/31/2013, http://kurzman.unc.edu/death-tolls-of-the-iran-iraq-war/) The US knew Saddam was using chemical weapons, (CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Gas Iran, Foreign Policy, by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/) But only a few years removed from the Iranian revolution, as Richard Armitage the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, stated, the US feared “the spread of a secular brand of Khomeinism throughout the Gulf. And this would be a detriment to all of our interests.”( PBS Frontline, The Long Road to War, Transcript Arming Iraq, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html) That being independent regional influence in an oil rich region that would undermine US influence and access.

“The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted. As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings,” the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. “Tehran would take such evidence to the U.N. and charge U.S. complicity in violating international law”.

After about 25 years of rule by the Shah Reza, a US subordinate dictator who came to power in Iran through a US backed coup in 1953, ousting democratically elected prime minister Mohhamad Mossadegh, the people of Iran regained their sovereignty. Mossadegh was guilty of nationalizing Iranian oil, a vision to use the proceeds to develop Iran for the benefit of the people, and this is not permissible since you cannot serve the interest of your people and the interest of the west. The nephew of Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt, coordinated the coup from the US embassy.( The Mossadegh Project, Arash Norouzi http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/1953/original-sin/ His account of the event, circumstances prior to and after is extensive. Arash, makes good use of the records in refuting myths made popular by the United States concerning the event, as well as chronicles the denials extending into the 2000s before the event was officially acknowledged in 2013.) The memory of this had much to do with the hostage situation at the US embassy at the time of the revolution.

The people of Iran were defiant, the US had installed a leader for them, but they wanted independence. The United States courted Saddam in an effort to contain Iran. They allowed and arranged the importation of not only arms, but also furnaces for a nuclear program, bacteria cultures used to create biological weapons, as well as thiodyglycol to create chemical weapons.( Congressional Record: September 20th 2002, pg S8987- S8998, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html “the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of “dual use” equipment and materials from American suppliers…According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of “bacteria/fungi/protozoa” to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.” PBS Frontline, The Long Road to War, Transcript Arming Iraq, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html “…the UnitedStates, sold Iraq the key technology for its chemical, missile, and nuclear programs…in Washington, the government consistently followed a policy which allowed and perhaps encouraged the extraordinary growth of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and his power.”) During the Iraq-Iran war, the US provided Iraq with intelligence information that was key to prolonging the war. (CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Gas Iran, Foreign Policy, by Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/“) But Saddam didn’t know how to follow orders, and when you deal with the US as a leader of a nation, you deal with the US as a subordinate or as an adversary. And when the US provides you with material assistance to accomplish tasks consistent with mutual a objective, the accomplishment of that objective does satisfy the burden of debt. You are expected to comply in perpetuity.

It was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost. The CIA noted in one document that the use of nerve agent “could have a significant impact on Iran’s human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy.” Those tactics, which involved Iranian forces swarming against conventionally armed Iraqi positions, had proved decisive in some battles. In March 1984, the CIA reported that Iraq had “begun using nerve agents on the Al Basrah front and likely will be able to employ it in militarily significant quantities by late this fall.””

The US led sanctions against Iraq, murdered one million people who were not guilty of any crime except being born in a nation that the US sought to persuade to accomplish a task it could not or would not accomplish. 500,000 children under the age of 5. Imagine you were born in Iraq, and had a child during the 90s. The child cried because it was hungry but you didn’t have food to feed him or her. The child became sick because you didn’t have access to clean water. The child died because you didn’t’ have access to medicine. And all around you were children crying and dying because you were born in Iraq, and Iraq had become the target of policies intended to produce that effect. Meanwhile children in the United States, eat, drink, go to school, and play, and if they are sick there is medicine. Their parents either don’t know, or don’t care how their elected officials harm people around the world.

The conditions the United States created in Iraq were also a main motivation for the retaliation of September 11th. Something worth mentioning as the continued atrocities against the Iraqis in the invasion that followed the end of the sanctions, would not have been possible without the events of 9/11, which likely would not have occurred without the sanctions. Osama Bin Laden was interviewed in 1997 by CNN’s Peter Arnett and was asked about targeting civilians. He said “American civilians are not targeted in our plan…a reaction might take place as a result of the US government targeting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and in other places.”

After the United States murdered a million Iraqis through sanctions in an effort to create regime change, the United States would use the fervor generated by the reaction to US imposition in 9/11 to gain support for the pretext that Iraq had nuclear weapons and supported Al Qaeda, both accusations which proved to be false, and were almost certainly known to be false prior to the invasion by those responsible for their promulgation.

According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility as of 2015, at least 1 million people died as a result of the US invasion. Other studies, rely on reports of deaths which has the effect of artificially lowering the numbers as many deaths as the result of war are not reported. Body Count uses a survey method where people from households across the country are interviewed in a who do you know that died near you fashion. Like areas are identified, regions that were heavy, medium, or lightly impacted by combat or bombing. The surveys are then extrapolated to gain a solid estimate of like areas which provides a more accurate estimate overall of the number of people who died as a result of the invasion. ” This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Paki-stan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million.” (Physicians for Social Responsibility, Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the War on Terror, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. March 2015 pg15)

Another aspect of report based accounting of casualty figures is the propensity of reports to minimize figures for public opinion based reasons, and pg 14 of the Body Count study provides one such example “When in September 2009 in the Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, German Colonel George Klein ordered an airstrike of stationary oil tankers, he reported the killing of 56 “Taliban,” in other words all of the people located around the tankers were seen as labeled combatants. However, a detailed investigation into this aerial attack conducted by a commission of inquiry of the German parliament concluded that actually more than 100 civilians had been killed, among them many children. 10 Had this case not generated such strong public attention, there would have been no exact investigation of the casualty figures, and the incident would not have been included in the counting of “civilian deaths.”

There is no legal or even moral justification for the invasion of Iraq. You have decimated this country, in 2 decades you killed 2 million people who were not a threat to you, first by depriving them the right to basic staples of life, clean water, food, medicine, and then through bombardment, bombs and bullets. Millions dead, millions more displaced, and millions more living in unstable conditions the product of internal strife created by unprovoked and unavoidable US aggression. The same as those conquered by the Mongols could do nothing to prevent their villages from being overrun and pillaged, neither was there anything the people of Iraq could do to prevent the marauding United States from invading their country and bringing the second wave of hell upon them. The oil itself is motivation, access to resources, but also preventing a challenge to regional influence, not only because Iraq was a non-subordinate state, but also because of the ways in which Iraq was non-subordinate which includes actions which challenged the influence of subordinate states in the oil rich region, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The history of the United States removing democratically elected leaders is rich. A recent example was the attempted 2007 removal of Hamas, the elected majority in the Gaza parliament. The United States conspired with Fatah who was the minority leadership in Gaza to militarily remove Hamas from power. The United States assisted with strategic planning as well as arms. (Vanity Fair, The Gaza Bomb Shell, by David Rose, 4/2008. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804) The plot was discovered by Hamas and preempted which led to the consolidation of power in Gaza by Hamas. Although not successful, it is an example worth mentioning because unlike other recent examples where the details are kept under wraps and the US is able to maintain some degree of official deniability, there isn’t much in way of facts that are disputed about this attempted coup.

Every example of rocket attacks by Hamas is preceded by provocation from Israel. Operation Cast Lead in 2008 is a prime example of how US media outlets omit the provocation to make it appear as if Israel wants to live peacefully but are under constant duress from Hamas. Of course so is Operation Protective Edge in 2014 where the US supported state of Israel inflicted even more casualties as they bombed a defenseless population, killing over 500 children, targeting UN Schools that were being used as shelters. For one somewhat in depth example for this substantiation I offer the following.

Democracy Now, Norman Finkelstein: The Big Lie About Gaza is that the Palestinians Have Been the Aggressor. Interview with Amy Goodman 1/19/2018. (https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/19/norman_finkelstein_on_the_big_lie) NF “There’s a ceasefire implemented in June 2008. Israeli official and unofficial organizations say Hamas was careful to respect the ceasefire. Hamas was careful to respect the ceasefire. Israel, however, it’s preparing for its attack on Gaza to revenge Lebanon. When all the pieces are in place—they spent about a year of preparation. When all the pieces are in place, they need a pretext. Well, they look around for a pretext. And they wait ’til November 4th, the historic election, when Barack Obama is voted into office. They know all the cameras are riveted on the White House, riveted on the United States. And then they go in, kill six Hamas militants, knowing full well that there’s going to be a reaction. There were about 6,300 homes that were destroyed, 10 Israeli civilian casualties. Palestinians, 1,400, of whom up to 1,200 were civilians. Three hundred fifty children were killed. …there were about 300 human rights reports issued on what happened…it climaxed in the Goldstone Report…he came out with a report that said the purpose of Cast Lead was to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population…Israel goes after him ferociously… (over a year later) He doesn’t say it literally, but it’s clear, the message he’s transmitting. He’s recanting the report, and he’s taking it back.”

The Guardian, Gaza Truce Broken as Israeli Raid Kills 6 Hamas Gunmen, Rory McCarthy, 11/5/2008. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians) “A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory. Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.” Israel claimed the members of Hamas were building a tunnel intent on entering Israel for purposes of terror. However, the tunnel’s were not built for offensive purposes but defensive purposes as used in Operation Protective Edge. Gazans hid in the tunnels during airstrikes, and then Hamas fighters emerged from tunnels to inflict casualties on the invading Israeli Defense Forces. The longest and deepest tunnel extended “10s of meters” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-destroys-hamas-cross-border-attack-tunnel-extending-into-israel/) into Israel, meaning it didn’t even extend past the 300 meter no go zone. The point being, Israel broke the cease fire with Gaza. But the following is what was reported by the media:

CBS News, Israeli Attack on Gaza Continues: 230 Dead, 12/28/2008. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-attack-on-gaza-continues-230-dead/)
“Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview with the CBS Evening News that “if the goals of the operation will not be achieved by airstrike, we will have to consider boots on the ground.” He said those goals were “To change totally the behavior of Hamas. It’s a terrorist regime that keeps shelling Israel with thousands of rockets and mortar shells over our civilian population indiscriminately.”
“The offensive began eight days after a six-month truce between Israel and the militants expired. The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week, and 10 times that number over the past year.”

The report leaves out the raid into Gaza that broke the cease fire and provoked THE RESPONSE of rocket fire.

“But the U.S., Israel’s closest ally, blamed Hamas. “These people are nothing but thugs, so Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas that indiscriminately kill their own people,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.”

Human shields and hidden weapon caches in civilian targets has long been the pretext of Israel killing civilians, although human shield assertions have never been independently confirmed and are regarded by non-biased parties as Israeli propaganda. Still, due to news reports echoing these myths, there is a great number of people in the United States who believe that Palestinians have no other goals other than inflicting casualties on Israel. Israel has never thrown the first punch in the minds of many despite the fact that the sequence of events, in every conflict in the last two decades has been exactly the opposite.

The report goes on to quote then President Elect Barrack Obama “Asked by the New York Times whether Israel should negotiate with Hamas in Gaza, he replied, “I don’t think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.” “In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon,” he said.”

Common Dreams, Hamas Officials Already Recognize Israel’s Right to Exist, Apparently, By Ira Chernus, 5/31/2006. (https://www.commondreams.org/views06/0531-23.htm)

“the topelected officials in the Palestinian Hamas party are signaling that they accept Israel’s right to exist. Last week the highest-ranking Hamas leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, told Israel’s most prestigious newspaper, Ha’aretz: “If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a cease-fire [hudna] for many years.” A hudna in Islamic law is equivalent to ‘international treaty’ in modern terminology. Its object is to suspend the legal effects of hostilities and to provide the prerequisite conditions of peace between Muslims and non-Muslims, without the latter’s territory becoming part of dar al-Islam.’ By offering a hudna, Prime Minister Haniyeh is implying that he’ll accept the land inside Israel’s 1967 borders as gone from Muslim rule for good.”

In the minds of many people in the United States they probably have very little issue with the undermining of democracy in Gaza as was attempted in 2007, having a very skewed view of what Hamas actually hopes to accomplish, which is not the destruction Israel, but a two state solution based on the 1967 borders.

(NPR, We Accept Two State Solution with (19)67 Borders, by Eyder Peralta 5/17/2011, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/24/136403918/hamas-foreign-minister-we-accept-two-state-solution-with-67-borders “Look, we said, frankly, we accept the state and ’67 borders. This was mentioned many times and we repeated many times,”)

A solution that has continually been denied by the United States on behalf of Israel. Aside from whether or not the regime is preferred by the United States, there is no merit to the position that a country should intervene in the affairs of another country to bring democracy for the people, when the United States has a history of removing and attempting to remove democratically elected leaders. Furthermore, there is no merit to the position that the United States intervenes for humanitarian reasons when the United States supports cruel, repressive, and not-democratic regimes when those regimes serve its interest. In both cases there is a long history, two of which were mentioned in the example of Iraq where the United States supported Saddam when he was pursuing a mutually beneficial objective which was the invasion of Iran, with Iran itself serving as two examples, both the removal of Mossadeq and supporting the repressive regime of the Shah Reza who they installed with the coup.

Many of the atrocities carried out by Saddam were carried out with the support and knowledge of the United States. As mentioned previously, the use of chemical weapons against Iran was carried out by Saddam with knowledge and assistance by the United States. Also, the use of chemical weapons against the kurds, and conventional weapons was carried out with US knowledge, and the US sought to keep the crimes under wraps when Saddam was an ally. (The Nation, America’s Complicity in Saddam’s Crimes, by Jon Weiner, 12/31/2006. https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-complicity-saddams-crimes/)

The pretext to arming Islamic militants in Syria was humanitarian. The US could not sit by while the Assad regime used deadly force against its own people. Although the history of the United States is rich, both the US using force against its own people (deadly force against unarmed people by law enforcement officers, Kent State shooting of unarmed protesters, targeted assassination of US citizens abroad) as well as aiding and supporting the use of force against civilian populations, like US trained and supported death squads in El Salvador, or the national guard in Nicaragua under the Somoza’s dictatorship propped up by the US in Nicaragua that ruled brutally for over 4 decades.

Syria was not Nicaragua, and Assad was not Somoza. Assad was aligned with Iran, hosted a Russian military facility, and supported Hezbollah and Hamas. They did not support the proper interest to violently put down protests the way those with the proper interests (US interests) at heart were permitted to do so. As for the will of the Syrian people their interests are only important so long as they are consistent with US interest. US interest was regime change. The interest of the Syrian people was a fairer and more democratic Syria.

In 2012 you could turn to any one of the cable news channels on just about any given day and hear reports about the conflict in Syria between the rebels (supplied by the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) and the Assad government. What you didn’t see occurring at the same time was the struggle of the people of Bahrain against their government where police forces have opened fire against civilians killing people, where thousands were arrested, subjected to torture and death in police custody as a result of torture, and where numbers involved in marches have reached up to 150,000 in a country of only 1.3 million. Bahrain is home to a US Naval Base the headquarters of the 5 th fleet while Syria is an ally of Iran who the US wants to prevent from having greater influence in the region as well as weaken Hamas, and Hezbollah.

The Assad regime did use lethal force against protestors, did take thousands of political prisoners and there was a real popular movement for democracy and change, but the armed Islamic militants that comprise the Syrian National Coalition have been equally abusive of the civilian population. Murdering and intimidating civilians they believe to be loyalists, executing captured soldiers from the Syrian Army, and carrying out attacks against public infrastructure killing civilians in the process(League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012. PDF: pg 4, paragraphs 25-27, pg 8 paragraph 75).

The Syrian National Council was called to the negotiating table on several occasions and refused to negotiate or state any demands beyond the echoes of the western stance that Assad must go(http://rt.com/news/un-security-council-muslim-world-074/).

The new constitution that 55% of the country voted to ratify by a margin of 80% would be a democratic way forward for the Syrian people(http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221615517760425.html); Hillary Clinton denounced the measure as “a cynical ploy” because a subordinate regime was important to the US, not the security, liberty, and prosperity of the Syrian people.

1:From 1976 to 2008 the average voter turnout for a presidential election is 53.6 percent, and if that is good enough for the US, then why isn’t 55% of the Syrian people enough for Syria?
2:The main grievance of the population was Article 8 of the constitution which prevented candidates from running who were not part of the Baath Party, and this restriction was removed in the new constitution.
3: The new constitution imposed terms limits and contained a number of social provisions, the right to health care, right to work, the right to a living wage, education, gender equality and a number of other articles that would serve as the foundation of a social progressive constitution in many ways. (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Syria_2012.pdf?lang=en)

Of course I do not support the Assad regime, but in 2012 there was a way forward that was blocked by the west, chiefly by the United States. Since 2011, over 550,000 have died (Haaretz, 560,000 Killed in Syria’s War According to Updated Death Toll, 12/10/2018. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/560-000-killed-in-syria-s-war-according-to-updated-death-toll-1.6700244 Source: Human Observatory for Human Rights) If not for the support of militant Islamists emboldened, armed, and trained by the United States and other western nations there would have been a resolution. A way to move forward for the benefit of the Syrian people under the new constitution, that they voted for. The United States was not interested in what was best for the Syrian people, the same as they are not interested in what is best for any people anywhere in the world as demonstrated by their history. The US is concerned only with what is best for the wealth and industry that directs it, and in this, a bloody civil war that leaves a country devastated, displaces millions, kills 100s of thousands, is an outcome preferred to allowing democratic processes to prevail in Syria. If a pro-western regime cannot be installed the civil war still weakens the non-aligned interests of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria itself.

The flow of western arms brought with it a flow of Islamic radicals from around the region, but many of the militants that comprised the factions of the Syrian armed resistance were already there, the recipients of arms, training, and other support from the US. Eventually, the United States had to assist in combating likely some of the very peoples who it was arming as it became evident that Syria was a base nation for ISIS, the same as Libya became a base nation for ISIS with the support of western arms and airstrikes aimed at removing another resister of American hegemony and western imperialism in Qaddafi.

Assad was releasing political prisoners and was capitulating to public opinion early on. I’m not saying the constitution would have paved a golden road to a Syrian utopia, but it most certainly was a starting point to save the people of the country from the 6 years of hell that have followed. Had the US not undermined the constitutional referendum, not supported the rebels in their decision not to negotiate, armed and trained them, 100s of thousands of lives would have been saved, a million and a half refugees could have remained in their country, and the Islamic State wouldn’t have amassed as much power as they did and asserted terror in the manner that they did. When Americans look at Syria, they should recognize their responsibility.

When the Arab League sent observers to Syria in 2012 there was one sentiment from the population they found to be unanimous: “the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention.” League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012. PDF: pg 4, paragraphs 25-27, pg 8 paragraph 75)

The United States was successful in regime change in Libya, where the pretext of humanitarian intervention was used to oust Qaddafi who had been a thorn in the side of western governments for over 4 decades. The amount of time I would have to dedicate to having a confident grasp on Qaddafi and Libya under his rule exceeds the usefulness of possessing the information. I don’t believe he is the villain he has been made out to be, nor is he the saint that his words and supporters from across the African continent would have us believe. There is a clear bias in everything I have read about Libya under his rule and about the man himself. What is beyond dispute is the fact that Libyan’s were much better off before the west removed him than they have been at anytime after his removal.

The foreign policy of the United States in support of their European allies was the arming of jihadists to remove a figure who had been an obstacle to western foreign policy on the African continent and abroad for 4 decades, plunging the country into a civil war which is far from settled 7 years later, which also gave rise to ISIS in the country. Roughly 60,000 dead in a country with a population of just over 6 million is nearly 10% of the country. (PSE:Body Count pg 13)

The same administration that found the use of force against a civilian population in Libya, had no issue with the use of force by Mubarak prior to his removal in Egypt, where US arms flowed during his 30 year dictatorship and were used for repression against Egyptians. The same administration felt no moral obligation to intervene after the junta headed by Sisi removed the democratically elected Mohhamad Morsi, and then indiscriminately murdered and executed hundreds of protesters. Again, the same administration felt no need to intervene when Bahrain was murdering and torturing it’s political dissidents. These are recent examples that were occurring around the same time, but the history of the United States supporting the most brutal tyrants is rich.

When Suharto came to power in Indonesia he led a US supported purge where up to a million people were hunted down and killed. The United States helped to conceal the event from the world, knew people were being murdered who were innocent and helped to spread the pretext that the massacre was a response to a coup attempt. He ruled with an iron fist for 30 years, propped up by support from the United States, who approved the invasion of East Timor, where 200,000 died as a result of the invasion and occupation. (The Atlantic, What the United States Did in Indonesia, Vincent Bevins, 10/20/2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/)

Not an isolated case of support for a tyrant, I’m not going to go over the whole history, but almost anywhere there is a tyrant there is US support, and many times, when someone is portrayed as a tyrant to the people of the United States, they are actually people who serve the interests of their people over the interests of the United States. And the US has a history of removing or attempting to remove such people.


In 2002, there was a coup against Hugo Chavez which was supported and assisted by the United States. US officials implied they would support the coup if the conspirators accomplished it, and US aid organizations funded opposition efforts related to the coup attempt. The reason was as expressed in the preceding paragraph, Chavez made the interest of the Venezuelan people the interest of the Venezuelan government.

The following are excerpts of what Chavez accomplished in the first 10 years of his presidency.

The current economic expansion began when the government gained control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. For the next 10 years, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.

Most of that growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.

During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education.

Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.

Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.

Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one-third. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.

There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999-2000 to 2007-2008.

The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.

Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.

Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.

Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research, The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators. By Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray and Luis Sandoval, February 2009. Pg 3 http://cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

Chavez is a subject of great admiration from me. Anyone born poor either seeks to become rich or they seek to elevate the quality of life of the poor. He began in a mud hut and became president of a country ruled by leaders subordinate to oligarchs and the United States. He included a nation in the process of creating a constitution which was popular in creation and popular in the manner of governance it established. He improved the quality of life for the poor people in his country. He supported and networked with countries in the region in an effort to create mutually beneficial projects of trade and finance to improve the lives of people in a region that had suffered for the better part of a century under US domination. He created an election system which was the most transparent and free in the world, and left major decisions to referendum and included people from all levels of the public in the legislative process. He openly, boldly, intellectually, factually, and at times humorously opposed imposition and injustice.

7 Years after the death of Chavez, Venezuela, due likely in part to the leadership of Nicolas Maduro who definitely was not the statesman Chavez was, but also maybe more so the result of US sanctions and international pressure led by the US is in terrible shape compared to where it was under Chavez.

The coup attempt failed in 2002, although it did not curb the US enthusiasm for creating difficulties for Venezuela. Sanctions which have been tightened under the Trump administration nearly to the extent of resembling the strangulation of Cuba, have created great difficulties for the Venezuelan people, the likes of which will likely result in regime change.

A favorite tactic of the United States is policies that make life so difficult for the population that regime change becomes the only way forward, as was accomplished in Chile, where the nation was cut off from financial credit and prohibited from doing business with US companies or companies who did business with US companies, along with a US funded trucker strike, which resulted in a US backed coup to remove the democratically elected leadership of Salvador Allende, and install a dictator friendly to US corporations who led a reign of terror against the Chilean population as well as beyond the borders of Chile. Chavez successor Nicolas Maduro was not up to the task of continuing progress in the challenging climate.

I can’t find the right word to describe how well consent has been manufactured for state actions that fly in the face of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect, and fairness. As I mentioned, the history of US imposition is rich and constantly occuring, but usually these actions were covered and covert. The population could not know they were removing leaders, orchestrating coups, punishing populations, occupying and invading nations to ensure market access. Today it is something different.

Today, US officials including the president talk openly about regime change, Trump said that invading Venezuela with US forces is “an option”. The Trump adminstration has recognized the losing candidate in an election as the leader of Venezuela and said it was an option to remove the president through an invaison of the country. He could do probably do it with the support of 40% of the country.

The population is stupider than the generations that preceded it. Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Miami and told people “it’s time to end the Maduro dictatorship”. They said the same thing of Chavez who was elected in some of the fairest and most transparent elections the world has ever seen. The point is that a word only need be spoken and it becomes fact in the minds of most people. I’m just at a loss for words when invading a country is reported by the media who reports it casually as if there is nothing prima facie wrong with it. A population, who if they are not told what to think about it think very little of it. Causes me to question whether I should even be substantiating assertions like this note is created to substantiate.


In 2004 the US orchestrated conditions and contributed to the coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Hati. The United States blocked aid and loans to Hati which left the government broke, something that is a byproduct of 200 years of colonialism, and nearly a century of interventionist policies by the united states. The US delayed help when Aristide appealed to the security council for assistance in dealing with armed gangs. In addition to circumstantial contributions, the US funded an opposition representative of societal elites, consisting of former military members who may also have been trained and armed by the United States. Finally, US marines entered Hati and forced Aristide on a plane and flew him without knowledge of his destination to the Central African Republic. (London Review of Books, Who Removed Aristide? Paul Farmer reports from Haiti. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/paul-farmer/who-removed-aristide)

There is little evidence the US had anything to do with the Honduran coup in 2009 aside from a circumstantial evidence that US officials attended a party with those involved with the coup the night before the coup occurred. Immediately after the coup the Obama administration denounced the coup and temporarily suspended aid but promptly restored it and maintained normal relations with the government. The denunciation and brief suspension of aid was more a PR move than an attempt to put pressure on the new regime. Necessary due to the century of history where the US was responsible for dozens of coups and the support of dictators, many of those dictators were trained by the United States.

In many cases, the details of US involvement isn’t known for many years and sometimes decades after they happen, which is why when US imposition is discussed, people tend to reference older events not because there are not new ones, only because the details are known and sometimes acknowledged by the government. The removal of Mossedeq in Iran in 1953 was only acknowledged by the US government in 2013, 60 years after it occurred. Which isn’t to say that the evidence wasn’t overwhelming prior to that acknowledgement, but a US official need only make a denial and this denial is a fact to Americans who want to believe it, regardless of the evidence presented to them.

We know the United States has the power to cripple a country economically through sanctions, cutting nations off from international credit and limiting the countries and nations a country could do business with. If the US was concerned with democracy, and we know it isn’t, but if it were, cutting off aid to Honduras which is reliant on US aid may have had the effect of restoring democracy in itself, possibly returning the elected president Manuel Zelaya to office. If the withholding of aid is then compounded with sanctions this would near definitively bring an end to the regime. Instead the US legitimized the coup and supported the non-constitutionally established government.

The difference between using sanctions against non-subordinate regimes and being unable to persuade a population to remove the government and using sanctions against regimes that are subordinate comes down to popularity. I am mentioning this because in many cases, as was the case in Iraq sanctions have the opposite effect on the population. Sanctions make life miserable for the population, but the discontent isn’t against the regime in power, it is against the United States as the regime in power is able to demonstrate that the US is causing their misery. Subordinate nations, like Honduras has hosted historically, is there is already strong popular contempt for the regime, and withholding aid and applying sanctions can have the effect of weakening the regime to the point where popular currents can achieve regime change. Something I mention as some will cite the ineffectiveness in sanctions to achieve regime change apply that history to what I would have advocated for in Honduras after the coup, of withholding aid and applying sanctions.

We know the US is not concerned with democracy nor is it concerned with the best interest and quality of life for the people in other countries. They are concerned with subordinate regimes that will ensure market accessibility and footholds from whence to apply pressure to achieve the aforementioned goal of market accessibility. Historically Honduras has been a foot hold, used to launch the coup in 54 against Jarcobo Arbenz, undertaken at the behest of the United Fruit Company who was unsatisfied with the amount it was being paid for unused land it undervalued for tax purposes. Honduras was also used by the United States to train and launch a counter revolutionary offensive against the Sandinistas Nicaragua.

We could go on, but the point is merely to substantiate the ongoing murder, theft, and imposition on peoples and states around the world. Which all the people of the United States is responsible for. As the US Pentagon strategist asserted in Iraq concerning the airstrikes and sanctions “The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear…They do live there, and ultimately people have some control over what goes on in their country.” Targeted killings which have proven far more effective at killing civilians including woman and children than they are at killing terrorists persist. And even the assertion that someone is a terrorist should not be grounds for assassination, and if it is, what US politician can be exempted from the charge of being a terrorist? Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or intimidation to achieve a political goal. US foreign policy is terrorism by definition.

You deny people their right to self determination, to liberty, the opportunity for prosperity, life, and these few scant examples are by no means isolated. The evidence is at your finger tips in this age of information, and has been available to you for decades. You lack the motivation because you prefer a lie to the truth and enjoy the benefits of the tyranny you are apart of.

7: Earth Systems Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division, “CO2 at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory Reaches New Milestone: Tops 400ppm. 5/10/2013. “Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm.” https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html . In January 2019 the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded as 410ppm. An increase of over 130ppm or nearly a 50% increase from preindustrial levels. Earth Systems Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division, “Recent Daily Averages: Mauna Loa”. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

8: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Summary for Policy Makers” 10/2018, pg6, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_High_Res.pdf “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming”.

9: In the last 20 years the oil and gas industry have contributed half a billion dollars to candidates of both parties with republicans receiving oil and gas money at a rate of 4 to 1 compared to democrats. (Open Secrets, “Oil and Gas Contribution Trends”. 405 million to republicans and 94 million to democrats over 20 years. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018&ind=E01)

Most contributions are given to republican with some contributions going to democrats to create majorities on key policy. But it is important to note that democrats support pro fossil fuel policies even as they rail against them.

In 2011 Obama led policy to open up previously protected land for oil drilling. (New York Times, “Obama Shifts to Speed Oil and Gas Drilling in the US” 5/14/2011, by John M. Broder. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/politics/15address.html) He was also a proponent of increased natural gas usage toting natural gas as “a bridge fuel”, which it is not (see note 8). (The Washington Post, Obama Says Fracking Can Be A Bridge to a Clean Energy Future, It’s Not that Simple”, by Brad Plummer 1/29/14. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/29/obama-says-fracking-offers-a-bridge-to-a-clean-energy-future-its-not-that-simple/?utm_term=.63bbe0d26552) Comparatively to Bush or Trump, Obama was a radical climate activist, maybe time and a chain away from attaching himself to a bulldozer. That is comparatively, as well as influenced by companies looking to capitalize on the need for renewable energy and his need to appeal to a base that recognizes the need for climate action, even if they fail to understand what constitutes that action. ABC News, “Obama Fund Raisers Tied to Green Firms that Got Federal Cash”, by Matthew Mosk and Ronnie Green. 11/29/2011 (https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626)

The aforementioned on Obama is simply to demonstrate that democrats in practice are pro fossil fuel, just at a rate that the investment justifies, which is about 4 to 1 or their efforts are about 20% of the that of the republicans on fossil fuel. And to further demonstrate that the green policies of the democrats are influenced by investments from alternative energy. From a business party politician, I think what Obama did in an effort to limit carbon emissions was about as much as any business party president could do, although his regulatory actions on the way out were done to solidify his legacy as a pro-environment president knowing they would serve no real lasting purpose. Still, what else can a business party president do aside from using federal funds to encourage development of renewable energy?

Naturally Trump and the republicans are about 4x as bad as the democrats, increased by a factor of Trump and climate denial. He can say anything and no matter how ridiculous or idiotic it is anything to the contrary is fake news. Even pre-trump and of course post Trump most people operate off of the words of their chosen authorities with no real understanding of the subject they feel strongly about. For the fossil fuel industry there is no difference if Trump is setting the policy on oil and gas exploration and development or if the American Petroleum Institute is running the executive branch. He will give them everything they want that he is capable of giving them. The only difference is Trump can say it’s good for America whereas maybe a few percent of the smartest people in this country would recognize that API is only acting in the interest of profit if API ruled the executive branch. As Obama did, Trump is offering new land for natural gas fracking. (The New York Times, “Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands”, by Eric Lipton and Hiroko Tabuchi, 10/27/2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/climate/trump-fracking-drilling-oil-gas.html) Trump has opened the artic for drilling as well as nearly any other place oil companies would like to explore and extract from. (The Guardian, “US Oil Firms Bid to Drill for Oil in Artic Hits Snag: Lack of Sea Ice”, Oliver Millman, 11/15/2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/15/arctic-oil-drilling-texas-hilcorp-beaufort-sea)

There has been a great deal of deregulation that has occurred simply through defunding and the method of managing the EPA under the Trump administration. It was insane enough to have a former state attorney general (Scott Pruit) with a track record of working for the energy industry, having sued the EPA, as the head of the EPA, but having been forced to resign, the current head of the EPA Andrew Wheeler is a former coal lobbyist. Half the American public doesn’t have a problem with this because they have no respect for facts, logic, science, the practice of observation, measurement, hypothesis, experiment, and confirmation. There is no distinction between fact and opinion. A fact is whatever authority’s opinion you choose to accept as fact and is valid among those who have chosen the same authority. It is the most discouraging fact of human beings and will ultimately be the downfall of the species: chosen stupidity.

As mentioned in the section the idea that the fossil fuel industry exercises policy shaping influence over the government is not controversial which is the subject of this note, but I thought I would offer the above cited reference to substantiate the point, including the secondary point that the democrats, despite the rhetoric, are influenced as well. Albeit at a rate that reflects the 4 to 1 republican to democrat investment.

10: The Guardian, “Work of Prominent Climate Change Denier was Funded by Energy Industry”, by Suzanne Goldenberg, 2/21/2015. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry) “Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.”

11: See notes 2 and 3 for explanation of political and economic processes.

12: James Hanson: Fossil Fuel Addiction Could Trigger Run Away Global Warming. Guardian, 7:10:2013, by Nafeez Ahmed. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth- insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming “four degrees of warming would be enough to melt all the ice… you would have a tremendously chaotic situation as you moved away from our current climate towards another one. That’s a different planet. You wouldn’t recognize it… We are on the verge of creating climate chaos if we don’t begin to reduce emissions rapidly.”

Global Warming, Our Future, “A Degree by Degree Explanation of what will Happen when the Earth Warms”, 1/16/2018. http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm “We are looking now at an entirely different planet…Globalism in the 5 degree world will break down to something like parochialism. Customers will have nothing to buy, because producers will have nothing to sell. Without the possibility of international aid, migrants will have to force their way into the few remaining habitable enclaves and fight for survival. Where no refuge is available, civil war, and collapse into racial and communal conflict seems to be the likely outcome.” The article cited is a degree by degree breakdown of what can be expected. I would prefer to cite the entire article which is to say it is worthwhile for the reader to view the article because the scenarios described are not mere possibilities, but something you, your children and their children will experience.

In anticipation of the question posed by any reader as to the reason why wealth and industry is so indifferent to the affects of climate change when their children will also have to survive in a world of decreasing habitability I offer this explanation. The source of the quote is in dispute, but it has been assigned to Jay Gould the 19th century railroad developer and financier “I could pay one half of the working class to kill the other half of the working class”. Whether he said it, someone else said it, or if no one said it at all I quote the words because of the trueness of the sentiment. Police and military are examples of this quote, but it is also embodied in every day life albeit not to the degree mentioned in the quote. People impose on people in their everyday jobs and without justification for what they are doing to someone they use the defense of no defense “I’m just doing my job”.

From the previously cited reference when “migrants…force their way into the few remaining habitable enclaves”, those habitable enclaves will be populated by wealth, who, as they are now, will be served by a working class, and protected by the working class against the mob. They will use the same cliché justification, that they are just doing their job, and they are doing their job because they have to provide for their family. People will be mowed down like the Matabele spearman rushing the maxim machine gun. Or probably something more like a village of woman and children bombed by an American drone.

The point being is, no matter how bad things get, as long as there remain habitable pockets, the well to do who control the resources will control the masses and will have a reasonably good quality of life. The greater risk which is a risk to everyone will be the increased probability of nuclear conflict. As habitability decreases and resources become scarce this will increase the likelihood of conflict over resources as well as the possibility of nuclear conflict which would accelerate the end of the species.
Still the indefinite dream persist in the TVs, radios, websites, movies, churches, to the minds of most until it is at their door step. When it becomes their personal problem it is too late.

13: Every renewable energy structure, solar farms, windmills, hydro-electric dams, etc, has been built with public funds to varying degrees, whether grants, subsidies, or no to low interest public loans. The point I am making is, if the public pays for the infrastructure, and there is a profit to be made from this infrastructure, then why is it basically given to a private company? While some praise the loans because these loans will generate some public revenue when they are interest based loans, the miniscule amount of interest accrued is nothing compared to the profit that will be made from the energy these structures will produce that is sold to the very public who paid for it. A prime example is the California solar ranch owned by NRG. The total cost of the project was 1.2 billion dollars. NRG invested 400 million dollars and the remaining cost was paid for through grants and public loans. Yet as soon as the project was completed NRG received 430 million dollars in lieu of future tax credits. Meaning after construction is complete NRG has made 30 million dollars. Mind you, the project came complete with a 25 year contract from Pacific Gas and Electric. (The New York Times, “A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search”, by Eric Lipton, and Clifford Krauss, 11/11/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?_r=0)

14: “A Bridge to Nowhere: Methane Emissions and the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas”, By Robert W. Howarth, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University. “In April 2011, we published the first peer-reviewed analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint (GHG) of shale gas, concluding that the climate impact of shale gas may be worse than that of other fossil fuels such as coal and oil because of methane emissions. Using…(the) best available data and a 20-year time period for comparing the warming potential of methane to carbon dioxide, the conclusion stands that both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger GHG than do coal or oil, for any possible use of natural gas and particularly for the primary uses of residential and commercial heating.” (https://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarth_2014_ESE_methane_emissions.pdf)

15: Degree of change: the IPCC’s projections for future temperature rise. Carbon Brief, Robin Webster, 4:15:2014 http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/04/degrees-of-change-the-ipcc%E2%80%99s-predictions-for-future-temperature-rise/ Graphic derived from IPCC table SPM.1

16: Carbon Brief, Analysis: Global C02 Emissions Set to Rise 2% in 2017 After Three Year Plateau. 11/13/2017 Zeke Hausfather. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

17: Noam Chompsky Boston University lecture, Source: Constitutional Convention, June 26th, 1787, “Words of the Founding Fathers”, Steve Coffman McFarland, August 3rd, 2012, page 231. John Adams : “ It is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters;…every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state, and prostrate all ranks to one common level”.

Christianity

As is the case with all religions there are varying degrees of discipline among Christians in regard to practice, but Christianity is a religion without any real code of conduct. A religion of no guidance, where one is required to confess belief that a man was god, and was sacrificed to forgive the sins of men. The premise stemming from the Judaic custom of sacrificing animals to atone for sins, because god likes the smell of burning animal flesh. Otherwise as my favorite comedian Doug Stanhope points out, “… died for your sins? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage, what does one thing have to do with the other?” Christianity also peddles ideas of mercy, forgiveness, and love without stipulation or condition.

I am giving Christianity more attention than other religions. Mainly because I live in a country where about ¾ths of people consider themselves to be Christians, and also because I am quite familiar with the religion, having a brief period in my life where I prepared bible study as an inmate in the Milwaukee County House of Corrections. Christianity receives more attention because it is the most prolific mind fuck in this country and because it doesn’t require much research for me to be more thorough.

Before we get into the substance of Jesus alleged words according to the canonized gospels, I want to define and measure the concepts most strongly associated with Christianity. Belief and forgiveness, and forgiveness. Although there are varying interpretations most Christians hold that the only requirement for forgiveness is for a person to believe that Jesus died for their sins.

Person A harms person B. Person A believes Jesus died for their sins and person B does not. First, how can Jesus forgive you for something you did to someone else? He himself has experienced no harm from the individual. I understand most Christians prescribe to the notion that Jesus is god and this affords him the right to arbitrarily forgive his friends and excuse the evil they do to others. This is the heart of Christianity. If you believe in me, you are in my circle, and I’ll forgive you for whatever you do. Your god is not true to fairness, liberty, or objectivity. Your god advocates evil by excusing it for acknowledgement of him. Your god is not the creator because the creator exists in liberty as the hallmark of his creation attests to.

“Mercy for the tyrant is torture to the oppressed.”(1)

Justice, in the context of making the offended party whole or near to it, requires no forgiveness because the offense has been corrected. What was wrong was made right. Of course making the offended party whole depends on the ability of the transgressor and the nature of the transgression, but what is the point of forgiveness?

The idea of sin is that there are acts that are offensive to god. Christianity asserts that human beings are innately evil, born into sin, and thus require forgiveness. They would say human beings require forgiveness to reach heaven. On the assumption of god as the creator, and the presumption of the survival of consciousness after death or an afterlife, there is no sin.

The original subtitle of this book “the singular duality” is the essence of the explanation for the assertions in the aforementioned paragraph. There is only liberty. Those who are tyrants are tyrants by choice. We know the only sin is the imposition on liberty in all its forms and this is accurate. Yet there is no punishment for the tyrant, except in the tyranny the tyrant has chosen. Conduct in life is a duality between liberty and tyranny, but tyranny only exists by way of liberty.

Judgement from god is what? Judgement is the sum of your purposes, principles, and understanding. Not a judgement between good and bad, but a determination of your understanding and application of liberty or tyranny. No doubt the tyrant shouldn’t be free to impose for eternity. There are three options in consideration of the survival of consciousness after death: 1 the tyrant descends to an afterlife of eternal tyranny as is consistent with what he or she has chosen. 2 the tyrant returns to a place of tyranny (earth) and he or she is afforded the opportunity to change his or her values or maintain them. 3 the soul is destroyed or death is a dreamless sleep one never wakes up from.

Nothing definitive can be known concerning the fate of the tyrant. While improbable due to the difficulty of reconciling multiple lifetimes, 2 would be ideal. Much of what a person is and how they develop is based on the impressions left upon them throughout their lives. As an intelligent species advances and realizes the truth and ideal of liberty, the environment reflects these values. Any person born in a world with an understanding and systems built on values of liberty will produce individuals who think and apply those values. An unlikely fate for the tyrant because it is difficult to understand how one entity could be multiple. I suppose memory but unlikely because a lifetime is not simply memories and feelings, but the assembly of thought processes that characterizes the being. The most interesting aspect of reincarnation and how it relates to the fate of the tyrant, is presuming on 2, where does the tyrant go to enjoy tyranny once tyranny has run its course? That is, in consideration of the time we live in, where human beings are not likely to change course and will probably cause the earth to become uninhabitable within a century to century and a half? When the earth can no longer harbor the souls of tyrants, where are those souls confined?

Most people think hell is a disproportionate punishment as something done that had only temporary effects should not carry eternal consequences. However, principally, the tyrant has no regard for boundaries, he is arbitrary, and thus it is fair to mete to him by his chosen measure. Duration is in consequential. I’m only saying that hell is fair.

No one knows the fate of the tyrant, but as a being of liberty the fate of the tyrant is not my concern. He choses what he choses and I have chosen what I have chosen. Although a premise from Islam, it is a true premise and not a premise I think many Christians would dispute: what is it that god cannot do? God cannot go against his nature. The nature of god, the creator, is liberty. In this god cannot impose on that which does not impose. The fate of those who apply liberty is eternal liberty. As a being who understands and practices liberty, god cannot impose because unprovoked imposition would violate his nature. Furthermore, the liberty minded are of the same mind as god, any hostility from god towards such a being would be the same as someone who bites off their finger to spite their hand.

Forgiveness as a matter of heavenly entry is not required.

On personal matters forgiveness is only sought by the offending party. The offender seeks forgiveness because he or she seeks to restore a relationship that has been damaged by his or her imposition. This is a matter of the value the offended party sees in the restoration of the relationship. Good memories verse the offense, the probability that it would happen again, and the needs the relationship fulfills. Otherwise there is no real benefit to forgiveness.

Some say that forgiving someone is beneficial to the offended party, releasing them from the ill feelings they harbor for the transgression against them. Yet these feeling tend to dissipate in the absence of exposure to the offender. And if they don’t, then punitive action may be required. For the offender punitive action allows him or her to experience imposition as they impose on others. For the offended there is satisfaction in harm caused to someone who caused harm to you.

Forgiveness in the interest of liberty should be reserved for mistakes, otherwise forgiveness is condoning tyranny.

Love
The simplest definition of love is a fondness unto possession or attachment. Love between two people begins as the exchange of behavior for behavior, where the needs met by one another’s behavior cause an attachment to form. As the relationship progresses, the experiences and history of the two people contribute to the attachment and has the potential to preserve the union as behavior becomes less desirable or fulfilling.

As the base ideal for an intelligent species what does love look like? What is an act of love? An act of love is sacrifice. Isn’t it the Christian belief that god so loved the world that he allowed his son to be sacrificed for their sins? Jesus himself is quoted as saying “greater love has no one than this than for one to lay down his life for his friends”. Ideal love on a planetary scale consists of every person being willing to sacrifice for every other. In this, the success of every individual is aided by every other person on the planet. The problem is it requires complete participation, and even in that unlikely scenario application will vary, disrupting the continuity of the product and lead to contentions; as in he or she doesn’t do as much as I do and so on and so forth. Second, it is compulsory and people naturally rebel against what they perceive as forced action. People are more inclined towards liberty, and many would rather be in a position to help themselves than to be helped, as help even as a sacrifice in the name of love, carries the shadow of perceived debt and unsolicited oversight.

We are a world of people that believes in love as ideal. What does the application of love as ideal actually yield. It is a world of circles and conflict. On the earth you have family circles, and one’s own family is held in a higher esteem than other families. You have friend circles, national circles, race circles, professional circles, and ethnic circles. Within these circles there are hierarchies of importance, biases and preferences that tend to compromise objectivity, and serve as the root of contention and indifference to imposition.

Before I proceed with the last paragraph concerning love, it is important for me to profess that I don’t have a problem with love even as I recognize deficiencies in it as a governing ideal. I don’t have an issue with what people choose to do as long as their choices don’t interfere with the liberty of others.

I always find it ignorant when people in the wake of some tragedy or injustice will assert that love will overcome hate. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Hate does not exist without love. Whatever it is that a person loves they will naturally hate that which is contrary, and that which threatens or harms the subject of their love. This unavoidable fact exposes Christian theology that god loves everyone. For example, if god loves those that keep his commandments, he cannot also love those who don’t keep his commandments or harm those that he loves. If god loves everything or everyone, god loves nothing and no one.

Perhaps my only love is liberty, it is the essence of what is good, and so I hate purposeful imposition, as well as the indifference, ignorance, and deception that allows it to exist in all its forms, direct and indirect.

The Gospels

Jesus ministry in Matthew’s Gospel begins in the 5th chapter. The basis of his ministry begins with selling people on the idea of an afterlife. Where obedience to god is not motivated by prosperity in this life, but in the life to come. A message apt to be received by a people living under the dominion of a foreign power, where social mobility of any significance outside criminality is as miraculous as any healing the writers of the gospels credit Jesus with performing. In the first 20 verses of the 5th chapter Jesus encourages the poor by selling them a pie in the sky, and in the 21st to the 22nd, he mentions hell that awaits those who have anger in their hearts without cause, as if such a thing has ever existed.

Judaism is a religion that boasts an all powerful god. In order for that reputation to be maintained, the followers of this god, as the followers of god today, must rationalize how he allows them to experience misfortune. Traditionally, and this is found throughout the old testament, god allows them to be conquered, carried off, and experience hardship because they have disobeyed him. The same as today, where hardship after hardship and unanswered prayers are usually seen by Christians as the result of their disobedience. Other justifications include hardship for the purpose of development, or an unanswered prayer because god has something better for them than what they asked for. After one is invested or psychologically coerced with the threat of eternal damnation to surrender their will to a false deity, it is easier to make excuses for the deity, than it is to acknowledge its impotence.

Jesus ministry is the changing of the excuse. It isn’t your disobedience, you are actually blessed in your poverty because poverty is more conducive to molding behavior that will allow you to enter the eternal bliss god has prepared for you. ( Matthew {5:3} Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. {5:4} Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. {5:5} Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. {5:6} Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. {5:7} Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God. {5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. {5:10} Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. {5:11} Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you,] and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. {5:12} Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew {19:23} Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.)

For those who mock you, who are powerful and possessed of wealth, let god take care of them, because there is eternal torment for your adversaries. Feelings of justice for those who are unable to enact it. (Luke{16:19} There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: {16:20} And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, {16:21} And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. {16:22} And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; {16:23} And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. {16:24} And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. {16:25} But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.)

As I mentioned earlier, something true by nature of every persons experience, that punitive action against someone who has harmed you is fractional justice. There is satisfaction derived from harm against someone who has intentionally and unapologetically imposed on you, so it is a step towards the righting of the wrong. One aspect of turning the other cheek and praying for your enemies is the satisfaction of believing they have just taken another step into hell. ({5:38} Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: {5:39} But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 5:43} Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. {5:44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; {5:45} That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.) In the parenthesized passage Jesus makes a true statement, although in the context of the preceding passages, he probably doesn’t grasp the reason for his true observation. (God) makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. This is true not because god is merciful and patient, this is true because the creator created man free, and if men are evil and are allowed to remain evil, then this is the will of humanity and god does not impose.

Liberty knows that the results that exist, exist due to the free will of human beings on this planet. If large swaths of the world experience hardship, it isn’t god allowing these things to happen according to his divine plan, it is a creator who allowed a species to evolve to be the dominate species on the planet, to be free, and this is what they have chosen. Liberty’s greatest issue with Jesus, is his teachings facilitate the ease by which tyranny is able to impose. For lack of a more precise and impactful term, it is the greatest mind fuck for oppression ever conceived. It is submission to evil and joy in that submission.

For the Christians, if the joy derived from their version of righteousness, or the prospect of being a son of god isn’t a great enough motivator for forgiveness, they are compelled to forgive or they will not be forgiven by god. (Matthew {6:14} For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: {6:15} But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. a certain king, which would take account of his servants. {18:24} And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. {18:25} But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. {18:26} The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {18:27} Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. {18:28} But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. {18:29} And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {18:30} And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. {18:31} So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. {18:32} Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: {18:33} Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? {18:34} And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. {18:35} So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.) The first issue to be had is the fact that no one has ever done anything to god. If I don’t forgive someone for something they have done to me, what is god going to hold over my head? Second, if there is a good purpose to be derived from an action the motivation for doing it, doesn’t have to include fear. What good purpose does it serve? It isn’t an absolute. Sometimes it will serve a good purpose and other times it will not, history, the nature of the offense, the relationship between the individuals, as well as other factors have to be considered.

This is the nature of religion itself, the conditioning of unrelated consequence based motivation that corrupts thought processes. An example would be ensuring your child doesn’t harm his or her self by touching a hot stove. The child can be instructed not to touch the hot stove because it will burn them, and obviously, no one wants to be burned. The child understands the purpose of not touching the hot stove. The other approach is, if touch that stove I’m going to beat your ass. The motivation for refraining from the action has nothing to do with understanding why the action should be avoided, the action is avoided because of the indirect consequence of the action which is the threat of force.

This form of authority is a plague through out human civilization, and it is well ingrained among human beings even outside of religion, but religion is the basis for this line of reasoning. It isn’t moral authority only, but also intellectual authority. Where credentials or position alone will cause someone to accept a conclusion without being provided or understanding an explanation. God said, my dad said, my priest said, my professor said, the president said, the FBI said, an economist said, and so on and so forth. The retardation of the species is something I intend to write about in great detail in an upcoming project, but it is difficult to write about religion without touching on the subject of non-reason based authority.

Forgiveness is required for those who request it from Christians in perpetuity. Peter asked if he should still forgive after 7 times, and Jesus told him in Matthew (18:21), not 7 but 70 times 7, which Christians interpret as perpetual forgiveness. It is the advocating of evil to excuse it, and ultimately inviting and encouraging a tyrant to impose. A bully punches your son in the mouth everyday and apologizes, do you tell your son not to resist, but to forgive as much as he does it? If someone steals something from you every time they see you, but asks for your forgiveness, do you continue to forgive them and provide them with opportunities to steal from you, which is an imposition on your liberty by reducing your means to be free? Obviously, no one applies these teachings in this manner, but we can’t ignore how contrary to liberty and human interest they are. They are a reflection of the Christian god.

Jesus teaches people to pray for what they need, for forgiveness, for his plan to come to fruition, and of course, praise, presuming there’s a better chance I can get something from you if I say something nice about you. (Matthew: {6:9} After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. {6:10} Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. {6:11} Give us this day our daily bread. {6:12} And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. {6:13} And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. {6:14})

Let’s be honest, the actual god of most is a genie who grants some of their wishes, provides them eternal life, and avenges transgressions against them. It’s the same genie for everyone, but each person thinks that this genie favors him or her a little more than everyone else.

An imposition, even a benevolent imposition still brings responsibility for god to bear on the human condition. It also compromises his objectivity in providing favors for acknowledgement. The first sentence is more relevant than the second in substantiating why the creator cannot answer prayer, and leads into the explanation of why the creator can not have a plan.

The idea of god having a plan or intervening, places blame on god. If god has a plan, then god is a tyrant, but tyranny is contrary to the preservation of an intelligent species and so it is inconsistent with what can be observed through the creation. Supporting evidence of god not being a tyrant is the complete lack of evidence that there has been any intervention on this planet coming from forces outside of the creatures on this planet and bodies within the solar system. A tyrant god would intervene arbitrarily and with regularity as he pleased. Furthermore, if god has a plan, god is responsible for all the misery endured by all of humanity because he knowingly caused it to happen. And his plan on the present trajectory is for human beings to be tyrants, for most of the population at all times in recorded history to be the servants and sufferers for a few, and then for the species to become extinct. Or, god does not have a plan, and human beings are responsible for the misery, tyranny, and world they created.

The answering of your prayer is determined by your ability to get the subject of your desire and for elements outside of your control to work for the desired outcome.

Jesus instructs his followers that god is a provider, to the extreme that they should neglect the pursuit of what they need and allow god to provide for it. (Matthew {6:25} Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? {6:26} Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? {6:27} Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? {6:28} And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: {6:29} And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith? {6:31} Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? {6:32} (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. {6:33} But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. {6:34} Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof. Matthew {7:9} Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? {7:10} Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? {7:11} If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?)

The verses encouraging lack of preparation and reliance on god, are shortly preceded by the verses against the pursuit of money, not being able to serve god and money. (Matthew 6:24). Personally, I like the analogy he used that you cannot serve two masters, because it is a good tool in expressing interest conflicts. Something I use frequently in discussing representation and class interests. (2) However, the creator, as he freely created the universe and perhaps that which preceded it, created it free, to create within it, and therefore, he requires no service. In fact, if god did have a preference, because your ability to do as you want to do is largely determined by how much money you have, for the sake of broadening the beauty you could produce, god would want you to pursue money but short of the point of tyranny. If what you do to get money does not cause you to become a tyrant, as in impose on others directly, through deception, or through contributing to a systemic or collective tyranny on others, serving money is service to your liberty, and liberty is god.

When Jesus is asked about divorce he answered that what god joined together let no man tear asunder, that the two become one flesh, and if any man divorces his wife for any other reason than fornication, then he causes both of the them to commit adultery. (Matthew {5:31} It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: {5:32} But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. {19:3} The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? {19:4} And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, {19:5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {19:6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.)

Marriage is a commitment arising from love, which is the attachment that forms when the behavior of one meets the needs and desires of the other and vice versa. There is a great probability that with the development of the two, needs and behavior will change, and the behavior that caused the attachment to form may change, or the needs of one will change rendering the formerly preferred behavior obsolete. If one or both of the parties are no longer benefiting from the commitment, why should they stay committed? In Matthew 22:30 Jesus tells the Sadducees, that in heaven there is no marriage, but people are like angels. From the Christian perspective, Jesus also teaches that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out, or if your hand causes you to sin you should chop it off (Matthew 5:29), and ill accept a figurative interpretation that what ever it is that causes you to sin according their definitions of sin you should remove that obstacle. Therefore, if marriage is temporary, why should two stay committed to one another when the burden of this commitment will likely encourage them to sin?

To go one further, Jesus in defense of healing a man on the Sabbath, asks is it lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath? (Matthew 12:10 to 12:12) Was man made for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath made for man? (Mark 2:27) If marriage becomes something that is no longer beneficial for the parties involved, reducing their quality of life, is marriage intent on good or evil? And was marriage made for man or was man made for marriage?

Opportunity is a component of liberty, and should the opportunity arise to release oneself from a burden for the benefit of both parties, why maintain the tyranny when liberation can occur through a conversation and some paperwork? 50% of marriages end in divorce, but I wonder what that percentage would end in divorce, had some people not held onto their marriage for religious reasons, financial reasons, or the sake of preserving a family unit? Liberty commands nothing in that respect, people are free to maintain or break a commitment for whatever reason they choose.

Jesus asserts that if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her in his heart. Sounds like he’s undercover lobbying for burkahs, as no man can look on a woman with lust in his heart unless that woman provokes such a lust with her appearance.

The exercise of liberty begins with desire and desire is motivated by pleasure, which is not as some would confuse that statement as sensationalism but pleasure in all its forms. Human beings see only value, and an action is motivated by the value of pleasures. For the Christian, he or she feels pleasure when they abstain from looking lustfully upon one another that exceeds the pleasure derived from looking lustfully upon one another, albeit in some cases, it isn’t the pleasure of doing gods will being the greater pleasure, but the guilt and fear of offending god not being worth the momentary pleasure of the gaze.

If a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart it is at most the predecessor of an opportunity for both to become closer and enjoy one another’s company. It causes no harm as the woman is not privy to the mans desires and so the action is unimposing.

Jesus demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the order in which feelings, thoughts, and actions take place. He asserts that evil thoughts and evil action proceed forth from the heart. (Matthew {15:19} For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:) What is in the heart can generally be thought of as feelings. There is no feeling or emotional response that doesn’t begin with a thought or a perception. One feels how they feel because of what they are thinking about, or in some cases something they perceive, as when one encounters a lion they are afraid of the lion without much in the way of thought. What one thinks and how one thinks generally has to do with their life experiences, circumstance, motivation, opportunities etc. It is the environment that molds the individual to a large degree. The cause of an evil act or thought begins with the evil existing in the environment, not what’s in a mans heart.

Jesus tells those who are weary to take his yoke, because his yoke is easy and his burden is light. (Matthew {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.) But a yoke is still a yoke and a burden is still a burden. Whereas liberty, is no yoke, and has no burden. It is understanding that ones own best interest is served through the application of a few principles that allow all people to be free in a multi-being existence.

Those who are not with us our against, and those who do not help to gather help to scatter are Jesus words in Matthew 12:30. Those who are not against liberty are for it, in the sense that as long as what you do doesn’t impose on others, you are free to do you with those of the same mind, and all others are free to do them.

Imagine a white man was handing out food to homeless people. There were only white people receiving the food until a black woman came for a meal. The white man told her “It is not good to give the children’s food to the dogs”. This is treating someone different based on their race, the man is a racist.

In Mark 7:26 to 7:29 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. {7:27} But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs. {7:28} And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. {7:29} And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

Healing was a matter of saying the word, so the analogy in the sense of the children to be filled first isn’t applicable, because there is nothing of substance being dispersed. Healing is a matter of a word. Unless of course Jesus has magic points, and each healing he has to dedicate magic points to. Christians contend that this passage demonstrates that Jesus was not a racist by way of breaking from the custom of not talking with non-Jews or woman. The article this explanations comes from goes on to correct the translation, pointing out the word used for dog doesn’t actually mean dog but “small dog” or “puppy”, but whether a dog or a small dog, the analogy is rendering one group inferior to another, and the response is the denial of service based on ethnicity. The Christians belief that Jesus was god, and if god, the evidence isn’t a willingness to deviate from the cultural norm but remain in error, but to deviate to the degree of objective right. I’m not concerned with whether or not Jesus was being racist or not in the eyes of the most deluded of Paul’s followers (Christians), and the only reason why this section retains this assertion and criticism is for the purpose of allowing liberty to address the topic. Jesus was worse than a racist to me, Jesus was worthless in terms of what he offered the people of 1st century Palestine in terms of collective action that could improve their lives under Roman occupation.

Liberty recognizes no racial nor ethnic inferiority or superiority. Racism is an issue of universal boundary, which states no person would want be disadvantaged due to their race, and so to treat someone differently based on their race, is the crossing of a boundary by creating a world where some have less opportunity.

At the same time, it is understood that prejudices exist, the result of repeated impressions left on people by groups or about groups that cause people to have a view of groups based on race or appearance. The difference between prejudice and racism, is once personal contact has been established between a prejudice person and a member from the group of their prejudice, the interaction between the two serves as the basis for the judgement, whereas the racist will allow his prejudice to affect treatment and serve as his idea about the person regardless the merits that would otherwise be acknowledged in the interaction.

State supported racism is tyranny and is intolerable as it imposes on the opportunities of the members of a group. Personal racism is tolerable if it is unimposing. If a person has deep impressions concerning a group of people that causes them to view members of that group a certain way, and he refuses to allow his views to be changed, but isn’t actively imposing on others directly or by limiting opportunity, then why isn’t he free to have those views? The same as the Christian perspective is tolerable as long as it’s principles are not the basis for law, even though much of Christian doctrine is contrary to liberty and thus in conflict with human interest. There are Christians who prefer not to interact with non Christians, Muslims who prefer not to interact with non Muslims, blacks that prefer the company of blacks, and whites the same as the previous. Liberty holds that people are free to be free as long as the exercise of their liberty doesn’t impose on the liberty of anyone else.

Racism, which is only one form of factional superiority, receives much more attention than it deserves. Mainly because in the United States it is no longer state sanctioned and even socially it is rarely tolerated. I am of the position that personal racism should be tolerated with the encouragement of vocalization. Not because I am pro-racism, but because overt racism is preferred to covert racism. The only way people will be honest about their views, is if they feel they can express them without fear of retribution.

For those who seek to establish a more cohesive species, the only way to change the mind of a racist, is welcomed and repeated impressions that are in direct conflict with his prejudices.

The first chapter of the gospel according to John reads in “{1:1} In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. {1:2} The same was in the beginning with God. {1:3} All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. {1:4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {1:5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

The idea is that prior to creation there was only god, and god spoke existence into being. The word of god created everything, and then became a man. The word being god in the sense that it came from god. I don’t care to debate that which has no impact on behavior and how it relates to liberty, but I do mention it only to insert the point that nothing can know or meet god with any certainty.

Anything that is from something greater than the subject can claim to be god, and the subject has no way of knowing whether it is the supreme or if it is something in the middle. For example, if a person dies and has an NDE, they don’t know where their consciousness is, the laws in regard to the conscious interaction within it, or the status of being or beings in his or her presence. The same as a fish being pulled from the water, if intelligent, would have no understanding of what existed above the water until it was pulled from it. The point being, one cannot know if they are in the presence of the supreme, except through the application of the supreme’s principles, which can be inferred from his creation.

What we know of the creator is he is a creator, and in his creation he caused an intelligent species of life to evolve that all want to do as they want to do, much of which is creative. We understand that the respect of boundaries is required, in the sense that what someone else does should not interfere with the ability of another to do as they do. This includes support, ignorance, or indifference to a system that imposes by limiting opportunity or prevents the majority interest from being represented in the collective decision making body. We have boundaries and opportunity, but really only boundaries, as a system that exacerbates and exploits the disadvantages within it is imposing on the disadvantaged as they experience a level of freedom that is below what is acceptable for the advantaged. Along with other matters of collective decision making like the creation of laws and the appropriation of tax dollars which are decisions made largely at the exclusion of the public in the United States. Or collective decision making in regard to international relations, the use of force financial or physical, overtly or covertly, to limit or deny people their right to self determination to ensure conditions are right for exploitation by the US and other western corporations.(3) You cannot talk about liberty and boundaries without mentioning the environment and the cause of its impediments to individual freedom.

Additional evidence for liberty can be found in the mechanism whereby intelligent life will discover fossil fuels and destroy its habitat if it is organized in tyranny, regardless if the population that is a part of the tyranny calls it freedom by name. For human beings, the will and technology exist to make a timely transition in the interest of ensuring habitability of the earth for future generations, but the decision is an economic and political one, and such decisions are not in the hands of the general population. The general population has an opportunity to vote only after candidates have been selected by a relatively small portion of the population. I am referring to the requisite of having to be from one of two business parties and raise enough money to be competitive in a race by representing paramount the interest of your funders.

Intelligent species organized contrary to liberty will destroy itself through the destruction of its habitat or conflict. As global warming continues areas of the earth that are presently habitable and presently produce necessities will no longer do so. This will cause migrations, put strains on resources, which will be compounded by the ever increasing size of the population in habitable areas. Competition and conflict will increase among a species that has the ability to destroy all life on the planet. Again, the point is, liberty is required for the perpetuation of intelligent life, to avoid a premature extinction, as well as ideal in desire, and the observable state of the creation.

Whether god became his spoken word, and then became a man I do not know. What I do know, is that the creator, god supreme, is liberty. The difference between the supreme, and the deities of religion, is the supreme can be seen in all things, whereas the gods of religion are a mere compilation of contradictory statements in conflict with the observable reality, that are seen only in paper. Even their existence is a product of the liberty taken by men to project authority and achieve the desired behavior conducive to tyranny.

The most well known and widely peddled Christian scripture is John 3:16 “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believith in him should not perish but have everlasting life”. I do not recall the origin of the following quote, but it demonstrates the deficiency of Pauleen Christianity: “If what you believe, does not affect how you behave, then what you believe is not important”.

How does believing in Jesus govern your behavior? More so, if as the Christians believe based on the acknowledgement of their Judaic origins, that god intervenes at will in the affairs of human beings, why does god have to offer his son as a sacrifice to save humans from their sins? An act contributing nothing to the liberty of human beings on earth, serving as a direct source of tyranny through the church for centuries, and a tool of conquering powers to subjugate conquered and underclass people to the ruling power.

When asked which commandment was the greatest, in Matthew 22:35 to 22:40 he says the greatest commandment is to “…love the lord thy god with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and all thy mind, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself”. Which is no direction at all due first to subjectivity of the word love. Second, how do you love god? Keeping the commandments? Acknowledgement and praise? And when your gods commandments are not consistent with the principles governing creation, then what god is it that you are loving and pledging your allegiance to? As already demonstrated, a god which is neither true nor ideal.

To love your neighbor as you love yourself is subjective. Suppose a man is begging for money. One may reason to love him is to give him some money, while another may see love as not giving him money because the act enables him to remain in a lowly position in life. Any act can be rationalized as an act of love depending on the actor’s inclination.

A man supremely minded recognizes this man has been imposed upon by a set of circumstances associated with a system he is a part of. The supremely minded acknowledges his responsibility in contributing to this imposition and understands it is incumbent upon him to contribute to his liberation, even if the contribution is only sufficient towards the liberation from some short term desire: food, drugs, alcohol, etc. In consideration of time, resources, and opportunity, the supremely minded seeks to assist as he is able. The supremely minded understands that the only difference between himself, and the beggar, is the beggar was born into the position he was, and the beholder was born in his position. Yet had he been born as the beggar, began life as he began it, with the same circumstantial developmental disadvantages, he would be the beggar because he is part of a system that produces beggars. His act is not love, nor is it altruistic, but an act of justice, progress towards righting a wrong, of liberation, and he does not exalt himself for his great compassion or mercy, but recommences the man as one proudly making a payment to a creditor. To reiterate the point liberty makes in regard to social responsibility, a system that traps the disadvantaged, is a collective imposition on the disadvantaged.

The ignorant may believe their ignorance is an excuse, we should recognize that ignorance is a product of motivation, and motivation reveals the values of the individual. Ignorance concerning the system they are a part of, is based largely on someone who values their advantages above knowing where they came from. Who looks on the disadvantaged but doesn’t ask why the disadvantaged occupy that state. While it is true that circumstance plays a major role in the formation of the individual, the advantaged person has ample opportunity to overcome ignorance, whereas the disadvantaged person is much more at the mercy of his or her circumstances.

After Jesus preaches not to store up riches in this world, instead to store riches in heaven he concludes with John {6:21} For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. While abstaining from earthly riches has no bearing on the riches to be had in an afterlife, liberty does approve of the sentiment that where our treasure is there will your heart be also. In the sense that those who value liberty should have liberty, and liberty eternally, whereas those who value tyranny should have the subject of their understanding and desire. Plainly, the latter is storing your riches on earth, while the former is to have your treasure beyond. But, liberty is like the candy, you can have it now and later. And on the subject of Jesus, what is liberty on earth, but “gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?

Jesus warns against false prophets. (Matthew {7:15} Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. {7:16} Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? {7:17} Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. {7:18} A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. {7:19} Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. {7:20} Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.) What is a Christian but the fruit of Jesus? The dominant nation in the world is a nation where 75% of people identify themselves as Christians. This nation has a history of imposition on other peoples and nations the likes of which has been generally alluded to in previous portion of this publication, and includes murder, theft, the impoverishment of billions, and interference in peoples collective self determination processes.
Domestically, despite a wildly productive and dedicated workforce, millions of people in this country have little to nothing to show for their productive efforts, i.e. a lack of accumulation of surplus income. The largest prison population in the world,(4) a large homeless population, a populous that has no representation in government, and a deceived people who are isolated and alienated to the point where their dissatisfaction causes them to want to kill other people indiscriminately and on a regular basis.(5)

Your leaders are nearly all Christian. The point being, your fruit is not good so how can you come from a good tree?

Jesus himself did nothing, had no plans or solutions for the problems facing the people. He drew people off into a fantasy which is detrimental to a people living under occupation. That fantasy, persists to today, much to the satisfaction of the present rulers as it makes for a more passive herd. Neither his own fruits nor the fruits of those who claim to be like him are good.

I know your organizations feed the homeless and provide shelter, as well as condescend with assertions that the individual is in the situation they are in 100% based on choice, but god has a plan for them. If you are truly concerned with disadvantaged people, not homeless only but disadvantaged, as your love of your neighbor requires you to be, you solve the problem by eliminating the cause, not reducing the degree of the problem for your own satisfaction and an opportunity to spread your cancer.

You people are like a person who uses half of his property to grow vegetables and the other half to raise gophers. You shoot the gophers when they eat your vegetables, but as long as you raise gophers, gophers are going to keep eating your vegetables. Which is to say you create problems and attempt to solve the problem without addressing the cause which is of your own creation.

Your fruits are generally the results of this world. Contrary to some of your circles that don’t extend outside of your class, definitely not beyond your nations borders, life is not the dream you are living. And the dream many of you are living is only a dream in perception and for the sake of appearances.

What ever your objection may be, in John 4:24, Jesus says god seeks those who worship in spirit and in truth. The spirit is liberty, which can be seen in all things, and the truth is the same for the same reason. Seen in all things because all things exist as the result of free will, even the trajectory of inanimate objects in space were set in motion by the beginning of the universe, which was the decision of something, or the freely created laws of something, that caused the universe to exist.

For those who point to Jesus miracles as a source of his fruit, before I extend my skepticism, his miracles required no effort if the story is taken at face value.

The gospels were not written until after Jesus and his disciples were all dead. There is no mention of Jesus miracles in any of Paul’s letters. The point being, it isn’t difficult to attribute supernatural powers to someone, after both the person and their most interior circle is gone.

While some people assert that Jesus miracles were probably tricks, there is a book dedicated to the subject I haven’t had the pleasure of reading, I lean more towards the likelihood that the fraud was perpetrated by the gospel writers. Paul not mentioning Jesus miracles is beyond comprehension given his interaction, however unwelcomed, with the disciples. If I am making a case for Jesus, shortly after his death, that he rose from the grave and that eternal life is promised for those who believe in him, I would remind people that part of the evidence was the supernatural healings that took place through him. Of course you cannot mention supernatural healings if it wasn’t part of the story until after you died. I am of the opinion that the stories were added when the gospels were written and anyone who could have disputed it was already dead.

When Jesus is tempted by Satan what is it that Satan wants from Jesus? He wants Jesus to worship him. Worship is what your devil wants? To take the gift of your free will? Any being that requires worship is not god the supreme, as god the supreme has created you free, for you to be free so long as your freedom doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others, as is required for all to be free. Anything beyond this, are devices of man used to control his fellow man.

Immaculate Conception/Crucifixion

Matthew and Luke both provide accounts of angels appearing to Mary to inform her she was going to carry the son of god and he will be conceived without sex.

Luke {1:28} And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women. {1:29} And when she saw [him,] she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. {1:30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. {1:31} And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. {1:32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: {1:33} And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. {1:34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1:35} And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. {1:36}//Matthew {1:18} Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. {1:19} Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man,] and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. {1:20} But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. {1:21} And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. {1:22} Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, {1:23} Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. {1:24} Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: {1:25} And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

The purpose of the immaculate conception has two parts. First Christians believe this prevents Jesus from inheriting original sin from Adam making him a pure sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. The second, is to fulfill prophecy, as Matthew asserts in his account quoting 7:14 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” The problem is, the original Hebrew word in Isaiah is Almah, which translates as young woman, not virgin. (7) There is no Judaic basis for the messiah being born a virgin birth.

It isn’t difficult to understand why people would want to execute Jesus. He was leading an occupied and struggling people away from the struggle and into fantasy. While this by itself isn’t deserving of death, Jesus led people away from their potential liberation harming not only the individuals taken from reality and put into the fantasy, but also the entire Jewish population in their absence for resistance. Beyond resistance, if we are to believe that Jesus words are truly represented in the gospels he taught against productivity which is harmful to the Jewish community regardless of an inclination for resistance or not.

On the other side of it, Jesus had a positive role as he did serve a somewhat liberating role in drawing people away from the Sadducees who were basically the Jews expected to maintain order among the populous for the Romans, which was lucrative for them through the sale of offerings at the temple as well as cash contributions. In the same respect he was liberating in challenging the interpretations of the Pharisees who instructed the rank and file members how to apply scriptures in their lives, the same as pastors today.

The point being, Jesus wasn’t hated by his people solely because he led people to believe he was the messiah, but because he affected their interests. What he was doing was detrimental to the revolutionary Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and his message could be interpreted as challenging Roman rule.

In the end, the gospels record Jesus saying “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me”. There are various interpretations Christians use in an effort to reconcile this verse. One being it is a quotation of a Psalm intended to remind of prophecy, and the other it was Jesus as a man feeling forsaken by friends, family, and even god, which Christians can further assert was done so that Christians can feel ok with the feeling of god forsaking them as even Jesus felt like that.

Christians will also contend that god didn’t actually forsake Jesus because his beating and death was necessary for human salvation, even though Jesus clearly thought he was forsaken by his god, which attests to the idea that Jesus was not god, and had he thought he was the Christ, he was forsaken in god not allowing him to fulfill the roles of the Christ. (8)

Whatever your interpretation is, the truth remains that the creator, did not forsake him, as the outcome is consistent with the liberty of people deciding to kill him.

I’m not going to go into detail concerning the little bit I know of the short comings of Christianity in preserving an accurate and non-biased record of the life of Jesus. I will mention a few facts and common sense conclusions that anyone who calls them self a Christian should know. This is in the event that the war between a Christians faith and their god given intellect hasn’t caused them to vomit, pass out, and to stop reading. I didn’t want to include this prior to discussing the gospels because my focus is on how Christianity is inconsistent with liberty, and there are books dedicated to the history and inconsistencies of Christianity.

Authorship, Dating, and the Epistles

This short section is one of the few deviation from the mission of the book. A deviation in that the book is the establishment of Liberty as being true, ideal, the essence of existence, and thus the essence of the creator of existence, as well as the ruler by which the precepts of religion may be measured and found consistent or inconsistent with the truth or god. It is just difficult for me to write on the subject of Christianity without pointing out a few facts that probably 99% of Christians do not know.

To accept texts as true and sacred, and allowing them to serve as the ultimate authority in one’s life without considering the sources has to be the most careless move one could make with their own life. Any information a person brings to you, before you accept it to be true you are going to have questions concerning who wrote it, what sources they drew from, and various other questions having to do with the motivation and bias of the author(s). Yet with religion, likely because it is something passed down from previous generations and usually introduced to children does not offer this information and the information is not requested by its adherents

The gospels were not as preachers imply written as events were taking place. In fact the gospels were not even written by eye witnesses. The earliest of the gospels was written between 70ad and 80ad, nearly 40 years after Jesus was executed, and although there are some speculative theories concerning authorship, the writers are anonymous, with the last gospel, the Gospel According to John being written around 100ad by multiple authors.(9)

The earliest material within the New Testament are Paul’s epistles which were written by Paul. While there is a scholarly consensus that Paul wrote at least 7 of the 13, the other 6 are the subject of varying degrees of dispute.(10) It is important because the theology of Christianity is Paul’s creation. Interestingly enough, in Paul’s epistles there is no mention of any of Jesus miracles, and with the exception of John, there are few parallels from the gospels to Paul’s message of Christianity.

The gospel of John being the last gospel written that was included in the cannon, written by authors who were influenced by the doctrine of Paul fits the theology better than the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but nearly all the gospels were likely influenced to some degree by Paul’s evangelism.

In the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine was in the process of uniting the Roman empire, the east and the west. In an effort to unite the empire he choose Christianity as the state religion, and likely inspired by Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus claimed he had a vision. In adopting Christianity as the state religion, he summoned all the bishops to Nicea. This is where the tenants of Christianity were established, where Jesus officially became god to Christians. Other groups of differing opinions did not have bishops and were not given invitations. (11)

The foremost authority on Christian history and texts, Bart Erhman discovered that stories and verses that appear in the modern day gospels, did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Meaning they were added.

One such story was the John chapter 8:1-11. This story where the woman caught in adultery is surrounded by accusers prepared to stone her, that explain to Jesus that the law commands that she be stoned but what does he say? The story gives birth to one of Jesus most famous remarks let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This story does not appear in any manuscript prior to the 12th century. Either god post dated this story because it wasn’t appropriate for pre-12th century people, or it was invented around the 12 century.(12)

Even the story itself, often looked at as an exemplary example of Jesus wit, mercy, and forgiveness is not that impressive when viewed through a critical lens. Obviously the punishment does not fit the offense, and in the eyes of liberty, the offense is hardly an offense because had the one she made the commitment to cared so deeply for her, either A: she would have wanted to honor her commitment, B: he would have wanted her to do what she wanted to do. Or C: he at the very least would not have wanted to turn her over to the authorities or mob and have her killed.

The first point of the story is unremarkable because the punishment does not fit the crime. The second critique is the lesson itself, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. How about instead of an adulteress, it was a pedophile? This man was caught in the very act of sodomizing a young boy? Is anyone for let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Maybe the Catholic priesthood, but not anyone from a party that is non-biased to the act. Is let he who is without sin cast the first stone a universally applicable teaching? Of course it isn’t because if it was a pedophile, rapist, or murderer, most people with stones would stone Jesus because it would be easier to see the greatest deficiency of Christianity, i.e. that Jesus condones the evil he forgives by excusing it.

The basis of Christianity can be summarized in the quote “we conclude that it is through faith alone that we are saved lest any man boast of his good deed”. It is ridiculous and causes me to return to the quote I referenced previously, that “if what you believe does not influence how you behave, then what you believe is not important”.

More than the insignificance of faith in someone being sacrificed for your sins and the complete lack of a moral code to serve as the basis of decision making is motivation. A key component of motivation is pride. While all motivation can be understood as pleasure, pride that one has in one’s self is a great source of pleasure. Pride is little more than what one considers to be good. In the above portion we can distinguish between boasting and pride, but throughout Paul’s writing he boasts of his work and Christian superiority while denouncing the act. Of course the boasting of good deeds has positive effects, as those who are aligned in the same ideas of good are encouraged or inspired by the deeds of others. A minor criticism not related to the general point against the doctrine is that a belief in irrelevance serves no purpose.

In the epistle of John, he writes “god is love, and there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear”. A preposterous notion. God is not love, there is no evidence of this in the creation. The first issue is the word itself is subjective, and there is no universally agreed upon definition. The most widely used application would be intense feeling of care, fondness, or desire which culminates in attachment. As far as love casting out fear it is quite the opposite as love is being in a constant state of fear of losing the subject of love.

One of my favorite quotes from the epistles is “honor the king, for kings were placed there by god”. All Christianity teaches subordination, as in “the greatest among you will be the servants of all”, but for the state, no where is that better embodied than in that quote. Don’t resist, as to resist the tyrant is to resist gods will. Because people did it, god willed it, so accept it.

Chapter Two Notes of Substantiation and Reference

1: As much as I would to make this quote mine it is not mine. Unfortunately not only do I not know whose it is, I cannot locate the source. So credit to whomever credit belongs for one of the most succinct expressions of justice I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

2: The idea of the cited verse comes up when I think about the fact that a representative cannot serve the interest of his constituents when the interest of his constituents is in conflict with the interest of his funders. He must love one and hate the other, or in practice the representative lies to one (his constituents) and serves the other (his financiers).

3: See Chapter 1, Note 6

4: The US has the largest prison population in the world, numbering 2.2 million people with nearly 5 million more on probation or parole (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Compare that to North Korea who has a mere 150,000 of its people incarcerated and yet is known to have some the strictest laws in the world. What North Korea doesn’t have, or maybe it does is an incentivized criminal justice system. Where for the patrol man to become a detective, to become drug unit, homicide, or be promoted to another agency he has to get arrests, and those arrests must turn into convictions. The same way a life insurance agent must sell policies to be promoted within the company, meaning he has to find buyers, police officers must find crime. And if the district attorney wants to become a judge he must get convictions. Generally if the judge wants to remain a judge he must hand down stiff sentences, although by now, the discretion of judges is limited by mandatory minimums and inflexible sentence guidelines.

Where does the legislation come from? From politicians responding to the desire from the public to be protected from criminals? Wrong! While no politician is going to miss a golden PR opportunity to use an event of public tragedy to further his place in the hearts and minds of the voters, who can just as easily choose the candidate from the other party who will pander, but be indifferent to their interest, much of criminal code legislation comes from those who profit from people being incarcerated.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that serves as a think tank consisting of people in industry that lobby for the passage of legislation created within the group, has been responsible for creating and lobbying for legislation such as three strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, truth in sentencing, among many others. ( The following reference lists over 30 pieces of criminal justice related legislation. Including admissions by former WI governor Scott Walker of ALEC providing the model bill for the Truth and Sentencing bill that became law in Wisconsin. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corrections_Corporation_of_America#Ties_to_the_American_Legislative_Exchange_Council) Correction Corporation of America was a member of ALEC for nearly 2 decades until 2010, when model bills for aggressive sentencing were being drafted and lobbied for. Today the attention of private prisons is focused on immigrant detention and release oriented rehabilitation, which is better for the image of the companies as well as probably more lucrative.

It isn’t only the for profit prison industry that has contributed to the creation of sentencing guidelines. Any company that stands to make a profit will invest in the legislative market and get a return on that investment. Companies that make the interlock breathalyzer systems have lobbied for the very legislation that requires DUI offenders to have them installed in their vehicles. “Representatives from the state’s five companies have for years helped write the interlock laws, participated in meetings, contributed to campaigns and united in a lobbying coalition that belies how fiercely they compete outside of Olympia.” ( Seattle Times, Anti-DUI Interlock Companies in State Helped Own Rules, by Brian M. Rosenthal, 5/28/2013. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/anti-dui-interlock-companies-in-state-helped-set-own-rules/)

Correction service providers, like those who manage inmate accounts or phone services providers are also among those not only that profit, but also use their profits influence policy and grease the wheels to gain contracts. Many of these providers offer the prisons who they establish contract kick backs to the prison for the fees they charge. As a person in charge of a jail or prisons budget it certainly makes sense to contract with a private company that will not only help reduce costs by delegating a responsibility that should be the prison or jails, but also creating a stream of revenue through kick backs. The additional costs fall on the backs of the poor people’s families who are incarcerated. ( Time, Meet the Prison Bankers Who Profit from the Inmates, by Daniel Wagner, Center for Public Integrity, 9/30/2014. http://time.com/3446372/criminal-justice-prisoners-profit/)

This note is not intended to be an expose on all the business interests that contribute to legislation that has a positive impact on their bottom line by creating misery for others. I’m sure there are books dedicated to the subject and it isn’t difficult for an interested party with near minimal effort to consider the beneficiaries of incarcerated people and find how those beneficiaries have contributed to legislation that furthers their profit based interest. These brief exploits are meant to provide examples of how profit contributes to the cause of this nation leading the world in both total numbers of incarcerated people as well as proportionate numbers of incarcerated people. This isn’t to say profit and career incentive is the only motivator of the United States world leading prison population, but it is significant.

Another is crime itself which stems from inopportunity. The most important statistic to consider in criminal justice that is probably the most under cited statistic, (drown out by the faux social justice activist crusaders who embellish themselves in a false aura of righteousness as they ignorantly miscorrelate racial statistics with incarceration statistics) is class. The median income before incarceration of an incarcerated male is 19,650 dollars per year, less than half of non-incarcerated males of 41,250 dollars. The difference in income between someone who is black and incarcerated and someone who is white is roughly 84 dollars per week. (Prisonpolicy.org, Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the Pre-incarceration Incomes of the Imprisoned, by Bernadette Raybuy, and Daniel Kopf. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html) Are they locking up black people because they are black or are they locking up poor people because they are poor? And is the disproportionate amount of black people who are locked up compared to their overall numbers, is it because they are black or is it because a disproportionate number of black people are poor because their ancestors were black during the long history of state sanctioned racism in this country? This note is fixed to the point of the United States being a leader of incarceration, but in the broader context we recognize it is the product of a Christian nation.

Not a Christian nation in the principles it was founded on as Christians will mistakenly assert but a nation of people who identify themselves as Christians, who believe they live in a democracy, who believe they have control over the laws that govern their country, and most importantly who are too indifferent to know better.

5: A nation of Christians, whose values are responsible for the general culture that exists within this country. 3 out of 4 of you. This includes the alienation and despair experienced by people in this country who express their dissatisfaction by indiscriminately murdering people in this country. Mass shootings are a Christian fruit, this is what the practice of Christian values on a societal level produces.

Your default defense will be to disassociate Christianity from the majority in this country who identify themselves as Christians, to make this nation a non-Christian nation, which has the effect of removing the mass killing byproduct from the Christian resume. Of course the problem is, that the only thing one must do to qualify as a Christian is believe that Jesus died for their sins.

What will not work, is comparing the teachings of Paul or the figure of lesser importance to the Christian doctrine Jesus, with that of mass killings and asserting that it does not teach that. You are the majority and are thus responsible for the political and economic system, as well as the byproducts of the social order that include dissatisfaction and alienation that leads to mass murder. That is your fruit.

6: The listed facts associated with world poverty and sources are taken from the website dosomething.org. While I am unfamiliar with the website I presume it is a non-profit or linked to a non-profit dedicated to treating the symptoms of the statistics it cites, while being ignorant and indifferent to the causes. As a non-profit as are nearly all non-profits, it is the exploitation of social justice issues that is lucrative for the officers and administrators of the non-profits, having only a marginal impact on the lives of the people whose misery is exploited by these groups for their own selfish purposes. It also has the effect of allowing people who are rank and file involved as in serving in some volunteer capacity or writing a check to feel like they are good people, despite the fact that their indifference is largely the cause of the problems they credit themselves with doing something about. I’m quoting their compilation of statistics because they come from credible sources whom I would cite had I taken the time to look them up individually. The purpose is to establish the order, and then explain while pointing back to other notes how the United States is largely responsible for these results. Responsible directly through intervention and the support of leaders who maintain these conditions for the benefit of US and European corporations, and also indirectly by maintaining a world order that leaves people of nations trapped.

Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. (United Nations Development Programme. “Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience.” Human Development Report, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. (United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME). “UNICEF: Committing to Child Survival: A promise renewed.” UNICEF, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat. (FAO, IFAD and WFP. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. Diarrhea caused by inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene kills an estimated 842,000 people every year globally, or approximately 2,300 people per day. (World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). “Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2014 Update.” 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

Preventable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia take the lives of 2 million children a year who are too poor to afford proper treatment. (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) . “Pneumonia and diarrhea Tackling the deadliest diseases for the world’s poorest children.” Web accessed February 25, 2014,)

80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day(Ravallion, Martin, Shaohua Chen, and Prem Sangraula. Dollar a Day Revisited. Working paper no. 4620. The World Bank, May 2008. Web Accessed February 25, 2014.)
Examples of direct intervention that produce poverty can be found in Chapter One, note 6.

Another example of direct intervention is the use of international banks, chiefly, the IMF and the World Bank which allows the institutions who are dominated by the interest of the United States and Western Europe, to set the economic policy of other nations. The term was once known as Structural Adjustment Programs, used to describe the stipulations a nation had to agree to in order to access international credit for the purpose of repaying private lenders or for development. Due to studies, academic criticism, and the results experienced by those living in nations under SAPs, the name was changed and the process slightly modified but the ends achieved remained essentially the same.

Instead of Structural Adjustment Program, the name was changed to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, which promised inclusion of stakeholders within the country to participate in the process of creating a set of economic policies to reduce poverty. From what I read, the process included many entrenched foreign interests who had already benefited from SAPs where mineral rights were privatized, basically purchased or leased to foreign multinational corporations at low rates, and also included professionals from or close to the institutions (IMF or World Bank). The people of the country can participate through their representatives, many of which as in the US are representative of elite interest at the exclusion of the public, or through other group organizations like churches or non-profits. The policies that are generally approved by the lending institutions are still those that are consistent with the Washington Consensus, as it was with the SAP.

The following is information to clarify and substantiate the previous paragraphs in terms of processes, definitions, as well as examples.

After WWII the United States benefited from being the only major industrial power that had not been ravaged by the war. Representing only 6% of the worlds population the United States possessed 50% of the worlds wealth(Memo PPS23 George F Keenan 1948 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan), and 3/4ths of the worlds gold. (http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/3) The United States was in the driver’s seat moving forward, and at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 a monetary system emerged that tied the dollar to gold, and all other currencies to the dollar. At this conference two international banks were created, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development which would eventually become World Bank Group.

In the 60s deficit spending to finance the cold war, including weapons manufacturing and development, covert operations and war, as well as social spending domestically, created an abundance of dollars held by foreign nations. Since nations could convert their dollars into gold at a rate of 35 dollars per ounce, many countries began to redeem these surplus dollars for gold. To prevent the continued depletion of US gold reserves, president Nixon ended the convertibility of US dollars for gold. What happened next would actually strengthen the position of the dollar for the coming decades, although not immediately.

The United States made agreements with Saudi Arabia for military, diplomatic, and economic support in exchange for Saudi Arabia, to exercise it’s influence within the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries, to agree to sell their oil exclusively in dollars. Instead of dollars being tied to gold, dollars become tied to the demand for oil. Since all countries require oil, and oil is priced in dollars, then the demand for dollars is at least equal to the demand for oil, since oil cannot be purchased without dollars. Yet the demand for dollars is greater as a consequence, because one way to get dollars, is to price your exports in dollars, and this is primarily the reason why the United States can have an 18 trillion dollar debt, without the value of it’s currency decreasing proportionately, but also because the currency doesn’t circulate among the broader population, but instead remains abroad.

This was not the case immediately after the “Nixon Shock” in 1971, where Richard Nixon announced that the dollar would no longer be convertible for gold through the treasury. In the 70s inflation caused commodity prices to sore at the beginning of the decade, and this increase in the price of commodities was compounded by the fact, that the rise in prices was misread by the market as an issue with supply, causing many to “over invest and over produce”( “Commodities in the 1970s” http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2007/040107.htm “Just as the mistaken inflationary price signal confused the oil sector, it also confused commodity producers of all sorts, who over invested, overproduced, and caused collapsing values for their products”), which was a contributing factor to the fall of commodity prices towards the end of the decade. The reason this is significant is because when commodity prices are high, many developing countries whose economies depend on exports, benefit from receiving a higher price for these exports.

At the same time, middle eastern and other oil producing countries, are flush with more dollars than they know what to do with, as a result of the agreements with the United States to sell oil exclusively in dollars. They deposited their dollars with American and European banks, and the job of a bank is to invest that money to make a profit. Bankers began lining up at the doors of developing countries, and many were benefiting from an environment of high commodity prices. The loans they received were variable rate loans, meaning that while the initial interest rate was low, it was subject to change. At the tail end of the 1970s and the early 80s, the United States contracted the money supply and raised interest rates in order to slow the growth of inflation. As a result, commodity prices fell, and many of these countries who were benefiting from high prices, were now feeling the effects of lower prices; and in addition to decreased revenue, their floating interest rates were increasing. For many Americans, the debt crises of developing countries in the late 70s and 80s, could be understood through the sub-prime mortgage crisis, including the bank bail out. Americans were given adjustable rate mortgages, the interest rate changed increasing their payment, while many experienced a reduced income (loss of job or hours), producing a situation where they were unable to make the payments.

The IMF was created to remedy shortages in balance of payments. Balance of payments can be understood in terms of having bills that require immediate payment, and having money to pay them, but the money won’t be available in time to pay it. The IMF was intended to function almost as a payday loan provider for nations. Like if you had a payment to make on your mortgage due, but you didn’t get paid until the end of the week. You will have the money, just not when you need it. It became something of a lender of last resort, and was used as a tool to gain control over the economies of developing countries for the benefit of US and European corporations as well as ensuring repayment of loans provided by private lenders. To use the pay day loan parallel, imagine your mortgage payment was due or your home was going to go into foreclosure. You go to the payday loan store. They agree to loan you the money, but you have to agree to certain conditions. Before they give you the loan, you have to agree to spend less on food, less on your child’s education, you have to rent out your garden, and agree to hire contractors to do house work you would normally take care of yourself. Major policy decisions in both institutions require 85% approval, and the United States has a share greater than 15%, then all major policy is subject to US approval.

The IMF and the World Bank policies were governed by what is known as “the Washington Consensus”. The Washington consensus holds that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth, and as development takes place and the economy grows, what trickles down will reduce poverty; even though a rising GDP in itself does not correlate to reductions in poverty, and there are many examples where growth is achieved and poverty and inequality increase despite growth. To achieve economic growth, the Washington Consensus calls for reductions in state spending, including social spending (education, health care, food subsides), the privatization of public enterprises, relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, reducing royalties on raw materials mined, and overall, eliminating barriers that would prevent foreign corporations from exploiting the labor and resources of a country, even if the elimination of these barriers are detrimental to the well being of the people living in these countries. In some cases, nations are encouraged to sign free trade agreements, and free trade agreements exist for the purpose of protecting the investments of foreign companies from laws of the nations where these investments are made. The IMF loans during the debt crisis of the 80s are in a sense, similar to the bank bail outs after the mortgage backed securities crisis at the end of the 1st decade of the 20th century. While in the latter, banks sold each other bundles of loans that they should have known were bad, but were rated good, and as a result, there were many loans that were not going to be paid back. In the 70s and 80s, private banks made predatory loans that nations would not be able to pay back. In the United States the bail out came from the government and tax payers. Since the IMF gets its money from nations, and nations get their money from taxes, and the IMF loans to countries to pay back the banks, the flow of money is still tax payers to banks, even if there are intermediaries.

The IMF and World Bank loans were not simple agreements to loan money and for a country to repay. In a sense these were shotgun loans, as in the alternative to taking the loans would be the economic equivalent of being shot; as to default could cripple a country from securing credit for development and create a situation where trade becomes very difficult. If you are in a situation where there is one entity that can help you, then that entity is able to dictate the terms by which that help takes place. We also shouldn’t underestimate the willingness of leaders of developing countries, to sell their people out in order to gain favor with the United States. Before the IMF would provide a loan to service the debt, and basically bail out private lenders, the country lending had to agree to conditionality. These loans were called Structural Adjustment Programs and imposed the Washington Consensus on these countries.

In 1982, Mexico found itself in a situation where it was unable to pay even the interest on the 80 billion dollars owed to private and public creditors. The IMF offered Mexico a 4 billion dollar loan with SAP austerity conditionality attached to it. It included deep cuts in social spending, reduced protection for domestic industry that resulted in massive job loss, privatized state assets, as well as other reforms consistent with the Washington Consensus that decimated the Mexican economy and brought hardship to the Mexican people.

“In return for a $4 billion loan, the IMF required that the Mexican government impose an austerity program designed to produce cuts in every sector of state spending. As a consequence of these measures, investment fell, production in some sectors came to a complete standstill, factories closed and hundreds of thousands of workers were laid off. Oil exports declined, export earnings dropped, and as a result, the foreign debt reached more than 100 billion dollars by 1986…two-thirds of urban households had incomes below the official minimum wage. Even the official figures on unemployment show that joblessness doubled and, in rural zones, six million landless agricultural workers could find employment for only one-third of the year or less. In this process, the prices of goods consumed by low-income Mexicans, including the tortillas and beans that are still the staff of life for peasants and workers, rose steadily with dreadful consequences for the overall nutritional state of the rural and urban poor. By 1995 “sixty percent of agricultural workers now receive less than the minimum wage — a sum that comes to roughly US $3.00 per day.” (“Structural Adjustment in Mexico and the Dog that Didn’t Bark” 1997, Judith Adler Hellman, pp3,6)

As structural adjustment continued banks and public enterprises were privatized, Mexico included itself in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, eventually NAFTA, all of which served a purpose of further impoverishing the country in the interest of foreign domination. Communal land was privatized, protected by article 27 of the constitution, many farmers were forced to sell, unable to get loans they needed to tend the land, which was available from the government. Prior to the amending of article 27, landless workers could apply to receive a land grant from the government, which ended under the SAP carried out by the fraudulently elected Carlos Salinas.(Hellman 1997 pp4,5. Because I am drawing information from the paper as an example of SAP, the paper was about the opposition candidate who probably won the election, focusing his attention and the attention of the opposition party on the election results instead of the issues in the country resulting from the SAP as well as cooperation with the US agenda in Mexico)

The World Bank Group, consists of multiple lending organizations and contractors, but as mentioned earlier, it’s general purpose is longer term loans for development. World Bank loans usually consist of more specific conditions attached to the money itself. Instead of policy being attached to the money only, it will include specific items, like building infrastructure using private multinational corporation.

The following applies to Malwali “For growth to be achievable attention is given to physical infrastructure, (roads and transport, water supply, rural electrification and telecommunication); trade and investment arrangements; as well as review of the tax regime…for private sector development and economic growth… health care is essential for human capital to be productive”. Who will benefit from such infrastructure? Will the poor who die short of 40 years old due to impoverished conditions, or the people they work for who need the roads and transport to export the materials the poor mine; or the goods they farm, for the “trade and investment arrangements”? Will the poor suddenly have cars, electricity, and telephones?

Furthermore, even in the water supply, chances are it will be privatized water, and while all these things will be paid for through the money borrowed from (World Bank) IFIs, which will go to further in debt the country and give the IMF and World Bank more control over their economies, the beneficiaries, will largely be the wealthy in that country and multinational corporations. Which isn’t to say that development in this type of infrastructure isn’t important to the economic future of the country, only pointing out that the beneficiaries are generally not the population of the country.

I remember seeing a documentary about the privatization of water, where a business official was making a tour in a country probably like Malawi. A woman said “these people have no money, how will they pay for this water.” The man said “the people have to pay for what they consume”. And if people with no money and very limited means to get money cannot pay, then they cannot drink, or irrigate, or live.

Education and health care are essential not to ensure a better quality of life for the people of the country, but are “essential for human capital to be productive”, as it has been observed in the past, that sick people are less productive and therefore less valuable human capital.(“Poverty Reduction Strategy Process in Malawi and Zambia”, 2004, pp 10,11, Edgar Bwalya, Lise Rakner, Lars Svåsand, Arne Tostensen, Maxton Tsoka)

Bolivia after succumbing to pressure from the World Bank, privatized the state owned water company in the city of Cochabamba. The US corporation Bechtel was awarded a 40 year contract to manage and expand the water system. The corporation took control of all water sources in the area, the public infrastructure as well as local wells. Price hikes followed that doubled the cost of water for residents. While Bechtel maintained that the price increase was only 10% and went to improve the quality of services, the quality included increased pressure causing the residents of Cochabamba to use more water, the utility bills told a different story.

German Jaldin is classified as R-3 just barely above the very poorest in the area, meaning that his household income is between 60 to 80 dollars a month. Prior to the Bechtel rate increase, he paid 82 Bolivianos (about $13.67), for 35 cubic meters of water. After the rate increase, he paid 157.60 Bolivianos ($26.27) for the use of 38 cubic meters of water. Imagine if your water bill was 37 and a half percent of your income. If you make 50,000 dollars a year, it would be like paying $1562.50 a month for water.( Corp Watch, “Bechtel’s Water Wars”, 5/1/2003, by Pratap chatterjee http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670) While this is an older example which has been reversed, it is cited to demonstrate the kind of situations the common and poor people of these countries are put into as a result of these policy.

Due to criticism of Structural Adjustment Programs and the disastrous results, the name has been changed and the process has been modified slightly, but overall the intended purposes remain the same. IMF and World Bank loans now attach what they call Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers to loans. The process is inclusive of other elements within the nation in creating the papers, but the stake holders (the people, groups, and sometimes even their representatives in government) are marginalized, while private interests and professionals employed by the lending institutions direct the process.( Poverty Reduction Strategy Process for Malawi and Zambia Edgar Bwalya, Lise Rakner, Lars Svåsand, Arne Tostensen, Maxton Tsoka, Christian Michelsen Institute: Development Studies and Human Rights, 2004. pg 1 “Key political institutions such as parliaments were marginalized..” pg9 “The fourth tier was the Thematic Working Groups…they included representatives from government, civil society, the private sector and donors. Pg 14 “parliamentarians generally, were rarely invited to PRSP meetings despite repeated requests.” pp15,16 “…A small group of professionals were brought in late in the process to form a task force to ensure the macro-economic framework was included in the third draft. There was a wide spread perception that the macro-economic framework was largely received from the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF/WB)…Hence it is inconceivable that the macro-economic frame work would depart appreciably from the precepts of the IMF and the World Bank”.) The IMF and World Bank, ultimately have the final say in whether or not the PRSPs, are viable. The other purpose of the PRSP process, is since it is marginally inclusive of elements from within the nations, when the strategy fails, the blame can be placed on the nation, instead of the IMF/WB, and private interests involved who benefit from the conditions.

“John Page of the World Bank “The PRSP is a compulsory process wherein the people with the money tell the people without the money how to get the money”. (“Impoverishing a Continent: The World Bank and IMF in Africa” Asad Ismi 2004 ISBN:0-88627-373-0 page 5-7, Outline of IMF and World Bank, explanation of structure, US veto, pay voting share system. Features of SAPs sourced from SAPRIN, The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty: A Multi-Country Participatory Assessment of Structural Adjustment, April 2002, Executive Summary, p. 21. pg 13 John Page Quote, Source: Halifax Initiative, “What is our position in regards to the World Bank” pg 6) Why didn’t the Structural Adjustment Programs and other conditionality terms, where the people with the money, told the people without the money, how to get the money, lead them to the money in the 50s to 90s? Or do we leave the intended interpretation and skip to the more accurate interpretation: the people with the money, are not telling the people without the money, how to get the money in terms of building a fortune, but what they must do to get more loans, and more debt, so the people with the money, will remain the people with the money? Mainly, selling off state assets, slashing social spending, deregulation, including modifying labor laws, increasing exports, making predetermined payments on debt, and overall creating optimal conditions for exploitation by western based multinational corporations.

The following are accounts from Ricardo Patino who has studied extensively the sovereign debt issue and dealt with the IMF and World Bank as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister for the Economy in Ecuador, and Rafael Correa the President of Ecuador, which provides a first hand account concerning how these institutions function to serve the interests of western wealth.

Ricardo Patino: “Initially I thought the lenders acted in good faith, but now after having closely studied the debt mechanism I can assure you that they did not act in good faith. Many of the lenders, including international lending organizations were giving out the loans with a clear intention of controlling sovereignty, and economic policy of our government. The letters sent by the IMF to our government in 2002 stipulated that 80% of the oil revenues were to be used to pay back the debt. During the discussions with the IMF they asked me for details of our economic policy and I give them the details. Immediately they brought up the subject of debt. I told him it was illegal, that we wouldn’t pay! Then they started to give us “advice”, actually it was a form of black mail: if you refuse to pay, the international bank could take you to court, they could seize your tankers. IMF representatives come to see us with their “advice”. We should honor the debt, otherwise we could have problems. Their manipulations caused a lot of damage and they do this in every country that is why the IMF must die. There is no point in trying to change it, as some countries are suggesting; no the IMF is a dead body that we should bury along with the World Bank. We should create regional financing mechanisms which understand our countries and our needs for development without taking us for cash cows as if we were colonies.”

Rafael Correa: “To dominate the southern countries you don’t need an army, just dollars. Up to1976, you never saw international bankers here, but after that they were all lining up with their suitcases in front of government ministers, selling everything and anything, weapons during the dictatorship times, things like that. And when the country was laden with debt the IMF and World Bank lent us money to reimburse the private lenders. The funny thing is in 1970 when the oil boom started, when the country was rich national debt was 200 million, and at the end of the boom national debt was 4 billion. A 20-fold increase, caused by this aggressive debt policy. This is the reason for our national debt today. In 1980 national debt stood at 4 billion, we paid back 7 billion, but our debt stayed the same. So we got an audit done; the conclusions are clear; the debt is illegal and illegitimate.” (Doccumentary, Equador: Rainforest vs Globalization. Cinema Libre Studio 2011 Bloomberg “Equador’s Audit Commission Finds Illegality in debt (update 5) 11:20:2008, by Daniel Cancel and Lester Pimental.)

The following are more excerpts that provide a few more examples of the conditions and results of the PRSPs:

“In Zambia, the IMF has informed the government that unless it sells the State owned Zambia National Commercial Bank (ZNCB), Zambia will not be eligible for one billion US dollars in debt relief under the HIPC programme…The Zambian public, the parliament and President Mwanawasa have vehemently opposed the sale of the ZNCB on the grounds that the ZNCB is a successful enterprise and one of the few sources of credit for Zambian people. Selling the ZNCB would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and compromise the interests of the Zambian people, as has already been the case with past Bank-Fund led privatization programmes in the country.”( Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: A Poor Package for Poverty Reduction. Jenina Joy Chavez Malaluan and Shalmali Guttal Focus on the Global South, January 2003. The authors are with Focus on the Global South…This paper is based on and is an expansion of an earlier work, Structural Adjustment in the Name of the Poor: The PRSP Experience in the Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam, January 2002. pp3,4. Source citation: MPs Stop Zambia National Commercial Bank Privatization. December 5, 2002. The Post, Lusaka;Opposition MPs Against ZNCB Sale. December 6, 2002. The Times of Zambia; I Don’t Support Any Further Privatization, Declares Levy. December 6, 2002. The Post, Lusaka.)

“In Nicaragua, the Bank and Fund have demanded that the country privatize its water resources—including its hydroelectric dams—as a condition to further loans The condition comes in the wake of legislation passed by the Nicaraguan National Assembly in August 2002, suspending all water privatization plans until a national debate on the issue takes place. By insisting on such conditionality, the Fund is disregarding and undermining national democratic process in Nicaragua.”( Ibid, pg 4, Source citation: IMF Strong-Arming Debtors Despite New Lending Guidelines. Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service (IPS), December 10, 2002.)

“In the Solomon Islands, the IMF, supported by bilateral donors, refused to provide funds for the country’s National Economic Recovery Plan unless the country first agreed to reduce government spending and implement severe job cuts. The retrenchment will result in 1300 job losses—about 30 percent of an already downsized public sector work force—and along with other IMF prescribed austerity measures, will compound the country’s already severe economic and social crisis.” (Ibid, pg 4 Source citation: Solomon Islands begins implementing IMF demand for severe job cuts. Peter Byrne, World Socialist. November 21, 2002 The author of the paper who the above excerpts are taken goes on to explain “not much has changed in the modus operandi of the Bank and the Fund…Nor have the Bretton Woods Twins moved away from the Washington Consensus. In country after country, they continue to withhold crucial financial resources unless their deadlocked clients agree to impose their pet policies: trade and investment liberalization, privatization, deregulation, reducing government expenditure, restructuring of public services and sectors…”)

The US uses economic power to subjugate other nations around the world for the purpose of achieving policies that benefit western private interests, which are largely responsible for US policy. Much of the poverty and inequality the world over can be attributed to the polices of the United States, and international lending institutions are only one tool, in a chest full of tools used to accomplish this goal. What is important, is not how these institution were used, and were designed,( It can be argued that they were large designed to facilitate the reconstruction effort after the war, and the IMF used to correct balance of payment issues, the Soviet Union at the time, called the institutions “branches of wall street”. Which is not that far off, since US based multi-national corporations direct policy in the US, or ensure they can flourish abroad, and the IMF and World Bank are institutions that impose those policies. Quote comes from Edward S. Mason and Robert E. Asher, “The World Bank Since Bretton Woods: The Origins, Policies, Operations and Impact of the International Bank for Reconstruction.”) for a purpose of controlling the economic policies of other nations, but that these institutions, are still being used to accomplish the same objectives under the guise of assistance. And much of the American population is clueless about this aspect of policy.

In Chapter One, Section One , Note 6 we have examples of direct US imposition which includes sanctions, invasion, coup, supporting allies in these endeavors, as well as supporting cruel and repressive regimes that put the interest of the United States ahead of the interests of their own people. All of these actions contribute to the impoverishment, hardships, and poverty related death mentioned in the statistics above. Further imposition through the IMF and World Bank, imposing a set of economic policies that harms the people within these countries, and deprives them of economic self determination for the benefit of US and western European corporations, which is of benefit to the people in the United States and Western Europe is the responsibility of the people in this country.

But you didn’t know? You know there are children who starve, who die of treatable diseases, and who do not have access to clean water right? Did you ever ask why? No. You were just contented that you and your children were not born where they were born and went on with your business. Which tells me a lot about your motivation, and tell me a lot about Christians. These are your fruits. Without having to bring you before the measure of liberty, which recognizes your collective imposition on the rest of the world, we can bring you before the words of your false messiah: “If you love only those who love you how are you any better than the sinners”? The point is, the world that exists, exists because of the hegemony of a nation who are predominantly Christians.

7: Alma-wiki: There is no contention among qualified people concerning the word alma and what it means. I say qualified, because Christians will argue baselessly that the word means virgin. “Despite its importance to the Christian tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus, scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity”. The source for the quote comes from Marvin A Sweeney (1996): Isaiah 1-39: with an introduction to prophetic literature. P161.

A thorough explanation comes courtesy of Tovia Singer from Outreach Judaism, (outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/) A Christian who subscribes to Rabbi Singers material brought up the fact that the word alma means young woman to her pastor whose retort was that everywhere the word alma is used in the bible it means virgin. “The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures 7 times in the feminine and twice in the masculine. One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word almah appears in the bible is in the book of proverbs. The word proverb means to be like, thus proverbs is a book of comparisons between common, concrete images and lifes most profound truths. Proverbs 30:18-20 “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman” (alma) This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done no wrong”.” Singer explains the commonality is all of these things leave no trace. “Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an alma, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin he would have used the betulah, not alma. The word betulah appears frequently in Jewish scriptures, and is the only word… that conveys sexual purity. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the masculine form of the noun means young man not male virgin. The word appears twice in Jewish scripture… all Christian bibles correctly translate as young man, lad, or stripling, never virgin…Christian bibles had no need to mistranslate because the verse was not misquoted in the New Testament.”

8: Newfaq.org/mashiach.htm, Judaism 101, Mashiach: The Messiah. “The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.” Jesus was not a political leader, a military leader, did not win battles for Israel, and denounced his role as a judge. Even if we grant the concession that his judgement was righteous and not judgemental through mercy and sacrafice, it does not change the fact that he failed to fulfill the roles that the Mashiach or Messiah was supposed to fulfil, which is one of the reason’s why he felt god forsook him because he was not given the opportunity to accomplish these things and prove he was who people allegedly said he was.

9: Among sane people there is little debate around the approximate dating of the synoptic gospels which is generally between 70CE and 80CE with Mark being the earliest based on the reliance of Matthew and Luke on Mark. After 70CE is generally accepted because the destruction of the temple did not occur until 70CE. The only debate is between Christian biased scholars who want the date to be earlier to prove that Jesus was prophetic, and reasonable people who recognize that the gospels reflect either the imminent destruction of the temple or were written after the destruction of the temple. The debate is a nonsensical sea of theory that seeks to reinforce myth or expose it, and it is nonsensical because it cannot be definitively proven.

We can infer from the fact that Paul as reflected in his writing never seen a gospel, and Paul died shortly after 64CE, that no gospel existed while Paul was alive. Regardless of the meticulous examination of the most minute details relating to the gospels, acts, and the historical period, it is ridiculous to assert an earlier date than 65CE based on the prominence of Paul in the proliferation of what is his Christianity, and the fact he never mentions anything from a gospel. What is agreed upon by Christian scholars and scholars of Christianity alike, is that no one was writing it down as it happened as is implied to rank and file members by preachers and evangelists across the country.

Scholars date the Gospel according to John later than the synoptic gospels with most putting the date between 90 and 100CE.

10: Paul wrote his epistles between 50ad and about 65ad. The letters he wrote after 62ad may not have been written by him. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents and Paul was responsible for the spread of Christianity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles The degree of influence Paul had on the authors of the synoptic gospels may be limited but the lens of interpretation that forms prior to the writing of the gospels is significant. The authors of the gospel according to John which was written decades after the synoptic gospels seems to be heavily influenced by Paul’s theology. The Jesus in the synoptic gospels is demanding and instructive, whereas the Jesus of the Gospel according to John is merciful, and preaching a message inline with Paul’s teaching that the only requirement is belief in him.

11: https://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/summer2018/270/nicea.html “ He had issued the invitation on the advice of a bishop from Córdoba named Osius. Perhaps Osius withheld a critical piece of information: only the Proto-orthodox churches had bishops. Neither the Gnostics nor the Ebionites received invitations.”

12: Portions Exerpted from: Bart Ehrman, Radio Interview, ‘Fresh Air’ WHYY Radio, Dec 14, 2005 (downloaded from :
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156) “the earliest manuscripts we have of the gospel of John don’t have this story. And none of the Greek writing church fathers who comment on the gospel of John include it in their commentaries until the twelfth century. So twelve hundred years after the book itself was written. This shows that the early manuscripts simply didn’t have the story.” I was familiar with this story from a source in passing that I did not remember. Upon searching for the source I found the following which is a weak Christian attempt at refuting the scholarship. I don’t have the time to debunk it but this is the source where I rediscovered the work I am citing. Although I did not read the entire article I found the little I skimmed weak as the author began with assertions that the interview itself was staged, rehearsed, and that both interviewer and the scholar were skilled actors. Then contradicted the skilled actors assertion by noting his speech pattern, pauses, and stuttering. If the assertion is wrong, in a paragraph you can demonstrate the assertion to be wrong simply by naming the manuscript where the story appears or where it was cited prior to the 12th century. He didn’t do that so the criticism is invalid to me. (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/DUMB/Ehrmin.html)

Judaism

The foundations of all monotheistic religions, Judaism is possessed of the only verse that cannot be disputed concerning a creator: “god gave man the gift of free will”. Of course nearly everything preceding and everything post this assertion is fantasy, false, or inconsistent with the principles of that true statement, but it is interesting that at least one of the sources drawn from in the compilation that became Judaism was spawned by a true observation.

We will evaluate the stories and basic tenants of Judaism and weigh them on the scale of liberty. As mentioned in the section concerning Christianity, Judaism is the great excuse for the impotence of god, where god allows things to happen to his chosen people because they are disobedient. All of the allegedly prophetic books consist of a person speaking to Israelites concerning their disobedience and highlight the troubles that have befallen them as a result of this disobedience. This excuse based deity worship is present in the minds of the religions spawned from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even those who believe in a god without a religion, where the trials and hardships one endures is due to some disobedience to god. God blesses and god punishes, which forms the foundation of the dog mentality that is desirable for the underclasses of any society by the ruling class. Thinking and analysis is the product of negative and positive consequences devoid of any objective set of ethics, morality, or sense of right.

As I mentioned previously, god cannot both have a plan and created people to be free. The reconciling idea is that god created people free but he already knows all the decisions and outcomes that were going to happen as a result of people exercising their own free will. However, in this, god cannot then hold people accountable for their actions having created a universe that would spawn a creature that he knew would be tyrannical and disobedient. This means god is a tyrant, god is evil, and god is responsible for all evil perpetrated by his creation having knowledge that if he creates man, or a universe that will spawn man, that these will be the results. In this, man cannot be accountable for what it is because it was created with knowledge that it would fail.

Liberty holds a very different idea that absolves the creator of any responsibility for the evil of the creation. Liberty recognizes that in the universe there are billions of galaxies, consisting of billions of stars, with billions of planets, and billions of planets where conditions will exist for the evolution of intelligent life. This intelligent life during the course of the evolution of it’s understanding and civilization will either choose liberty, which it will recognize as ideal for all and necessary for the preservation of its existence, or it will choose tyranny and destroy itself; either by causing it’s host planet to become uninhabitable or through conflict. Some intelligent species will thrive and others will die, but both have freely chosen, and they, not the creator, are responsible for their course.

There is no need to address the bibles story of creation as we know the earth did not begin in darkness as the sun formed before the earth did, and we know human beings were not formed of clay with god having blown life into them. We will begin with the first story of significance in the garden of Eden as it serves as a basis for doctrine relating to behavior. This is the temptation of Eve, eating the apple from the tree of knowledge.

What purpose does the shunning of knowledge serve? Ignorance is the foundation of fear, and fear is an impediment to liberty. Knowledge is necessary for the development of individuals and opens doorways into opportunity. Knowledge reduces and eliminates fear, like a room that is dark where the content is uncertain and then a light shines forth revealing the contents and providing the beholder with certainty with which to navigate it. Only a tyrant seeks to maintain an advantage of knowledge over others, as this advantage can be used to maintain dominion over those disadvantaged in knowledge.

The god in the garden of Eden cannot be the creator because A: he imposes an unreasonable authority over Adam and Eve in commanding that they refrain from the fruit that would give them knowledge. B: he seeks to maintain an advantage over them in knowledge which can only be motivated by a desire to control them. The story is great for those in power to have a population of people who see knowledge as something that is evil as a people who are not interested in knowledge are easier to control. Disconnecting the story from the subject, the underlying and more important message is obedience without reason. God told you not to do something and you did it, it sows the seeds to thinking in terms of indirect consequence, like a dog. If you eat from the tree you will die. Why? Just as the child refrains from touching the stove not because they understand the consequence but because of the indirect consequence of a parent saying “I’m a beat yo ass if you touch that stove”.
The heart of religion itself is control, and the deities serve as the pinnacle of authority. The inconsistencies are justified through the religion itself, where god is beyond the ability of man to question, as in the verse in Isaiah “just as the stars and the heavens are higher than man and the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts”.

The next story is the story of Abraham, where god blesses Abraham with a child in old age and then commands him to sacrifice the child to him. It is a test of his obedience. The creator does not require obedience, so the deity or mental illness that is testing Abraham cannot be the creator. As previously established, all intents, decisions, actions, and purposes fit into one of two categories either liberty or tyranny. Even principles of liberty are not commanded and are not obedience to god, but they have their consequences. Principles of liberty ensure all people are free, not imposed upon, have opportunities for development and resources (money), and ensure the perpetuation of the species. Naturally, for the individual who choses in thought and application liberty, will have liberty upon transition (death). Tyranny, has its consequences as well, where there are no free people only varying degrees of tyranny, where there are levels of access to opportunities for development and resources (money), and above every person is someone who can impose, and the species itself will experience a premature expiration due to destruction of habitat or conflict. And upon transition, the tyrant will return to the tyranny they have chosen.

The next meaningful story in the Judaic progression is the exodus out of Egypt. It begins as a great story of liberation and evolves into the abandonment of one tyrant for another. The tyranny of the Pharaoh for the tyranny of the deity, who leads the newly freed people into becoming worse tyrants than the Egyptians they fled, something I will address as we move through the story.

As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the exodus ever occurred, even without the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, or the sending of food down from heaven. If you google no archeological evidence of the exodus you will find Jewish sources that announce there is no archeological evidence against the exodus. The problem is, there is archeological evidence against the exodus, which is the fact there is no archeological evidence for the exodus. There is no evidence of a people in that area for 40 years around that time. Even a people that is nomadic leaves behind evidence of their presence. Pottery, tools, or bodies are a few examples. The area has been searched in geological layers corresponding to the supposed time these people were there and there is nothing. What archeological evidence would be against it? You can’t find evidence of a people not being somewhere other than no evidence at all, which is what has been found.

After Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt, they wander the desert for 40 years, and the mission is handed down to Joshua. God shows his true colors. He is instructed to take the land of Canaanites and kill everyone including the children and the elderly, “young and old, man and woman”. The one example that gods people tend to follow very well. In the spirit of a superstition, what do Christians say about the devil: “the thief comes not but to steal, to kill, and to destroy.” And later asserts that a good tree doesn’t bear bad fruits, but this is the tree from which your religion bloomed. “Do men gather grapes from thorns or figs from the thistles”?

Interestingly enough, your god has 10 commandments you must keep to be in his good graces, and how convenient for wealth and power, that nearly all of these commandments are in line with the interest of wealth and power.

The first is I am the lord thy god you should put no gods before me.

Liberty recognizes that the creator has caused existence to come into being in liberty, which is the only perceivable quality of the creator observed through the creation, and from this we infer the nature of the creator is liberty. In acknowledging what liberty requires in a multi-being world, the implication of the creator as a being separate, invokes conduct conducive to liberty in a multi-being setting. Meaning the creator requires no obedience or even acknowledgement to exhibit behavior consistent with liberty as is the nature of the creator, evident by his creation. You can put whatever you want to put before the creator so long as that thing doesn’t cause you to impose, and then, even if you become a tyrant, this is your free choice and so you get tyranny. The commandment is not consistent with liberty. What it does is establish the top of authority, and is an I’m in for the other 9 commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain.

The problem is, anything you’re saying the creator said is taking the creators name in vain. Liberty supports this in the sense of god as the creator because anyone who is saying they were told by the creator to do this or to do that is lying and attempting to use that authority to cause people to think a certain way. Again, anyone who says anything about the creator that is not inferred from the creation is using it to gain an advantage over a people.

Honor the holy day of the Sabbath.

Labor won out, but likely only because god kept allowing them to be conquered for disobedience. Liberty holds that a man is free to work and free to rest as his or she pleases.

Honor thy father and mother.

Liberty holds that one honors what he values, and if his mother and father are tyrants and he honors them he honors tyranny, and if one’s mother and father are adherent to liberty than honoring them he honors liberty. The obligation to honor someone who may be possessed of fundamental qualities that may not reflect the individual’s value, is imposition, and cannot be from the creator. What it does accomplish for tyranny is facilitation of the ease by which a corrupted generation can pass that corruption down to the next generation.

Thou shalt not kill.

Liberty asks what is the extent of the imposition and is there another means where by liberation may occur? There is no absolute that is correct in every scenario, with the exception of respect of boundaries, as an imposition to prevent an imposition or bring an end to an imposition is appropriate because peace has been broken.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

On the face of it, adultery is an imposition through deception, but marriage itself is largely illogical.

Before we can arrive at the basis for attachment and the ensuing commitment, we have to acknowledge the fundamental basis of human perception: value. Everything in the human experience has a value assigned to it and associative value. Much of which is not subject to conscious analysis but if reflected upon, it is there. Everything has value, and everything can be exchanged, including behavior. Many people suffering from the mental illness which is a religious inclination, recognize this fact in their own relationship with their god, whereby they offer pledges of behavior for help with their circumstances, or more specifically the granting of their wishes.

Love is the basis for a commitment that leads to marriage. Love, is the exchange of behavior for behavior and the attachment that forms based off of the value one places on the behavior of the other. The problem is, human beings should not be static creatures and most are not. As each individual grows and develops their behavior changes, and even the value you place on behavior from others changes as well. To make a legally binding commitment to someone based on an exchange of behavior existing at some point in time is a gamble that behavior and needs for behavior will go unchanged or will evolve in synchronicity. Statistically, most people are courageous enough to admit when things have run their course, being that half of all marriages end in divorce, and probably a great deal more are held together by factors not related to the happiness or benefit to the individuals involved in the marriage.

All relationships are a product of an exchange of behavior. We should also recognize the complimentary benefits of relationships. Any person you are involved with draws different elements of your character and behavior from you. Although you may enjoy the behavior of a person they may not be a good draw for you. Meaning certain behaviors that may be advantageous to you if cultivated may remain dormant because you are exclusive with someone who does not draw them out of you. Monogamy and marriage limit the realization of individual potential by not allowing an individual to experience intimacy with others who may draw out dormant behavior and increase the vibrancy of the individual.

This is not a publication where I want to insert too many personal preferences or stories, but in the unlikely event that I would ever be married I do want to insert how the potential exists for someone who calls marriage illogical. Or substantiate the qualifier largely prior to illogical. I would not want to the act to be seen as some evolution in my perspective because it would only be an opportunity to increase my liberty and further my ambition. Naturally the only reason a person of understanding would elect to be less free is if doing so caused him to be more free. In this, I would marry with specific terms for money which would aid in my ambition, or possibly to gain the support of someone who was possessed of the same drive to realize my goals.

The need for money does not change and if a woman is possessed of money my commitment to her is not based off of her behavior but on her financial resources and her behavior to liberally support my ambition. In turn, I honor a commitment to her and provide her my behavior which she values. Of course her value will decrease as I become more financially independent, so until death does us part probably is not applicable, but the experience should be worth the price of the lease.

For those who would assert such an arrangement sounds like prostitution, I would argue that all relationships can be seen as prostitution. Prostitution is the exchange of money for sex. Yet nearly all relationships require some expenditure during the courting process and many people are involved in relationships for financial security. All relationships culminate in sex with so few exceptions that I say all. Indirectly you have the exchange of money for sex. Not exactly the same as prostitution, but the exchange of behavior for behavior is the foundation of an intimate relationship on the purest level, and if the behavior one desires is sex, and the behavior the other desires is giving money, then how is this anything else than an exchange of behavior for behavior? While prostitution is different than a traditional relationship or date in it is the exchange of money for sex, it is no different than a traditional relationship in it is the exchange of behavior for behavior.

As a person who is not opposed to prostitution and who is limited in his ability to find partners it would make sense for me to use their services. Unfortunately I am also an individual of great pride, who values money, and does not like using prophylactics. In this I feel the value of the experience with me, is equal to or greater than the satisfaction I derive from the experience, and so I feel like providing money in addition to my myself causes the experience to be overvalued. It is also risky to use the services of the prostitute unprotected, even more so to use the services of a prostitute without protection who is willing to provide services without protection. I also derive satisfaction from giving oral to women, which is not a service that should be solicited from a prostitute. Maybe providing this personal information is inappropriate for this publication, but as someone who is defining objective good, it seems appropriate to insert some personal reasons for abstaining from something that is good and I could use.

A marriage based on the achievement of like ambition, and being that this ambition is life long, a commitment based on behavior that contributes to ambition does have the potential to be life long. The point being, although marriage is illogical when it is sought the way most people seek it, for the purpose of emotional security and fulfilling an impressed social status, there are times when it makes sense. And if one makes a commitment, he or she should honor it until it no longer serves a practical purpose, and then he or she ends it prior to breaching it.

Thou shalt not steal.

Generally speaking, theft is an imposition by depriving an individual of their means for liberty, but there are circumstances where theft is justice. Not to mention that theft although in many cases legal is ingrained in the world order, tax appropriations, international imposition, to name a pair. If theft is already occuring through a system where some have because they benefit from a system taht leaves others trapped, then theft is collectively chosen. I am not going to go into the details for the justification of theft by a trapped disadvantaged party from an indifferent advantaged party because it becomes a slippery slope but details are available in the publication “Criminality as a Form of Resistance”. Thou shalt not steal would have the support of liberty if the systems did not contribute to the divergence between the advantage of the advantaged over the disadvantaged and creating no opportunity for mass economic mobility among the lower classes. Thou shall not steal is not an absolute good, but rarely, if ever, is it justified among individuals.

Thou shalt not bear a false witness.

Deception is the imposition on another by obscuring opportunity, causing someone to believe something is when it isn’t or isn’t when it is. Liberty holds that deception is just when telling the truth will cause a person to be imposed upon unjustly.

Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife.

The application of this commandment is not possible, attraction cannot simply be turned off because someone is married. If a woman wants to cancel her commitment for what she sees as a better opportunity she is free to do so. The act of coveting, which is really only desire does not impose and therefore it is not required to maintain liberty. Furthermore, even if acted upon it is merely the presentation of an opportunity to a married woman who has the option to explore the opportunity or maintain her present course. Marriage itself is covetous as it is the desire to possess a person.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.

Another class based commandment requiring someone not to question why they have so little and others have so much. Religion and even marriage since it is something emphasized in the commandments is an attempt at contenting the underclasses. Do not covet your neighbors goods is turning a blind eye to economic inequality. It is akin to a caste system, the idea that god determines your fate.

It may seem like I am deviating from the commandment but not to covet your neighbors goods reinforces the idea that god has blessed him how he has blessed him and blessed me how he has blessed me. Which is complete bullshit because where he is is determined by his starting advantages and how the system in place creates opportunity, and for the disadvantaged the same. It is a prescription for ensuring systemic class advantages are maintained by not rousing the curiosity of the underclasses concerning the imbalance of wealth, and the imbalance of opportunity.

For the most part, the commandments are inconsistent with liberty, many outright (1-4 and 9,and 10) and the others not true to liberty absolutely. Which means of course the commandments are not from the creator.

There is only one verse I would like to comment on in the spirit of liberty, as this verse is the basis for discrimination from Jews and Christians alike. In Leviticus there is a passage that reads “man shall not lie with man as with woman”. It is basically the rule against homosexuality. First, as the reader must know by now, whatever two people do together, if the act does not impose on anyone else is fine with liberty. What is not fine with liberty, is when people attempt to shame people for preferring or engaging in acts that are unimposing.

I have participated in same sex sex. Not attracted to men, but alcohol, curiosity, and the inability to find female partners have all been contributing factors to this experimentation. It is not what I prefer, and the encounters failed to meet my expectations, but I am better for having had the experiences than I would be having not had them.

I am a person who writes about his sexual experiences in my year in a life books. I began writing them last year in 2017 and intend to write another for 2018. Although not ashamed of the experience I did omit the encounters with a TS girl who went by Meka in Denver. Something I did not want to do because she was a decent friend, who I probably offended by telling her “I’m not on that g shit no more”, meaning “gay shit”.

At the time, to include it in my book seemed detrimental to the image I sought to maintain. I’m the same with or without the experiences, but I am also aware that publicizing the experience has the effect of some people viewing me and anything associated with me differently. I feel like my message, and my ideas are important for all people, so the concern is alienating people from work based off of the admission of sexual experiences that should have no bearing on how I am perceived, but do for some. Far from the fault of the people who maintain this stigma, it is social conditioning and norms that span generations and are rooted in false religion. So while I don’t consider myself to be LGBTQ, it seems important to admit that I have participated in experimentation, for the sake of affirming the obvious conclusion that the creator has no issue with homosexuality because it is unimposing, and the one making the assertion has participated.

The idea that god has a chosen people is contrary to the nature of god the creator. Part of the reason for this idea may stem from the idea that YHWH was worshipped as a god by many people in the area. Identifying themselves as the chosen people of this god was a way for the ancient Israelites to claim exclusive or preferred rights to the deity. Judaism was the compilation of regional myths bound into a narrative for the purpose of uniting tribal people for conquest, expansion, and the creation of a kingdom. The earliest archeological evidence dates back to David, who is probably responsible for the creation of Judaism, and indirectly Christianity and Islam who owe their existence to Judaism.

God does not have a chosen people, as the act of choosing a people based on ethnicity is to arbitrarily grant an advantage. This may not be in conflict with this deity who arbitrarily imposes at will but it is in conflict with the creator because the act of advantaging a few or over the rest has the consequence of disadvantaging the rest in respect to the few and is an imposition. This is the nature of the monotheistic god, who arbitrarily asserts his will on the affairs of humankind, the great tyrant. He chooses a people, and directs those people to kill, steal, and destroy. Let’s return to the story of the genocide of the Canaanites, which mind you did not happen,(1) but the story itself. God’s divine plan was to create a people to exist in an area for the sole purpose of them to be slaughtered by his chosen people who would take their land.

The point being, Judaism does not come from the creator because it’s ideas are inconsistent with liberty, which is the essence of the creation, a law of nature in that it is required for the perpetuation of an intelligent species, and thus liberty is the nature of the creator based on ideal and truth.

Chapter Three Notes of Substantiation

1: National Geographic, Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA, by Kristin Romey, 7/27/2017. “Researchers supported by The Wellcome Trust were able to sequence the Canaanite genome from the remains of five individuals buried in the ancient port city of Sidon(modern Saïda, Lebanon) around 3,700 years ago. The results were compared against the DNA of 99 modern-day Lebanese residents. According to the results, Canaanite ancestry is a mix of indigenous populations who settled the Levant (the region encompassing much of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories” https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/canaanite-bible-ancient-dna-lebanon-genetics-archaeology/)

Islam

Islam professes to be the true religion of god. Of course Islam cannot be the true religion as even the name itself is in conflict with the creator. Islam means submission to the will of god. Yet liberty has no inclination for a being to be subject to his authority. Even Muslims acknowledge Genesis that “god gave man the gift of free will”, and we know ideally everyone wants to do what they want to do, which requires respect of boundaries, and nothing more is required.

A Muslim who is true would argue that Islam is the true religion because the nature of god is liberty and therefore the will of god is liberty, and any intelligent being that practiced liberty would be in submission to the will of god. They will say Islam is true, but then they must acknowledge the religion of Islam is not. It still isn’t true, because although liberty is ideal and required for the perpetuation of a species, those who prefer tyranny can have what they want the same as those who prefer liberty.

What does god the creator need with a servant? How is god gracious and merciful having created disobedient servants? Ideally, god would create beings that would be creative, and acknowledge their liberty, and practice liberty so that all should be free, but in order for people to truly be free they have the choice, to practice liberty or to practice tyranny, and then either way, the creator has given them what they wanted.

And my Muslim friends, what is it that god cannot do? God cannot go against his nature, and the only logical and provable nature of god is liberty, meaning, Islam is not a true religion.

As far as man’s religions are concerned, Islam is superior to others in the approach of conduct, and impositions are largely the choice of its members to accept needless impositions as required by their god, and it is largely unimposing to others. It is mans best attempt at creating a god.

Muhammad did his best to reconcile the contradictions and deficiencies of the monotheistic religions. His followers are seekers of knowledge and justice and develop discipline. There are of course varying degrees of application, with some Muslims being indistinguishable from Christians in their lack of application, they are Muslims by identification only. Real Muslims are possessed of those qualities mentioned in the second sentence of this paragraph.

If it seems like I am sympathetic to Islam, there are three reasons for it. The first is in the history of Christianity as a religion to pacify people in the face of tyranny, and Islam is a religion that teaches its people to resist tyranny and imposition. Liberty is in support of a doctrine that supports liberation from tyranny. Second, Islam is a religion that encourages the pursuit and preservation of knowledge, and knowledge is a liberating discipline. Third, Muslims generally conduct themselves with respect towards non-Muslims so long as they are respected.

The god of Islam, which is the same as the god of Judaism is arbitrary. I do not intend to go through the Quran ayah by ayah, because even the language as I understand the explanation is arbitrary.

Years ago I was watching a lecture by Hamza Yusef, and in Islam, there are no sermons there are lectures as the religion is far more intellectual than it’s monotheistic peers, and he was discussing linguistic aspects of Arabic. He used the example of the word Hamza which means a lion when it is roaring. Hamza elaborated on how the word Hamza can be interpreted or used. Hamza means a lion when it is roaring. He mentioned what is it about the roaring lion, is the word used to literally describe a roaring lion, is it used to describe the sound of a lion when it is roaring, is it the showing of the teeth a symbol of aggression, warning, etc. Of course, the intended context should be able to be inferred from other words in the sentence and paragraph, but if every word can be used figuratively it may be difficult to translate. It is a conundrum of a picture being worth a thousand words, with each word representing a picture.

The other aspect is dating and the changing of meaning over time. The point is, I feel like nearly any ayah I weigh can be challenged on the basis of a mistranslation. Furthermore, liberty is a ruler that rarely requires technical assistance, the sentiment of any text is either imposing or unimposing, in the interest of preventing imposition or encouraging imposition.

Again, the Muslim’s god is arbitrary, in the Quran it states that god forgives who he chooses and punishes who he chooses. In another area it is stated that who ever god guides cannot be led astray and whoever god leads astray no one can guide him. In practice it makes sense that you recognize that some people cannot be corrected or converted, but the idea that god leads people astray, and then punishes them for it is the ultimate dick move. Or, if he creates people knowing they will lead themselves astray, again, that’s a dick move. I’m going to create you, then I am going to lead you astray, and then I’m going to punish you for it for eternity. Or maybe god won’t, maybe he’ll lead someone astray, and the one he leads astray he will forgive, but the one he guides who follows him with discipline he will throw in the hellfire? God forgives who he pleases and punishes who he pleases, and the one who follows him accepts that.

What is greater god or man? And if it is your gods pleasure that you suffer, if he creates you to do so, and if he contributes to the cause, then the most mercy is pleasure for god in your suffering. It’s bullshit, you’re either in liberty or tyranny, but just because you apply an attribute to something doesn’t mean that attribute cannot be twisted in evil like most merciful.
The same could be said of Jesus, and giving your soul to him. As I mentioned, Jesus loved you and you’re supposed to love Jesus. The evidence of love is sacrifice. A Christians eternity could consist of eternal sacrifice in the reciprocation for Jesus giving his life for your sins. It is eternal slavery. Again, I’m not serious about that, they have no power beyond what they influence on the earth, and all beings are either beings of liberty or tyranny.

Another pro-liberty, because it is pro-understanding, is Muslims believe that people are born good but become corrupted by their environment. This is simple cause and effect although I would argue that people are born blank and then take shape based on their environment. While the shaping of an individual contributes to the individual’s decision making, people individually are not absolved of responsibility for what they are.

It is interesting in the figurative idea of intergenerational sin, where the sins of the father are visited upon the son. Something that is true, as the previous generations are responsible for the environment that will mold the succeeding generations. For those who count themselves good among the indifferent classes, kindness in circles but apathy to those who are trapped by circumstances created by a system you benefit from, becomes acceptable social behavior for the succeeding generations, and it is complicity to tyranny. Worse still when indifference to what your nation carries out against people around the world, , denying self determination, murders, steals, destroys, uses international banking organizations to control the economies of other nations, and generally maintains a world order conducive to gross economic inequality, poverty, and poverty caused death, your contribution and benefit from the tyranny is collectively substantial.

In this lies the core of your culpability. Ignorance is a product of motivation. At the core of motivation is honesty and deceit. Most people prefer a comfortable lie to uncomfortable truth. They prefer the myth and stick to premises and information that reinforces the myth. It is also a product of the dog mentality. Motivation becomes a product of consequence, and any basis for right or true becomes inconsequential.

There is no question of why one has to work 60 hours a week with nearly nothing accrued other than the basic necessities of life. There is no question of why people are in the streets begging for money. There is no question about why so many people in the United States abuse drugs, are in prison or have criminal records. There is no question about invading a country on the pretext of bad intelligence and murdering a million people, displacing millions, destabilizing the country and making life on most people almost more difficult then you made it in the previous decade; where through the targeting of civilian infrastructure and cruel sanctions, you created conditions responsible for the death of another million, including 500,000 children under the age of 5.(1) You are tyrants in your preference for a comforting lie to the harsh truth, and for your contribution to the tyranny carried out by your sons and daughters for your country.
In consideration of class, as the resources of one increases so does their responsibility. The working poor which is nearly half the country has a disadvantage in terms of time, meaning their constant struggle to acquire resources provides them less time to think, research and discover truth, which is also unfortunate as their liberation and prosperity depend on knowing the truth. Even more unfortunate is the fact that people who are the subject of systemically imposed disadvantages, are made by the lie to feel that it is their fault. The flag waving and praise causes people to feel as if their situation in life is because of some innate flaw, not knowing they were predisposed to being where they are based on where they started and the system in place.

For those of advantage, they are quick to count it as a mirror of the evolutionary process of natural selection. The cream rising to the top, yet there is cream at the bottom that is never given the chance to separate. There are brilliant flowers that are not given the chance to bloom, talents unrealized in interests undiscovered, crops unfertilized and unwatered, and generally, potential not discovered nor realized. It is no more natural selection than placing fish feet from the shore, and counting the few who made it to the ocean as the genetically superior. Which is to say, luck has nearly as much to do with social mobility as hard work and innate potential.

Before I continue, the previous paragraphs have found their way into the section on Islam not because what I am saying is applicable to Muslims, nearly to the contrary, I am talking about the people in this country, and the paragraphs are where they are because of the Muslim belief that people are born good. The previous paragraphs are inspired by my contention that people are born blank, with the previous paragraphs expressing how the environment, indifference, and misinterpretations of the environment cause evil or form tyrants.

I’m sure Muslims will probably contest my interpretation of this ayah but the translation reads god does not change the condition of a people until people change what is in their heart. I used this in the introduction of this book but I abandon it.

My assessment is it is a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect on two levels. First a person doesn’t change what’s in their heart, as what’s in the heart is a product of what is in the mind, and what is in the mind is largely a product of one’s circumstances or “condition”. A person only feels how they feel either due to physical harm or what they are thinking. Meaning to change what is in the heart is to change what is in the mind, but even if we overlook the unordered advice, changing what is in the mind has as much to do with changing what is in the environment, if not more, than meditation and an inner monologue debating away negativity. Meaning the changing of the heart is predicated on the changing of the condition. The word condition is foreseeably a source of contention, so what is a persons condition but their relationship to their circumstances? The creator doesn’t change your condition, the creator allows human beings to decide collectively through their systems what conditions are permitted to exist.

In the original introduction I mentioned the ayah not for the sake of challenging its validity (although I am) but to stage a point about why I have neglected this project for as long as I have. The reason stems from my interpretation of the ayah, mainly, I was more concerned with changing the condition of people, and by changing the condition right would follow. My goal was to realize a Center for Economic Planning, and this of course still is my goal, that boasts to be one solution to every problem. The book is available on Amazon and mentioned in my website orioncs.net.

Of course there is a great deal concerning Islam that I object to, but much of it only applies to certain interpretations and small numbers of people who call themselves Muslims. Obviously I have a great degree of disagreement with Sharia law, it is unnecessarily restrictive especially to women. This becomes a political struggle within Muslim countries, but Muslims outside of Muslim countries where customs are freely followed or abandon I have no issue with because it is the free decision of the people involved to participate. I don’t like a hijab or a burkkah any more than anyone else, I enjoy seeing the beauty and shape of women, but, should a woman want to cover herself as to not arouse the attention of a man that is her decision. The point is, should people want to unnecessarily abstain from practices and be committed to procedure that are not required for liberty, they are free to do that, even if it limits their range of experience, development, and quality of life. The imposing aspects of Islam are taken on by Muslims but do not impose on others. I cannot have an issue with the practices of the group if those practices only impose on members freely participating in the group and do not impose on others. And while I do object to group isolated teachings and practices that are unimposing but become imposing by creating an indifference to injustice within the group (2), which is aiding collective imposition, this is not present in Islam. Again, my favor for Islam even though it is no truer in the absolute sense, stems from the religions willingness to oppose injustice. Although in marginalized radical Islam there is a great deal of injustice perpetrated against non-muslims and even against Muslims, which naturally I, and liberty is opposed to. Groups like Isis, the Taliban, and many other groups which are the result of the conditions that exist due to western imposition. Western imposition does absolve these groups of their responsibility for their interpretations and applications; but it isn’t difficult to understand that these interpretations and applications arise do to hardship and cruelty that is a product of imposition. Additionally, these groups, their interpretations and application is not representative of Islam in the broader sense of membership.

Although it represents only a narrow silver of what Islam is, we will weigh the 5 pillars of Islam, which are the Shahadah, prayer, zakat, fasting during Ramadan, and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

1st Pillar: The Shahadah is a verbal commitment to the doctrine: there is no god but god and Muhammad is his messenger. The creator does not require acknowledgement, and it serves no purpose because acknowledgement does not improve your situation.
As far as Muhammad being gods messenger, simply because people say it does not make it so, but the fact is made by the truth of the message. Muhammad said if there is a contradiction don’t believe, and while there is a contradiction between the religion of Islam and liberty which is the hallmark of the creators creation, and the creators relief from responsibility for the tyranny freely created by his creation, there is no contradiction either within the message of liberty or the creation itself. I neither deify myself, nor do I claim revelation from anything other than what can be known by a man. I am a man motivated by truth, discovered liberty, realized I was living in tyranny, and I wanted to change it because it is a condition I cannot stand to exist in or witness others existing in. I also recognize that I am part of the collective that maintains tyranny systemically, and accept my responsibility to contribute to liberation.

Frustrated in traffic as I often am I found a perfect parallel to what it is I have sought to accomplish. Bear in mind, I did not arrive at liberty and the rule of it, before considering other concepts like love, the fruits of the ideal, and the willingness of human beings to choose it. This labor has been undertaken to show self interested individuals how their own personal interest is better served by identifying their collective interest and actively working towards having that interest served.

The example is this. I am on a freeway, probably I75. There is a sign that the right lane ends in 1600 feet. Naturally, I switch lanes to facilitate the ease of merging from the closing lane. But, just as naturally for these shitty Florida drivers, mind you, who are no more shitty than drivers in most states this just happens to be the state I’m in, they do not get over until they are forced to by the ending of the lane. Ample opportunity to get over. The only thing I can think is you stupid mutha fuckas, you want to drive up in an effort to get one or two car lengths ahead of the next car in front of you, and in doing so, you stop traffic slowing down not only everyone else, but also yourselves. I’m seeing it happen, and I slow down to allow cars to merge, and even with the impending end of the lane by now within sight, not more than 20 to 30 yards away, people refused the opportunity I provided and accelerated another car length or two ahead. Of course they reach a standstill where you have rows of two cars next to each other in the dying lane into the active lane. Now the traffic stops as the slow shuffle begins of each car waiting to enter the active lane.

The collective interest is for everyone to get where they need to go in the shortest amount of time. Instead people rush to get ahead of the next car, leading to the stopping of traffic for everyone, when the whole stoppage could have been avoided had people changed lanes instead of rushed to create the jam.

This is what understanding liberty is, it is recognition that serving an individual need irrespective of how it relates to their collective interest, is a detriment to their personal interest by harming the aggregate. I’m making an appeal to self interest through the truth. Human beings are self interested creatures, as I mentioned before even the altruist only serves altruism because the pleasure he or she derives from the act of altruism exceeds the pleasure associated with the objects of sacrifice for the act.

2nd Pillar: Scheduled prayer. Islamic prayer is a meditation, and the motions of the prayer along with the substance of it does bring feelings of well being and relaxation so it is not completely without benefit. Of course this is not required by god and the benefit of the relaxation is dwarfed by the hypnosis and attention given to ideas of god that are not true.

3rd Pillar: Zakat is a tax paid by Muslims to the poor. As socially responsible as an idea like Zakat is, compulsory giving to the poor is a needless provision for a people whose economic and political system is tuned by liberty. Zakat is created for the maintenance of a poor class, when a true pillar of gods religion is ample opportunities for social mobility and a bottom class that had opportunities to comfortably provide for its needs.

4th and 5th Pillar: Fasting during the month of Ramadan and the Pilgrimage to Mecca. I combined the 4th and the 5th to avoid writing that these acts are useless and of course are not required by the creator in two consecutive paragraphs. Useless aside from whatever health benefits accompany fasting.

The god of Islam is arbitrary, as are all the gods of mans religions. Any god that is not consistent with liberty is not god the creator, and Islam is full of these contradictions, and admittedly, I have not done much to expose those specific details. There are a number of reasons for it.

First and foremost, Muslims make up less than 1% of the US population and a piece by piece analysis of the religion is very labor intensive and would require participation of multiple scholars from the faith to do it properly. The reward is not worth the effort in terms of what I am trying to accomplish, and as I mentioned previously, the measure of liberty rarely requires anything more than objectivity from an individual to apply it to a concept properly.

Islam is a religion that is very broad, deep, and intellectually based. You have four accepted schools of thought(4) concerning interpretation and many other basis for interpretation beyond the orthodox. You have thousands of stories concerning their prophet, some accepted by some groups and not by others. It would be labor intensive, lengthy, and require a great deal of collaboration to put Islam under the scrutiny that it deserves, which is not worth the effort to gain the support of less than 1% of the US population, many of which, will recognize the truth of liberty when they see it, and many others, who cannot be persuaded not matter what evidence and logic is used to show them their error.

In a sit down, the only defense any religion will have is that god said something, because the things themselves will break down under the measure of liberty. Religion begins with belief, and belief is required because it is inconsistent with the truth, otherwise, religion would begin with knowledge. Once the belief is established then fear is introduced, and the subjects life becomes a game of adjusting their behavior to gain the favor of the deity and avoid the punishment of the deity. This is followed by excuses for the deity withholding favor as the true nature of creation is liberty, and the individual will experience plight or prosperity based on the exercise of liberty by others and the exercise of his or her own liberty. Which means his deity is powerless and will ultimately fail him or her. The maintenance of the belief is the prospect of the pie in the sky and the avoidance of the pit. Eternal bliss or eternal torment depending on whether the life of the individual has garnered favor with the deity. In both cases, the deity is powerless to deliver.

Does liberty offer anything different from heaven and hell? I won’t speculate beyond what can be ascertained through sound reasoning, which is: that which is of the mind of the creator and applies is free, and that which is of the mind of the tyrant and applies is of tyranny. In either case, it is in liberty that a being chooses liberty, and liberty that a being chooses tyranny. This is why I like Jesus saying “where your treasure is, there will be your heart also”, because it speaks to the values of the individual. Eternal liberty or a return to tyranny, everyone gets what they want. The only unknown is what tyranny and how the tyrant will get it.

Chapter Four Notes of Substantiation and Reference

1: See Chapter 1, Note 6
2: The assertion of having an issue with indifference facilitating collective imposition applies to any group that fits, but Buddhist were in mind when I was writing the sentence.
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab

Buddhism

We will compare the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, and the 5 precepts to liberty. This seems like an adequate, albeit a lazy effort at addressing your religion. You’re 1.2% of the US population, so my effort is commensurate with your relevant numbers and my interest.

1st Noble Truth: Unsatisfactoriness and suffering exist and are universally experienced.

This is partially true, but in digestion it causes a person to forget about degrees of suffering and unsatsifactoriness, as well as interests, as in what is unsatisfactory for one may be the same thing that is satisfactory for another. It is acknowledgement for the sake of acceptance in the sense that the man of great wealth and power experiences suffering and things that are not right the same way the man who is living on the streets.

Of course the suffering of the man of wealth and power can hardly be considered suffering when compared to the suffering of the man on the streets. In this we could argue that in relative qualification there are some that experience no suffering. Again, in terms of unsatisfactoriness, certainly the unsatisfactory effort of a maid to properly cook the breakfast of her employer, is by no means comparable to the unsatisfactoriness of one who does not have a meal. All people experience unsatisfactoriness and suffering, but what is the point of acknowledging this? Which brings us to the second noble truth.

2nd Noble Truth: Desire and attachment are causes of unsatisfactoriness and suffering.

Another source of suffering and unsatisfactoriness is being imposed upon, which cannot be turned off simply by ridding yourself from the desire to not be imposed upon. Desire fulfilled is a cause of the joy of being alive. Desire is not only human nature but it is the nature of all beings, and even the creator himself. Why is there existence instead of no existence? Because something had a desire for what does exist to exist. Again, what conclusions can be drawn from acknowledging desire as a cause of suffering? The obvious conclusion is for people to limit their desire to avoid suffering, which is contentment, which has the effect of pacifying the lower classes.

The management of suffering from desires unfulfilled is understanding that there are elements of fulfilling desire that rest outside the control of the individual. We do what is within our power to achieve the desired result and accept when those things that lie outside of our ability to influence prevent the fulfillment. Then we adapt or seek to gain control over those elements that rested outside of our influence.

Attachment is a cause of unsatisfactoriness and suffering, and this is true because everything is temporary.

3rd Noble Truth: There is an end to unsatisfactoriness and suffering.

This is a contradiction of the 2nd noble truth that states desire and attachment are causes of unsatisfactoriness and suffering. There is no end of desire, and because desire is a cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness, there is no end to those either.

We begin with the enduring reality of desire present within a being. No one can rid themselves of desire because a desire to have no desire is a desire none the less. Every being has desires, so as long as something is conscious in some form, it will desire, and the only way one can be relieved of the suffering of that desire is through fulfillment of it. Or non-existence.

Buddism seeks the destruction of the ego, they believe that the ego can be overcome, but what they really do, is invert the ego. Instead of being proud of accomplishments their ego’s source of pride is the application of their religion. They are proud to not speak, to meditate, to teach garbage, and otherwise have little value. An effort of one who seeks importance through a practice of no importance. In defense of myself, the difference is, the truth, ideal, and source of rectification in my message, supported by legislative and economic initiatives which will have a transformative impact on the lives of many if realized. Something I mention as I am always aware of the lens that could be inappropriately pointed back at me in the statements I make.

Motive is ever present, motive is the bringer of desire, and what is important is not the limiting of desire to limit disappointment, but the motivation of desire, and the opportunity to fulfill desire. The Buddhist’s motive is the pleasure derived from practices consistent with their doctrine, and their pride in social status that comes from respect of their peers for their discipline.

We establish that the third noble truth is not true based on the fact that desire is a cause of suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and desire is ever present. Attachment may be ever present as well, but it depends on what degree of attachment constitutes attachment? The fulfillment of desire, the subjects of that fulfillment, whether people, things, or ideas will cause some degree of attachment to form. Even the Buddhist monk is attached to the practices of his religion, and deprivation from proceeding on his paths work, he would consider unsatisfactory and bring him some degree of suffering. Further evidence that imposition is the greatest cause of suffering, and imposition, unlike attachment and desire, can end.

4th Noble Truth: The end can be attained by journeying on the noble eightfold path.

I presume the end they are referring to is an end of suffering and unsatisfactoriness which we already established can only come through the respect of boundaries, which gives way to equal opportunity.

First Fold: Right View/ Understanding: (Understanding the Four Noble Truths) See things as they truly are without delusions or distortions for all things change. Develop wisdom by knowing how things work, knowing oneself and others.

With the exception of understanding the Four Noble Truths, which are contradictory and emphasize a platform that begins with ineffectively limiting suffering instead of seeking the creation of joy, this is sound advice conducive to liberty. Objectivity and the pursuit of knowledge develop an individual allowing him or her to be freer, opening up interests, desires, and the ability to fulfill desire.

Second Fold: Right Thinking: Decide to set a life on the correct path. Wholehearted resolution and dedication to overcoming the dislocation of self centeredness craving through the development of loving kindness, empathy, and compassion.

There is no dislocation associated with self centered cravings. Everything that human beings perceive has value. All motivation and all cravings are self centered. Even loving kindness, empathy, and compassion are byproducts of a self centered craving. As I have already stated, the motivation for kindness, empathy, and compassion is the pleasure derived from the act exceeding the pleasure associated with the object of sacrifice that denote an act of kindness and compassion. The ideas associated with this thinking contributes or serves as the basis for that pleasure, for some it is the idea of pleasing their god, for others it is as empathy is, where they feel the joy they believe the other person is feeling through their conduct towards them, both of which are motivating factors. My acts of kindness are motivated by the pleasure of the idea of liberating a person from a circumstance, the pride I feel in the act, and experiencing what I believe is how they probably feel based on that liberation.

In terms of treatment, I respect boundaries and I am courteous unless imposed upon because I recognize that this is conduct required for people to be free. Respect of boundaries is always correct, whereas uncompromising kindness and compassion is behavior ripe for the endurance of ceaseless imposition, which is the source of all suffering.

3rd Fold: Right Speech: Abstinence from lies and deceptions, backbiting, idle babble and abusive speech. Cultivate honesty and truthfulness; practice speech that is kind and benevolent. Let your words reflect your desire to help, not harm others.

Abstinence from lies and deception requires a world that is just. Anytime the truth will cause a person to treat you unjustly, or cause them to impose on you without good cause, deception is the right speech. This is to say, there are times and places for deception that are consistent with liberty and justice, although generally, a lie is used to gain an advantage and is an imposition, and is usually not right speech.

Backbiting, or talking behind some ones back is considered not right speech. This is not always true, as many talk about others A: to vent and avoid whatever consequence there may be with telling the person to their face, like losing their job. B: to gain perspective from a third party concerning the nature of the complaint, which may provide understanding of others, something prescribed for establishing the right view. Both of which are beneficial to the individual, either liberating in expressing these things to someone, in maintaining or improving the relationship through the addition of another perspective, and in possibly preventing the party who is sourcing the negative view from imposing or taking action detrimental to his or her own interest.

Idle babble or abusive speech. This is ill defined and subjective. If one is the subject of abusive speech how will the purveyor of such speech know the impact of that speech unless it is reciprocated? Furthermore, there are times when speech that some would deem abusive is warranted based on the conduct of the individual who is the subject of the abusive speech. Something I will reiterate at the conclusion of this noble lie, speech is used to convey ideas, including emotions, and some will consider words and tone as being abusive when these words and tone are necessary to accurately convey the idea and emotions the speaker wishes to convey. I don’t know what idle babble is, but if it has a purpose that is unimposing than there is room for it to be right under the right circumstances.

“Cultivate honesty and truthfulness; practice speech that is kind and benevolent. Let your words reflect your desire to help, not harm others.” It is advice consistent with the respect of boundaries. As far as liberty is concerned the only speech that is imposing is deceptive speech. All other speech is only imposing by way of social conditioning where there is the ingrained emotional response caused by words where the hearer counts this as imposition. But it is not.

I remember seeing a video awhile ago, where this old white man called this group of young black men niggers during an argument. They beat the man in a manner that was excessive even to those who feel like the word merits a beating. They were of course wrong for doing it. His drunken and angered use of a word is not an imposition, and he has the right to express himself anyway he chooses. They were looking for a reason to beat a defenseless man who could not harm them back.

When I saw the video my interpretation was different, mainly citing the anticipated consequence, but this does not make the consequence correct or justified.

At the time my interpretation on speech was incorrect. My position was words cause people to feel some type of way. I reasoned that speech causing someone to feel bad was an imposition because it affected them emotionally. Yet it is only the social norms that cause any speech to have that impact. Additionally, it is subjective, as any speech, even speech not intended to be imposing could be considered imposing based on the perception and emotional response of the hearer. In this, it is the responsibility of the hearer to not be offended, not the source of the speech to censor his or her free expression. The only speech that is imposing is unjustifiable deception. All other speech can be right speech.

4th Fold: Right Conduct: (Following the Five Precepts) Practice self-less conduct that reflects the highest statement of the life you want to live. Express conduct that is peaceful, honest and pure showing compassion for all beings.

The 5 precepts I will address after the 8 fold path. There is no such thing as self-less conduct, the appearance of perhaps, but as I have already addressed and stated on a number of occasions, already in this short section on Buddhism, human beings perceive only value, meaning the value of the pleasure associated with the idea of a selfless act, is greater than the sacrifice of the act.

Conduct that is peaceful is appropriate for people and an environment that is peaceful, and obviously it is inappropriate among people who are not peaceful and an environment that is not peaceful.
5th Fold: Right Livelihood: Earn a living that does not harm living things. Avoidance of work that causes suffering to others or that makes a decent, virtuous life impossible. Do not engage in any occupation that opposes or distracts one from the path. Love and serve your world through your work.

I will address the earning a living that does not harm living things in the precepts, I prefer not to be more repetitive than is required. Generally speaking I support the idea of right livelihood, with right livelihood being a job or career that does not impose on others. Many jobs encourage people to do the wrong thing in terms of conduct and they take refuge in the faulty justification that they are just doing their job.

Of course opportunity is not abundant, and many are forced to take jobs that cause them to impose on others without justification. Recently, I worked a job that caused me grief on a daily basis, where I had to lie to the customers in order to extract profit for myself and the company.

I worked for a company that provided interstate moving services. I was obligated to raise the price of each job, and the only way this can be accomplished is telling the customer that their items are either heavier or take up more volume than estimated.

The customer doesn’t know what a cubic foot is. While most foreman or partners would simply tell the customer you have X amount of cubic feet, I exaggerated the size of the box on the truck to provide the customer with a false sense of fairness. It is not easy for me to tell a lie of consequence, so this mechanism or script I devised facilitated the ease by which I could do the job effectively.

In interstate moving, most customers have to be out near the date of their pick up. Most go through brokers, who have to find moving companies or carriers who will pick up the items and deliver them, and very often they are late. When the mover shows up, rarely is the customer in a position to cancel the move and reschedule with another company or broker who will be there who knows when.

As far as seeking the right livelihood, because jobs exist that are the wrong livelihood and some necessary, is it better to have someone who is right minded in the wrong livelihood or someone who is wrong minded in the wrong livelihood?

There was a job I did in I think Leavenworth, KS, I remember it was about a half hour to 45 minutes from our storage in Olathe. There was a second crew who happened to be in the area and they were going to help me and my helper, who was a friend from Milwaukee, Steve. Prior to arriving I was bragging on the potential of the raise based on what I seen on paper for the job. We all need money, money is the oar that rows the boat down the river of liberty, and anyone who could afford an interstate moving service was someone who was advantaged over me.

It was told to me, the business itself required the jobs to be raised in order for a company to be profitable. Meaning because people wanted interstate moving services, and this is presently the only market available, then the deception was required for people to have interstate moving services. Is it better for people to have something they want or not have it because it requires them to be imposed upon through deception? People are freer in having the service the only way it can be had.

As to why the market is how it is, most interstate moving services begin with a broker. The broker keeps the deposit and seeks to provide the customer with the lowest rate and include the most services, and many of the services they promise are not included in writing in the estimate. The price of the job is below true market value, in the sense that no company can profit from the acceptance of the job at the price of the estimate. In this, any company that provided the service would cease to exist. Therefore if people want interstate moving services, the only market that can provide them those services is a deceptive market. If a broker is providing estimates that reflect the true market value of the move, the customer will choose a broker that will provide the under priced estimates and the broker with the true priced estimates will cease to exist. With all that said, in my last trip, I discovered evidence that fairer practices may be viable for maintaining profit, which is supported by my own understanding of the cost to do a job. However, the jobs I picked up from other companies reflecting prices closer to the actual size, also had employees who looked like they were paid very low wages. And the man who owned the company I worked for, prided himself in ensuring those that worked with him were well compensated. But there are also some jobs that would go unpicked up by any company without a raise.

I arrived at the job in Kansas. I met a woman outside whose manner I really didn’t care for who brought me through the house for the walk through. There was an elderly man confined to a wheel chair, a boy with cerebral palsy who was confined to his chair. There was a vibrant cute little girl of 7 to 10 years old. Their possessions reflected a people’s possessions of modest means. The woman asked how long it would take because they had to be out that night, and if we finished by either 8 or 9 they would be able to get their security deposit without having to stay there another night. She told me the broker already raised the price on her, and she didn’t have the money to pay anything more.

I texted Shay, these are poor people with medical conditions I cannot raise the job. He texted back “we go then”. If I go, they have no way to move their stuff which has to be out that night. Best case scenario, the following day they could rent a storage and hire someone to move it to the storage. They will probably lose their deposit with the broker because I had legitimate justification for the raise as there were additional items. Then they are still left probably without the means, and perhaps without the opportunity to procure the means to move their items from KS to I think LA.
I saw there was enough money in the estimate where the company would not lose money doing the job, in consideration of labor cost that was being paid either way, truck rental, fuel, and the cost to ship the job. I did the job against the wishes of the owners. Later Jovani the foreman from the other crew said “you’re better than me “O”, I would have raised her, I’m ruthless”. There are benefits experienced by others for those who are right minded in the wrong livelihood. Make no mistake about it though, my hatred for the job and the grueling pace of the job in many cases caused me to be less than pleasant with some of my customers.

Generally speaking, Right Livelihood in the sense of occupations that do not cause you to impose, is consistent with liberty, but in acknowledgement of the world that is, existing in tyranny, some balance must be struck based on market characteristics as described above, and ensuring an individual has an opportunity to make money, which is necessary for his or her liberty.

6th Fold: Right Effort: Seek to make the balance between the exertion of following the spiritual path and a moderate life that is not over-zealous. Work to develop more wholesome mind states, while gently striving to go deeper and live more fully.

The practice of spirituality in any sense is a distraction of negative purpose. This idea of energy and mind states through meditation and concentration is of no value and no purpose beyond relaxation. The right effort in terms of spirituality and living life in pursuit of ambition and leisure is to distance oneself from what Buddhists refer to as spirituality.

Balance between relevant modes of life is important. To dedicate all of ones time to ambition will cause an individual to be less productive in the pursuit of that ambition. Balance should be struck between different facets of a persons life, for the sake of well being, happiness, and productivity, but spirituality, especially Buddhism based spirituality is largely without merit. The so called noble truth is necessary for the Buddhist as attempting to follow the path too rigidly will cause him to stray from the path, but it is a path that leads nowhere meaningful anyway.

7th Fold: Right Mindfulness: Become intensely aware of all the states in body, feeling, and mind. Through constant vigilance in thought, speech and action seek to rid the mind of self centered thoughts that separate and replace them with those that bind all beings together. Be aware of your thoughts, emotions, body and world as they exist in the present moment. Your thoughts create your reality.

To become intensely aware of states of the body and feeling requires only that you are aware of how your thoughts control your feelings, and your body is wired with nerves that allow you to be intensely aware of its state at any given time. It is advice that is distracting from life itself. The mind is a processor, the body is the vehicle for the conscious, the focus of attention inwardly beyond what is required for a tangible conscious improvement for a functional goal, is nothing more than playing in your imagination and calling it enlightenment.

We have already addressed self-centeredness, all is self centeredness, but not all self centeredness is imposing. For those who seek to be bound together they are free to be bound together, whereas those who seek not to be bound are free to not be bound. I will elaborate on the binding of unlike things in my reflection on the 8th fold of the path.

Either way your thoughts have no bearing on the outcome. Your thoughts do not control your reality beyond providing you with ability and motivation to work towards preferable outcomes. The circumstances that you exist in, how you interact with those circumstances, and your perception controls your reality.

8th Fold: Right Concentration: Deep meditation to lead to a higher state of consciousness (enlightenment). Through the application of meditation and mental discipline seek to extinguish the last flame of grasping consciousness and develop an emptiness that has room to embrace and love all things.

Here is a noble truth that I practice in part. Each night I clear my head and fall asleep and extinguish the last flame of grasping consciousness. You cannot love and embrace all things. You cannot love the one who is imposed upon and love the one doing the imposing, because the love of one will cause you to hate the other. You cannot love the rapist and the one being raped.

The idea that you will find enlightenment through thinking about not thinking about anything has got to be the stupidest idea ever proposed. You become enlightened through knowledge, and knowledge consists both of structured lessons and learning, as well as experience and the relationship between the two. Meditation, clearing your head, may provide feelings of relaxation, but it is of little to no use beyond this.

Writing about this horse shit philosophy has been a labor, because none of it is commanded, and appears to only be an imposition on those who are intellectually dull enough to embrace it. But it does have an effect on others in the indifference to the state of collective affairs and class interest that it promotes.

In the final subject of analysis are the 5 precepts, which serve as ethical guidelines for the Buddhist and are part of the noble path.

1st Precept: Refrain from destroying living creatures.

Liberty asks what is the nature of the imposition and is there a way to prevent the imposition without destruction of the living creature?
In consideration of food what is the purpose of an animal? When a human being eats and animal that animal serves the highest purpose it can serve by being a source of energy for a persons creative function. Eating meat has effects on the mind, feelings, and the body of the person who consumes. In fact as I write this my body is fueled by a cow, probably multiple cows who were destroyed to create the big mac and quarter pounder (2 for 5) that is fueling my mind and body to write this. An animal either lives and dies, and fertilizes the earth, or an animal lives and dies and contributes to the conscious efforts of a human being, contributing to the human legacy. In the vow taken to not destroy a living creature, the individual denies living creatures the opportunity to fulfill the highest purpose they can serve.

2nd Precept: Refrain from taking that which is not given.

I prefer refrain from allowing circumstances to exist where something is desired or required and the individual is without ample means or opportunity to possess it.

3rd Precept: Refrain from sexual misconduct

The only sexual misconduct are sexual advances after an advance has been rejected, sex with a minor, and sex without consent. These are boundary issues.

4th Precept: Refrain from incorrect speech

Incorrect speech is unjustifiable deception.

5th Precept: Refrain from intoxicants.

Intoxicants have their uses and purposes, even for the Buddhist, in the sense that 3 hours on a handful of mushrooms or an LSD gell-tab will probably lead to more of the enlightenment they seek than a lifetime of sitting in the lotus position trying to think about nothing.

Some intoxicants are necessary for the functionality of people who have been damaged by this world. Along the lines of Buddhism, a night of indulging in an intoxicant or intoxicants can have a positive effect by allowing the user to experience different states of consciousness that has a benefit to the individual after the intoxicant has worn off. Most often, intoxicants are used to help individuals cope with their situation in life, and if the use of an intoxicant does not promote behavior that is imposing or become a situation of dependency that prevents the individual from accomplishing what they would in life, the refrain from intoxicants is another useless sacrifice.

Moderation of intoxicants is advisable but more important is the purpose they serve in an individuals life. What kind of behavior does it promote? If it is behavior that is imposing to others or becomes imposing to the individual in preventing them from doing what they want to do, then refraining from such intoxicants is advisable. Even so, what is it you want to be and what do you value?

Those who choose to participate in Buddhism are free to impose on themselves as they will. Liberty’s issue with Buddhism is the indifference it promotes within its adherents to collective imposition.

Atheism

I don’t have much on atheism except the obvious glaring hole in their assertion that there is no god, which is the same as their criticism of religion, where is your evidence? There is no more evidence against god than there is for god, only that the gods of religion can be proven to be false based on their inconsistency with ideal and what is observable.

How about liberty and tyranny? What basis do you have to assert that a creator whose nature is liberty as explained in this book is not a possibility and even likely? Do you have an issue with a creator that is largely irrelevant? A creator that does not impose, who is not an arbitrary and irrational authority figure? The nature of which is observably true, true to the human ideal, and true to the preservation of the species?

The source of divergence between myself and the atheist is on the point of survival of consciousness after death. Whether they acknowledge the possibility of a creator or not, they cannot dispute that liberty is ideal.

My belief in the survival of consciousness after death stems from reasoning. We can trace the origins to the beginning of the universe and no further. We are confronted by the fact of existence, that something is instead of nothing. Existence is the result some intent and purpose. The likes of which are unknown.

We cannot begin existence without a creator, and yes this leads us to the where did the creator come from and so on and so forth. We also know the creator can never be known with any certainty. But what we do know, is that it would be cruel to cause a being to evolve with such a great sense of awareness and then simply vanish. And what purpose does it serve?

The same as the creator would not want to cease to exist, nearly no being desires to cease to exist. I say nearly no being because that seems to be the desire of the Buddhist, and in liberty he or she should get what they desire. I cannot understand how the creator could impose a condition on something that is potentially the same as it, that it would not want for itself? I also cannot understand the purpose of causing a universe to exist, where beings would evolve with intelligence to understand all things, to participate in existence how they do, and then would cease to exist.

To the atheist, there is no contradiction between what is true and ideal to human beings and liberty and a creator whose nature is liberty. What you need for your argument against a creator, is an explanation of why existence is instead of is not? Why is there something instead of nothing? And if human beings, the reigning most advanced and intelligent creatures in the universe can understand intents and purposes, existence must stem from some intent and purpose. What is it and how does it exclude the possibility of a creator?

I am basically saying for the survival of consciousness after death, that the nature of the creator, liberty, which is inferred from the creation, a law of the universe, the relief of the creator from responsibility for the results of the creation, prevents the creator from allowing a being of liberty to cease to exist after allowing it to become within the creation, because it is a fate not preferred by the creator. Therefore, it is the crossing of a boundary, an imposition, because the creator would not want to be imposed upon with non-existence. It is in violation of his nature.

On the other hand, for the tyrant, non-existence is an option because the tyrants mode of operation is unfettered imposition.

I can provide you with a great deal of speculation concerning the purpose of universe, which can mirror the creation, but these roads are of little significance. What is of significance is liberation, liberty, systems that reflect liberty, and the respect of boundaries, both individually, and collectively and the preservation of the human species.