G.K. Chesterton on Evolution

G.K. Chesterton was a writer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was mainly a writer, but he was also a great philosopher. I've been reading his book "The Everlasting Man," and it has lead me to many deep thoughts: conflicts within the mind of one. I have not finished the book, but read a passage that I wish to post here on the theory of evolution:

"Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact, it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing can turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" even if you only mean, "In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process." For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he created one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else, just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read The Origin of Species."

Chesterton was a genius. More passages from the book will probably be posted here as I find ones that particularly grab my attention as this one did.

Roswell & Nazi-UFO Connection

Roswell was no doubt a coverup, but this video (along with a few others that I cannot locate) made me change my mind on the actual coverup. Most who believe that it WAS a cover believe that it was in fact covering the remains of a UFO. These videos suggest that it was not so much to coverup UFOs, but to imply them while covering up secret US military air crafts and technological advancements: concepts stollen from Nazi research during WWII.

I could not figure out how to post the video directly on my blog, but you can watch it by clicking here. The video is around 45 minutes long, but is definitely worth watching. Very interesting.

You can also see the video by going to the blog entitled The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction (click on the link). This is where I originally saw this particular video. There is much more information there as well, and other videos and links to articles if you wish to further pursue this topic.

Devil's Advocate

This is a quick post regarding the carbon tax vs. the cap and trade in Canada. It will be mostly facts, but there will be some of my own opinion because well... I just can't resist throwing my opinion in there. Feel free to comment with facts OR opinion. I'm going to evenly consider both sides, playing Devil's Advocate... hence the name.

I would choose the cap & trade over the carbon tax in an ideal system.
Unfortunately it would never work in an ideal way (this will be argued further down). Because of this, I have to expect the carbon tax will be better as a long-term solution.

In favor of the carbon tax:

1. A cap & trade was implemented in Canada in the early 1990's (it was called the "Clean Air Act", if you feel like looking into it). It failed in 2006 BECAUSE of Harper. Now they're trying to re-implement the exact same thing under a different title. This poses two problems to me:
The first is that, if it failed once directly because of Harper, why would we leave him in charge of the exact same project once again?
The second is more of a personal objection. It seems to me that Harper seems to think that Canadian citizens don't follow politics, or are just blatantly moronic. I think he needs to address his failures, and explain how he plans to avoid the same mistakes. Otherwise he seems to believe that we don't know, or don't remember about the first attempt.

2. A cap & trade allows the government to, after the companies buy emission permits, auction off more permits. The result is that bigger companies get more permits, and the government gets more money. The problem with this is that the government doesn't put the money to its intended use. You can see this by looking into the cap & trade currently implemented in Europe.

3. Although it would not force companies to limit emissions, it would greatly encourage them to do so. When large companies emitting high amounts pollution no longer see it as financially viable to pay an incredibly high carbon tax, they would begin to find ways to reduce their emissions.

The cap & trade would work in an ideal system:

1. It worked in the 1970's to reduce the overwhelming excess of smog in the air. Then it was for some reason removed once the environment was acceptably cleared up.

2. Unlike the carbon tax, it would directly limit the amount of emissions released. The carbon tax would only do so indirectly (as previously mentioned). It would not, however, fix the problems we have already caused. It would simply prepare for the future (which is obviously necessary).

3. It has reduced and controlled emission release in Europe.

For these reasons (and a few more that I'm keeping in my inventory), I would pick cap & trade in an ideal system. However, seeing that it has already failed under the current government, and that it would not be implemented under an ideal system (in fact, our current system is quite an unstable one), I have to be in favor of the carbon tax... until I am proven that the cap & trade would work this time around.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.... this time on far too many levels.

Years of the Beast?

The number 666 is characterized as the Number of the Beast.

I found this interesting as the YEAR 666 had no significantly bad effect on the earth (as far as history is concerned).
Yet the number is related to years now:1

The year 1666 contained the Bubonic Plague that killed 10,000 people. There was also the "Great Fire" which destroyed the better part of London. The horrible events of the year were blamed on the year's date containing the "Number of the Beast."

Y2K- the new millenium was supposed to kill us all. The year 2000 was supposed to be the end of the world. One of the reasons this was expected? 2000 divided by 3 is 666.666666666666.... Endless "Number of the Beast."

Looks like Satanic fear is no more than irrational fear.
Yes Evil exists, no a number does not define the essense of Evil.
Just found it interesting.

The World Will End at Half Past Six

I got interested on predictions for the end of the world when I heard "Tinderbox" by Elton John.
The first verse of the song goes:
Nostradamus said I predict
That the world will end at half past six
What he didn't say was exactly when
Was he listening to the radio?
Was he listening to the government?

First of all, Nostradamus' predictions have no been proven to even have been intended as predictions. Many believe that he was simply writing about events in his own time, and that he uses future tense and avasive language to avoid prosecution. Whether or not he did in fact make predictions, his writings (hindsight 20/20 of course) predicted major world events such as the French Revolution, the events of September 11, 2001 (the attack on the Twin Towers), as well as the war in Iraq. This is, of course, debatable.
However, Nostradamus did predict that the world would end at half past six: 6:30... no indication of morning or night.
"What he didn't say was exactly when" is not completely true.
He did not give a specific day, or even a specific year. He did, however, indicate that it would be somewhere in the area of the year 3700. (I've seen many interpretations of this, the most prominent saying that it will be the year 3797, but that's too precise for my liking. I'd say it was more of a general prediction.)

Considering the course that the world is taking at the moment, that date seems completely plausible. In 2008 years, we have successfully begun a downspiral in our world. This is a large planet with over 6 billion people; assuming that the rest of the destruction would occur over the next 1692 years would make complete sense. In all consideration, that is not a very long time.

Then again, history has proven that these predictions are obviously not reliable sources. I'd think that would be a give-in, but let's throw out some examples for clarification and for enjoyment.

Most of them are obviously completely incomprehensible (messages from aliens and other dimensions and such) but I did find the following particularly interesting:

1. "The Lord's Witnesses," a religious group from England argued that the Bible actually contained inscriptions that predicted various events throughout the history of the earth. They mathematically "concluded" that from Adam's birth in 4027BC, the world would end in 2008. They also predicted that it would be as a result of some great war.
Many people who believed this theory argued that George W. Bush would be the cause of this. The War in Iraq could turn into a great war, which could destroy the world through nuclear weapons.
While I do think that George W. Bush was the worst thing to ever happen to the United States (hence our current economic crisis and the war in Iraq), I do not believe that he is the Spawn of Satan. Nice try though.

The Mayans predicted that the world will end during a winter solstice in 2012. They worked it out through a series of decades that they had set up through their calendar. They had days, months, years, and two other forms of time measurement (something like caduns and backduns, don't quote me on that), and they predicted through a cycle of these time measurements that we will no longer exist in 2012. Lookin forward to the next 4 years!

This one is my absolute favorite. Pope Leo IX predicted the world would end around the year 1914, saying:
"I will not see the end of the world, nor will you my brethren, for its time is long in the future, 500 years hence."
Man of God was wrong. I'd say pretention and arrogance are the cause.

Origins surrounding the number 666 (the Number of the Beast) predicted that the world would end in 1998. That has obviously passed. Now the man who predicted it, Eli Eshoh, is saying that it will actually be in 2028. He continued to say that nearly 700,000 people were "taken to heaven" in 1998, and the rest of us were not yet worthy. He says that the trials that we are experiencing since that year (natural disasters and such) are tests to prove whether or not we are truly worth it by 2028. It's a good thing nobody's dying between 1998 and 2028!
The interesting fact about this is that science predicted the same date.
I've covered unreasonable prophecies, and religious prophecies, it only makes sense to then cover science.

Science predicted that a giant meteorite would collide with earth in the year 2028. The impact would cause tidal waves so large that the world would flood. Another theory presented stated that the collision would simply destroy such large landmass that the rotation of the earth would be changed, causing enough natural disasters to destroy us bit by bit.
Of course, since the 2028 prediction was made, it was proven that the same meteorite is actually going to hit twice as far away from us as the moon, and will never have the potential to hit Earth.

Sorry, that was just a rant that I found interesting. In my opinion, Nostradamus' prediction was the most probable.

Ignorance is Bliss, Part II

This will be a relatively short post because I think most outcomes will become clear over time and that, as of right now, a lot of opinions are basically based on opinion.

So here's mine, formed off of facts.

Alberta gas prices are lowering at alarming rates, and everybody is understandably happy about it. After hitting a record 1.40$/L, we are now down to 0.84$/L. More money in our pockets, nobody's going to complain!
But are reprocussions truly understood?

1. Yes it means more money in our pockets, it also points to our rapidly deteriorating economic state!

2. The Alberta government is estimating around 6.4 BILLION$ less revenue than what was originally expected. Everybody knows Alberta is a rich province. However, we have relied so heavily on the oil industry over the years that we are in no way prepared to handle this incredible monitary blow!
The 6.4 billion dollar loss was unexpected, hence being 6.4 billion dollars below the expected revenue. Which, by the way, was still lower than last year because the economy was sliding. The government knew the economy has been falling, what they did not understand was how fast.

3. This may seem less relative, but I still found it interesting and indicative of our failing economy. Ford, GM, and Chrysler (the three biggest American auto dealers) are asking the U.S. government to intervene economically. It is estimated that unless the American government is able to supply enough money, these companies will have to lay off a total of 300,000 employees. This, along with the fact that these companies are required to strive for more economically friendly vehicles that are just not selling, is going to cause the price of vehicles to skyrocket over the next couple of years!
This point is a fact, but I have been critisized for presenting them. So here's my rebuttle:
None of the big three are going under; ALL are having major issues. Yes they've been having issues over the past 30 years, no they are not the same problems as they are now. NOW they are directly due to the recession. The big three lost an incredible amount of money through stocks and can no longer afford to pay the necessary, and once affordable high wages. Which results in 300,000 lay-offs. If you can prove to me that there were this many lay-offs yearly over the past thirty years, be my guest.
We don't have to spend more on an economic vehicle. But, for example, an economically friendly Yaris will cost more in 2 years than it costs now. And yes, they aren't more expensive for the companies to make. We're they're losing their money is in sales. Hybrids don't sell as much as Hummers. Simple fact.
Insurance prices are going to skyrocket as the price of cars go up. The more you pay for a car, the higher the insurance. That's not a debateable fact.

Everybody needs to start denying ignorance! Am I being cynical? Probably. But I think it's reasonable to be cynical after the Bush administration destroyed our world (Harper seemed to help just enough).
Look around everybody, listen to the News once every now and then, read a newspaper. Thousands upon thousands of layoffs are happening all over the place. I don't remember which company it is, but they just laid off 75,000 people. Stop denying an obvious recession.

Is saving money on gas worth paying thousands of dollars more for a vehicle, causing insurance, in turn, to skyrocket?

Should the liberty of the free-market enterprise be pushed to the side, allowing governments to step in until no longer necessary?

I'd like to hear your comments on our failing economy and the previously mentioned issues.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

The Unknown

People fear what they do not know; the majority of major fears are based on the unknown. Death is the biggest one. I do not believe people fear not being alive; I believe people fear what they do not know. I find that all those that I talk to who fear death don't know what they believe happens after death. There's no coincidence in that correlation.
I believe John Donne's poem opposing death is genius:

HOLY SONNETS.

X.


Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so ;
For those, whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy picture[s] be,
Much pleasure, then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou'rt slave to Fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy, or charms can make us sleep as well,
And better than thy stroke ; why swell'st thou then ?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And Death shall be no more ; Death, thou shalt die.

Dante's Inferno

The Divine Comedy is divded into three sections:
"Inferno" (Hell)
"Purgatorio" (Purgatory)
"Paradiso" (Paradise, or Heaven)

The poetic story goes explains in depth Dante's journey into Hell. The detail taken into account is impressive. Even Dante's basics were related to the Bible: his age, his life choices, his death choices and even the manner in which he exists.

"Inferno" defines Hell as being divided into nine layers.
Before entering the ninth layer, there is a layer of "opportunists," or outcasts. These are those who did neither good now bad in their lives. References of specific people who have died exist throughout the text. In this outcast layer Dante refers to either Pope Celestine V or Pontius Pilot. I have read interpretations of both, but I have read more stating that he was referring to Pontius Pilot. Interpretation depends on perception.

The first true layer of Hell is where unbaptized babies and those who refused to accept Christ, but were good throughout their lives. No form of punishment occurs in this layer, only the separation from God and the hope for redemption. Dante speaks to people in each layer. Among those to whom he speaks in the first layer are Socrates and Aristotle: two famous philosophers. I found this very interesting.

The second layer of Hell contains those overtaken by lust. The second layer is the first layer where punishment is effected. It is filled with violent storms that never allow those within the layer to rest or sleep. The storm symbolizes the way in which lust has the ability to pull us in the wrong directions.

The third layer of Hell contains the glutens. They lie in a thick layer of sludge, symbolizing the waste that was these glutons' lives.

The fourth layer of Hell contains those whose lives were controlled by material goods. They are split into two groups: those who were greedy with their possessions and those who wasted them. The two groups are damned to an eternity of labor. One group pushes a giant weight against the other, and vise-versa.

The fifth layer of Hell contains those both those who lived their lives with wrath, and the sloth. They reside in the River Styx where the wrathful remain over the water, constantly battling each other; the sloth lie immobilized at the bottom of the river.

The sixth layer of Hell is possibly my favorite, containing the Heretics, trapped in flaming caskets. For the definition of Heretics, read my older post "An Elaboration of Heresy's Relation to Corporatism."

The seventh layer of Hell is divided into three rings. The first ring contains the violent. This is violence against people and property. They are dipped in boiling blood, and those who attempt escape are shot with flaming arrows.
The second ring contains those who committed suicide. They exist as bushes and trees covered in thorns. They are constantly attacked by wild dogs and by a mythical greek demon. They are the only dead that will not be bodily resurrected after they are judged. Their resurrection as trees reveals irony. They died to evade pain, they experience pain in death.
The third and final ring contains those who were violent against religion and God, against God's nature, and against God's order. They all reside in the desert of flaming sand, where flaming rain falls from the sky. They are split into three groups depending on the violence committed.

The eighth layer of Hell is very complex. It consists of those who lived fraudulant lives, they live in death with ditches of stone, and are separated into specific groups (with elaboration that is not necessary for this summary):
-"Pimps" and seducers
-Flatterers
-Various forms of traffickers
-"Sorcerors" (psychics, palm readers, etc.) and false prophets
-Corrupt Politicians
-Hypocrites
-Theives
-Fraudulent Advisors
-Unclear to me, but does hold Muhhamed
-Alcheimists, impersonators, counterfitters and perjurers

The ninth and final layer is also complex and very interesting. Different groups are encased in ice in different manners.
-Traitors of friends
-Traitors to political entities
-Traitors to their guests
-Traitors of the Lord (This is where Judas presides)

I have also heard the interpretation that the final layer of Hell lies Satan, with Judas in one hand and either Hitler or Muhhamed in the other. He bites of their heads, excretes them, places them back on their body, and then repeats...endlessly. I quite like this interpretation.

You could find this information anywhere on the internet, or read the book yourself as it is a very easy read. I thought it necessary to share it though as it poses interesting questions.
What if a sinner commits more than one of these sins?
In my opinion, they are split into each layer, but remain full, as to fully experience full punishment from each layer. I've also considered the possibility that they are simply put in the layer for the worst of all their sins.
There are other questions which i have opinionated answers for, but it leaves me with one final skepticism.

Between all of these, nobody can make it to paradise. I have not yet read "Paradiso" or "Purgatorio," but based on the information from "Inferno," we are all damned.

False Accusation

I was recently accused of being an ignorant hypocrite. It was not so much the accusation of hypocracy that offended me, but that of ignorance. I believe ignorance is something that does not just come to somebody, it is something that people must accept. Once they accept that they do not want to see all the pain or be disgusted by the world (see "Ignorance is Bliss")they either consciously or subconsciously choose to be ignorant. I pride myself on the fact that I reject ignorance by choice. I consciously decide to accept the faults in the world I live in, and I am proud of this decision. My life may be more pessimistic than the rest, but at least I see the world for what it is.

This is beyond the point. Disregarding the accusation of ignorance, that of hypocracy suddenly became interesting. I asked what made me a hypocrite. I was given the answer that I attempt to portray an image of being anti-corporatist, yet I enjoy buying nice things. I do not deny this fact. I wear nice clothes, I enjoy nice cars, I own and play nice guitars. All of these things are undeniably expensive, and the list does go on. But that is not the type of corporatism of which I speak!

People need to wear clothes; why should they not wear clothes they like and think look good? In our current world, people need to drive; why not drive a car they enjoy to drive? People have hobbies; why not embrace those hobbies so that they are amplified? I do not reject consumerism or the free market. If you were to review my rants on corporatism, I have always been very careful in choosing my words as to not suggest that I reject consumerism. The capatalistic world that I reject is the world that is overthrowing out own. I reject the idea of the large corporations gaining control in our world that can be considered higher than the control that we have over our own lives. They gain control that is higher than what is gained by the government. Our new wars and economic recession (a topic that will be argued in another entry)are directly caused by corporations giving into their greed. Both were avoidable but were accepted once jargon and false accusations leaked into speeches, causing the general public to see this events as inevitable. WRONG!
They are only inevitable because corporations' greed has made them so. Capitalistic greed exists only because we allow it to.

I deny both the claims that I am ignorant and that I am hypocratic. I choose my words and opinions wisely.
I do not reject consumerism, I reject corporatism.

Capitalistic Explanation for Fight Club

Recently I was asked about certain scenes in Fight Club and how they support the theory that it surrounds an anti-corporatist vision. I figured I may as well throw those explanations on here to add support the my view of the movie. Of course, these are not factual disections of the scenes, these are the way I interpreted them. I think this is a big part of the movie, certain scenes can be interepreted in different ways depending on point of view and I believe that was intentional. Also, if you have not watched the movie or read the book in a very long time, I suggest doing so (whether before or after reading this entry is up to you). If you have not seen the movie or read the book at all, I suggest doing so before reading this in hopes that you will build up your own opinions.

His Name Was Robert Paulson
One of the main questions asked was how the scene after Robert Paulson's death would relate to anti-coporatism. It is often interpreted as an indication that Tyler Durden has successfully began a cult with a multitude of followers. Although this theory is partially true, I believe that it does hold some power against corporations.
At the beginning they are saying that Robert Paulson was expendible, that his death was necessary for a cause. With this point of view, it puts the cause above the person which is exacly what corporations do. This is the major reason that I believe the shift took place. I think that they were trying to show how our lives are so instinctually corporate-like that we do not appreciate life itself. They then shifted to chanting "His name was Robert Paulson." This indicates that they are putting the man above the cause. Paulson died for the cause. He was not expendable but he beleived so intensely in the need for the destruction of corporatism that he was willing to die for it.
It is almost as if they are comparing him to a religious martyr. Obviously they cannot be compared on the same level, but it's as if they are implying Robert Paulson was an anti-corporate martyr.

The Destruction of the Art and Coporate Enterprise
The scene before Robert Paulson's death is an intense moment in which "Project Mayhem" has to destroy a corporate art-piece as well as a major corporate enterprise at the same time. They do this by blowing up a massive art-piece in a fountain, causing the sphere on top of it to roll down and destroy a Starbucks location. This may be seen as mindless destruction. And many who appreciated the art of the movie lost some appreciation thinking they were willing to destroy corporatism at the EXPENSE of art. WRONG.
The reason for the destruction of the Starbucks is obvious. However, the destruction of the art is equally as necessary. Fight Club takes the idea of anti-corporatism to an entirely new level where ALL levels of corporatism must be destroyed. They did not go into a local museum and destroy independant art. They did not destroy a man's direct livelyhood through his love of art. I think they would infact support individual art seeing as it is definitely not in an attempt to get rich, they are creating art for the love of creating art and making small amounts of money on the way. INSTEAD, "Project Mayhem" destroys a corporate, machine made art-piece. They were showing that they were on longer willing to accept any level of capitalistic development under any circumstance. I think this point of view was that even small development (such as corporate art) would snowball onto a larger scale.

The Paper Street Soap Company
This isn't a specific scene in the movie, but instead a theme throughout the movie. The production of "high-quality" soap sold for over 20$ a bar... by Tyler Durden. It took me a long time to produce the opinion that I now posess regarding the company. I think the intention of this was partially a way to explain the financial support "Fight Club" and "Project Mayhem" have. I think the way that it was done, however, followed the same theme as the movie. It did not directly reject corporatism, but it mocked corporatisms and slaves to capitalism. A major ingredient of soap is lard. Tyler Durden steals lard from the hospital. He states in the movie that he was taking lard from those who paid for liposuction and selling it back to their self-absorbed asses for a high price. The quote is not word for word, but the idea remains the same. The idea is that he is punishing those who willingly become slaves to corporatism.

If there are any other scenes that you would like explained (through my opinion)I will be sure to do so.
Also, feel free to argue any of my opinions or to add any comments.

An Elaboration of Corporatism's Connection with Heresy

Terms such as "heresy" or "heretic" are often misunderstood because they have become so uncommon. Allow me to enlighten:
Heresy is the act of altering the rules of a religion that one belongs to in order to better suite his or her lifestyle. For example, if a Catholic man were to suddenly decide that he would follow all the rules of the Catholic belief system except he believed it was okay to sleep around with other women. The man would be committing heresy because he would put his own needs above the basics of his religion and above the commandments that God has instilled upon him.
A heretic is a person who has committed heresy.

To be fair, any religion where we can ultimately find its exact origin through historical proof is a heresy. This may sound strange, understanding that all religions must start somewhere. While this is true, there are major differences between certain religions. Take Catholicism for example:
It began through Jesus Christ's life in the sense that, while he spread his word people began to accept him as the Son of God. When he was crucified, his legacy lived on, becomming a religion. Jesus did not found any religion, he simply spread beliefs that were accepted and therefore altered into an already existing religion.
A man such as King Henry VIII however would be considered a heretic. He created the Anglican Church to better suite his lifestyle. He took a Church that already existed and altered it so that, from his point of view, he would not be going against the church. OBviously Anglicans today should not be considered heretics because they are simply accepting a religion that exists as it is today. The religion was altered over the years to be less corrupt than what Henry VIII had intended and to instead embrace the basics of the religion (relying on christian faith) but altering it slightly to better fit what the religion was about. Because the intent was to improve the religion and the worhsip of God, and not to better suite a particular man or group's lifestyle, it cannot be considered heresy.

It would be an obvious question at this point to ask how this whole concept of heresy would have any connection with modern day corporatism. The answer, while based upon complicated explanation, is actually quite simple:

I will use christianity as an example for this because it fits the argument all too nicely, the concept can however be transfered to other religions and still make sense.
God proclaimed 10 commandments to the Isrealites after their escape from slavery. The first of these 10 commandments is "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
This statement says basically that no other person or entity (whether human or non-human) is to be worshiped above God.

Corporatism leads people to work day in and day out (in its course destroying the Holy Sabbath; another of the 10 commandments that is disregarded today) and with no other goal then to earn money. Sure the intention of money may be to support a family, to help others but can also surround selfish needs. Because of this people do not accomplish their full potential. A life lived below expectations and without attainable achievements is a sin.
Also, with the introduction of such entertainment as gambling (a mass product of corporatism) people become addicted and see money as the end-all and be-all of their lives. If they win, then they roam the town, drinking, going to strip clubs, gambling more. These are all sins caused by the almighty dollar.
This leads to other addictions caused by the capitalistic economy such as smoking and alcoholism. Both products are sold at high prices in order for large corporations to make money. I'm sure these same corporations do not mind that their customers are becomming addicts; it simply creates higher profits for them.

Even healthcare in the States is controlled by money. They seperate the treatment worthy from the unworthy by the patients annual income. This puts money above human rights and general human well-being.

There are obviously more capitalistic-generated arguments at hand, but I think the point is proven.

The other aspect that must be considered before the final connection is made is that of the new corporate wars that exist. They are referred to as wars on terrorism. I believe that the intentions of the soldiers fighting for freedom and for democracy are indeed to protect their homeland and to put an end to such acts as terrorism. Conversely, President Bush seems to have sent out troops in an effort to appreciate the vast amounts of oil existing in the middle-east. Now he has announced that he is sending troops into Pakistan and was not even able to give a straight, logical answer as to why. Due to past history with companies such as Halliburton, and the fact that Bush seems to have no concrete basis upon which to send in the army, the war seems like it exists for gain of the few while the masses suffer. War makes all men expendible.

Naturally there are various factors affecting a man's loyalty to the Church or any other organization but I believe that, in our modern world, capitalism and corporatism are the main sources and causes of evil. What I find ironic is that they are turned to as the main solutions as well. People have to decide, are they willing to allow corporations to be a cause or a solution to world suffering, because they cannot be both.
So these corporations cause people to live their lives based upon cash income and addiction, as well as personal gain of those behind the curtain.
This directly disobeys the first commandment which has been laid before Christians: Money is worshipped above God.
Capitalism is worhshipped above God.

If more elaboration is necessary, simply inform me of which parts lacked information and I will attempt to fill in the blanks. Also, I would like to assure any readers that I do not intend to offend in my entries. I do encourage all comments.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

Corporatisms Relation to Heretics

Heresy is when a person of a particular religion alters the rules of a religion to better suit their lifestyles.

1 of God's 10 commandments was to not worship or place anything above God.

Corporatism causes man to worship the almighty dollar.
Corporatism creates capitalistic wars, putting profits above life and making all men expendable.

Corporatism creates heresy.

Warning

"If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second of your life. Don't you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can't think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all who claim it? Do you read everything you're supposed to read? Do you think everything you're supposed to think? Buy what you're told you should want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you're alive. If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned ....... Tyler"

-Fight Club, 1999
(The warning screen at the beginning of the movie, the one usually related to copywriting offenses)

Everybody's Broken

Our world is controlled by corporatism and pain. Although I'd love for this to be a rant against corporatism, it is instead one regarding the pain. Then again, it is not so much in regards to the violence and vulgarity itself, but instead for the causes of the previously mentioned.
Violence, sex, hate, prejudice, racism, discrimination, vulgarity; all of these are associated all too quickly to the age of technology and the world we live in. I'm not denying the fact that we are definitely influenced by the new age where censorship has lost the battle, I do argue, however, that we use it as a scapegoat far too often.

A man is beaten with a baseball bat or shot without reason and we blame video games.
War once again takes masses of young men and we (rightfully) accuse corporatism, but then we also turn to Hollywood as a source of glorification of war.
Sex has lost most of its meaning and we, once again, blame the entertainment industry.
The list goes on.

It is obvious that the entertainment industry has had a great effect on our lifestyles, but let us not use it as a scapegoat to all of our problems. Men are instinctively flawed. Just because a man who was considered great turns to violence or crime, it does not mean it is caused by the new electronic age, it means he turned to violence and crime.

Remember:

Adolf Hitler was an artist before he was a mass murderer.
Benito Mussolini was a kindergarten teacher before he took genocides hand.
And Joseph Stalin... Stalin was a priest before condemning himself to damnnation.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

The Almighty Dollar

So recently a motorcyclist was pulled over doing 260km/hour. Normally this would result in the loss of a lisence and most likely an outsiding fine (to say the least). However, this man was no poor man and simply paid everything off with 12,000$. Where as a man who works day in and day out would have lost his source of transportation, a rich man (not to say that he's not hard working) does not seem to have to face the same outcomes. This leads me to wonder a few things:

1.
Has our world evolved in such a way that democracy is no longer democracy? I understand that this may be a stretch if only one case were taken into account, but many more have come into play. For now I choose to argue in regards to the motorist. It seems that general equality is no longer a factor; the rich are placed above the rest. What's that telling society? If we make more than a certain amount a year, we can pay to break the law? A less well-off family will enjoy go-carts at the amusement park while the wealthier family enjoys the same experience on the street. What's next? If they don't have to be safe on the road, there's nothing stopping them from using their money as leverage for other crimes. I almost look forward to the day that I witness somebody buying their way out of a DUI. If that's the case then, hey, why not robbery, assault, murder? Some may say I'm blowing the circumstances out of proportion. If that's the case then please do tell me the circumstances that I am misunderstanding. We cannot allow anybody to be above the law in such situations, it is absolutely ridiculous.

2.
This argument leans on the first. Our world has evolved in the way that it has because that's how people accept the world now; the government is made up of these people. This would naturally lead to a corrupt, desensitized government. It's always right to look for the good in people or in an organization, but when a government accepts what can be considered a bribe instead of upholding its most simple laws, something is seriously out of place. The world, including the government, allows money to be its greatest motivator. The highest price is no longer a man's life or body, it is now the money that is left behind. Since when can money save a man's life and mind? Paper with special designs on it can keep a man out of jail, but it can't keep a man away from eternal damnation. His body may be saved but the bribary will gladly lead him down the River Stix to a pitchfork and an eternity of torture.

3.
The downfall of humanity has lead to the downfall of the government which has lead to the downfall of our justice system. Laws were originally created to protect the people. Violence was considered a physical act intended to hurt another, not a movie with artificial explosions. Then we started making laws to protect the government, to make the government smile a little larger. Now parking in front of a meter for more than 30 minutes demands a ticket. I'm sorry, but I don't see the harm that parking a vehicle away from traffic causes. I do, however, see how the government has manipulated our laws in order to gracefully accept some more money. Laws are not meant to control and put limits on our lives, they are meant to protect us. Establishing a curfew for teenagers (and other laws of the nature) does not protect society in any way, it creates conflict and more turmoil. The curfew obviously does not affect me and is not upheld as it was meant to be, but I do remember initial backlash from the teens.

All I am saying is that our world is slowly falling into the same Hell that the murderers enjoy. Our crimes are not as serious, but they're serious enough.
Do not forget the seven deadly sins:
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
I can guarantee that there is not a living man who has avoided all seven sins.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

Ignorance is Bliss

Here's the deal, I should be writing on some current event or taking a stance on some philosophical point of view. Instead I choose to manipulate the negative connotation of the human condition and extend it in an effort to prove my point. So yes, this is an entry that is being written for no other reason than to satisfy my own ego. I guess that in and of itself leans on the human condition in relation to the posession of any ego. But let's face it, human's are egotistical and human's are ignorant. Ignorance, my friends, is bliss.

I'd argue the simple point of view that we subconciously block the truth from our minds. We would rather believe a lie than accept that it is, in fact, a lie. I strongly believe that if our subconcious were somehow placed before a choice of truth or lie, it would choose the lie.

That can be brought to a higher context and stronger extent at the same time. Take for example the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. We know it's happening and many of us completely disagree with it. (I'm taking this opportunity to say that I do disagree with it simply for the fact that it is a war driven by corporatism. More on that later.) Although we do know it's happening, we are hidden from the details. When a soldier is murdered in the name of corporatism, we are informed of his death and given vague details relating to the cause of death. After this, the newscaster or next article will announce a story about a sports hero or something inspirational to lighten the mood. But let's face it, we are much happier this way. (Yes I do realize that this concept touches base with a previous post of mine, but I believe that it is an important concept.) We do not want to face the brutality that is war. We do not want to face the brutal fashion in which these soldiers' deaths took place. It would disturb our utopian minds, we don't want that. Are we necessarily accepting a lie? No. We are not, however, inviting the truth.

Lower the scale. In our own peronal lives, we would sooner accept a lie about one of our loved ones than accept the fact that they hurt us. If and when the pain is realized, denial is an immediate reaction.

No further exapmles are necessary and further explaination would be pointless. Let's face it, all of you who choose to read this will understand it and agree. This does not mean that you will accept it and try to appreciate it in your daily lifestyles, hoping to invite some truth and deny some lies. It simply means that you agree. The unfortunate part is that after reading this you will revert to your newsroom lives and turn to a lighter article or go do something that would lighten your mind. Accept that you are ignorant and some of your burden will be removed. We all carry the burden of human fault, it is our job to lessen the load and to relieve the load from existence.

Ignorance is bliss.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

Catastrophe and the Cure: Nihilism

I've realized over the past couple of days that I originally planned to touch base on different philosophical point of views in an attempt to enlighten an often misinformed world. Reviewing my previous entries I've noticed that the only philosophy which I truly argued is Existentialism. I mentioned in that post that Existentialism can be very closely related to Nihilism through certain perspectives and relying, of course, on certain aspects of the philosophy. I do realize, however, that there was no true substance supporting that argument, so today's post will be an attempt to connect the two philosophies, as well as being an opportunity for my own personal opinions in relation to Nihilism.

I'll start by explaining the pure basics of Nihilism and how they can easily be connected to Existentialism:
Basically, the philosophy argues that no true human morality or sense of morality exists. No action is better or worse than another simply based upon objective morality. If we were to rely on this theory of a lack of morals, then it would be easy to reject any higher power, as nihilists do. The philosophy states that because there is no sense of morality, there can be no reasonable belief in a higher power or deity. It also argues that our lives have no true meaning or goal, which supports their theory of the lack of some higher force. It goes on to contradict itself (which I think is a way to cover all bases) by stating that if in fact some higher power does exist, we have no moral obligation to either worship or acknowledge its existence. Basically, the philosophy relies on the negative connotation of the human condition in unison with some general lack of meaning to our lives. It is essentially a pessimistic, depressing view of life.

The entire philosophy contradicts itself. It states that no truth can exist in the world we live in. We are all essentially liars and the order under which we live lacks any truth. If the statement of a lack of truth were correct, then that same statement would lack truth. This may sound confusing (and it would not surprise me if it did) but think of it this way:
If I were to say "Don't believe a word I say" then you would not be able to believe what I had just said, causing everything I would say following that order to be true and believable.
Nihilism states "There is no existence of truth". If this is true, then the statement that truth does not exist would be untrue.
This may seem like I'm picking the wrong battles against Nihilism, but I am simply trying to communicate the fact that the teachings of this philosophy doesn't even attempt to hide any contradiction of itself, it is plain and simple. The entire philosophy is a paradox.

A Nihilist may argue that the previous quote has been altered over time and would instead say that although truth may exist, it is strictly unattainable under human circumstances. If this were true, then how would the nihilist have deemed true the theory that human life lacks morality or truth. If we cannot find any truth under human constrictions then how would they deem their philosophy as true, and how can they be certain that we lack morality and truth?

Although Nihilism and Existentialism differ in many ways and existentialists and nihilists would be in disagreeance, the two philosophies have much pessimism in common. I'd argue against both in an attempt to save my own mind. I could not bare to live in a world where there is nothing to live for and no truth or level of morality on which to rely. I do believe that we create our own destinies and that we are in charge of our will, but at the same time I believe so only because God has given us the power to do so. We do not live under the constraints of any deity, but we do live under the guidelines. It is left as a choice whether or not we decide to follow the guidelines placed before us and whether or not we choose to live a life with meaning. Having said that, it is obvious that I believe all life has meaning, all life has an effect on the world and, whether the effect is good or bad, that person will be remembered in one way or another. I think of it as, if life were to lack all meaning, we would not mourne the dead, we would not reflect upon the past. We would not feel emotions such as guilt or emtional pain, we would not hope to affect any lives (whether positively or negatively).
This may be based upon my own thoughts, but I believe strongly that not only does Nihilism directly contradict itself, but it directly contradicts the world we live in.

We Have No Great War

" I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables—slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war . . . our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."
—Tyler Durden, Fight Club, 1999

Let's face it, it's true.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

Instant Karma

Let me start by saying that I am not an overly pessimistic person. My blog may reflect such a vision but that is simply because I use this blog as a means to release frustration on a world that begs for criticism. I, in reality, have much faith in human kind but I also believe that humans choose to reject their ability to be better than they are and they choose to remain in an endless cycle. This leads into, once again, a criticism towards the world we have claimed as our own...

I base the following rant on certain pieces and specifications of the human condition. It does not necessarily rely on pessimism such as Nihilism or, to a certain extent, Existentialism, but the points I choose to focus on today would support such a theory. This is because the "human condition" can almost be considered to be branching off into two directions: there is the positive or almost indifferent side of the human condition, there is also the more focus upon the connotation of the human condition. Allow me to proceed:

We are never happy. POINT BLANK.
The fact is, individuals can be generally content and will undoubtedly still have conflictions with the world they live in. On the other hand, the general human population is pessimistic and will unfortunately always rely on the need for the need for change. This may sound confusing at the moment, but what I am trying to get across is that it is impossible for the world we live in to be one of Utopia. I do not think the world was created with the intention of ever being a Utopian world. We were given a bright red apple and asked not to touch it, we touched it and are forever damned. Hence the beginning of our pain and suffering (mostly caused by our own actions). Because I do not expect our world to ever be pain free, I evidently do not think that the negative connotation of the human condition is necessarily false. I would argue, however, that it is endlessly painful. This has been a longer explanation than I thought it would be but I do believe it was necessary. We create our own pain, then blame any other scapegoat for our problems. We are inherently flawed (see previous posts) and rely on our flaws to be the base of our existence. We then complain that we are not perfect yet. Oh how human kind has "evolved".

All of this begs the question, is pessimism a sin? We created pessimism and pain by going against the greater will. I believe that this was the gunshot that started the race for pain. Now I ask myself the question: Is this the ultimate test of man's redemption? This may be our chance at returning to a Utopian state that is unattainable due to our own actions. We continue to rely on the pain and suffering that we created through the destruction of a perfect world. We are to blame for the lack of peace and we are to blame for the destruction of that same peace.

But think about it, if world peace ever existed, what would we do with our spare time...

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

But he couldn't elaborate...

This will be a very quick post as it is no more than an elaboration on a previous post (Gentlemen in Today's World). Enjoy!

I spoke earlier of the evolution of gentlemen and quickly touched upon manners and politeness, this post is an attempt to address the evolution of manners. While gentlemanry has evolved negatively, some would argue that manners have evolved for the better. They are an integral part of society and life on the planet that we live in. We are somehow disgusted when we are not given a proper thanking. And we should be, that is the world we were brought up in. The problem is, that is the world we were brought up in.

Manners no longer have full meaning. Please, thank yous and sorrys do, but it's the actions that no longer carry true effect. Handshakes used to be a sign that you come peacefully. Two men would shake eachothers hands using their dueling hands in indication that they do not plan to pull swords.
Saluting carries that same evolution: it was originally two knights raising their visors to show that they are not afraid to show who they are as they do not intend to kill.

The fact is that our "evolution" has lead us to lose the essense of what once existed.

This has to be the end of this particular post due to a lack of time but it's very easy to learn more on the topic, and I plan to address it again in a later post.

Fight Club- Pop Culture's Most Misunderstood Child

As stated in the title, I truly believe that the novel (yes, NOVEL) Fight Club is one of the most misunderstood, beautiful creations in existence. Most people reading this will have only seen the movie as it is much more known than the novel (written by Chuck Polahniuk) but do not worry, the novel and the movie are similar enough that it should make no difference.

The thing is, the general population view Fight Club as a violent work. A product designed to disect an infected mind and to infect those of readers and viewers everywhere...
WRONG!
Fight Club is in no way a violent work, I would argue that it is, instead, a work of art and supports many of my ideals. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that no members of "Fight Club" or of "Project Mayhem" inflict any true pain on people. All those involved in the underground fight clubs do so at their own will and enjoy it just as much as the man they're fighting, they see it as a way to express themselves in a world where emotional drives are so negatively viewed. I do agree that society does not accept emotional guidance, but instead expects rationalisation at all times. This is simply not logical or human. "Project Mayhem" on the other hand inflicts pain upon corporations, but never upon the individuals within a corporation (directly). They blow up large corporate buildings and icons but never harm a human while doing so. I'd argue that this is almost noble in a world that is now run by corporatism and capitalism. I would say that the extent to which Chuck Polahniuk describes the necessary destruction of corporatism is a bit extreme, but the world we live in paints and extreme picture.

Even when Tyler Durden held a gun to a convenient store workers head, it was without the intention of death. Instead it encouraged the worker to pursue his dream of being a veteranarean (mispelled). Potential bad created great outcomes for one individual, with possible great effects.

There are only three true inflictions of pain:

1. The brutalization of a judge's manhood due to the fact that he was trying to shut down various fight clubs. Although the result was pain, those involved in the infliction saw it as necessary in order to cleanse the world.

2. Big Bob was shot in the back of the head... by the police. The establishment inflicted more death than those they considered criminals!

3. Tyler Durden... driven insane by the effects of a world gone to Hell.

I do not advocate such extreme action as that in the novel/ movie Fight Club but, as it is one of my favorites, I ask for a bit of understanding. Look past the initial violence that might be "clear" to the untamed eye, and look instead at the indications that corporations and capitalism will continue to take over our world unless we decide to take action against such a monstrosity.

Gentlemen in Today's World

I will start by saying that I am insanely tired after a very long week of work and am falling asleep as I type. Having said that, if this post seems to make less sense than others or if I trail off every now and then, I blame my exhaustion.

I was forced to watch Brigette Jones' Diary today for the first time and it brought up a few interesting points in my mind. Not because of the movie itself but because of one of the characters in the movie: Mr. Darcy.
Darcy is a character who becamse Lizzy's love interest in Pride and Prejudice and who was evidentally viewed as the perfect gentleman, being used in Brigette Jones' Diary. I found this to be very interesting. Let me state very clearly that I thought Brigette Jones' was a terrible movie, and the second one (which I also, unfortunately, watched) was even worse. There was no true premise to the story except for a weak shadow of P&P (Pride and Prejudice).

So instead on elaborating specifically on the novel or terrible movie, I choose to elaborate on Mr. Darcy's character, and further extrapolate in order to relate it to our modern world.

Mr. Darcy is known as being the ideal gentlemen with obvious flaws. He respects women and all that good stuff, but unfortunately lacks a certain amount of manners that we would consider common today (and that would be considered common when the novel was written). This flaw is of course the reason that he does not initially succeed in his love interest.
Taking this information into consideration and applying the status of gentleman in today's world, his lack of manners would run his gentlemanly image into the ground. He was proven to be a fine man, willing to commit and to be everything a man should be, he simply lacked certain social skills. Let's apply that to todays world:
We are defined by the way in which we act. We can have the best intentions in the world but if we lack certain social skills (even just a certain few) then we are left on the side, disregarded as a gentleman. On the other hand, if a man's intentions are shallow and misleading, he can still be considered a gentleman and succeed in the world of "womanizing" if he is capable of wielding words.

This is all incredibly interesting to me because men in general now carry certain labels. A true gentleman in today's world may fall into the same category as a player simply because it is not common that ladies in today's world experience true gentlemen. Our world is based upon lies and manipulation, many guys choose to exploit that fact and THAT is why the good guy always loses, either being completely misunderstood or being disregarded as a true man.

I'm sure I could write more in regards to gentlemen in our world, and I plan to do so in a later post; however, my exhaustion leads me to sleep and so I'll cut this post short.

All Summer Long

I am leaving for the next two months and will not be posting very often during that time. Expect possibly one post every week or two.
I will continue with regular posts upon my return.

WHILE I'M AWAY
If there are any requests for topics of posts, please leave them in a comment, and I will post regardging your requests as soon as possible.
God Bless.

The Western Version of Religion

This will be a brief post due to a lack of time, but I hope to get my point across none the less.

I recently traveled to Rome, stayed for 8 days and lost count of how many churches I entered. I also attended 3 or 4 masses, including a Papal mass (mass done by the Pope, this one happened to be in memory of Pope John Paul II). During my time there, I was really able to appreciate the differences between religion where it was founded and what has become the Western version of that same religion.

Here religion is bland. There is no avoiding it. Going to church is something people around here do because they feel it is an obligation, or because it has simply been worked into their weekly routine. I've gotten to the point where I attend masses for Christmas and Easter, and that's it. Some may think that is because we are straying away from religion, but I'd argue instead that religion is straying from itself. It is not what it originally was, it cannot be expected to ever be what it originally was. As times change so must the church, but have times become boring in order for the church to match them?

In all the church's I entered in Rome, you would enter and there would be an immediate rush of emotion in relation to the church. I would walk in and, before anything else, be left in complete awe due to the absolute beauty of the church. Everything there is marble and gold, statues of various religious figures are everywhere. The aisle from the second you walk in seems to go on for miles. The churches there are absolutely beautiful. We do not get that same experience here. It is almost a disgrace that the older churches are so stunning and the churches that we build today, with all the modern technology and the massive surplus of money we all posess, are so incredibly bland. It seems that we have forgotten the beauty in religion back here.
If you ever get the chance, I advise you to no end to visit Rome and go from church to church, whether you are a devoted member of a parish or not, you will be stunned.

It is not only the physical beauty of the church that differs so much from what we are used to, it is an emotional beauty. From the moment you step in the doors of those churches, you feel different. The masses which I attended filled me with the same feeling, to a greater extent. While a mass is in progress, you feel a true sense of community in the church. There is no disrespect (with exception of the few tourists who do not understand that the churches are more than just good places to take pictures) and you feel a true sense of belonging to the religion. I have honestly never felt that same belonging in the parish that I've been going to since I was born (although I do only go twice a year). The priests present true emotion and belief when they read or speak, they do not simply read a script which they had written in their minds before the mass. They honestly seem to convey some higher message, as if they know they have words to pass on, and they do so with the greatest of enthusiasm.

While in Rome, I also had the opportunity to visit the Catacombs. These were the underground burrial graves for the martyred catholics in ancient Rome. I'll admit it was an eerie feeling that left me completely uneased, it was very strange. But to experience those sights is astounding. How can you see with your own eyes the thousands of graves (not to mention the thousands more that I did not see) of catholics who died in the name of their religion and still manage to deny religion? People do not die without reason, and the masses do not die by dillusion.

I realize I am sounding preachy at this point, but until you experience the churches in Europe, it is difficult to understand where I am coming from. When I got back from Rome, I had just seen the Pope, I had seen all these magnificent churches (St. Peter's Basilica, the Pantheon, etc.) and I was (dare I say?) excited about my religion. That very quickly wore off once I was re-introduced to the Western lifestyle to which I am accustomed.

Making a side note from the religious aspect of Rome for a moment, I'd suggest to anybody that, even if you are not religious or do not wish the seek religion in any form, visit Rome. It is an experience that will change your life. They do not live as we do. The cities were beautiful, well taken care of, everything has history. There are honestly no words to describe the feeling you get when you are there.

Ernest Hemingway- The Silver Tongued Devil

Ernest Hemingway was an American novelist of the early 20th century, I believe that his first publicized novel was written in 1925 (if not that exact year, somewhere close to it), I am also almost positive that his final novel was released in 1999 (although he died in 1961). I'll start by saying (and I regret to say) that I have not read a ton of Hemingway, simply because his books do take some time to get through. I have read The Old Man and the Sea as well as some of his poetry and short stories. There are obviously more that I wish to read (For Whom the Bell Tolls in particular) but I will shape the following opinions on what I do know about the man, and from what I have read by him. I may not have read much by him, but I have studied the man quite a bit and find him to be endlessly interesting. However, I will only give a breif introduction to his life in order to support my later comments: over the past year I have heard many attacks in Hemingway's direction, I simply wish to relieve some of the battering placed upon him. (I apologize if any of the dates I give, or some of the information is not exact, I am writing off of memory from a short biography of his life that I recently read).

Hemingway was, to say the very least, a man's man. Using The Old Man and the Sea as an example (which is conveniently probably his most well known novel), his novels revolved around the pure aggression and intincts that lie within a man. He referred to these steriotypical men he created as "grace under pressure" which is interesting. His writing style may convey a sense of grace, but the men in question do not act as such. Rippling muscles draw blood in times of pressure, this does not convey grace in my eyes. However, I do not criticize how he may see his creations because I do believe they are beautiful and maybe it is simply the world that I live in that has lead me to believe his characters are more barbarian than graceful. He is often attacked for having such pessimistic writings with such pessimistic, almost crude characters. This is because people do not understand where he comes from (I do not claim to either). He grew up in a different time than the one we live in, we do not understand the same pain he experienced. His father committed suicide when he was only 29 years old by shooting himself. Hemingway was a catholic man and believed very clearly that, although he loved his father, his father would be going to Hell for having committed suicide. Christian teachings refer to suicide as a sin; God gave you a body and you are to respect it, not doing so is against God's will. In addition to that, Hemingway was a member of the Red Cross corps in World War I (he wanted to fight, but had some sort of health problem that did not allow him to do so, I cannot remember exactly what at the moment). It is said that he loved being close to the front lines of battle. His first day in the war, an ammunitions factory was blown up and he was part of the group asked to tend to the injured. He wrote about this and having to sort through the dead, and severed limbs in his novel A Natural History of the Dead, on which I have seen a documentary, but have not been fortunate enough to read. Later in his life, Ernest Hemingway participated in the Navy during World War II.
I am sure that there are more situations in his life that contributed to his brutal characters, but the previously mentioned are those that I am aware of, and I am sure that they are enough to cause pessimism and brutality in any man.

Not only is he criticized for his negative connotations of the human conditions (some of which I share), he is also seen as a death to beauty in writing. He wrote at the same time that some great English writers wrote, as an American writer, his writing did not hold the same beauty and flow as the European novels. His writing is done in more of a short, choppy fashion that conveyed his point without hesitation and without beating around the bush. He is accused of being somewhat responsible for the literature that exists today: the novel's story may be great, but the writing is terrible compared to the beauty of the 20th century.

The one thing I will openly criticize in relation to Hemingway's life is ironically his death. He committed suicide on his 62nd birthday. It is believed that much of his family suffered from a hereditary disease, which caused many problems including manic depression (much of his family committed suicide, including his father, two siblings and a grand-daughter). We know now that Hemingway was also bi-polar. Two reasons are given for his death:
1. He had received electro-shock therapy as treatment for bi-polar disease. He blamed the treatment for his rapid memory loss and slow course to senility. He did not want to live long enough to become fully senile.
2. In effect of the first reason, he believed that he was no longer a man. He could no longer protect the ones he loved or himself, age had taken away his physical and mental strength and he did not want to be known as anything less than a completely ideal man. He therefore took his own life, being in control for one last time.

Both theories are possible as they connect to each other, I strongly believe the second point was mainly responsible for his death. The only reason I criticise this death is due to the fact that he was so afraid of being seen as a coward or as anything less than a man, that he reverted to suicide. This causes a direct paradox to his reason for death.

I believe that all writers work their personal opinions and views into all of their writing. For this reason, I've always found that the ending to The Old Man and the Sea to be very interesting. (SPOILER)

He succeeds in capturing this great beast of a swordfish and although he has captured nature he loses it to another source of nature. A skeleton lies on the beach from the capture that should have existed and yet Santiago decides to sleep and revert back to his normal life. He completely disregards the loss of his success. Yet Hemmingway commits suicide before failure even comes.

Today's word is Existentialism

And so the great debate of existentialism is brought to the table. Oh how I have looked forward to this rant.

First off, I'll explain the basics of existentialism which I choose to argue.
Existentialism argues, first and foremost, that we are essentially free as human beings. We make our own decisions and form our own conscious (yes that is mispelled). Because we are free and do make our own decisions, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences of those actions. There is no form of universal karma, there is only the theory that our actions produce consequences, whether positive or negative. These consequences do not come as a form of karma, simply as an action-reaction form of living. BECAUSE we create our own future, destiny or fate cannot logically exist (you can extrapolate from this point). This would also argue that we create our own meaning to our lives and are not directed by any necessary higher power. (Existentialism is easily related to Nihilism in this sense). It would argue against seeking some universal order or universal meaning and focus on the individual as opposed to the entirety of humanity.
This leads to the next major point focusing directly upon human existence (hence the name existentialism). An existentialist point of view would argue that there is no core to our existence, no true meaning to our lives. They would argue that by rejecting nothingness, they can better embrace or appreciate existence. This also supports their theory of "I think therefore I am". This theory basically states that there is no breathing room for illusions or false appearance. We are brought into a concrete world and see concrete sights.
The last point I choose to outline in relation to existentialism is as follows:
Humans are not essentially rational beings. This counters so much of so many other philosophies. It would argue in favor of a fascist point of view that humans react upon emotion and not reason. The pessimism is outstanding!

That was just my quick outline of the very basics of existentialism.

Now the fun part: arguing.
Although this part is amusing to me, it is also very complicated because existentialism touches base with so many points that it is almost impossible to take a stand against everything the philosophy argues.
I would gladly agree in favor of its point of all humans being essentially free. We are given free will (because I argue that we are given free will, I obviously believe in some higher power giving us the free will in question) and we act upon our own decisions. At the same time, I believe that some form of karma exists. If a man kills another man and escapes without ever being caught, he will still receive consequences. I do not believe that the murderer would ever be able to live a free, normal life. He would, in my opinion, experience, at the very least, psycological distress leading to abnormal tendencies. This counters the existentialist theory of a completely concrete world. "I think therefore I am"; what if the thoughts are corrupted or irrational? A murderer may act on instinct, not on thought, does this mean he does not exist? A free murderer may have an exceedingly corrupted mind, does this mean he only partially exists? One theory does not support the other.

I choose only to directly argue one other point because I find that by arguing one point, I end up arguing two or three at the same time.
Existentialism states that we do not have a core to our existence or any true meaning to our lives. There is no evidence supporting this or denying it, so an argument based on fact is very difficult to have. I instead rely on opinion based on no more than opinion: If we do, in fact, live without meaning, then why do we live?

I believe that much of life is based on faith, and we must follow through with that faith. I am not necessarily talking about faith in relation to religion, faith means to have trust. We have faith in human goodness; we trust human goodness (I am not saying I necessarily have faith in human goodness, it was just an example). Because we base so many of our thoughts and opinions on faith, we have to accept that there is not always a need for concrete evidence or proof of somethings existence. Simply because we do not know the meaning of life, does not mean that there is no such meaning. I believe that life would be very hollow without meaning.

Comments please.

End of the World Party

I believe strongly that we live in a world of karma. That karma may not come through instant delivery, but it does one day catch up to us.
To lead up to my actual argument, I will rely on the story of Noah's Ark:
I will not elaborate further than necessary to prove my point. The story's basic premis is that humanity failed. Everybody sins. So God came down, drowned the entire planet with the exception of one man and his wife, in addition to 2 of every animal. Assuming the animals are saved because we know that animals lack any free will and rely on instincts, they cannot be inherintly evil or corrupted. Animals cannot truly sin. So the world was wiped of sin by some higher power controlling our deaths. It was promised, at the end of this story, that the Lord would never impose such death upon the world again.

Since then, we have imposed enough death upon ourselves that it is not necessary for God to intervene.
This is my sagway to the fact that I truly believe there will be another plague in our lifetime, and I believe it will be the consequence of human actions.

In the 1820s, the first plague emerged. This plague was created by man's attempted disrespect towards its environment and its natural carelessness towards the planet that we walk on. A buildup of gargbage and substantial pollution over the years (basically a lack of hygene) introduced the first plague. After all the deaths, we simply rebuilt over our mistakes. In certain places in Europe right now they are exploring under current roads and finding old roads and villages that were destroyed by the plague.

Around a hundred years later, just after World War 1, the world was hit with the second universal epidemic: the influenza.
I'd argue that this would not be so much a direct consequence of our physical actions, but I would argue that it was a direct consequence of our intentions. We based our world on a world war. We used it as a crutch to support the economy and as a weapon wielded over words. In consequence to our pride and stupidity we were hit with a disease that wiped out more than the war itself did. I do no believe it was a coincidence that one was consecutive to the other. God stated that he would not unleash such a natural disaster on the world as the great flood, but I do believe he had some influence on the plagues.

So here we are: NEARLY 100 years later, and I do expect another plague. I, however, do not expect it to be a random disease or a natural disaster. I believe it will be a direct consequence of our age of technology and of our want to play God. Stephen King, I believe, agreed with this theory, having written The Stand and The Mist (both motion pictures, The Mist being a new release). This theory would also be portrayed by the relatively new movie: I am Legend. I suggest strongly that you at least see The Mist and I am Legend, but do watch The Stand if you are ever able to find it. Basically, I agree with these movies, assuming that our military advancements or technological advancements would destroy us all. This could branch off in two directions:

1. If something were to happen to our world, directly focused on our reliance on technology, the world would simply fall apart. Think about it, if all technology seized to fail, we would be left with nothing. I'm not only talking about electronics, I am also referring to the oil industry. So we are left with no electronics, or motor vehicles. The world that we live in would not know how to survive and chaos would being to rule our planet. I strongly believe that ultimate chaos could lead to man's ultimate destruction.

2. It is, in my opinion, even more likely that we become greedy with our research and advancements. This could be a new biological disease meant for war or for research that breaks loose. Seeing as it were hypothetically unlike all other strands of diseases, or assuming the disease were able to mutate as to not be affected by the anti-bodies we possess, it is easily assumable that nearly the entire human population (if not all) would be wiped out by this disease.
It could also be looked at as a cure to a disease causing ultimate death. We rely on our antibodies to protect us, and what they cannot do quickly enough, we use antibiotics to take care of. What if a cure was found for diseases such as cancer or AIDS. It has to be assumed that, with time, the disease would mutate to no longer be affected by the "cure". Assuming this were true, our body would not be able to fight the disease off any better than the medication could, causing death.

(The third man-made reason for the destruction of humanity would be World War 3. With our modern military technology and biological weapons, no human would survive. However, because this could not be considered a BIOLOGICAL plague, it does not merrit elaboration. I would argue, however, that it would still be humanity's ultimate plague.)

And so, as much as I would like to believe in human goodness, I can only rely on humans being the cause of our destruction. They think they are doing what is right by reducing Global Warming (and I would agree that it does need to be taken into some consideration), but they are forgetting that, before our environment should be saved from pollution, so must the human mind.

The Bible states that the world will end by the rath of God punishing us for our sins. I do not think that will be a physical rath; natural disasters will not be our end. I believe the rath comes in the form of karma. Before the end of my days, I expect to see humanity's ultimate failure.

The Day the Music Died

I like to think of myself as a dedicated musician. My music will, by no means, ever make a life for me but I enjoy playing my guitars without reason. This leads me to my latest thoughts of society's failure:
The evolution of music!

Music is simply not what it used to be. In the past, music was about the lyrics. The lyrics connected to people on personal levels, lead them into a state of imagination or a new world, perhaps it even gave them a false reality or a better view of a true reality. But the fact is, music was designed based on its lyrics. I'd say that today's version of music is much less about the purity of the lyrics or the connection to the lyrics. I'd instead argue that it revolves around intensity, pumping up its listeners, or, worse than any other reason: being catchy.
Oh how I hate those catchy songs where the lyrics have no true value... and sometimes lack any meaning, but they do stick in your head like that annoying little wasp that won't leave but you can't seem to swat fast enough.

For these reasons, I listen to a lot of older stuff, old and new blues, old and new jazz and country. I went through a long stage of heavy metal, rock, all that good stuff. I still listen to Metallica just as much as I ever did, and Avenged Sevenfold fills my blood with what can only be defined as pure awesomeness (it's enough of a word to count). I enjoy going to metal concerts, I enjoy the heavy, brutal nature of the music and I enjoy the moshpits which leave me in so much pain the next day, but were so worth it the night before. Having said that, I do not sit at home moshing by myself. Instead, I like to turn on some BB King or some classic John Coltrane and I like to let the music guide my thoughts. I listen to music such as Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold, and sure, it gets me pumped and I'm ready to play sports or workout or have a good time, but I can't think things over while listening to them. If I want to think, I've found that the best remedy is Explosions in the Sky (which I realize is modern music, but instrumentals never lose their feel) or a bit of Medeski, Martin & Wood. And you can never go wrong with a good dose of Johnny Cash to ease the mind.

Don't get me wrong, I do listen to current music. I love stuff like Jack Johnson, Johnny Reid and I love the Foo Fighters. But if you listen to their lyrics, they hold more substance than new, catchy tunes do. I would, however, still argue that they do not hold the same meaning that an old Bob Dylan or a Velvet Underground song would.

I guess music, like so many other things, relies on the time. Our world today is one of technology, speed, we're reverting back to drugs and alcohol without falling into a state of hippy-likeness. We live in a world where we don't like to beat around the bush but we do enjoy having things spoon fed to us; screw metaphors and similes, just tell me whats going on. I guess I'd rather live in an older day, every now and then. Our world is falling apart... hell, it's been falling apart for decades. But I'd rather be at the start of our destruction than at the end.

Don Maclean was right about one thing:

The music died.
What he didn't know was that the day the music died lasted over a span of many years. We've successfully completed the destruction the day that Nirvana no longer existed, and New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys tickets sell out in mere minutes.

The Sound of Silence

"Speak when you are angry, and you will make the best speech you will ever regret"
-Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Another State of Mind

All humans are inherently evil. Cynical, perhaps, but it can not be more true than I will prove it to be. Man is flawed from the moment he exits the womb. This defeats, once again, the philosophy of existentialism (which is a philosophical point of view that I will question in a later post).
William Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers of all time, although I’d reasonably argue that G.K. Chesterton was (and should continue to be) the most influential in all of history. However, I’d like to use Shakespeare to prove my point. All of his tragedies have tragic heroes along with those who die in passing. Most people read the plays and enjoy them for their beauty and genius, at the same time it is very easily arguable that its true genius is not always understood. Men who died in the plays that Shakespeare wrote died at their own faults, ESPECIALLY his tragic heroes. They die due to their greed, arrogance, rashness, their ignorance or due to other flaws that they possessed. What most people don’t understand is that, although these traits are said to be learned over time, they are all inherent, instinctual traits within mankind. Now, I’m not implying in any way that all men are arrogant or selfish, nor that the men who do possess those traits deserve to fail due to their instinctual flaws. What I am arguing is that, while not every man shares the same combination of initial flaws, all men are born with inherent evil.

Some would say that this would defeat the concept that God gave us free will to control our own lives and be who we want to be. I'd say the exact opposite, I'd say instead that it promotes the theory that we are given free will. We are born with these initial flaws and it is our job to grow out of them, to recognize our flaws and to change ourselves to be better people, to eventually reflect the image of God.
Along the same lines, some would argue that this theory defeats the thought that we are all created in the image of God. However, I do not believe that everything written in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, the Garden of Eden: I do not take it completely literally. I believe, instead, that the Garden of Eden would support my theory that all humans are inherently evil. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and I believe they were born in a type of Utopian world without any type of pain. But I believe the moral of the story is more important than the literal translation of the story. I'd argue that it implies that we are all born to live free and without sin, just as we are born flawed. If we choose to surpress the flaws and resist temptation, then we will continue to live free. If we choose to indulge in the temptations and present our flaws, then our lives become restricted. I seem to have strayed from my original point that centered around being created in the image of God:

I'd say that, because I do not take everything in the Bible as being literal, that we are all created with the intention of being in the image of God. This would imply that we are created with the capacity to live without sin, to repress our flaws and live as the Bible tells us to. Of course, this isn't easy to do, and being human, it isn't too common either.

Another argument against my theory would be the simple human want of optimism. Although flowers and rainbows are pretty and fun to look at, we must remember that they thrive best after the worst of storms. These same people would say that we are born good and pure and it is the world that turns us to sin. My previous opinions obviously counter this theory and there is no point in repeating them.
For my opinions, I can guarantee that I am seen as a pessimist. I do not believe this is true in all cases. I see my opinions on initial human flaw as being somewhat optimistic, trusting in humans, against the negative connotation of the human condition, to avoid temptation and to better themselves.

I do, however, welcome all opinions!

Remember me as a Time of Day

Again, possibly not as insightful as these posts are meant to be, but the way I see it, this is just me writing what's on my mind. So whether you believe my thoughts are insightful or not, they're still there. And now they're here:

The way I see it, everybody wants to be remembered for something. Playing on the possibility that I'm wrong about this, whether they want to be or not, everybody WILL be remembered for something. Good or bad, that memory is there. So I'm just going to play on that theory for a while in regards to the current Bush administration. (Yes this will be a long post.)
Didn't see that coming eh?

We live in the world that we have created. There is no avoiding our mistakes and there is no hope to change the past. I’d argue without hesitation that we have destroyed the world that was pure at the dawn of our existence. I’d also gladly argue that, even know we are the only creature who does not live upon instinct and who has the power of free will, we have not learned from the mistakes caused by that free will. We believe that we are above any higher power that may or may not exist and yet we tend to be cockroaches. We live as if there is no tomorrow and then resort to endless scapegoating once this lifestyle leaves the next generation with the consequences. Should we not begin to depend on a higher source of power to correct what man has caused, but what man can not defend nor reverse? This would seem to be common sense to most individuals, but when individuals regroup, we tend to forget any reason or common sense. To be human is to be flawed, there is no avoiding our mistakes, it is however what we learn from these mistakes that decides whether we are truly evolved, or whether we are simply Neanderthals living in a world of technology. I think it’s about time that we stop defending our faults, and instead embrace them as lessons.

George W. Bush would not agree with a damn word I say. The man has invaded a country run by dictatorship without reason and without apology. He says he intends to impose democracy upon a beaten people. In reality he intends to force an unknown government upon people who, for the most part, live peaceful lives without need for change (although I do believe Saddam Hussein had to go). Of course, once this “democracy” is forced upon the Iraqi people, Bush will gladly rape them of their natural resources and of their sovereignty. He has stated that he intends to successfully place democracy on the shoulders of the Iraqi people and watch them gain their freedom. I’d say freedom isn’t worth anything except pain. I am not arguing against freedom by any means, I am in fact encouraging it, but put into proper context, freedom is not free and there lies the irony in the world that we have created. Please, call me a cynic and I will gladly agree. Cynicism belongs to those who do not conform to the ideas of age, I’d say it belongs to the young hearted with the power to change things, not necessarily the pessimists. Freedom is not something that can be forced upon a nation. Wouldn’t that defeat the entire purpose of freedom? It is, instead, something that a nation has to want and has to strive for, possibly with many failures along the way. Freedom is something each individual country has to shape, has to define upon their own terms. Still, the Bush Administration seems to believe that they have cured world stupidity. I’d say that the Bush Administration is the single largest failure and flaw of American history.

The United States of America must be respected. I’d even go as far as to applaud them. They have more than successfully freed themselves from the crown (something that I still feel Canada needs to do in order to fully be a sovereign nation) and were the first to establish a fiscally democratic system. My hat tips to the forefathers of American history. My fist rises just as easily against the current establishment. I am not a man of anarchy by any means. Anarchy is a demand for chaos. It is a simple fact, proven throughout history, that when men are not rallied to oppose or to rise with one single purpose, men in general fail. They attempt to pursue their own interests and there lies chaos.
Every previous American president is remembered for their victories, not their failures. As presidents are no more than men with the expected capacity to point a country in the right direction, they too are going to fail now and then. The difference with George W. Bush and the previous American presidents is that he will only be remembered for his failures. This is due to the sad fact the they overshadow his victories.
The current Bush Administration, I'd argue, is a failure in an oh-so bright technological world.

Maybe I'm just ranting because I'm still too young to know what I want to be remembered for...

I Wanna Feel Something

So my first post isn't as insightful as the ones that will follow it, but I figure there are certain things on my mind right now that I believe need to be addressed.

The simple fact of the matter is that society has become immune to pain. I'm not talking about physical pain, I mean general emotional pain, on a non-personal level, has disappeared. The news is littered with stories of murder, of rape, of abandonment and of accidents. Yet, we watch at home, sitting on a leather couch, drinking an expensive glass of wine. We see these sad stories and respond with:
"That's sad." or "Thats terrible."

Then the phone rings and we forget all about it, or even better, we realize there's something more entertaining on a different station. Funny how our world works, isn't it? We pretend to be so perfect, pretending to be what we cannot be, but hey, at least we can't say we're striving to be what we cannot be.
In reality, every person should be morally outraged by the world we live in. But it seems that as the cigarettes fill the median or the empty bottles fill the void in our souls, we become immune to pain. I'm not saying that the entire world's population is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but I will gladly assume that everybody is addicted to something. The steriotypical connotation of addiction would refer to drugs, nicotine, alcohol, gambling, whatever it may be. I'd say that, along with those things, I would gladly place human conditions under the category of addiction. I believe ignorance is a subconcious addiction. I believe arrogance and pride are addictions. I believe all sin, pain, feelings of sitting on a non-meritted high horse, all human flaws are addictions. We are not given a personality and are told to deal with it, we are given life, a fresh aisle, and we decide to paint it black. So I'd argue that it is our own fault that our world is desensitized. Blame it on the media if you'd like, but do not forget that it is people who control that same media. Blame it on corporations, I know I do, then I remember that it is poisoned humans who control these same corporations. Hell, blame it on the corrupt governments that intervene far too often in a free market enterprise controlled by a free market world. Just remember who voted for the PEOPLE in charge of the corruption.

So yes, we are to blame!

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to pessimism! Care to join?

First Breath After a Coma

Welcome to the beginning of a beautiful world.

I figured I have a lot of a ideas, so why not share some of them. I won't write every day but the way I see it, if I've got something to say, I'll say it on here, which should work well. (Those who know me know I have a lot to say).

Feel free to comment on anything I post, I just ask that there's some respect in the comments.
Please do not leave any anonymous comments.
Enjoy!