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.