Деньги есть корень всякого зла

The Root of All Evil in Russian. Scroll Down for English.

Иногда у меня есть идея , заслуживающие внимания на других языках. Это одна из тех идей .

        

Деньги есть корень всякого зла, (если можно перефразировать цитату из Тимофею . ) Если у вас нет жилья, воды или пищи ; Если у вас есть страдать под тираном , если вы находитесь в тисках войны , если вы которые в любом случае подавляется на это смехотворно богатых ресурсами планету , это связано с деньгами. Возможно, ваши проблемы вызваны отсутствием денег, но чаще всего они будут вызваны тем, что кто-то способен заработать деньги на ваш счет. Деньги не может быть причиной всех наших проблем , но избавиться от него будет решить их все .

Несколько лет назад , когда я стал комментатором и социальный критик , мои исследования привели меня к убеждению, что если бы мы могли как-то " избавиться от денег " проблемы у всех уйдет. Я принес его с моей матерью, которая была яркая леди , ( может быть, она еще есть, это уже тема для другого эссе. ) Она согласилась со мной и Тимофеем , что деньги были средством , с помощью которого все зло выражается , если не причиной из него полностью , но спросила она, как и многие другие уже на протяжении многих лет , " Что нам делать с этим? " Единственный ответ, который я имел в то время был , " Избавиться от него . " Я объяснил ей, как я думал, что это может играть : Во-первых, по моему сценарию , нет денег . Деньги не существует. Он не был заменен "кредитов " или " цифровых цифр в банке где-нибудь . " Я не говорю об избавлении от наличных денег , я говорю об избавлении от любой формы валюты для торговли. ( Деньгиинституциональных, мнимая реальность в любом случае. Мы просто сделали это , чтобы сформировать основу всей контроля . Так почему бы не просто поместите его ? ) Мама сказала: " Как вы получаете ваши продукты , платить арендную плату , топлива вашего автомобиля , и т.д.? " Я объяснил, что в моей воображаемой решения , все просто пошел о своей жизни так, как они были , только без денег. Мы все равно идти на работу, хотя сейчас мы могли бы работать только на вещи , которыми мы наслаждались делать . Если мы нуждались в бакалею , мы будем идти в продуктовый магазин , где люди, которые любили работать там будет приветствовать нас , и мы бы просто получить пищу , мы нуждались и выходите . Нет сделка , для возможности инвентаризации исключением , мы не должны быть запущены из любого конкретного элемента . Мы пошли бы в АЗС и насос наш газ и оставить . Мама сказала : "Но это стоит денег , чтобы получить масло из земли . " " Нет, это не так, " Я напомнил ей , "деньги больше не существует . " Все по существу не содержит . ( Я знаю, это звучит смешно , но выслушайте меня , это Цель этого упражнения . )

Мама думала, что без денег не было бы никакого стимула для людей , и это , по крайней мере частично , правда. Никто я знаю не хочет работать на очистных сооружениях , например . ( До их сточные воды не поддерживает. ) Все хотят быть кинозвездой. Ну, это может быть правдой тоже, но никто не собирается быть продолжая делать то, что они бедны на , потому что единственная награда вы собираетесь выйти из труда гордость за хорошо выполненную работу , или, возможно, признание это . Если вы дерьмовый салон певец, там собирается быть никем , чтобы слушать вас , и вы должны будете найти что-то еще сделать , что обеспечивает для вас , что вам нужно от этой жизни , любви , внимания , дружбы, товарищества , удовлетворение жизни жили хорошо . На мой безденежного мире существует также будет переходным этапом , где все пошли бананы , входя в дилерском Porche , положив бриллиантовое кольцо на каждом пальце , есть полфунта икры и позволяя гниль отдыха. Это тоже , я буду откладывать , как болезнь роста . Если бы все было бесплатно , не было бы начальный свободный для всех , что необходимо будет плато , я считаю, было бы , потому что жадность людей , в конечном счете станет проблематичным для них. (Кроме того, на каждые мудак сбора кожаными диванами будет десять голодающих людей счастливыми , чтобы иметь еду и воду . ) Ценные вещи были определены те, кто создает это значение. Если вы думаете, что ваш $ 3000 кожаный диван лучше , чем мой $ 300 стороны меня вниз , это , но как только оба эти диваны свободны, они точно такой же стоимости. Так что теперь все, что вам остается, это ваша вера . Если ваш двухлетний разливов апельсиновый сок на кожаном диване , вы можете увлечься , но не в новом мире , вы просто пойти, получают другой диван . Теперь не только являются диваны одного и того же значения , вы и я такой же стоимости . Если вам материал ваш дом с сотней кожаные диваны , там собирается быть не место, чтобы сидеть .

Рассмотрим некоторые факты о сумме денег , заработанных адвоката против кювет экскаватор . Какой из них работает больше ? Это вопрос , который нуждается определения уточнены ответить. Что "работает" в виду? Что значит " тяжелее " означает? Если мы говорим о физическом труде , то становится ясно , что Экскаватор-погрузчик потеет больше, чем адвокат . Если мы говорим о количестве времени и обучения введен в понимании , адвокат работает тяжелее . Адвокат должен был пойти в школу в течение многих лет , чтобы добраться до позиции, где он мог сделать $ 300 в час . Экскаватор-погрузчик был иметь сильную спину и поднять лопату , чтобы заработать его 20 $ в час. Причина адвокат делает больше, чем Экскаватор-погрузчик в том, что он должен был тратить огромные деньги , чтобы получить ученую степень . Его работа также более специализированным, чем канаву землекопов. Это , однако, не больше важно. Если оба эти люди не не придется платить за свое образование и больше не сделал любой вид заработной платы , то и они не могут быть созданы еще более равны в очах наших? Теперь полагаю, вы должны канаву вырыли , которые вы собираетесь звонить? Допустим, вам нужно завещание составленное , которые вы собираетесь звонить? Если бы все можно было бы "использовать" в том, как они выбрали для , независимо от значения они положили на работе они , не они выиграют в считанные точки зрения удовлетворенности ? Разве мы не на пользу в плане справедливости и равенства .

Давайте вернемся к стимула . Давайте попытаемся ответить на вопрос: " Если бы все было бесплатно, зачем идти на работу? " Я говорю , потому что каждый хочет иметь цель в этой жизни . Вы бы просто скучно с ничего не делать весь день, каждый день. Я подозреваю, что есть люди, которые дали бы этой теории согласованные тестирование : Сидя вокруг, курить марихуану , наблюдая повторы Симпсонов и я признаю , что звучит довольно мило, но держу пари, что любой, кто будет проявлять такое поведение на долгосрочный масштаб бы, наверное, вел себя как это в любом случае , еще в дни работы и денег . Единственная разница в настоящее время они не отображаются для их смены на 7-11. В великой схеме вещей , было бы их отсутствие имеет значение? Я бы дальнейшее пари , что рано или поздно , сказал ленивый кабельной муфты брал кисть или гитару и сделать некоторые другого человека счастливым . Даже если они этого не сделали , даже если они сидели на их диване остальную часть своей жизни , было бы меньше разница в жизни все остальные, чем если бы деньги существовали . " Но это не справедливо ", вы говорите . Почему ? Это несправедливо, потому что этот человек не тянет их вес ? Были ли они потянув их вес Dishing из Slurpees и сигареты ? Почему вы даже уход ? Она должна быть , потому что теперь ленивый кабельной муфты имеет доступ ко всему, у вас есть доступ к , но у вас работать , и он этого не делает. Возможно, вы правы , так что наслаждайтесь гордость вы чувствуете на хорошо выполненную работу и принять утешение в том, что вы будете иметь возможность оглянуться на свою жизнь и чувствовать себя вы достигли чего-то . Возможно, кабельной муфты не будет. Во всяком случае,кабельной муфты не имели никакого влияния на вашу жизнь , прежде чем и не имеет ни сейчас . Спросите себя , почему вы заботитесь ? Она должна быть , потому что вы все еще не обернуты вокруг головы тем, что деньги больше не существует . Задумывались ли вы , "Человек , эти профессиональные спортсмены / музыканты / кинозвезды платят слишком много за то, что они делают. Я там работал мои пальцы до кости каждый день только, чтобы свести концы с концами ». Ну, теперь вы все одинаковые , суперзвезда ,кабельной муфты , вы ... Чувствовать себя лучше ?

" Что делать, если идиот решает, что он хочет быть пилот самолета и падает самолет , когда я нахожусь на ? " Нет, вы не получаете еще. ( Как не сделала моя мама в первую очередь. ) Ничего не изменилось кроме того факта, больше нет сделка происходит. Мы все равно придется школ, летчиков, полицейских , врачей , библиотеки, Интернет , зубная паста, все. Разница лишь в том , что все будет бесплатно. Вы по-прежнему ходят на работу . Если вы хотите быть пилотом , вы будете иметь , чтобы получить летную подготовку и лицензию , как и раньше, вы просто не будете платить за это , и не будет у вас заплатили за ваш полет. " Но что, если какой-то идиот решает получить лицензию пилота ? " ( Боже , вы действительно висит на это, выдуманный персонаж спорить со мной . )Идиот не пройдет свой ​​путь, не получить свою лицензию , не может быть допущен к полетам самолет. То же самое с полицейскими , хотя преступление войдет , потому что люди больше не будут иметь , чтобы украсть то, что они могут иметь бесплатно. Полицейский будет служить и защищать , соблюдать закон , устанавливается правительством , и т.д. и т.д. и т.д. Это просто, что никто не получает деньги или платит . Это не будет означать не больше штрафов , поэтому еще одна форма наказания за нарушение закона должны быть приняты , возможно, если вы ускорить , ты потеряешь свою лицензию в течение короткого периода . Возможно, если вы присвоить деньги из вашей компании ... О! Ты меня, хороший ... Давай думать об этом, много законов бы уходят на второй план , если вы удалили деньги из уравнения .

" Да, но как вы вознаграждать людей за тяжелую работу ? Как вы знаете, если вы сделали это ? " Ничего себе, э-э ... Как вы знаете, если вы сделали это сейчас? Вы измерения ваш успех на сумму денег у вас есть? Если вы , это действительно грустно . Как насчет измерения ваш успех по тому, как вы счастливы ? Тогда , если это имущество , что делает вас счастливым , вы будете в состоянии иметь их в любом случае . " Да, но они никогда больше не будет особенным, потому что каждый может иметь их". Да ! Теперь вы получаете его. " Но , что обесценивает все. " Нет, это означает, что вы в одиночку создать ценность чего-то . ( Который является точно, так оно и есть сейчас . ) Может быть, ваш Фаберже сбор яиц ничего не стоит для меня. Это просто не имеет значения, в нашем новом мире .

" Это звучит смешно! " Да, это так . Я согласен . Предположим, что это сбудется в любом случае. Это не трудно представить себе сценарий, в котором любая частности валюта становится " ДЕВАЛЬВАЦИЯ " в такой степени, что бесполезно. ( Попросите вашего российского бабушка. ) Теперь граждане указанной страны вынуждены в этом сценарии так или иначе. Тем не менее, в реальном мире сегодняшней денежной парадигмы , граждане , скорее всего, придумали для замены денег , а не просто идти дальше без него. Бартер бы идти вверх, как бы использование других , традиционных форм валюте , как золото , или, возможно, зерна. Черт, они, вероятно, также начать использовать валюту другой страны . Эти люди пропустили бы на возможность просто заниматься своими делами , как будто ничего не происходило , но они не были бы, потому что деньги это власть, и без него реальность мы создали крошится . Так в конечном счете , то, случайно освободился от цепей , которые связывают подавляющее большинство из нас, мы охотно поставить себя еще в свежих цепей: Это, друзья мои , это смешно.

Причина вы думаете такая идея смешно , или слишком радикальной , чтобы добиться успеха в том, что человечество привил систему субъективную ценность на себя . Справедливость , с точки зрения справедливости , является соответствующая система . Если, например , вы убиваете свою собаку , потому что он не остановится изматывания на вашем газоне , это должно считаться преступлением и есть наказание , соответствующее преступлению . Такое наказание , по логике должно быть меньше, чем то, что будет считаться справедливость , если бы ты убил моего сына для получения ваша дочь беременна. Человеческая жизнь должна стоить больше, чем собак. ( Извинения тем , кто не согласен , есть много места для аргумента в этом сценарии. ) Тем не менее, это справедливость в решении от отрицательной человеческой деятельности , а не человеческого его или непосредственно , ни положительным человеком обслуживание. В нашем предыдущем заявлении, что адвокат и Экскаватор-погрузчик обладают равной ценностью , мы можем соглашаться или не соглашаться , что как люди , именно этот адвокат или , что особое Экскаватор-погрузчик имеют одинаковую ценность , это вопрос симпатии или антипатии личность , не оказанных услуг . В плане того, что каждый из них может предложить мир, что мы ранее пришлось бы заплатить за , мы можем только измерить такое значение на индивидуальной основе . Как я уже сказал , иногда нужно завещание составленное , иногда нужно канаву вырыли . Но справедливость, с точки зрения вознаграждения за услуги , исключительно создан на концепции денег и денег является мнимым , самое большее , и произвольное по крайней мере.

" Да, но я не могу представить себе мир , где каждый идет на работу бесплатно. " Ну, это только потому, что вы не пытаетесь достаточно трудно. Давайте попробуем это : Представьте себе, что это далеко , далеко в будущем . Нам пришлось покинуть Землю , потому что Солнце взорвалось и к счастью достаточно мы мы можем хлюпать несколько миллионов людей в несколько сотен космических кораблей , и мы увеличение отключено в галактике, чтобы найти новую планету , на которой мы можем жить . Затем, мы находим один . Давайте назовем это Humania . Humania содержит чистый воздух , вода, жизнь растений , но не слишком много различных видов животных , именно так мы можем иметь " новый старт " , не повреждая любой конкретный аспект экосистемы Humania в . Таким образом, мы создали магазин в Humania . Мы сразу же приступить к работе создании инфраструктуры мы должны прожить свою жизнь с комфортом . У нас есть транспорт , дороги, дома , хранения, производства электроэнергии , сельское хозяйство, все, что мы могли нуждаться , чтобы удовлетворить потребности каждого человека. Единственная разница сейчас между нашей жизни на Humania и Земли будет валюта и наше отношение к ней . На Humania , валюта даже не рассмотрение , потому что мы коллектив , работая вместе к цели простого комфорта в устойчивости , на богатых ресурсами планеты, на которой для нас все, что нужно , до тех пор, как мы готовы сделать работа . Теперь понимаю, что единственное, что мешает нам в достижении этой реальности сейчас, на Земле, в том, что напротив уже привили . Это имеет больше смысла на Humania , потому что это " новая " и " мы начинаем снова", но то, что мешает нам начать снова , здесь , сейчас?

" Вы описываете коммунизм ». В самом деле? Вы уверены, потому что каждый «коммунист» страна , прошлое и настоящее , использует деньги . Эта идея не вызывает никаких "изм " Я в курсе .

"Хорошо , но как же начать такие изменения ? " Ну, это сложная часть. Мы все должны быть на борту , чтобы это работало . Если, например , мы в Канаде решили, что мы собираемся уничтожить деньги , это также будет означать отмену всю торговлю и коммерцию . Это не будет означать не больше киви или бананы , потому что Новая Зеландия и Эквадор по-прежнему хотят свои доллары . Мы были бы не в состоянии обеспечить эти доллары , и, как мы убрали понятие валюты , мы не были бы готовы ничего торговать за это. Таким образом, эта отмена валюты должны стать общей , широкий вид . Теперь, как подавляющее большинство людей на этой планете , ( помню сейчас , мы смотрим на всех на планете , а не только "богатые западный , " ) разорены, то есть не в состоянии обеспечить основные потребности в жизни комфортно , я Тут надо спросить: " Как вы думаете, будет в наименьшей степени , чтобы принять наш сценарий убийства валюту ? " Как только вы получили , что ответил , спросите "почему?" Теперь вы знаете, кто не хочет , чтобы спасти мир , ( власть имущих , ) и почему , (потому что они потеряют эту власть. ) Теперь понимаю, что он принял для этой власти должно осуществляться в первую очередь , деньги . Поэтому , чтобы избавиться от денег будет выровнять поле всех человеческих существ и оцениваемые своими действиями в одиночку, на каждом конкретном случае , действий действий основе.

Это ни в коем случае в конце этого разговора. Я подозреваю, что есть аспекты этого плана , что я еще не думал от , препятствия на пути успеха. Я был бы готов держать пари , однако, что каждый удар на нашем пути к избавлению от денег , что-то делать с недоброжелатели представлений о ценности, которые были созданы для вас , из институциональной реальности, давно привила . На протяжении многих лет мы позволили другие, не менее глупые мысли отпадают в анналы знания. Давайте вкладывать деньги в категории глупых суеверий и недоразумений , с чистого листа и перейти к реальной процветания.

Я бы очень хотел бы услышать ваши мысли по этому вопросу ...

2 New Anthologies published

Brian is happy to release two new books today, December 16, 2013.

The first is Hyperexistentialism a collection of the latest essays published 2012-2013.
The second is No More Suffering Fools a complete anthology of all Brian's work.

Both books contain complete, unabridged work. If you're reading me online, you're not getting it all.
Hyperexistentialism is very small and will fit in your pocket.
No More Suffering Fools is very large.
Here are the covers.

 Brian C. Taylor's hyperexistentialism:
Contains "The Root of All Evil" about ending currency &
the title essay which promises to clear a path to conscious living
by folding a postmodern existentialism into a social norm.

No More Suffering Fools contains everything of value written by Mr. Taylor
up to the end of 2013.
Nearly 500 pages, unabridged.
If you haven't yet bought one of my books, this is the one to get.




Both books are currently only available here
In the next few weeks they will become available everywhere books are sold.

Hyperexistentialism: Clearing a Path to Conscious Living

H  (x)

Hyperexistentialism: Clearing a Path to Conscious Living.

Existentialism: I exist and my mind is responsible for my experience of living.

Hyperexistentialism: I can make an effort to be responsible for my mind.

Obviously these two definitions are generalizations, reduced to their basest ideas. Anyone with even the most minimal understanding of existentialism knows it's a complicated matter to understand, or explain. Part of the goal of this piece, as with most of my work, will be to simplify the definition to a tidy, modern interpretation that will expose what was previously believed to be a lack of utilitarian meaning and purpose. Existentialism need not be confusing. 

To begin with, existentialism, at its root, should be wholly concerned with existence. The existentialist argues simply that "I exist and create all meaning for myself." This is an important sentence in our understanding of existentialism, whether it be classic or modern, or carried over into hyperexistentialism. The first part of the sentence, "I exist," is a mathematical proof expressed in the simplest form: (I) a Philosopher would say, "There exists such a thing as I." I am real. I am here. I am aware of these facts. You reading these words also helps prove that I exist, for if I didn't, neither would these words. (There is a very valid argument against any existential proof of my reality, but let's start out slow by simply presuming that I am and you are, in fact, real.)

The second part of the existentialists claim is that "I create all meaning for myself." This is an extremely complex statement. Reduced into Philosopher speak it would sound something like "All meaning is created by the individual." By "meaning" we can discern "value, importance, relevance." It is not a concept unlike my own Assignee's Prerogative, whereby we acknowledge that we assign some quantifiable weight to our paradigm. (See Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self.) Also, an equally important concern for the existentialist should be that we, as beings capable of philosophy in the first place, have as at least part of our purposes the doing of philosophy, about our existences. As such, while a tree or a cow exists, it cannot be existentialist. By taking action we are changing the world, we have the opportunity to plan our escapades, it would be a shame to squander such gifts for mere immediate concerns. Thus, even traditional existentialists agree that philosophical thinking begins and ends with the human being, an acting, feeling, product of the past, present and future. We are solely responsible for giving meaning to our lives, not society, not religion, not even other people. Our minds are responsible for our the experience of our lives and we can make an effort to be responsible for our minds.

This is not to say that an existentialist cannot love, for instance, or believe in God, or find meaning in Religion or even social norms, but rather that the existentialist understands that I create this meaning for myself, stemming from these notions. These concerns, however, are not truly existential, as they are part of our essences. I am, I exist, and while the notion of a belief in God is no less existential, it only exists because I accept it as existing. Here now we speak of only the idea of the belief, not the belief itself. God is part of my essence, should I choose, for whatever reason to believe in God. Existence precedes essence. We become existential when we are born a blank slate, we fill up that slate with associations that build into paradigm and "the markings" on that slate become our essence. An existentialist is simply able to see the slate laid bare, or at least understands that it was life that made the indelible marks, whatever those marks might be. 

This brings us to the apparent meaninglessness of life, for if we give all meaning to our lives and to the world, does that not mean that life has no inherent meaning? A classic existentialist would answer, "Yes, life is a void that we attempt to fill," thus, existential angst. For instance, in the Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus describes the ancient tale of Sisyphus, apparently doomed to push a boulder up a hill, just to have it roll down the other side. He then attempts to push it back up, just to have it roll down the original side and on it goes, forever. Camus claims much in life is represented by this absurdity. However there is hope, if Sisyphus can find meaning and value in the act of pushing the boulder perhaps we too can find the same in our lives. 

Existentialism emphasizes the individual as a free and responsible agent, doing the best possible work in a meaningless world, (or at least, this is the goal.) There are some who would argue that there is no "work" to be done if the world is meaningless. To me this seems to render the idea of existentialism out of the arena of actionable philosophy into pure nihilism. Nihilism expounds that existence is meaningless, substance-less, senseless and useless. A nihilist believes that there are only the things there are and there aren't even any possibilities beyond that. An existentialist and nihilist are looking at the same phenomenon, "life" as the amount of existence we are understood to have. Where an existentialist can shrug off the unknowable and speak only to that which is known, a nihilist insists that what we know is all there is to know. (Which seems pretty arrogant, considering how often humans have been extremely wrong about our ideas in the past.) 

While modern existentialists need not concern themselves with nihilism, they can also avoid the humanist movement. Unlike nihilism, humanism does allow for us to value the talents we have over other creatures. Humanists too fall into the arrogant category of believing that humans are the pinnacle of experience. A humanist claims that there is an explanation for everything and that anything beyond our explanation is discoverable or it doesn't exist. Humanists insist that what humans can be, is all there is to find. While an existentialist would agree that humans seem to have an unique ability to philosophize, perhaps even a duty to do so to serve an apparent purpose, he or she would also leave open the opportunity for the unknown to exist. There is no room for faith in nihilism or humanism, also no room for mystery and there is plenty of mystery in the universe. An existentialist accepts the reality of chaos, the reality of there being truths that we haven't yet come to understand.

Existentialism asks us to be who we are and work from within the world's absurd meaninglessness. Herein lay the value of the philosophy as a life path as well as its pitfall. We can have any beliefs we want, we can believe any nonsense we like, but we must do so from within the existentialist framework, which states that we must detach ourselves from any essential beliefs. (Essential beliefs are things that I must believe exist in order for them to become part of my essence, the markings on my slate.) This often delineates pure existentialism from things such as, for instance, a personality of taciturn complacency. It is often the case that a person just "is" an existentialist. He or she did not set out to become one, but rather had been one their entire life and it wasn't until he or she read Camus that they realize the underlying philosophy of their lives. Hyperexistentialism exists to bring existentialism to the masses by spreading into a social norm that can only help our faltering, absurd world. Hyperexistentialism creates existentialists. 

Where it is possible for a existentialist to just be, and do, without any particular forethought, the hyperexistentialist cannot. Hyperexistentialism separates the existentialist from my freedom to "just be" and my responsibility from that "being" by way of appreciating the constituents of my essence, (the marks I have made on my blank slate, my paradigmatic associations, my "self.") Where an existentialist claims that the associations I have made over the years of my life, the things that produce my Ego, are the very things that stand in the way of my authenticity, the hyperexistentialist accepts the markings on the slate as understood, having already been discovered, sourced and authenticated. (The process of doing so involves discovering the discrepancies between assignee's prerogative and hyper-manipulation by using what I call the philosophy generator, see: Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self.) For our purposes today, simply consider hyperexistentialism as the use of your already authenticated self, existentially. The hyperexistentialist takes the utmost self-responsibility and lives the most conscious life.

Hyperexistentialism creates in the bearer a desire to actively think existentially. Where the existentialist understand his or her freedom and responsibility, where they come from, what that means, the hyperexistentialist uses that freedom and responsibility prudently. Thus, the "hyper" takes the bearer from mere being to truly doing. Hyperexistentialists, have as part of their essence a philosophy that takes an consciously active role in their lives, they are not be-ers as much as they are doers. All the "being" is already existential, but the existentialist doesn't need to use existentialism, in any fashion at all, he or she already does by merely existing, enlightened or not. The hyperexistentialist uses existential freedom and responsibility actively, in day to day life, by way of both an unparalleled understanding of his or her authentic self and a commitment to direct the absurdity of the world into something virtuous and prudential. This is the hallmark of all real responsibility. If you take it upon yourself to do the thinking and choosing, particularly about the actions you take, you are ultimately responsible. No more will you be able to say, "I don't know what I was thinking." 

How is hyperexistentialism going to help? Simply put, it's going to help by instilling an outward looking existentialism. Existentialism will help by creating objectivity in lives that are entirely subjective. (Knowing that life has only the meaning we give it, we can make an effort to give meaning to the things that matter in our lives.) Hyperexistentialism promises to take this prerogative to an altruistic level, assigning importance to the things that not only matter to ourselves, but matter to all, across the totality of the human experience. As such, hyperexistentialism must take into account the role of societal programming of the individual, by doing so we are not only addressing ourselves we are addressing society. Just like there can be no "right or wrong" answers beyond that which we create as individuals, the same can be said about societies. As we are, at least in part, socially engineered beings, hyperexistentialism is not possible without first anti-social engineering. Anti-social engineering is the most modern and thorough pathway to the authentic self. By definition hyperexistentialism is not possible without anti-social engineering the hyper-manipulated self. 

What would a hyperexistential society look like? For starters, it would make sense, above all else. It would illustrate and demonstrate the differences between who we consider ourselves to be and what we do in the world. Keeping our action in line with that which is consciously prudential can only benefit ourselves and our world. Such a society, as would be the case for such an individual, wouldn't have to waste any time on matters that didn't make sense, or worse yet, were counterproductive. Such a society would be living in an actual reality, accountable to truth, logic and promotive virtue. (The discussion of virtue is a complicated matter, in and of itself, again, please read Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self.) Such a society would be working toward goals that would counter everything that is wrong with the world today: Wilful ignorance, short-sightedness, greed, racism, sexism, in short the rampant ineptitude of modernity. 

Hyperexistentialism will save the human species, not because it's the greatest idea ever, but because ultimately humanity will come to this discovery on their own. There's really no choice in the matter. (I've just given it a name.) We, in our limited vision and wisdom, have been trying to live up to a particular standard of society, since it was invented by the Romans, that can't be achieved. The people who live a pure, real life today are the folks that take no part, (or a very limited part,) in such societies. These people are outcasts in western societies, they are the folks living off the grid, providing for themselves, living a life based on survival and nature. This is a healthy life, but it is not human kind living up to its potential. Of course, you will find people like this all over the world, but the African tribe living in straw huts is not part of the western paradigm and therefore not part of the problem. All of the problems facing the world today are the result of a disinterest in the future, for the sake of present. Hyperexistentialism takes future concerns and places them in our forethought. It is planning for the best possible existence, not only for ourselves, but for everyone. It is a reparation to the individual and society that we give to ourselves, that exponentially changes what we give to others. 

Hyperexistentialism will ultimately lead our amalgam intellect to the pinnacle of our species potential, equitably, prudently and favourably.

On Money

The following is an excerpt from "The Root of All Evil" which is available in my new books, Hyperexistentialism and No More Suffering Fools both released Dec. 16, 2013.

On Money:

Money is the root of all evil, (if I may paraphrase the quote from Timothy.) If you have no shelter, water or food; If you have to suffer under a tyrant, if you are in the grips of a war, if you are in any way suppressed on this ridiculously resource rich planet, it is due to money. Perhaps your problems are caused by a lack of money, but more often than not they will be caused by the fact that someone else is able to make money at your expense. Money may not be the cause of all our problems, but getting rid of it would solve them all. 

A few years ago, when I became a commentator and social critic, my studies lead me to the belief that if we could somehow "get rid of money" everyone's problems would go away. I brought it up with my Mother, who was a bright lady, (maybe she still is, that's a topic for another essay.) She agreed with me and Timothy that money was a vehicle by which all evil is expressed, if not the cause of it entirely, but she asked, like so many others have over the years, "What are we to do about it?" The only answer I had at the time was, "Get rid of it." I explained to her how I thought this might play out: First, in my scenario, there is no money. Money does not exist. It has not been replaced by "credits" or "digital digits in a bank somewhere." I'm not talking about getting rid of cash, I'm talking about getting rid of every form of currency for trade. (Money is an institutional, imaginary reality anyway. We simply made it up to form the basis of all control. So why not just drop it?) Mom said, "How do you get your groceries, pay your rent, fuel your car, etc?" I explained that in my imaginary solution, everyone simply went about their lives exactly as they were, only without money. We would still go to work, although now we might only work at things we enjoyed doing. If we needed groceries, we would walk into a grocery store, where people who enjoyed working there would greet us and we would simply get the food we needed and walk out. No transaction, except for the possibility of taking inventory, we don't need to be running out of any particular item. We would go to the gas station and pump our gas and leave. Mom said, "But it cost money to get the oil out of the ground." "No it didn't," I reminded her, "money doesn't exist anymore." Everything is essentially free. (I know, it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out, it is the purpose of this exercise.)

Mom thought that without money there would be no incentive for people and this is, at least in part, true. Nobody I know wants to work at the sewage plant, for instance. (Until their sewage backs up.) Everybody wants to be movie star. Well, that might be true too, but no one is going to be continuing to do things that they are poor at, because the only reward you're going to get out of labour is pride in a job well done, or perhaps recognition for it. If you're a crappy lounge singer, there's going to be nobody to listen to you and you'll need to find something else to do, that provides for you the things you need from this life, love, attention, friendship, camaraderie, the satisfaction of a life lived well. In my moneyless world there would also be a transitory stage where everybody went bananas, going into the Porche dealership, putting a diamond ring on every finger, eating half a pound of caviar and letting the rest rot. This too, I will put off as growing pains. If everything was free, there would be an initial free-for-all that would need to plateau, I believe it would because people's greed ultimately would become problematic for them. (Also, for every asshole collecting leather couches there will be ten starving people happy to have food and water.) Things of value have been determined by those who create that value. If you think your $3000 leather couch is better than my $300 hand me down, it is, but once both those couches are free, they're of exactly the same value. So now all you are left with is your belief. If your two year old spills orange juice on your leather couch, you might get excited, but not in the new world, you simply go get another couch. Now not only are the couches of the same value, you and I are of the same value. If you stuff your house with one hundred leather couches, there's going to be no place to sit. 

Let's consider some facts about the amount of money earned by a lawyer vs a ditch digger. Which one works harder? It's a question that needs definitions clarified to answer. What does "works" mean? What does "harder" mean? If we're talking about physical labour, it's clear that the ditch digger sweats more than the lawyer. If we're talking about the amount of time and training put into understanding, the lawyer works harder. The lawyer had to go to school for many years to get to a position where he could make $300 an hour. The ditch digger had have a strong back and pick up a shovel to earn his $20 an hour. The reason the lawyer makes more than the ditch digger is because he had to spend a fortune to get his degree. His work is also more specialized than the ditch diggers. It is not, however, any more important. If both these men didn't have to pay for their educations and no longer made any kind of wage, would they not be created even more equal in our eyes? Now presume you need a ditch dug, who are you going to call? Suppose you need a will drawn up, who are you going to call? If everyone could be "used" in the way they chose to, regardless of the value they put upon the work they did, wouldn't they benefit in mere terms of satisfaction? Wouldn't we benefit in terms of fairness and equality.

Let's return to incentive. Let's attempt to answer the question, "If everything was free, why go to work?" I say because everyone wants to have a purpose in this life. You would simply get bored with doing nothing all day every day. I suspect that there are people who would give this theory a concerted testing: Sitting around, smoking pot, watching reruns of the Simpsons and I'll admit, that sounds pretty sweet, but I'd wager that anyone who would exhibit such behaviour on a long-term scale probably would have been acting like that anyway, back in the days of work and money. The only difference is now they're not showing up for their shift at 7-11. In the grand scheme of things, would their absence matter? I'd further wager that sooner or later, said lazy pothead would pick up a paintbrush or a guitar and make some other person happy. Even if they didn't, even if they sat on their couch the rest of their lives, it would make less of a difference to the lives of everyone else, than if money existed. "But that's not fair," you say. Why? Is it unfair because that person is not pulling their weight? Were they pulling their weight dishing out slurpees and cigarettes? Why do you even care? It must be because now the lazy pothead has access to everything you have access to, but you work hard and he doesn't. Perhaps you're right, so enjoy the pride you feel at a job well done and take comfort in the fact that you will be able to look back on your life and feel you've accomplished something. Perhaps the pothead will not. At any rate, the pothead had no influence on your life before and has none now. Ask yourself, why do you care? It must be because you still haven't wrapped your head around the fact that money doesn't exist anymore. Have you ever thought, "Man, those professional athletes/musicians/movie stars get paid way too much for what they do. I'm out there working my fingers to the bone every day just to make ends meet." Well, now you're all the same, the superstar, the pothead, you... Feel better?

"Yeah, but how do you reward people for hard work? How do you know if you've made it?" Wow, uh... How do you know if you've made it now? Are you measuring your success by the amount of money you have? If you are, that's really sad. How about measuring your success by how happy you are? Then if it's belongings that makes you happy, you'll be able to have them anyway. "Yeah, but they'll no longer be special because everyone can have them." Yes! Now you're getting it. "But that devalues everything." No, it means that you alone create the value of something. (Which is exactly the way it is now.) Maybe your Faberge egg collection is worthless to me. It just doesn't matter in our new world.

"This sound ridiculous!" Yes, it does. I agree. Suppose it comes to pass anyway. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where any particular currency becomes "devalued" to the point of being useless. (Ask your Russian grandma.) Now the citizens of said country are forced into this scenario anyway. However, in the real world of today's money paradigm, the citizens would likely come up with a replacement for money, rather than simply go on without it. Bartering would go up, as would the use of other, traditional forms of currency, like gold, or perhaps grains. Hell, they would probably also start using another country's currency. These folks would be missing out on the opportunity to simply go about their business as if nothing ever happened, but they wouldn't, because money is power and without it the reality we've built up crumbles. So ultimately, having accidentally been freed from the chains that bind the vast majority of us, we would willingly put ourselves back in fresh chains: That, my friends, is ridiculous.

The reason you think such an idea ridiculous, or too radical to succeed is that mankind has instilled a judgemental value system upon itself. Fairness, in terms of justice, is an appropriate system. If, for instance, you kill my dog because he won't stop pooping on your lawn, this should be considered a crime and have a punishment appropriate to the crime. Such a punishment, logically should be lesser than what would be considered justice if you had killed my son for getting your daughter pregnant. A human life should be worth more than a dogs. (Apologies to those who disagree, there is a lot of room for argument in this scenario.) However, this fairness is in judgement of negative human action, not the human him or herself, nor a positive human service. In our previous statement that the lawyer and the ditch digger are of equal value, we may or may not agree that as people, this particular lawyer or that particular ditch digger are of equal value, this is a question of liking or disliking a personality, not services rendered. In terms of what each of them has to offer the world, what we formerly would have had to pay for, we can only measure such value on a case by case basis. As I said, sometimes you need a will drawn up, sometimes you need a ditch dug. But fairness, in terms of reward for services, is solely built upon the concept of money and money is imaginary at the most and arbitrary at the least.

"You're describing Communism." Really? Are you sure because every "communist" country, past and present, uses money. This idea is beyond any "ism" I'm aware of.

"Alright, but how do you start such a change?" Well, that's the tricky part. We all have to be on board for this to work. If, for instance, we in Canada decided we we're going to abolish money, it would also mean abolishing all trade and commerce. That would mean no more kiwi fruit or bananas, because New Zealand and Ecuador still want their dollars. We would be unable to provide those dollars, and as we've eliminated the concept of currency, we wouldn't be willing to trade anything for it. This abolition of currency must therefore become total, species wide. Now, as the vast majority of people on this planet, (remember now, we're looking at everyone on the planet, not just "the rich westerner,") are impoverished, meaning unable to provide the basic necessities in life comfortably, I've got to ask, "Who do you think would be the least likely to accept our scenario of killing currency?" Once you've got that answered, ask "why?" Now you know who doesn't want to save the world, (those in power,) and why, (because they'll lose that power.) Now realize what it took for that power to be exercised in the first place, money. Therefore, getting rid of money will level the field of all human beings to being valued by their actions alone, on a case by case, action by action basis. 

This is by no means the end of this conversation. I suspect there are aspects of this plan that I haven't yet thought off, roadblocks to success. I'd be willing to bet, however, that every bump on our path to getting rid of money has something to do with the detractors ideas about value, which have been created for you, out of an institutional reality, long since instilled. Over the years we've let other, equally silly ideas fall away to the annals of lore. Let us put money into the category of silly superstitions and misunderstandings, wipe the slate clean and move on to real prosperity.

I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on the matter...

On Water

The following is an excerpt from a much longer essay entitled "The Root of All Evil" which is about money. It will be released in book form on December 16, 2013

On Water:

I can't believe we're going to have this conversation. I can't believe that this planet has been beaten by a viral spread of humans to the point where the very gifts the planet gives us have been rendered into poison, or perhaps worse yet, expropriated only for profit. 

My Father told me, when I was about ten, about how his Father told him when he was a boy, that "someday they would be coming for our water." What he meant was someday there would be no drinkable water for some large group of folks and because we happen to live in Canada, one of the largest, wettest, cleanest places left on the planet, I might have to literally stand on a line, with a gun, and say "turn around pilgrim." (Luckily for the thirsty, I'm not really in agreement with my generational threat.) It is not so much that I think Dad and Grandpa were wrong, we do have the most clean water on the planet and corporations are running around the globe poisoning the well, but I have a hope that the thirsty will ask for our help, rather than take it. Of course, my naivete has been trumped, not by some gun toting invading force, or even parched immigrants, but by the Coca-Cola company and my own government.

At the moment, at least in British Columbia, anyone can set up shop at a clean water source, start bottling it up and shipping it out, for free. Nestle, (owned by Coke) is currently doing this near the town of Hope. Hope is nestled at the foot of the mountains in the southern portion of the province. There's a lot of water there. Nestle is not being charged, in any way, for the water they are bottling up and selling at 100% profit. They're not even being taxed. This is just one example of corporate shenaniganism leading to the death of the planet. There's a lot of water in Hope, the people who live there are not being shorted. Nestle is taking a few drops out of a very large bucket, but they are just taking it, and that's the point. Water is a resource like any other, it, at the very least, must be regulated. 

I suspect that Nestles' free for all will come to an end soon because, like all other concerns, the government will want its nickel and they will get it. However, the government itself is extremely guilty of misappropriating our wettest resource in the name of another. Our next door neighbours, the province of Alberta is currently wasting nine barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced from the tar sands. These nine barrels of water are used to separate the sand from the oil, which is a process that renders the nine barrels into toxic waste. Then those barrels are dumped back into the water supply, in what is known as tailing ponds. This contaminated water then spreads out, leaking both into other waterways and into the soil. The price of a barrel of oil? Who gives a shit! The price of not having water to drink? Death. Does the government care? What do you think?

These are just a couple of examples how a resource rich nation can cash in foolishly, without any foresight, for sake of profit now in one category and with wilful ignorance in another. We, of course, should not be surprised by this fact. The government is not in charge, in this or any other country. Corporations are in control, because profit is in charge and the making of money trumps all other concerns. It's not only happening in Canada, every country on this planet has water concerns. Some don't have water at all, some have it but it's unusable. Then there are those folks currently being held hostage by corporations, because of deals made with national and municipal politicians. These folks have water, but don't have access to it. Imagine living in a village somewhere in Africa where the river water is no longer safe for consumption. Along comes a man in a suit, he buys a small patch of dust in the village and digs a well. "Wow, that's great. What an altruistic move. Maybe Nestle's not so bad." Yes, it's true, the village has clean water now. The first problem is that the pump Nestle put in is coin operated, everyone has to plunk in some money to get a bucketful. The second problem is none of these folks have any money. When asked about the ethics of cashing in on this scenario, the man in the suit says, "Well, they can always go back to not having water." 

Water is a requirement for life. It is any individual's right to have access to clean water, for free, regardless of any other concern. To withhold water in any fashion should be a crime. To charge people for the water that the Earth provides should be a crime. To contaminate any water source should be a crime. The solution to any water problem has to be a response to corporatism and politics at the end of those doing the damage, as well as education for those of us currently suffering due to a mere lack of water. The water problem, like all our major concerns, is wholly concerned with money and the making of it. We needn't worry about protecting our resources from the thirsty, we need to protect them from the greedy.

On Food.

The following is taken from a much longer essay about the root of all evil, money. It will be released in book form on December 16 2013.

On Food: You might think that our food problem is directly related to our poverty problem, but it is only in that the impoverished need food too. Food does however present problems unique to our discussions about poverty. Food is: finite, expensive, suffering from degrading quality, wasted, genetically modified, difficult to transport... Odds are most of our food problems will harken back to our money problems, (remember, we've separated money problems from poverty.)

Food, be it plant or animal, requires the same things to exist that we do, air, water, soil, minerals (for nutrients) and sunlight. Foods, like humans, are the products of chemical processes. To interfere with any aspect of any particular process presents a danger. These dangers do not always present themselves readily and it might take generations for, as an example, a particular group of people to realize that the industrialization of beef reduces the nutrients that can be gleaned from eating it, or that a diet might actually be turning a nation diabetic, or that genetically modified food genetically modifies its consumers as well. These things are of no concern to food producers as food is produced, not directly to feed people, but rather to make money by feeding people. Income concerns in the realm of food production are the reason that food production suffers and therefore why we suffer, eating it. This is again returning us to our original conclusion that money is the cause of all suffering. When those who look at food production systems are not concerned with the food or the consumption of it, but rather how they can improve the income margin of the food produced, the world stops making sense.

I happen to live in a very fertile part of the world, various food plants and food animals are mass produced (and grow wild.) Yet most of the food I buy in grocery stores comes from elsewhere and by "elsewhere" it would seem we could say "as far away as possible." This is because of trade regulations, food legislation and especially corporatism, which all suffer from systemic cronyism, (like most organizations,) that don't look at supply, unless it's directly quantified against demand and of course, profit. Such is it that I can't buy a locally grown apple, because it's a better business decision for our apples to go south and southern apples to come north. I understand it, I get it: You need to pay orchardists, pickers, packers, shippers, traders, taxes, tariffs, duties, warehousers, grocers, etc. If you don't create something for these people to do, unemployment will rise. In modernity, if you don't "grow the business" you are not even doing business. The problem here is that I have perfectly good apples in my town. I can have them at a fraction of the cost of the apples you're importing, just so that you can keep the wheels spinning. The wheels only spin because you have set them in motion without any concern about the end result. You only care about the income that can be generated. In the mean time, I can't afford apples. Why is it you can't be satisfied with less?

Well, you know the answer why. It's going to keep coming up over and over again: Money. The solution to food problem is fairly straightforward, produce foods naturally and locally. You'll still be able to get bananas, you'll just have to pay more for them because they had to travel from Central America, but not everything need be so expensive. I don't need apples from New Zealand.

On Poverty

This essay is taken from a much longer work that will be released in book form in December.

Poverty can not be described by simply claiming "I have no money to feed my family," because if you live in an area with fertile soil, fresh water to drink and animals to hunt, you have no need for money. (This assumes that you don't have someone stopping you from growing food, taking water or killing animals.) However, the poverty stricken African living in a straw hut is quite different than the poverty stricken American living in Detroit. How you came to be poor is of no consideration for our discussions. (For instance, we are talking only about the issues that seem out of our control. If you are just poor, living on the street because of a mental problem or drug addiction, you are excluded from our discussion, destitution due to a lack of effort or ability is merely a result of weakness. Get help. Steal if you must. There are three meals a day in jail, go get them. What you may judge as harshness is mere evolutionary correction rendering your concerns irrelevant.) What matters is that money doesn't always have to factor into the quantification of our problems. 

Many communities, such as Native North Americans, flourished for thousands of years without even the concept of money. Certain African, Indian and Asian communities live the same way now that they have all along, without money. For our purposes, the word Poverty must mean a lacking of the ability to provide the basic necessities of life. Such as it is, if you have these necessities, by any means, you are not actually poor. It might seem strange, but the homeless man in the big city, living in a box in an alleyway, eating at a Church or even digging in dumpsters may seem poverty stricken, he is not. In such a case the man is poor, certainly, but he is still able to provide the necessities. In Canada, the "poverty line" is at about $18,000 per year. This amount would feed an entire village of destitute people in India. Money must be taken out of our concerns about poverty as it is imaginary and relative to the power we give it. We will discuss money, but as for the concept of poverty it must remain mutually exclusive. 

So what are the problems that lead to poverty? Simply put, the answer is "that which inhibits us from providing for ourselves." The reasons normal, healthy humans are unable to provide for themselves can be many and varied, but we are addressing only those that are naturally unavoidable: Bad soil, bad water, no resources for shelter and, of course, our old friend war. Excluding war, for now, is there anything to be done about bad soil and water, (or lack of?) Yes, the most useful combatant is knowledge. If you don't know how to grow food in dust, it is only because you haven't learned how yet. If you don't know about irrigation, it is only because you haven't learned about it yet. The Earth goes through natural, (and unnatural) changes that render certain areas infertile, this is going to continue with or without our help. Sometimes a people must migrate, this is also going to continue. However there are things that can be done to assist any people, anywhere. It's simply a question of getting the right information to the right people. Information is free, or at least it should be. This is the part of the poverty problem that harkens back to the money problem again. Not because the poverty stricken lack money, but because the rest of the world thinks it takes money to solve a problem. (Or rather, no one is interested in solving problems that they can't cash in on.) One doesn't need to provide UNICEF food drops to a village resting beside a river polluted beyond providing fish and water, if one simply chose to stop the factories from polluting the river. Thus we come full circle to the money problem again, in that the making of it trumps all other concerns. 

Solving the problem of poverty is going to be accomplished by free education, reason and willpower. Some dirt will not grow anything, sometimes you will have to move, sometimes the Earth will rear up and remind you who is boss by, for instance, flooding you out, but more often than not you will be poverty stricken because either you or someone near you has done something stupid. (Such as ruining your immediate environment, or forcing you out of a successful environment.) This "stupidity" might take the form of corporatism, (old fashioned greed,) it might even be a lack of foresight. It might happen all at once or take decades. Don't be tricked into thinking that just because you have no money you are poverty stricken. The truly poverty stricken are not fighting for income, they're fighting for their lives. You could throw money at poverty all day every day, it won't fix a damn thing, only knowledge and effort will. So the solution to poverty is education and foresight.

On War.

The Following is taken from a much larger work that will be released in Book form in December.

On War: Usually when we fight a war, (which we will define as one large group of people fighting another, with some degree of organization) it is to fight a perceived injustice. Such is it that we qualify unjust and just wars. The problem often becomes a matter of defining justice. Sometimes our decisions are easy: I'm sure the number of people supporting the ideology that led the German people to become Nazis will remain low for the remainder of history. Sometimes your country uses any excuse to march all over the world taking what it wants, often to help "liberate your people from their own tyranny." War resides in a fog of action based on unclear economic desire. War is almost always built upon a lie. Modern wars are fought for perceived ideologies and actual power and in modernity, power is money. This is why America moves into certain countries to "help them democratize" while it leaves other neighbouring countries alone. These other countries are no less despotic, their citizens are no less endangered, they simply don't have any resources America wants, like oil. 

Wars of the past, when we used to fight man to man, weren't as effective as they are today because men are inherently adverse to killing other men, believe it or not. However, with the advent of psychology and technology, soldiers are now more removed from their kills, both inside their psyches and on the battlefield, meaning they are more effective, meaning a higher kill ratio. (Still, not enough removed to get the Veteran suicide rate from being far higher than average.) Consider the following quote: "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goring at the Nuremberg trials, 1946.

Here we should note that when one looks at the totality of the history of all known wars fought on the planet, only a fraction of one percent were begun by the populace. The vast majority of people, even soldiers, wish to live their lives in peace. It could be easily argued that any war could have been avoided by either conciliatory gestures by the warring parties' leaders, or in fact, as in the old music video for Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, we simply throw those leaders into a ring and let them duke it out. The reason this does not happen is simple: War is business. War keeps the wheels of industry greased. War makes money, for manufacturers, for the military, for governments, for countries. This is not even taking into account the so-called spoils of war, merely the machinations of the military industrial complex. 

All wars can be avoided. I'm not even suggesting that there aren't people who need to be stopped from committing this or that atrocity, I just think it can be done much more efficiently. If, for instance, you have some charismatic nutter running your country and drumming up fear about a neighbouring country, it would be fairly simple and cheap to remove him from office, (one way or another,) at least compared to the price of war. The reason wars continue to happen is merely that the folks in power want them to happen. What does that say about them? 

“The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of the modern state over its people resides in its war powers. Today its oil, tomorrow water. Its what we like to call the God business; Guns, Oil, and Drugs. But there is a problem, our way of life, its over. Its unsustainable and in rapid decline, that’s why we implement demand destruction. We continue to make money as the world burns. But for this to work the people have to remain ignorant of the problem until its too late. That is why we have triggers in place, 9-11, 7-7 , WMDs. A population in a permanent state of fear does not ask questions. Our desire for war becomes its desire for war. A willing sacrifice. You see fear is justification, fear is control, fear is money.” quoted from the film the Veteran.

There is always the opportunity to fight the cause of the war, rather than the war itself. We are not ants, nor chimpanzees, the intellectual gifts of the human should be passed forward unto others, rather than insulted in the name of nature, disguised as patriotism. Wars need not flourish any longer.

Just because you don't have a solution, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Everybody is talking about the Russell Brand interview and article about how the world needs a people's revolution to survive.
He's not wrong.

Here is the interview about his article that's bouncing around facebook.


And here is the article itself, which is of much more value than the above interview.
 http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

"We have succumbed to an ideology that is 100% corrupt and must be overthrown."
"The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years, the Industrial Revolution took hundreds of years, the Technological Revolution took tens, the Spiritual Revolution has come and we have only an instant to act."

Well said Russell, now find a way to make it funny and pick up where George Carlin left off, or don a robe and fight fire with fire. I don't expect any real solution from you, but I'm very happy that you have joined the ranks of we wee sirens. 

Book Title Contest

Hello Readers,

This winter I will be releasing an anthology of everything I've written so far, (or at least, everything I've written well.)

I'm currently working on a title for the book, something that will sum up my work, in its entirety.

To this end I am offering my readers the opportunity to NAME MY BOOK.

Simply suggest the title(s) you have in the comments below, on the facebook page here or email me at brian_taylor@live.com

The winning entry will receive ALL 6 BOOKS in my catalog.
-The Rampant Ineptitude of Modernity
-Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self
-The 21st Century Enlightenment
-The Authentic Self
-Hyperexistentialism (to be released this winter.)
-The As-of-yet Unnamed Anthology

This is around $100 value.

So put on your thinking caps, if you haven't read enough of my work to come up with a title, get reading and send in those title suggestions.

I look forward to seeing them.
And thanks for reading....

Brian.

On Superstitions

For how many more generations must we put up with superstition?

A superstition is an illogical belief that an effect was created by a supernatural cause, or to put it more plainly, it is a desire to believe in nonsense.

There is a very real reason for superstition to exist, it is probably something that helped us evolve, it also seems to be inherent in our being, although mostly socially engineered. When we were primitive humans, huddled together near our grassy plain, living in caves, (or whatever,) it made perfect sense to be leery of rustling grasses, for we may soon be eaten by a lion. Some have argued that those who were more superstitious may have proven more likely to survive, for if you simply ran away every time you heard the grass rustle, you will have likely survived the odd hungry lion, for the multitude of times it was the wind creating the sound. (Do cowards live longer than the brave?) So then you would have taught your offspring to fear the rustling grass as well, which in turn would keep your cautious genes going, whereas the less cautious would have, at least part of the time, gotten eaten by the hungry lion. So the inherent, evolutionary fear crosses over into social engineering.

Moving forward in time now, through the various societies, religions, institutions and ideas that have prevailed, we discover that most superstitions are entirely socially engineered and not at all based in reality, (although some are.) Let us take a look at common modern superstitions, where they came from and what we believe about them. (And let us not talk about the biggest superstitions of them all, Gods and religions.)

Knocking on Wood: If you're not familiar, the basics of he apparent phenomenon are as follows: If one has the urgency to utter a proclamation with disdain for the manifestation of the utterance, one has the opportunity to nullify it by touching wood, especially when used in conjunction with the proclamation, "touch wood." So our argument is that if we touch wood and we say "touch wood," the thing we said just previous will not come true. Our belief however is that we somehow have both the magic power of conjuring what we say and the magic power of taking such conjuring away, provided there is wood handy. (I'm excluding the American version of this where one knocks on one's head as if it were made of wood.) Some would argue that this is just a social habit, a form of courtesy we offer as apology for saying such dreadful things, but superstitious people are not actually thinking about what they are doing, when the do such things, despite our desire to wish no harm to anyone, (we hope.) Although it remains unclear as to its origin but there seems to be a consensus that it stems from pagan tree worshipers who would knock on trees, or stumps, after taking some or all of the wood. This would allow the souls of the trees to escape freely, rather than be trapped in the remaining tree, or stump, which would keep evil spirits or other mythical creatures from being attracted to the tree, hang around and cause you bad luck.

Friday the 13th: There are countless references going back centuries to the unlucky nature of the number 13. Mathematically, 13 is an odd number, it's prime, it's also a bit unusual if only because of the fact that, at least on Earth, 12 is an extremely common number. 24 hours in day, 12 months in year, roughly twelve weeks in a season, we even sort our eggs and doughnuts in dozens. (How come nobody considers a "baker's dozen" (13) to be unlucky?) But nobody is talking about the unlucky nature, (in literature, history or otherwise,) of the number 13 until after the popularization of the Christ tale. (So it is, at the least, a superstition of a superstition.) The fact that it was attached to the idea that Friday is unlucky, (Christ was crucified on a Friday, sailors didn't want to depart at the end of the week, preferring to start journeys at the beginning,) is probably just the compounding of unlucky concepts into a superstitious double-whammy. When you take into account that the unlucky day tends to be cultural, (Greeks and the Spanish think Tuesday is unlucky, because Constantinople fell twice on a Tuesday, to two different empires,) it's easy to see how the unluckiness of the date is arbitrarily attached to a day when something bad happened to you or your people, a long time ago. For instance, on Friday the 13 of October 1307, King Philip IV of France had every member of the Knights Templar arrested on charges of heresy. It mattered then, to them, it doesn't now, to you. Today, Friday the 13th is the safest day to travel, because people who believe in such things stay at home. This makes it, at least in terms of traffic accidents, a luckier day than average.

Lucky charms: No, not the cereal, but things like a rabbit's foot, or perhaps a charm you wear around your neck, maybe of your favorite saint. These things have been around as long as charms have. Perhaps even primitive human's would wear a string of lion's teeth around their neck to communicate to the universe this or that belief. We know the ancient Egyptians would wear and provide to their livestock, amulets of Ra, or Isis, in the hopes of drawing out the luck of such deities, rather than suffer their wrath. Historically, such charms have a fairly precise track record of working fifty percent of the time.

Saying "God Bless you" when someone sneezes: This is one that I stopped doing once I stopped being a child. Now when people sneeze I say nothing. Sometimes, even in the time and place I live, I still get slightly dirty, expectant looks, as if to say, "Well, aren't you going to say God Bless you?" Instead I say, "Get much on ya?" (Well, sometimes.) If I sneeze and someone offers "Bless you," I'll usually just say nothing, maybe "thanks," but often I say, "I'm not sure you're qualified." Sneezes are not caused by demons trying to escape my body. There's no need to combat that demon by attempting to manifest the will of God. (Why would you do that in the first place? Even if it was the middle ages... I'm flattered that you think God has time to worry about my allergies, but...)

There are about a million more superstitions that are still commonplace, in various forms around the world. They're usually completely harmless, a habit we picked up from our parents, or like a fun bit of belief that we feel increases the chances of things going our way. It's a pretty rare occasion for people to suffer because of them, although this does take place. Consider the compulsive gambler who honestly believes he only wins when he wears his lucky shoes, then loses those shoes. He is going to suffer because of his beliefs, but it's his own damn fault. When one looks at most superstitions, they stem from some ancient idea we had about the world that has since been proven to be ridiculous, often from a socially engineered intention, usually due to religion. (We need this idea in, this idea out, so let's get people to think thus.) However, superstitions come from the same place as ideas that we have abolished, for various relevant reasons, such as: slavery, racism, sexism. Yes these things still exist, but they are frowned upon and rightly so. Superstitions are certainly less harmful that these counterproductive ideas, but they are made of the same stuff. I'd like to continue thinking for myself and communicate in the world without being embarrassed by what my fellow humans continue to needlessly believe. There's still mystery in the universe. I, for instance, believe in God, despite having no particular proof of existence. (See my essay, "Existence doesn't matter to God.") I don't believe in superstitions because we have proof that they are useless in our time and place. There are still many unknowns, you can still enjoy the mystery and you're entitled to believe whatever nonsense you like, but you had best be careful when your beliefs lead you to action. Believing in the pointless is counterproductive. This, however, does not make the concept of God any less of a superstition, it's just the ultimate superstition, due to it pointing at the ultimate causality.

What superstitions do you "use?" We can talk about them in the comments below, if you like.

Why I am a conspiracy theorist.

It's simple really, I am a conspiracy theorist because conspiracies are fact.
We can look at history, at any point, in any country and find many examples of conspiracy perpetrated on the masses, usually by those in power.
"Conspiracy" as a word, really just means "to work together." We've taken that idea (which comes from the French) and turned it into something nefarious.

So really, when we're talking about the conspiracy theories the world of the 21st century has to offer, we are specifically dealing with the bastards, who work together to grind you down, whatever that might mean for you. If you think that the powers that be aren't in the business of using you for their own purposes, then I suggest you do what you can to stop producing, stop working, stop paying your taxes, stop buying into social engineering, stop caring about pop culture, stop serving in the military, stop serving your masters altogether. Then wait for the rewards of your non-efforts. It won't take long before you realize that life itself is a conspiracy of past conspiracies. We are not where we are by mistake.

However, the lifestyle of the western paradigm, desired by all, even those who claim to hate it, is not something that is easily repaired. It is also not the purpose of this article, all of my writing combined comments upon it, but does little to solve its problems. I am a mere reporter of the problems, we each must take it in turn to do what we can to improve the world.

Today, I wish to point out that so called "Conspiracy Theorists" are not necessarily tinfoil hat wearing UFOlogists, or those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the HAARP installation is causing earthquakes, or that Deep Underground Military Bases are going to be concentration camps for millions of detainees when the shit hits the fan. I am a conspiracy theorist because I examine my own hands for evidence of that shit. (And 9/11 was an inside job...)

When one looks at the fringe, one sees the future. Sometimes that future is a lie, or incorrect, but sometimes it is true and becomes part of the mainstream. A conspiracy theorist looks to this fringe and examines it. A good conspiracy theorists doesn't claim true that which he or she has no proof of, nor does he or she denounce that which there is no proof of. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a falsehood. The future is a product of our being and doing, of our intentionality. The future is also a product of the past. So looking at past conspiracies that have become accepted as truth is a good place to start, if one wants to develop an appreciation for what might come.

When one looks at the conspiracies of the past, one finds the same people, or groups of people, or types of people committing the same types of conspiracies, with the same goals: Power, control, resources, money. Then, if one wants to understand exactly who these people are and what they're up to, one simply has to look at the people at the top.

I am a conspiracy theorist because the Americans (and those who idealize them,) keep me in fresh conspiracy. Conspiracies that matter, that are important, get revealed ultimately anyway. Then people say things like, "Oh, I guess they are documenting all my phone calls and emails after all." Unfortunately, those same people go on to say, "Oh well, what are ya gonna do about it?"

Conspiracy theorists know what is really going on, they just don't know it yet.
People who think conspiracy theorists are kooks are throwing the truth out with all the untruths.
I choose to believe what I want to believe, I am entitled as are you.
But denying the possibility of a conspiracy theory just because it sounds crazy also denies all the past conspiracies that have been proven true.
The world is a crazy place, full of crazy people.
People in positions of power are no less crazy, or stupid. 
Don't be afraid to examine the crazy and stupid things they (we) have done in the past.
Don't be afraid to think about the crazy and stupid things they (we) might be currently doing.
Your life might depend on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hyaoJYuznA&feature=youtu.be

the Authentic Self

I have released to print a lovely little book, less than 100 pages, that clearly and concisely leads the reader through the Philosophy Generator to the Authentic Self.

View it and purchase it here

Here is the write up:

Philosopher and Social Critic Brian C. Taylor's "the Authentic Self" is the most modern attempt to define the Self. By way of running the associations in our minds through what Taylor calls the Philosophy Generator, we become privy not only to of what our thoughts are made, but of what all thoughts are made. 

 Developed during the four years Taylor researched and wrote "Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self," this new collection promises to deliver the purest, mathematical philosophy, with only the most minimal history, sociology and opinion. "The Authentic Self" is simply the nuts and bolts of how we become who we are. 

The constituents of your Paradigms, (the associations our minds make on any given idea,) are examined, sourced and evaluated with the goal of revealing your Authentic Self. The book is written simply, like a lesson in school, that simply repeats, getting more complicated each time, until finally the reader arrives at the best possible human understanding

О преследовании гомосексуалистов: открытое письмо к русскому народу.

О преследовании гомосексуалистов: открытое письмо к русскому народу.

(On the persecution of homosexuals: An open letter to Russians.)

Пожалуйста, учтите это сообщение, оно было тщательно написано на английском языке с надеждой, что сообщение остается ясным после Google Translate была использована. Я не опубликовал это письмо на английском языке, потому что сообщение предназначено для русских людей в покое, но я был бы счастлив, что люди, которые не говорят на русском читать. Я чувствую себя комфортно говорить с русским народом, потому что многие из вас читали моих эссе раньше. Большинство моих аудитория из России, я точно не знаю, почему. Я думаю, что одной из причин может быть потому что я пишу об обществах мира в критической моды. Мое эссе особенно важны, когда общественный договор написан не хватает логики. Часто такие социальные контракты от западных парадигм, но можете не сомневаться о любом предполагало врагов, русские люди не в настоящее время не менее виновны, чем кто-либо другой. Вот почему я считаю себя пишу это письмо вы читаете.

Прекратить преследование гомосексуалистов. Это делает русский народ меньше в глазах всего мира. Это шаг назад. Как я уже говорил не раз, верить тому, что ерунду вам нравится, но не используют намерения создан убеждений, если эти намерения требуют вмешательства в жизнь других людей. Это просто не имеет смысла. Это не логично. Будем предполагать, что десять процентов вашего населения является гомосексуалистом, что является справедливым, точным числом. Это не намного больше, чем процент людей с ограниченными возможностями в популяции. Я не делать какие-либо сравнения за пределы математической статистики. Я желаю, чтобы вы думали о философском вопрос, поставленный Вашей сегрегации любого сообщества по сравнению с любой другой общине. Где вы проводите черту?

Каково ваше рассуждение для этого запугивания гомосексуалистов? Это потому, что Божий? Это из-за вашей религии? Это потому, что о нем говорится в Библии? Тот факт, что гомосексуализм, упомянутых в Библии доказывает только одно: Гомосексуализм существовал всегда. (Или хотя бы существовали на сбор из историй, которые стали "Библия", около 600 г. до н.) Религиозные русский народ, как и все религиозные люди могут подставить другую щеку. Или, если они предпочитают, прислушаться к папе: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/29/pope-francis-wont-judge-gay-priests.html?cmp=rss

Независимо от ваших рассуждений для преследования гомосексуалистов, всегда будут люди, которые обеспечивают преднамеренное импульс на любое движение, к лучшему или худшему. Простые россияне имеют право остановить это, так же, как обычные люди во всем мире имеют право прекратить правонарушения которых они страдают. Подставить другую щеку. Живи и дай жить. Остановить губит жизнь любой группы людей. Люди, которые царствовать над вами являются преступниками, которые ставят неправильного мышления в вашем мозгу. Вы можете очистить свой разум от преднамеренного программирования. Вы можете привести мир на собственном примере. Думайте сами.

The Longevity of Sharks: A philosophy of being.

We, these thinking things
Have purposes to serve
Varied and natural
Like Sharks 
Swimming in oceans for millenia
Successes provide by systems in balance
Unlike Sharks
Able to work against nature
A shark just is.
He goes about his business
We do.
So it seems that our being
Is a product of our doing
And we have a decided advantage/disadvantage
Being able to direct what we do
The Philosophy of Being depends on what you Be
All I can tell you for certain is that sharks, 
who have been here for longer than we,
are not assembling into societies,
spreading like a virus,
gobbling up resources,
producing waste,
reproducing,
reproducing...
Sharks live in a balance because they must
Perhaps if they could somehow make the choice
Things would end a little differently
If there can be any purpose to being
It must be what we can do that matters
The difference is responsibility.
 A shark just is. 
You and I can shape the world.
The philosophy of a human being is doing. 

-Thanks to all my readers over the five years I've been doing this.

What Canadians can learn from Turks.

Last Friday, Turkish police cracked down on protesters who were holding a sit in to stop the government from removing trees from one of the last remaining green spaces in Istanbul, Taksim Square.

Authorities want to cut down 600 trees to make room for apartments, parking, a shopping mall.

You know, the usual.

Turkey is a country on the grow at the moment. It has taken a secular turn where capitalism has become the norm. It has a healthy economy, (for the region,) despite not being interesting to the West, (meaning, there's little oil there.) However, the US is interested in Turkey for geographical reasons. American investors are taking advantage of Turkey's willingness to sell by investing in various projects, some of which are good, like infrastructure, but most are cash grabs, like the building of airports they don't need.

However, Turkey's PM, Erdogen, has been in power for ten years now and seems to have gotten the back of the Turkey's youth. Over the years, it is claimed, his religious conservative views have become more and more invasive. To help understand this claim please read this

Yet this is not what really started this whole "Turkish Spring" idea. In it's simplest form, some students went into a park to stop the cutting down of some trees, then were brutally attacked by the police, acting on behalf of Erdogen and the government. So now their really pissed off and who can blame them?

Thus the protest has gone from "Don't cut down these trees!" to "Erdogen must go!"

The protests are no longer confined to Taksim square but are pocketing up all over the country.

It's difficult to say if Turkey is going to go the way of Egypt, of Syria, of the Occupy movement, or nowhere. 

Everyone waits and watches.

But reduce it to it's lowest common denominators: 1.) The government is selling its resources to the highest bidder, ignoring prudence and logic. 2.) The government is using its conservativism against its own people, who don't agree with it. 

To Canadians, this sounds very familiar. 

Consider this quote from Arzu Cerkezoglu, president of the Confederation of Revolutionary Trade Unions of Turkey (DISK), Erdogan and his government "should start caring about the wishes and demands of the people and the workers."
She accused the government of "starting a war" against the Turkish people.
"They banned the rights we won and deserve. They are selling the rivers, the mountains and have put all [Turkey's] assets on the open market," she said.
Under Erdogan's leadership, Turkey has boosted economic growth and raised its international profile.
But he has been a divisive figure at home..."
Article here

Turks revolt because the leader of the country, a man who has and is currently hijacking the country's resources for the financial gain of corporations, not citizens, continues by force.

We, on the other hand, simply allow it to happen.
Where is our Taksim Square?