The truth ends up on the scaffold, while lies end up on the throne

The Bible and Koran both warn those people with the most fortunate holistic inheritances that they are being tested. God expects them to re-distribute their good fortune among the less fortunate. God is testing them more than the rest of us, upon whom he has seen fit to bestow mediocre, even bad, holistic inheritances. Thus God´s ´blessing´is really a test in disguise. And we can see how well the ´blessed´ have done in this test by observing how they have in fact employed their good fortune. Have they selfishly employed it to enjoy lives of luxury, satisfaction, and priveleg?  Or have they shared their good fortune, enjoying middle class lifestyles, while re-distributing the excesses of their windfalls? Take a look at those nations that claim that ´In God We Trust´. See how the Republican ´Christian Taliban´ live. See what politics they pursue. Is it the politics of private wealth and excess, conspicuous consumption, or the politics of public welfare?

When people admit to having been ´blessed´, are they doing so in a masturbatorial fashion, or in a humble way?  Are they claiming a right to enjoy all the priveleges and luxuries they have available to them, as clearly earmarked for this purpose by a God who has chosen them above others to lead such gratifying, satisfying lives? Or are they admitting that their God determines everything, and that they have no more a right to their windfalls of good fortune than any other, and thus it is only correct that they share all the benefits above those which they could rightly claim to have earned, through effort, sacrifice, and risk?  This was Mohamed´s position in the Koran. However how do those who claim to be his heirs, the fabulously wealthy Saudi´s and other Royals suddenly grown wealthy on a windfall of oil and gas, actually live their lives?  How can they claim to be ´faithful´?  Can a truly faithful person live in a palace, and spend wealth they never personally generated on gratifying their own desires, while others work hard and long with no reward?

Do ´religions´tend towards palaces, exclusive wealth, luxury, power, and priveleg, or towards humility and re-distribution of holistic inheritances? Did any prophet ever enjoin people everywhere to build golden temples, and luxurious palaces for priests? No. But what have the priests of every religion, from Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Judaism, and its follow-ons Christianity and Islam done?  They have proven that they have no claim to any spiritual status whatsoever. Plato revealed the nature of religion in his ´Republic´.  If you don´t have time to read it, and hundreds of other religious texts, and philosophical, sociological, and pyschological writings on the subjects, then read my TROONATNOOR volume III, RELIGION.

The bible and Koran was never intended to be taken literally. They are deliberately ambiguous. Mohamed states that this ambiguity is also a test. You can interpret his words in self-serving ways, or in ways that serve others.  Which way the Saudi Royals, among all the worlds Royals, and fortunate people, have interpreted this ambiguity is clear. They have taken the most convenient, satisfying, masturbatory interpretations. They have chosen to keep their wealth for themselves, rather than share it. Rather than re-distibute their god-given good fortune, they chose to consume it in selfish ways.

Warned that it is easier to ride a camel through the eye of a needle, the most fortunate have merely payed engineers large sums to manufacture needles with eyes large enough to drive an armoured limousine through.

Find me one religion where the authorities do not live in opulence and self-glory. Find me one Saudi Royal who lives modestly, so that he might share his god-given good fortune with others. Find me one religious authority that does not interpret the Koran and Bible texts in masturbatorily self-glorifying and self-serving ways. Find such a religious authority or Royal, and you will find the the rest of the religious authorities persecuting them, crucifying them, burning them alive.

It is said that the truth always ends up on the scaffold, while lies always end up on the throne.

Anyone who would dare bring such inconsistencies to the attention of the public, let alone directly criticise the religious authorities and other elites, will quickly find themselves suffering fates worse than death. They will only be saved from these cruel agonies by death itself.

All this should remind us of the double-edged nature of all dogmas. They may be interpreted in ways that bring about a better world. May. In reality, they tend to be interpreted in self-serving ways by the beneficiaries of such interpretations. Hence being  blessed is taken by most as an entitlement to priveleg and consumption, rather than as a responsibility to distribute this blessing fairly among all of God´s creatures. It is used in the same way that the dogma of karma is, to punish the victims of poor holistic inheritances, and to legimitate the privileges and consumption of those with the best holistic inheritances. God must have willed it, or it would not be otherwise, the lucky few will argue. God loves them best. Their good fortune must be proof of this. And thus they enjoy gratifying their every desires, indulging in every priveleg and consumptions, free from any feeling of obligation towards the less fortunate. Who are they to challenge gods will!  If god had wanted the others to be fortunate, he would have blessed them!  How dare anyone challenge god´s will!  His priests deserved ´the best of the best´. God blesses whom he wills.  It is not for any man to challenge such a god given order. No. Any man who argues for a re-distribution of the windfalls of our holistic inheritances, our good fortune or misfortune, is a heretic. That man is challenging god´s will on earth. We must ensure he suffers for this damnable impertinence!

And so it is impossible to ensure that the ´noble´ lies of a Plato, Mohamed, or any other prophet or ´religious authority´are always employed in ´noble ´ways.  They are double edged swords. And it is for this reason that we must abandon all hope of employing them. They are like fantastically destructive weapons. Sure, if the right people have them, they can ensure peace and justice. But it is impossible to ensure the ´wrong´people will not get access to them, an use them for their own selfish, ignoble purposes. And thus we should be wary of developing them.

The lesson of history is that noble lies will always be interpreted, ´spun´ and distorted in ways that they produce outcomes the opposite of those intended by their innovators. Thus we must abandon any hope of employing noble lies. We should focus on the truth. The truth is much harder to ´spin´, especially if we keep in really simple and concrete.

Luke 16:10 reminds us of the indivisibility of Justice. People continue to refuse to validate this concept, as it is too spiritual in nature to be included in any of the thoroughly human religions. Luke states that ´He that commits any injustice at all, is unjust´, in some bibles. In others he warns us that ´The man who is corrupt in the smallest of matters, is not to be trusted in larger matters´.  

This is what I have argued for decades. Principles. Principles do not require huge tomes of precedents, clauses, or interpretations. Principles are simple. They are clear. They are incorruptible. They cannot be distorted. They cannot be avoided. They cannot be ´spun´.

The principle of justice is clearer than any other. To do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The golden rule. To behave, when you are in a position of power, as you would want those with power to behave towards you, when you have none.

Rawls´´Veil of ignorance´ and my own ´Optimal Ethics Generator´ seek to motivate people back towards the principles that the prophets sought to instill in us.

Of course Jesus called for his followers for them to treat the least among them, as if they were Jesus himself.

Of course he was crucified (in reality or myth), for daring to be so spritual, in the face of ´religion´. Religion is merely a form of power. It was produced by, and completely reflects, our all too human natures. Any truly spiritual value it ever possessed was corrupted. The true intentions and spirit of the prophets was ignored.

Thus we have to abandon all hope of religion ever producing an increase in social justice. It was never designed or intended to do so. It never did. The priests simply abused their power. The spiritual foundations of religions became over-run with superstition, ceremony, and ritual. The sorts of supersition, ceremony, and ritual the prophets had sought to banish.

So don´t dare tell me you are a servant of god when you fail to re-distribute  your god-given good fortune in full among the less fortunate. You are a servant of yourself. You serve merely yourself and yours. If any God actually existed, he would have smote you all dead in your tracks. You all failed his test.

God was created by man in his own image. Religion was produced my man to serve his own interests. Produced by the men with the power, to increase and reproduce this power over generations. To ensure access to all the privileges and luxuries you could imagine. And so  the priests speak only for themselves. They are men. Their motives are human. Religions is merely a reflexion and extension of human nature. There is nothing divine in it.

There is divinity only in the desire to help others. This is the core of all spirituality. There are of course some elements to be found in the world religions. However they are only ever marginalised and nominalised. Their voices are muted, for fear of being heard. The priests will only spin them to serve their own selfish purposes.

I write this of course for those who have not yet managed to comprehend the nature of gods and religions. I write this in case there are some truly faithful out there, to remind them that the truly faithful have no place in any of the worlds religions. I write this to warn them to escape before their true piety is recognised by their peers, and they are extirpated by them.

The first reformer of the established religious order was perhaps Akhen Aton, who himself continued the tradition of the priests at On. He abolished the existing Priesthoods of Ancient Egypt, in favour of a simple spiritual philosophy known as ´living in Ma´at´, meaning living in truth, justice, and an appreciation of the beauty of nature. Of course the priesthood lost all its priveleges, and rebelled within a few years. They murdered him and destroyed his new city and religion based on principles, rather than complex codes, rituals, and of course, priestly privileges.

Zoroastra taught a similar philosophy of principles with his ´Mazda-Yazna´, or worship of truth. He taught the simple principles of right thinking and right acting.

Buddha taught us to trust our own reason. He offered compelling arguments. His followers did more harm to him than his opponents, in contaminating his teachings, ignoring his instructions, and setting up a religion which adapted all the superstitions and dogmas we find in all the worlds religions today.

A well known Moses, model for Adolf Hitler, then founded his own monotheism, combining Yahweh the volcano god, with elements of the teachings of the Priests at On. We know of this religion as Judaism. It was a continuation of the established priesthoods of Egypt. ´The best of the best´ was to be given to the priests, in honor of god. Of course other Jews then continued the principles of Akhen Aton and the priets at On, and attributed their teachings to a prophet they called Jesus. He, like Akhen Aton, was of course crucified, in the myth or reality. And since then anyone attempting to replace religion with true, principle based spirituality, such as that taught by the Priests at On, Akhen Aton, Jesus, and Buddha, suffered fates worse than death.

So keep in mind. Religion is man-made. It was produced (nothing can be created as such) by a small group of people in their own interests. There is nothing other-worldly or divine in the worlds established religions. Where it exists, it is extirpated and ex-communicated. It is tortured and burned at the stake.

Search for divinity in yourself. No building or ritual is sacred. The only thing that is sacred is the will to serve others. The only sacred acts are helping others. Prayer is meaningless without action. Act your prayers. Otherwise they are an insult, a sacrilege.

The priests have no magic. They have no connection with any divinity. They serve their worldly masters in their worldly enterprises.

See,  my novel, ´Veil of ignorance´,   and my other books, TROONATNOOR, Convergences, Religion for so much more.


A universal (non-species-ist) definition of ´sociopath´would include 99% of the human population

Sociopaths focus on the advantages to be enjoyed for themselves, without any concern for the costs others might suffer as a result.

In our typical anthropocentric, species-ist way, putting humans at the center of the universe, and as the sole referent in cost-benefit analyses, we gloss over the interests of not-humans (other sentient animals), and not-yet-humans (re: abortion), in our definition of sociopathology.

What the term sociopath really refers to is behaviour which jeapardises the smooth, peaceful, productive functioning of society, in terms of human to human social interaction. As such it is species-ist. It is purely instrumental and utilitarian, based purely on our perceived self-interest.

The state recognises human nature for what it is, and employs the threat and use of violence as a deterrent, to prevent the average human border-line socio-pathology from becoming expressed in active socio-pathology. Thus society is built upon this state monopoly on violence.

The State employs this violence to ensure our begrudging non-agression towards others. It compels us to respect the rights of others we feel no natural empathy towards. We tend to naturally only love ourselves and ours, our family, our friends, our pets, and less and less, our tribe, our state, our nation, our ethnic group, our species, and mammals, and so on. The less like us things us, the less their natural share in our empathy, and the less likely it is that we will consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses.

Where the state failed to represent the perceived interests of some of its members, these members have exited from the informal ´social compact´ which granted the state a monopoly on violence, and took this right for itself, engaging in acts of terror against the state, and the society it represented.

The State of Israel was founded on genocidal acts of terror, no different in quality from those of the Nazis. The more modern State of Israel was again founded upon terrorism. In fact the modern age of terror was ushered into existence with the King David Hotel bombings, which murdered dozens of completely random people, simply to draw attention to the demands of its perpetrators, including the later Nobel Peace Prize winning head of the Israeli State. Of course the head of the Palestinian Liberation Authority, another terrorist organisation, also won this ´peace´ prize.

Remember that slavery was not abolished as an act of popular will. It took armies and massive violence and destruction to bend most of the populaton to begrudgingly respect the rights of slaves to enjoy the most basic of human rights.

So far we have limited the discussion mostly to humans. A more enlightened human, or alien, would consider the interests of all sentient beings in its cost-benefit analyses. As such it would define all non-vegan humans as sociopaths.

Keeping in mind that an organisation will be defined as much by the means it adopts, as by the ends these means are employed towards. Most people consider the violent means adopted in the U.S Civil war to be legitimate. More and more have come to begrudgingly recognise the legitimacy of many past acts of terror, as unfortunately necessary means towards noble ends.

An unbiased observer would have included the U.S ´war of independance´ as a set of acts of terror. Whether they really were fighting against tyranny is debateable. However most ´wars of independance´ employ terror to gain freedom for some group of people from the exploitation of another group of people. Certainly the battle of ´The Alamo´ was fought to continue slavery, to escape the ´tyranny´ of a more enlightened state, Mexico, in enforcing the abolition of slavery in Texas.  Thus the ends here would not justify the means, in hindsight.

So what of the animal liberation movments?  What of the rights of animals to freedom from our exploitation of their inherited inequality?

What means would justify the ends of the abolition of this exploitation, this holocaust, this industrial scale cruelty and abuse? I am talking about future generations looking back to our time. We cannot be trusted to be the judges of our own behaviour any more than the slave owners of their times could be trusted to determine the ethics of their behaviour, in their times.

If we abandon our arrogance, our species-ism, our anthropocentrism, we can see that, and assign each individual sentient being the same rights, we have to accept the scale of our injustice.  The injustice we continue to perpetrate against not-human sentient beings is incomparably larger than that which we have perpetrated on any members of the human species over our entire history.

Thus, the suffering is greater than that associated with any earlier social action.  The cost being higher than any earlier social action, we must necessarily see that the means that might eliminate this suffering, this massive, never before calculated cost, would also be justifyably, incomparably massive in comparison to any past means that had been employed.

Remember these means were all acts of  terror. The means employed was brute force. The consequences were massive scale carnage and destruction. And yet we consider these acts, these costs, these means, to be justified by the ends they attained. These ends included the abolition of slavery, and increasing rights for all members of society to freedom from exploitation and abuse by their fellow humans.

Our empathy for the suffering on not-humans is a weaker determinant than our desire to consume their bodies, and to abuse our power over them by using them as objects for the testing of products we enjoy consuming. In other words we treat not-humans we have no particular empathy for, which generally  includes all but ´pets´,  as means to our ends. We do not consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses. We numb ourselves to their suffering when we are aware of it, and do our best to remain ´ignorant´of it, so that we may deny it to ourselves.

Ideally we would be able to confront each person with the suffering that their consumption of a particular product produced for other not-humans, at the  ´point of sale´. We would have technologies I call ´tele-empathy´, which would force people to face up to the suffering they are responsible for each time they consume a product.

I doubt that the mass media would even publish any media which showed this suffering. Even if animal rights activists were to suddenly gain access to billions of dollars in resources and creative talent, the mass media would simply refuse to air their advertisements, their public announcements, their documentaries, and so on.

People want to pretend that their enjoyment does not come at the cost of cruelty and suffering to the least powerful members of our society. Their selfish desire is a greater determinant than their empathy. They will not be confronted with the reality of their actions by the media. The empathy they might have felt will never be activated. The determinant power of it to modify human behaviour will not be realised.

And so, what means remain available to those seeking to liberate not-humans from the bureacratic, industrial scale violence and effectively torture, of the mass of the human population?

I have suggested some creative, non-violent means in my novel ´The veil of ignorance´.  My ´Animal Liberation Army´ creatively use the appearance of a threat of violence as a means.

However facts are facts. No group has ever managed to have others respect its rights, to deter others from agression and exploitation, without some form of Army, or at least the possibility of forming such an army, as in the case of Ghandi. And what followed Ghandi´s success was the formation of more armies, and the employment of more violence as a means to the ends of gaining ´liberty ´for some group from some other.

In fact Budhhism and Jainism was brought to most of the world by the armies of  Mahavira (The Jain Conqeror), and Asoka (The Buddhist Conqueror).

Sadly few people who claim to be Buddhist today actually act in line with Buddha´s teachings, which promote  a vegan lifestyle and philosophy.  It is only the few million Jain adherents, and a few million Western vegans, who continue in the tradition of Mahavira and Buddha. Of course even Judeao-Christian bibles recommend the vegan lifestyle as superior. The Eden presented in Genesis, and the ´Next world´ portrayed elsewhere, are all definitively vegan.  And so the power of religion to improve the world has proven severely limited. It is unlikely that religion will become the force for change that a superior ethic demands.

And so, we are left to consider what means justify our ends, keeping in mind that the ends we chose will define us as much as the ends we employ them towards.  We are clear that the more powerful only tend to respect the rights of the less powerful if they are forced to, by the threat of violence. In  other words, the existence of, or potential for, the raising of an Army, by which it can defend itself from the transgressions of the more powerful.  Sadly, history shows that for most people, the only right they recognise is that of might.

History shows that humans only begrudgingly act as if they respect the rights of other humans, if those humans have the power to defend their own rights, personally, or through access to armies, police, prisons, and the use of violence.  Ideally individuals and groups are defended by a State.  Thus others will begrudgingly act as if they respect my rights if the State threatens violence of some kind upon them for failing to do so.

I have experienced many acts of violence at the hands of those representing the State.  I am certain that, if I forced people to investigate my greivances by committing acts of violence, or threatening to employ them in some believable way, the world would find my grievances valid.

The state would award me some compensation. History would define my acts of violence as justified means to the ends of justice. These means would have encouraged the world to finally define acts of workplace victimisation and mobbing  as the acts of violence they in fact are. That is something for my victimisers to consider. I in fact have nothing to lose, as they have made my life not worth living, having denied me access to the basic rights to work and a deserved reputation. Those without work tend to find themselves without most rights, including the right to acceptance, approval, and love.

Individuals tend to define all their own acts as just, and only the acts of others as unjust.  In other words people generally only define themselves and their loved ones as victims. they define all their own acts as justified and legitimate. They find excuses and explanations for all their own acts of injustice.

And thus many acts of violence continue, in the form of mobbing and workplace victimisation. Many of these are perpetrated by representatives of the State itself.

And so we cannot rely on our State protecting the rights of the less powerful, those without a ´mob´to support them,  let alone the least powerful, the not-humans. We cannot even rely on amassing the financial resources to fund a mass-media campaign aimed at targetting the empathy of the average person, or at least the most powerful members of our societies. These campaigns would not be aired.

We might become as creative as possible, writing songs, plays, poems, books, and movie scripts, and in producing such creative works, all of which seek to elicit an empathy for the suffering, distress, and pain of not-humans, and then engage it to produce new laws and regulations protecting the rights of not-humans.

We might work to make the vegan lifestyle as attractive as possible, by increasing the range, availability, and affordability of a vegan lifestyle in general.  We could set up not-for-profit co-ops to practically facilitate this. A vegan supermarket in every suburb, in every state, in every country in the world!  We must become entrepreneurial, but motivated by the interests of not-humans, rather than our own, narrow, interests.

And in some form, yes, finally, we cannot avoid the need for some sort of Animal Liberation Army. For in the end, it is force that people respect, rather than arguments. They might post-rationalise their motives after the fact, and imagine themselves to have been motivated by empathy, by reason, and by those beautiful principles of justice and fairness, however it is the threat of violence that accompanies non-compliance, that motivates most people to comply with more enlightened laws and regulations, with fairer, more just, expectations and norms of behavior.

So let us lobby the state as hard as we can to take up arms for our struggle. And let leave any ´moral´ judgement of any animal rights activists who take up arms in their legitimate struggle, as legitimate means to legitimate ends, to history.

For it is only history that is able to make such judgements. It is only history that eliminates the partisan, self-interested, short-sighted motives of contemporaries to the greatest fights for right, for justice, for freedom from oppression, exploitation, and slavery, from the judgement process.

Yes, it was not arguments that freed anyone from exploitation, oppression, and slavery. It was armies.

Of course your response will be self-righteous. Like all slave owners, all the Moses´and Hitlers of past, you will be outraged by anyone claiming the right to fight for justice and fairness.  You have a god-given, historical destiny to cruelly oppress, exploit, kill, rape, and torture, all animals, and any people not belonging to your master race.

But history has since shown what happens when you deny TROONATNOOR.  Ultimately we must all submit to reality. And reality can bite. So do not complain when it bites you. You are now in a position to appease the dogs of war, by offering justice for all sentient beings.

Do not complain when you become the victim of your own lies, denial, and cruelty.

But, we beseech you. Do the right thing now, because it is the right thing, and thus avoid the need for might to impose it upon you by force of arms, by acts of terror, by the employment of violent means.

The world as it is is not ´morally´worthy of being reproduced. Little would be lost to a ´moral´ universe, were it to be destroyed. Humans have too much power vis a vis other animals.  They have employed their inherited holistic inequality vis a vis not-humans to the vilest ends.

Rather than seeking to optimalise the experience of life for all sentient beings, humans have exploited their power vis a vis non-humans simply to cruelly, systematically, industrially, and heartlessly, exploit them as means to their own ends.

One can only wonder at the delusion of those who imagine that this is consistent with any notion of being the image of some just and loving god.

Think, you god-ists. Eden was Vegan. The life to come is Vegan. Between was suffering, ending only in armageddon.

So why not embrace veganism today, and thus avoid the armageddon that a non-vegan society morally ´deserves´(given your own assumption of free will!). Embrace the vegan teachings of the prophets today.

I do not desire any violence at all. I seek a completely violence free world. It is possible. However ´peace´ which shields the massive industrial scale violence committed upon the least powerful sentient beings in our world is no desireable end in itself. It is an ugly peace. An unworthy peace. It is merely the calm before the next war. It is the peace of despots, of tyrants, of dictatorial regimes maintained by continual terror, threats, and acts of violence.

History has shown that, very rarely, societies can move from this stage onto more just stages, without full-scale war. However it has only rarely occured without the real and present potential for violent defense of what is right and good and just.

Only peace with justice for all sentient beings is worthy of being defended and reproduced.

We are at war. Only it is a secret war. The prisoners and victims are kept away from the public eye. They are kept in ´concentration camps´ on the edges of towns. The public pretend they do not exist. If asked, afterwards, they will claim they were unaware they existed, and what happened there. At the time they are happy to benefit from the cheaper goods and services provided by the slave labour, but now they will feign complete ignorance. And those who are active will claim they were ´merely following orders´, and complying with public opinion, and the norms of their society.

In hindsight, partisan (human) historians will define the time as that of  a ´criminal´ hegemony of the mass media, lobby groups, and religion. They will absolve the masses from any response-ability. They were the victims of others who manipulated them!

However we, today, know that is not true. We have the response-ability. We do not need to abuse our power over animals. A vegan lifestyle can be at least as satisfying as a cruel non-vegan one. We can become deserving of justice ourselves, by being just ourselves.

And this is the final point of anyone who wants to avoid becoming the next victim of injustice. You cannot sanely claim to deserve justice when you act unjustly. You cannot put injustice out into the world and then expect to avoid becoming its vicitim at some point.

Opportunism, and right is might,  define the valuies, behaviour and principles of 99% of humans vis a vis not-humans. We could hardly complain when some not-human, one with a superior holistic inheritance which gives it the power over us, decides to cruelly exploit us as means to its own ends.

And this not-human is on the radar already. Even if you do not believe in aliens, you will soon come into direct contact with the new, superior, more powerful species that is emerging. The Cyborg.

Within a few decades this superior organism will far surpass us mere humans in power. It will have the might to decide what is right. If we cannot agree on principles that are universal, then how would we be able to program computers to operate according to such principles?

And why should a superior being respect us, when we are unworthy of that respect. When we are cruel, heartless, opportunists, who reproduce and exploit inequality as a means to our own selfish ends. Ends which we could in fact serve without any cruelty.

And this is the final point. We are opportunists. We employ things as means to our ends. However we have vegan means which we can employ in serving our ends, in satisfying our desires, our needs, in gratifying our instincts.

If we do not take this opportunity, it indicates that human nature must be, at its core, cruel. And that is not a nature I wish to inflict upon the universe. That is a nature the universe could well do without. That is a nature that should not be reproduced. That is a nature that should be annihilated before it can contaminate the rest of the universe.

And so, unless we can accept our flaws and optimalise TROONATNOOR, I can only go along with all those religions that yearn for an Armageddon.


The philosopher as ´bull´fighter

The job of philosopher is as much ´Bull´ fighter as actual producer of ´new´ ideas. Thanks to all the deliberate deception that has accumulated over the ages, the BS (Bull-Shit) has piled up, producing all sorts of problems, as could be expected from such poor mental sanitation, a.k.a sanity.

Some of the liars, such as Plato, at least imagined that they themselves had noble motives.  Plato used, and recommended others use, what he saw as ´noble´ lies. 

Thus, since time immemorial, the powerful have deceived us. Sometimes they justified it to themselves as being for our own good. Of course, just by chance, such lies also brought them massive power, wealth, luxury, and all the taboo things they denied us.

Some of the liars have been more directly opportunistic. They invented races, and people ´chosen´, either by gods, or by historical destiny, to be ´master races´, with the right to disposess, enslave, rape, and murder, all other peoples.  See my TROONATNOOR books, or the Bible and Mein Kampf for details.

The lies about free will and Karma might fall in either category, depending on the person employing these lies.

Sometimes their motives have been more noble, sometimes more malicious, sometimes simply opportunistically practical.

People might behave better, if they believed they could never escape the consequences of their actions. People might also submit to exploitation, if they felt they ´deserved´it, due to poor behaviour in past lives.

Of course you could only morally judge people if they actually did possess a free will. It would be absurd to ´punish´ someone for actions they had no choice but to take.  Karma itself was absurd if you had no free will.

The gods would have to be really malicious to blame you for their own mistakes! How vicious must the Biblical god be to force Adam and Eve to reproduce billions of people only that they might suffer and die, for the actions of that very same ´loving´ himself.

In any case, what sort of bastard could see any justice in punishing generations for the actions of individuals?  Anyway, back to my blog!

Lies become ´social reality´ due to the power of those producing and re-producing them. Through this power, through education, the popular media, and religion,  the beneficiaries of these lies  have these lies naturalised, normalised, and internalised. Threats of violence in present, future, and even an ´after´ life, commonly attend such ´socialisation´.

And those philosophers who directly challenged such lies were tortured to death, burned alive, dispossed of all their social status and the means to survive. Their families suffered the same fate, often up to the fourth succeeding generations. In Adam and Eve´s case it was thousands of generations, and then for eternity!

However most of these lies actually appeal to their listeners in some way, and hence they are greedily consumed and internalised.

Who would not want their enemies to be damned to an eternity of suffering?  Who would not enjoy belonging to some ´chosen´ people, with the right to rape, murder and enslave other people?  Who would give up the right to steal the wealth of others?  Who would refuse to be the most important thing in the universe, with a right to exploit all  the other sentient beings, all the other non-members of your particular social group, not to mention other nationalities, ethic groups, skin-colors, and of course, all the other species,  in it? 

Every negative lie, such as that of guilt, karma, or the existence of an eternal hell, is accompanied by an appealing one, such as the notion of free will, meritocracy ( a.k.a I deserve my good fortune, and others deserve their bad fortune), or the existence of some eternal paradise.

Philosophers are the eternally open-minded ´seekers´. They reject all dogma, all sense of certainty truth. They see no compelling grounds for accepting any particular dogma over another. Thus they keep an open mind, and are never deceived.

They may accept some compelling arguments as compelling, however they keep their minds open to change. What appears compelling today may become less compelling in light of new evidence, experience, or arguments.

And thus they opt to ´suspend judgement´ on many things, while treating other things heuristically ´as if´ they were truths. The difference is that when their experience teaches them otherwise, contradicting their beliefs, they are open to changing their beliefs in light of it, rather than denying the reality they have just experienced.

Thus it is the dogmatic that are the ´skeptics´, in the modern sense of the word, as it is they who deny reality, for fear of having their cherished, valued, precious beliefs challenged.

The original Greek term from which ´skeptic´ derives, means ´seeker´. Of course today it means someone who is unwilling to accept a compelling argument or experience that is  inconvenient or undesirable.

Few minds are so great as to be able to innovate, and produce ´new´ ideas, new compelling arguments. Most recently John Rawls came upon one such innovation, his ´veil of ignorance´.  It inspired, no doubt, my own´Optimal Ethic Generator´. My own innovation builds upon his, and upon the ´nobler´dimension  of the lie of karma.

My conceptulisation of life as an ´Experience Engine´ appears in hindsight a continuation of the Hindu cosmology, in which the universe produces all life out of a sense of ´play´, or ´Lila´.

My ´induction´ theory of consciousness shares similarites with the ideas of Averroes.

However for the most part, my TROONATNOOR   books are engaged with fighting the ´bull´. 

´Taking out the trash´would be in itself quite easy, however my task is more to sort through it, to separate the valuable from the worthless and, more importantly, toxic.

It is laborious work, when you seek to avoid ´throwing out the baby with the bathwater´.  I have been careful to save the baby while draining the bathwater.

That was hard work. However the real challenge was to replace the bathwater with a purer water, unpolluted and uncontaminated by the millenia of ´noble (and otherwise) lies´.

Only then could it be really cleaned. I had no interest in merely replacing one lot of dirty water with another. Hence I have avoided any noble lies of my own. I have presented only compelling arguments, in the spirit of Buddha.

The water is clear. If you want to be freed of all the garbage that is weighing you down, disempowering you, distoriting and fouling your vision, then join me on the journey that is TROONATNOOR

This very same water can even free you of that which all religion has promised, but failed to deliver. Thanks to Freud, it can even free you of that mass compulsive neurosis called religion, original sin, homophobia, andyour delusions of  free will. See Volumes II and III of my  TROONATNOOR    series,  Convergences and Religion  for details.

It can free you to stop re-producing a history of misery, and empower you to produce the sort of world all the prophets have promised and failed to deliver, a world that is worth living in. A world that is worth reproducing.  This is the world that is defined by my Eden Protocols, in my   TROONATNOOR  books.

I was loathe to publish my books before replacing  the noble lies, with something devoid of lies, but at least as promising.

It took decades, after having cleared out the BS, to actually produce something worthy of replacing it.

And so it is that I can now recommend my  TROONATNOOR    books for your consideration. Please avail yourself of this opportunity. Not only will all future generations of sentient beings love you for doing so, but you yourself will benefit, right now, this moment, for the rest of your life, and, if reality is so, for the rest of your lives.


Happy Winter Solstice and New Year

Just a reminder that the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted Pauls´ recycled ´Priests at On´philosophy and his fellow ´good news´´gospel´ writers´ stories surrounding the birth of Siddartha a.k.a Buddha, regarding the birth of the wisest man, king of kings, attended by and validated by 3 wise men, adapting the current Mediterranean ´pagan´ cults, including the traditional celebration of the dieing and reborn Sun, known to the Romans as Saturnalia, and to others as the celebration of the birth of the ´New´ year, occuring logically on the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, , to produce, in the typical recycling tradition in which religions have evolved, what we know as Christ-mas or Xmas.

For the enlightened amongst you, fear not, the dieing son will be resurrected on the Winter Solstice. That is the nature of nature. Death and rebirth, in a continuing cycle of generation, decay, and regeneration. So bring in something green, show those you care about how much you value them, and consider that things only endure if they are reproduced. And consider what things in your life you would like to continue, to endure, and carry into the new year, and which things you would do better to abandon. Remember, this is the extent of your response-ability in an inter-deterministic universe. Things only endure if they reproduce. This applies as much to habits, laws, social customs, social practises, as it does to species of animals. Take a moment to consider how much more beautiful, creative, and enjoyable your world could be if certain things did NOT exist. This is the whole concept of the ´New Yearś Resolution´.

And on the theme of ´Happy´New Year, a reminder that marijuana, though supposedly a class one drug with NO medicinal applications (along with Cocaine, which Freud could find no medicinal use for, but with others did, in eye surgery), is in fact used by over 300,0o0 registered users in California alone, for medical purposes. What catches my eye is its efficacy in treating the symptoms of migraine i.e nausea, pain, anxiety, and depression. While, as I suspected, Botox may soon be approved as one migraine treatment, it seems we have a simpler remedy which we could grow in our own homes.

Imagine that. What would the pharmaceutical companies make of that!  An effective treatment that anyone could grow themselves at low cost, completely bypassing the pharmaceutical industry!  Of course I have written much elsewhere about the politics of drugs, in my TROONATNOOR bloggs and books. However here I will add the fact that over 25% of all patients on dialysis suffered their kidney failure as a result of the long term use of pain killers. And as far as I know marijuana has never been associated with any such problems.

Of course the pharmaceutical lobby group corrupts the political process with political campaign financing, and thus the politicians have no motive to introduce new legislation. In fact they are on the brink of successfully legislating against current laws in states such as California which allow the legal, medical use of marijuana.

So it is time to address the issue of political campaign financing which is at the heart of such reversals of good reason. I have addressed this issue, in all its ramifications, in my TROONATNOOR books. Inform yourself. Empower yourself for informed consent, so that you can transform your own world, and society, for the better.  You will be surprised how poorly informed most of you are on the most important issues, how unaware you are of the nature of our realities, and the realities of our natures. You will be surprised by the questions you have not even thought to ask.  The answers may be challenging, but they offer you the chance to escape from history. After all, what is not reproduced, ceases to be. the applies equally to species as it does to the assumptions we make, and the interactions and systems of relations these produce and sustain. This defines the potential response-ability we have in the inter-deterministic universe which we live in. You have the chance, NOW, to decide what things you will reproduce, and which things you will NOT.

A a My Living Will Directive and My Final Will and Testament

My living will and ´Do Not Resuscitate´ order

This is my living will, a directive as to how to proceed in the event that I am ever on life support, or found with no pulse.  For the password to my Final Will and Testament, contact

It is my will that no ´heroic´medical interventions should be allowed to be taken to prolong my life. I will that I should not be resusitated if I have no pulse. I will that no-one should carry out CPR on me. I will that any and all life support be turned off, in the event that someone has placed me on such supports. In this event I will that I be given a lethal injection, or other form of Euthanasia, to ensure a dignified, swift, and painless death.

I will that every part of my body, excluding my neurons, should be used for organ transplants, in the training of medical students, or for medical research. However my neurons must be destroyed. I don´t want ´scientists´using them to guide missiles towards anyone! If no-one wants my body for such purposes, then I will for it to be cremated in the cheapest way possible, without any clothing, or ceremony. I then will that my ashes to be placed in some cheap container and auctioned off on Ebay as ´The ashes of The Philosopher Prophet Of The Eden Protocols´. This is intended as strategy to attract potential interest to my books and ideas.

Contact SteveM@petaf.org for the password to my Final will and Testament