Secular Religion, and The Illusion of Lack

A transition has occurred. I feel this will likely be my last article for at least a few months. Much has changed in the world since I began this blog. Things have come to light that were before shunned and taboo to discuss, but now the average conversation I overhear is littered with seeds of hope that one day many of the global issues we currently face will be properly alleviated. This fills me with joy to think about, but also makes me question my role here in this medium of communication, because it seems that there has already been a "critical mass" of sorts attained in the spreading of certain ideas. Essentially, I don't think I'm being of the highest service to others in this role anymore; at least not for the time being. Allow me to dot a couple i's, and cross a couple t's here in this article while I wrap up my most current thoughts on a variety of topics, then bid you all adieu.

At this point I'm not sure which has killed more innocent lives: organized religion, or modern organized science; my money's on the latter of the two faiths though.

The more I learn about the mechanisms that govern the natural world, the more I am beginning to understand how misleading "science" can actually be.

Do you still believe in the

boogy-man of germs?

Do you still think you're sick because
you have a drug deficiency?

Do you still think you're fat because

you're eating too many calories?

Do you still believe that physical

mechanisms can explain the universe?

Do you still think diseases spread

because there aren't enough people

taking drugs?

You must be a pious believer in the modern theology of Pop-Science.

Considering the way the word "science" is whored-out these days for the sake of profit, I find it impossible to be trusted at face value anymore. Phrases like, "______ is the way it is, because God said so," have simply evolved within our secularly-based society into, "______ is the way it is, because 'scientific studies' say so," when in reality such 'scientific studies' are often exaggerated or fabricated for the sake of selling something; "exaggerated" and "fabricated" being words often used by science to describe the Bible, and subsequently God.

Ironic, is it not?

I do not, by any means, mean to imply that all modern scientists and their efforts are less than righteous; that is a ridiculous thing to say. Quite the contrary, there is a wealth of amazing discoveries taking place that are still at least somewhat accessible to the everyday citizen. What I mean to imply is that much like the words of the bible itself, a great deal of published scientific material has been biasedly cherry-picked, and presented to the masses as absolute certainty.

What sets the religion of Pop-Science apart from the genuine, honest investigation process of the Scientific Method performed by true scientists all around the world? Well, just like everything else around here, one must simply follow the money: science that backs an industry is plastered on the walls of the media (Pop Science) while science that discredits an industry is simply ignored altogether, blacklisted and insulted, or just not published at all. The issue is that the average citizen does not have access to the education required to interpret the scientific papers being cited in order to discern their own conclusions, nor even access to the papers themselves without being a university student or paying expensive fees.

This leads to a compartmentalization of information, and subsequently a misplaced emphasis on inter-vocational trust that has left most Americans blind to the broader spectrum of scientific literature.

What science do you hear about? Obviously it is the science that someone invested money to have translated from peer-review jargon into common tongue, but why?

Because it's science that can help sell something; it's profitable.

This trust that most have for the scientific establishment is, in my opinion, quite akin to the blind faith people had in their priests back in the Dark Ages.

The role of science was originally to help people better understand and appreciate the mechanisms of The Grand Design. It later became thought of as a tool used to denounce mankind's need for any God during times when the motives of spiritual leaders were in question. The church had been bought. He with the heaviest purse controlled the say of the church; as was the original design of Caesar in the first place. It was rife with hypocrisy, and early scientists had justifiable cause to question the authority of such an institution; thus we have modern science. I fear, however, that science has been transformed into its own brand of corrupt religion as of late. There is every bit of corruption, greed, and subterfuge in the modern peer-review system of western medicine, for example, as one could expect to find in any big business industry. This new brand of secular (non-spiritual) religion has it's own false tenets; the primary one being that only physical measurable phenomena can be considered "real".

At this point in American culture it's just like any other religion, and it's manipulatable in exactly the same fashion that multiple religions have been manipulated to control the minds (and wallets) of the weak and ignorant for millennia. Hell, because of the fancy words and jargon used to describe the religion of Science, all but the most impassioned of initiates are forced to accept the information that is dictated to them by our cultures "Priests" through the various books of the "Bible of Science"; otherwise known as scientists and peer-review journals. Just like any organized religion, Pop-Science requires belief in things that are unproven, faith that the motives behind their leading entities are righteous and just, and trust in the system from whence such leading entities came to remain pure from the corruption of human greed. Since the normal citizen is only truly capable of reading on the high-school-or-less reading level, it is entirely at the discretion of those who govern the media what science is to be "translated" into the language of the lay-man and distributed in magazines, commercials, and cinema. The overall population of people who are aware of any data to discredit such Pop-Science is then kept minimal through severe economic discouragement from higher-level education. This ensures that the vast majority of consumers are indoctrinated "believers" that will continue to believe the words of their monetary-based secular religion, with a small minority of "crack-pots" left over who have not bought-in to the madness (and usually mocked for their work).  I hope the cyclical nature of all this is beginning to become clearer.

So long as there is a price tag associated with higher knowledge, "science" will remain yet another religious faith used by the wealthy to control the herd.

So how do we fix this shit? How do we change the world, and ourselves, for the better?

There are two different breeds of human beings out there; two extremely broad categories of belief from which all other philosophies sprout, and take form. These two camps of people often share the same flag, religion, or socioeconomic standing, without ever truly identifying the fundamental difference between the ways they approach the outside world, and therefore how different they actually are. I belong to one of these two camps of people, and so do you. We have already made our choice, but that is not to say that the choice is necessarily set in stone.

At the most primal expansion into duality, upon your immediate entrance into the realm of self vs. not-self, you make a judgement call: Is the world of not-self an enemy to be feared, or a friend to be loved? Based upon your subconscious answer to this question, you have fallen into one of the two following camps of people, which I shall call those of "Universal Competition", or those of "Universal Cooperation".

Those who live in the world of Universal Competition believe that at the root of reality, humanity is locked in a battle with nature. This breed of person believes that mankind holds dominion over the animal kingdom; that nature should be controlled and outsourced for human gain and profit. They believe that at the core of human personality we are all brutish, cruel, selfish, and only ever interested in our own physical gain; therefore extensive laws must be formulated to keep people from "reverting" to their barbaric tendencies. This is found in religion under the umbrella term "original sin", and in atheist circles under the term "survival of the fittest". As a blatant example, our modern-day western society is a clear example of a world seen through the eyes of Universal Competition. Our culture sees no problem with hanging millions of animals up by their legs for their whole lives only to feed our bloodthirsty mouths, or with plowing down miles and miles of rain forests to produce arable farmland to feed those slaughterhouse beasts at the cost of destroying that which produces the majority of the Earth's oxygen.

Those who believe in Universal Cooperation believe that at the root of reality, humanity is locked in a dramatic ballet with nature. They see no lasting threat in the outside world, only a world filled with curiosity and wonder. This party finds that mankind has no further right to life and happiness than any other form of life, and while acknowledging the natural presence of all forms of biotic predation in the world, tend towards feeling a higher degree of compassion for nonhuman creatures than those of Universal Competition with regards to food selection. They believe that at the core of human personality we are all loving, empathic, selfless, and only ever interested in the betterment of all. A society of such people is quite rare, if not impossible, to find in contemporary communities around the world. For the most part, the only places where this form of culture has survived the ages is in monasteries and secluded temples, and in the immediate areas surrounding such places. Why is that?

Lack. The illusion of there not being enough to go around.

This is indeed an illusion, but it is a persistent one at that. So long as there is a mass fear of hunger, in any remote possibility, people will tend to be motivated more by fear of lack in their actions. In essence, this analogy can be used to summarize the difference between the Universal Competition and Universal Cooperation philosophies: A person who is a patron of the former will tend to see a lack in the world of not-self around them, while a patron of the latter will tend to see an abundance in the world of not-self around them. Both people could in fact be experiencing and observing the same set of circumstances in life at the exact same moment, but this has no effect on the the fact that each one will be observing vastly different realities based upon the way they view 'not-self'.

It is my opinion that one of these species of consciousness is superior to the other. I think that humanity would greatly benefit from an overall shift in mass consciousness from being fueled primarily by Universal Competition to Universal Cooperation.

At this point in history with all of our spectacular technologies and wisdom, why is it that people are still so obsessed with the primitive concept of competition? What is there to gain from constantly being forced to look over our shoulders to our fellow man in vain attempts to stay one step ahead?  Nothing! The entirety of modern society is based upon the concepts of competition, consumption and profit, and the world is succumbing to this mindset's gross inefficiency. Rather than working together and focusing on overall progress, we have corporations undermining one-another in petty attempts to stay on top of industry, hurting the natural progression of technology and ideas. The health of individual citizens suffers from competition, because currently citizens are treated as little more than profit centers in order to maximize the competitive edge of a particular company in the drug industry. Whole species of biotic fauna have perished due to human competition. The scientific community has been held back by generations entirely because of human competition (the silencing of Tesla, anyone?). What is the benefit to living our short lives at each other's throats for the sake of earning a couple more dollars of worthless fiat monopoly money?

Rather than using our technologies to alleviate the human condition; cutting the hours of the workday and cutting the days of the work-week; we're fighting it by blindly attempting to create more jobs? Where the holy hell is the sense in that? Rather than using information gained from modern energy experiments to generate an abundance of free energy, food, and shelter for all living human beings with no attached price-tag (therefore ensuring that all of humanity is granted equal human-rights to life), we are suppressing such information. Why? Because of competition, and profits.

A wise man once told me, "You know the difference between Capitalism and Communism? In Communism, man exploits his fellow man; in Capitalism, it's exactly the opposite."

People are just now beginning to wake up the the reality of the fact that the Republican and Democratic political parties are in fact puppets controlled by the same groups of national organizations and businesses. However, even when the full depth of that startling revelation sets in, it will pale in comparison to the even broader realization that both Capitalism and Communism are in fact still just puppets controlled by the same groups of international bankers, cartels, and organized religions, who truly possess all the wealth and power on this planet. It is an illusion so deep that it boggles the mind to ponder its true complexity, but it is still ultimately hinged upon one, tiny little detail.

The illusion is based entirely upon the emphasis of Universal Competition, and therefore crumbles when the masses begin to choose Universal Cooperation more and more.

As soon as I bring up any criticism of Capitalism around people, the most common and immediate response that most people have is to insinuate that I must be some form of an "anarchist". Since I understand that most people are simply envisioning "anarchy" when they say "anarchist", my immediate answer is of course not. I am simply suggesting that capitalism desperately needs to update its economic programming to better fit modern circumstance. There is no more need for mass human physical labor. There is no more need for carbon emissions. There is no more need for energy bills, and grocery expenses can easily be reduced to next to nothing. There are machines that can use solar power to automatically build a house out of processed hemp fiber in less than a week that is stronger than most houses built by hand, for God's sake. Instead of truly expanding upon these advances that could easily revolutionize the entire human race and bring about a Golden Age of Knowledge never before seen on Earth, our societies see fit to subsidize archaic fuel sources and poisonous food-production methodologies that only serve to reduce the overall vibrancy of our species, and the planet on which we dwell.

The reality is that there is abundance out there in the world of not-self if you just stop giving all your energy to the illusion that there's not. It is the perception of lack in the world by those of Universal Competition that gives birth to the concept and reality of human greed, because in a world of perceived lack one is motivated to ensure they are not stuck with the short end of the stick. In the perception of abundance, greed has no meaning or ground to stand on.

Objection.

If you take away competition, then there will be no motivation for humanity to ever progress. We need competition to motivate progress, otherwise humanity will just turn into a race of lazy pot-smoking scumbags that have no interest in science or the arts.

Response.

All this objection does is reveal the depth of your belief in the illusion. You clearly feel that the only plausible motivation humanity could ever experience towards progressive action would be competition. You are always welcome to this belief, but my investigations and experiences have lead me to see that many of my most amazingly progressive actions were motivated by my own innate desire to express myself, or otherwise complete a goal I had set down for my own intrinsic happiness; not out of competition with anyone else. Most children, if left uninhibited and well educated, have extremely powerful imaginations and all the energy it takes to go out and accomplish their dreams. It is the conformist nature of a society based upon competition and an artificial fear of lack that in fact stifles creativity and reduces the everyday citizen's desire to get up and accomplish things. If one examines the psychology of the previous objection in red, it becomes obvious that the speaker of such a statement is in fact only insinuating that they themselves feel they would not be motivated towards any progressive action without first being stimulated by some form of competitive lack.

Imagine being able to do exactly what you love, and being able to make a comfortable living doing it. I talk about this scenario often, calling it the epitome of what a life can be in our culture.

When I contemplate the time of my life when I'm finally able to do what I love to do, and make plenty of money doing it, I most definitely feel happiness and excitement. . . don't get me wrong. But, at the same time, I wish I could maintain it as my gift to the world. It feels as if the fact that I'm suddenly making money off of it cheapens it somehow, or reduces my credibility with people I could potentially help more if they weren't so nervous that I'm trying to take their money over a scam or something. When you help a friend, that help is genuine and the friend knows that you mean the best for them in your treatment and recommendations. I think there is something important to the noticeable drop in happiness I observe between the two scenarios of 1) helping others out of love for them or 2) helping others for money. Perhaps it's superficial, but I'm not so sure it is.

Right now, my interests have a purely intrinsic value to them; being a hobby that I am able to help others with and feel simple happiness and joy from doing so. I value it simply for what it is. Later, to comply with the current economic paradigm, this activity must be converted into being of an instrumental value to me; then becoming something that I value only insofar as it is capable of gaining me something else (money). Since survival is still the average person's most basic life-purpose and labor, my passion for healing will then be inextricably tied to my eternal labor to generate money and survive. It will cease to be a purely intrinsic source of happiness because it will be tainted by the muck of my paradigm of a 'job'; my labor.

There are plenty of righteous things out there that have instrumental value, and many things have both intrinsic value (valuable in itself) and instrumental value (valuable for what it can give you). Food, water, medicine, tools and all sorts of other things have this instrumental value to them, with the end-state goal being to eventually use them to achieve something of intrinsic value. For example: food, water, and medicine are all instrumental for giving us our Health; being the intrinsically valuable thing that we actually desire.

In my humble opinion, the most valuable of all the things in existence are those that have only pure, intrinsic value to them. These are the transcendental riches of the universe; the truest source of genuine wealth. Love, happiness, community, intimacy, friendship, self-expression, compassion, and joy are all such things that we value purely because they make us feel good. Such things can also be used instrumentally; both righteously and not (using a friend or lover for some form of personal gain, perhaps). Money? We simply use it because we all agree to pretend it represents something of value (which is becoming harder and harder to do these days).

Obviously I see the practical reasoning behind going out and making my passion my career, and I emphasize that I'm still very much excited for the day that transition actually happens. But, I can't help noticing that what is currently my means of self-expression, my means of helping others and reaping the joy that helping others gives me, is going to eventually be cheapened by using it instrumentally to pay my mortgage. The idea of charging money for what I consider my art just kinda feels weird to me.

Oh well right? It is what it is.

Well what if things were different? What if the science reaching people's awareness wasn't always so polluted with greedy intentions? What if Americans didn't have to take out a freakin mortgage just to pay for their science degree? What if the average consumer could finally start placing genuine trust and confidence in their healers to properly aid the individual in their return to homeostasis? I bet there would be a great many changes taking place!

Oh yea, that's right. There is.

That's kinda why I'm writing this article.

People are waking up more and more.

And I'm beginning to feel like I'm beating a herd of dead horses.

At this point there's not a whole lot left for me to say on here. I'm not trying to repeat discussions I've had in various other articles on The Magic Spider. I set out writing this blog with the intention of helping others see a broader perspective of the world around them. In the end, however, this is still just my perspective, and will never be able to quench your thirst for truth. You must investigate with your own due-diligence, but ever-so-lightly should you tread; the world of scientific literature is filled with trap-doors and back-ally dealings that will frustrate the hell out of you at times. . . and give you enormous confidence in something that is completely false other times. The righteous often play dice with the wicked, and in the end you're gonna have to find multiple sources to corroborate any information you find. "The Internet" is nothing to be taken for granted, or overly respected. For this reason I tend to just scroll down to the bottom of anything that claims to be scientific in nature, and examine the sources being cited before I ever even read the actual article.

I can sit here and go on and on about how there's no link between antibodies and the immunity of anything, or about how the human organism actually thrives under minimal (yet potent) dietary consumption, and even about how in all reality you could literally just believe yourself into a better body, but for all the mountains of literature I could cite to support such claims there is an equal mountain of literature that anyone can throw right back at me to discredit them. It's not worth my time to go through and compile a bunch of studies (which I've in fact already done in my own research) in some vain attempt to prove to anyone that they can actually take charge of their own physical existence; I feel like if you don't instinctually know that on some level you're likely already a lost cause. If you're genuinely interested, go have the same fun I had finding the answers, and pay extra close attention to where the funding for any research you find comes from. Only then will you finally quench your thirst for truth.


I now bid you all a very fond farewell.

Happiness cannot be 'found'. It isn't out there waiting to be discovered. All that can be found out there is life's challenges; challenges that your soul has set out to learn from and overcome through you. When such trials are navigated successfully, the individual is rewarded by the soul. This reward system is perceived as happiness. I go now to prepare for the next stages of my life, so that I can better accomplish the challenges I see that await me in the future I have chosen for myself.

Until next time.



live.in.freedom