Freedom is more Valuable than Money

I wrote this post several years ago. My father was alive at the time, and, I think, I was more under the influence of my antichrist issues at the time, too. Anyway, I think it is still worth reading although I’m not sure I agree with everything in it – well, I think I do, just maybe not as strongly. Anyway, read on…

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist (DS). He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on DS. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by DS. Count me in the Capitalist camp (CC).

Why?

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. DS strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally – actually, three, now). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Also, a problem with socialized medicine is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because He knew it would destroy Him. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part I)

I think I mentioned this once in a post a few years back. I described myself as being “in the antechamber of Catholicism.” And that was fairly accurate then, and today as well. Of course, today, I’m a little closer to entering – or should I say re-entering, as technically I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a baby, and confirmed as a Catholic in high school … but around college or so, I kind of wandered away and became, basically, a lapse Catholic.. Then, I got rejuvenated for the search for truth by Plato, and la-di-da – a few years later, had my “encounter with Satan” and became convinced that I am the antichrist. Yeah.

Anyway, my problem is that I am not a creature of Faith. I like to understand things. Particularly, if those “things” are going to influence my life. Like Christian ethics and morals. Anyway, let’s get into the discussion.

For a while – after my antichrist issues developed – realize that my beliefs oscillated between being convinced I was the third person in the Trinity to being convinced that I was totally insane and my life was ruined. In the former state, I was generally stricken with an incredible high, and in the latter state, I was incredibly despondent, depressed, and pretty much broken. In such a state (the latter), I usually railed against God, and Heaven, and Creation.

Then, as my father aged, and was no longer able to drive – and also needed some company – I began accompanying him to Mass. In the beginning, I was just being polite. I guess I could have argued and screamed at him, and refused to go to Mass with him when he went, but I didn’t. I helped him get to and fro between our house and the church.

I remember one day at Mass, when I was in my down state, ruminating and stewing in my anger at God and Creation. And I was thinking to myself, “Do I actually believe any of this?” And then my thoughts shifted to my antichrist issues – I don’t mean I flipped up into a high and started thinking I was the Holy Spirit, again – rather, I just thought about what it meant that I had some psychological fixation on the Christian religion – enough so, that it essentially drove me insane when I tried to separate myself from it.

And so, in all honesty, I said to myself in answer to my question, “Well, apparently, I do.” I thought it in anger, but I knew it was the truth. There was some part of me that refused to let go of Christ and Christianity. At that point, I kind of threw myself into the religion – sort of. I was angry in doing it, but I started to go to Mass, not simply because my dad needed a ride to get there, but also because I was choosing to be there. I wasn’t fully in it. But I made the decision to at least explore the Catholic Faith some.

I set out to read the Bible (which I have at least three times, cover to cover, at this point). I set out to read the Catechism (again, I have at least two or three times at this point). And somewhere along the way, I started going to Confession. The details are a little unclear, as this was ten or so years ago – maybe longer.

Anyway, after admitting my psychological attachment to Christianity (and Catholicism, in particular), I resolved that I would be open to the religion, if I could make sense of it. But I had to understand it, before I could accept it. I am just not a creature of Faith.

Anyway, at this point, I am happy to report that I have made some progress toward that end. I can’t say I understand fully, but I am making progress. From the very beginning, I kind of had a “gist” for Confession. It goes back to my existentialist friend who explained the notion of a “leap of faith” to me. A.k.a. the fancy expression for sincerely talking to another individual. I noted that that was kind of what happens in the Confessional.

In the beginning, though, that’s all I had. I wasn’t convinced that there was really a notion of forgiveness tied to the Confessional, but I figured I would think about it. Maybe I could glean some further insight over time.

However, Communion made no sense to me at that point. And I was convinced that I would never understand the Eucharist, at all. I mean, really, it’s just a piece of bread, right? However, in the years that followed, I really think I’ve made some progress on Confession, and, surprisingly, I have even made some progress on understanding the Crucifixion and the Eucharist.

But, I think I’ve said enough for tonight. I will leave those issues for my post next week.

Getting a Bit Carried Away

Driving A School Bus Through a Crack In a Wine Bottle

Yeah, okay, it’s the same thing as the camel and the eye of a needle bit. Anyway, on to my point. I have been diagnosed as schizoaffective. I also happen to be the antichrist (Hence, the diagnosis). Anyway, I have a tendency to, sometimes, make a point and then kind of blow it out of proportion concluding grandiose things from the seemingly most trivial of beginnings.

For example, a few months back (shortly before being hospitalized), I stated that it might be possible to go without food and survive. And I used as justification a few epistemological points I’d made against science. Basically, that science doesn’t produce knowledge but well-justified rational belief, and the difference between those two was sufficient to allow for a person to go without food, living, instead, on love. Although, I think that’s actually true and technically possible, but, as a brother of mine recently said in a different context, it’s like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a functioning Lamborghini – or something like that.

I do maintain that it may be technically possible to go without food indefinitely, but I suspect the probabilities are not in your favor. To the say the least. I kind of sort of tried a few months back, and it didn’t really work out well.

But, anyway, a number of Catholic saints have, supposedly, done it (not that I’m a Catholic saint). Does that count as making it possible? Did the saints only do that courtesy of divine intervention? If it requires God for something to happen, are you still justified in saying it is possible? I would answer that last question with a “yes.” However, then, what can be said to be impossible? Not much. Maybe my personal favorite: Euclidean round squares. But that’s just me.

Anyway, that’s all I got for tonight.

Another Post on Transgenderism

A Look at Transgenderism

As Roe v Wade and abortion are in the news this week, I considered writing about that topic. However, I looked back at an earlier post I wrote some time ago about abortion and decided I’d pretty much said all I wanted to say on the topic there.

I’ve gone over the abortion issue time and time again in my head. And I always end up in the same place. I would be pro-choice if we abolished all law and embraced complete anarchy. And I suspect that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

On the other hand, if we accept that there are going to be some laws governing our society, then my position is basically the pro-life one with exceptions for rape and danger to the mother, plus a concerted effort to develop an artificial womb so that even those instances of abortion can have other alternatives. I cover all of this in this post on abortion here.

So, since I’m not going to talk about abortion, I figure I will revisit the topic of Transgenderism.

Transgenderism

Courtesy of my antichrist issues, I recently enjoyed a fine stay in the mental health ward of our local hospital. It was an … enlightening experience. Ten days of my life flushed down the toilet. Again.

Anyway, while I was there, I met a younger person who was a patient and transgender. He … nope, sorry, I can’t do it. She was … I’m not even sure. Transgender labels always confuse me. Did a transwoman start as a woman or end as a woman? I never know.

Transgenderism, Biology, and Psychology

Let me be a little clearer and make a distinction (I even tried to make this distinction to the aforementioned patient, but I was a little clumsy about it). Let’s distinguish between biological gender and psychological gender.

We can say biological gender is determined by x and y chromosomes and the respective genitalia. This is the normal … well, forgive me … the “pre-woke enlightened” definition of gender. You can determine this pretty much from visual inspection.

But the discussion doesn’t end there.

Transgenderism, Relativism, and the Paranormal

Thanks to the advent of “relativism” in all its hideous forms, there is a strong strain of … um, downright absurd silliness pushing common-sense into a rapidly diminishing corner. Basically, we are all supposed to believe that our minds control everything. What we think, what we believe is capable of morphing reality to our whims.

At one level, this may be true to a certain degree … if you buy into the possibility of psychic phenomena and things like psychokinesis, etc… Even though I personally have some limited experience with psi-phenomena, using such to support a full-blown relativism is a stretch, I think, at best.

Is it logically possible that I could change my biological gender by simply thinking it (or forcefully thinking it)? Yes, that is logically possible. It might not be (and as far as my experience tells me, is not) causally possible, but causality and logic don’t necessarily agree all the time. Anyway, this universe may contain wonders we have yet to discover (even if it is sentient and evil 😊).

Defining Transgenderism

Anyway, the only way I can make sense of transgenderism is that “normal” cis-gendered individuals like myself have a biological gender that matches their psychological gender. Whereas a transgender individual has a biological gender and a psychological gender that do not match.

The transgender movement actually recognizes this, but I think they go out of their way to be clumsy in their distinction. They call “biological gender” sex assigned at birth and psychological gender simply gender. I don’t know why they insist on obfuscating their position, but I want to point out a few problems their position has.

The Definition of Gender/Sex

First, saying sex is assigned at birth implies that sex is some sort of social construct where it is determined by some kind of artificial group consensus that has no objective ground. I don’t agree with that. At all.

Sex isn’t assigned at birth, it is recognized at birth (or even sooner), and is actually determined, if I remember my high school biology correctly, at conception when an X and a Y cell or two X cells join together to form the human zygote.

I mean if you want to go down the route where everything everywhere is just a construct of society and you can’t enunciate words that have actual meaning … I’ll do you one better and deny the existence of the external world. I will wallow in solipsism and pretend that that will allow me to live a sane life.

In that situation I will have no compunction against ignoring you and your side and, if I’m a particularly rebellious mood, the lawfully elected government entirely. Generally speaking, we probably shouldn’t encourage people to embrace that attitude.

Two Types of Gender or More?

Anyway, like I said, I can make sense of transgenderism if you stipulate an additional gender type like psychological gender in addition to the “normal” biological gender. It complicates the concept of gender, but at least it is coherent.

Two different concepts of gender. When both concepts match, you fall into one of the two “traditional” genders. When they don’t match, you don’t.

The problem here is that mathematically speaking if there are only two types of genders each with two possibilities, there are only four possible outcomes. And anyone familiar with the LGBTQ+ position knows that they recognize far more possibilities for gender-identity than four. I’ve lost count. 30+ if not significantly more.

The Complete Overhaul of the Concept of Gender

You can accommodate this if you divorce the concept of psychological gender from biological gender to the extent that they are concepts that are totally alien to each other. One, biological gender has only two options (three if you allow for hermaphrodites), whereas the other, psychological gender is a continuum and is therefore fluid and far more versatile.

When you do this, though, why should the two concepts be related at all? Why are you using a term like gender – which has a history of a particular discrete meaning stretching back thousands of years into the past – to delineate a fluid concept that has only just recently become popular?

Really, the problem with the transgender movement is that they are using the wrong word: gender. If you must, invent your own new word to delineate the concept you have created. That’s a small ask.

Like I said, gender has a meaning with a history stretching back thousands of years. I, personally, am not opposed to there being some new term like “psychological gender” to give us a way to talk about transgender individuals without creating confusion.

However, I don’t like the notion that the LGBTQ+ community thinks it can use gender to delineate a meaning it never had before, thus creating a wellspring of confusion that serves all of us ill.

LGBTQ+, Gender Labels, Sexual Preference, and Lycanthrope

Really. The LGBTQ+ labels abound with confusion. For example, if we use the aforementioned psychological gender for transgender individuals, then lesbians, gays, and bisexuals all fall out of the category because none of those terms have anything to do with gender but instead revolve around sexual preference.

Sexual preference and gender are not the same concept at all. Trying to mash them together doesn’t help the situation. Then there is the problem of lycanthrope which I discussed in this post on transgenderism and lycanthrope.

At one point, all these things, including both homosexuality and transgenderism were considered mental illnesses. Lycanthrope, I believe, is still considered a mental illness. But for how long? The way things are going, I’m not entirely certain there will be such a thing as “mental illness” in the future.

Transgenderism and the AntiChrist

Of course, I’m convinced I’m the antichrist. Isn’t my claim as equally valid as a transgender’s or a lycanthrope’s? Does that mean I really am the antichrist? What do you make of that?

Anyway, I have absolutely no training in psychology or psychiatry. Bear that in mind. However, I have written the above in a good faith effort to understand transgenderism and its relationship to reality and mental health. I am not sure if I succeeded.

How Should We Deal with a Transgender Person?

With respect to the transgender person who was a biological woman that I met in the hospital … she seemed like a nice, decent person, but I found it somewhat disconcerting and confusing to hear her talk about her “girlfriend” who was a biological man and mention things like her deadname and what-have-you.

I have no ill-will towards that person, in fact, I can honestly say I did like her; however, I want to reiterate a point that I tried to make to her, but in retrospect, I was not emphatic enough about. She may think she is a man, but her body is biologically a woman.

I am not a doctor, but despite liberal loonies’ cries to the contrary, there are definite physical differences between biological men and biological women. Medical treatment of these two biological genders isn’t necessarily identical or compatible in all situations.

A biological woman treated as a biological man by a medical professional may suffer ill effects from that treatment. And vice versa for a biological man treated like a biological woman.

Conclusion

So, all you Lefties, be aware that your frenzied enthusiasm to obliterate and reverse gender differences could potentially lead to real harmful problems in a medical situation. Let’s not go there, shall we?

The Coming Food Crisis

Is Nourishment Necessary?

Don’t read this unless you are an adult.

I’ve pretty much been expecting a food crisis. So, I figured I’d dedicate a post on how to cope with it. I’ve been attempting to prepare for it an unusual manner.

By giving up food (and water, eventually).

Yeah, I know, the scientists will tell me it is impossible. In regards to that, I refer you to my previous epistemological discussions on the difference between well justified rational belief and knowledge. You can figure out the rest.

Satan, the Universe, and Hunger

Anyway, this is what I’m working with. Satan is the split logos of the Yin and Yang. He is in control of everything in this universe except Jesus of Nazareth and your free will, and hopefully, mine. Your hunger comes from Satan. Your thirst comes from Satan. He’s convinced us all that we must eat and drink to survive.

If you understand that, I think you have a chance of weaning yourself off food and drink entirely. I think that understanding is what allowed Jesus to go 40 days in a desert without food or drink (although I have heard from some sources that He ate bugs and honey – I can’t really know for sure unless I get a chance to ask him).

Anyway, obviously nobody believes this. However, there is on record at least one Saint in the Catholic Church who went without food (and maybe drink, too) with the exception of Communion for 17 years before her death. And I don’t think she was hanging out in her room eating hundreds of hosts and getting drunk off Sacramental wine every day.

She may have had communion every day, but that little bit of sustenance shouldn’t, according to science, be enough for her to last 17 years.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. The scientists could be right.

The Process of Giving Up Food

Realizing that, I have tried to give up food (starting on solid food seems more appropriate than water) in a rational way about twice now. I’ve failed both times.

Basically, I set a weight limit. For me, it’s 220 pounds. I try to eat less and less food in a gradual manner. If I go below that weight limit, though, I start eating normally again until I gain a few pounds back. I don’t want to become anorexic or develop other health issues.

I am concerned about my excretory system, though. What would happen to it if I went 6 months without pooping, then ate some food, and started pooping again? I don’t know.

Giving Up Food and the Assistance of the Supernatural

Anyway, I throw that out as a possible avenue for Christians to take. I recommend accompanying that with prayers directed to Jesus and the Transcendental Father. I don’t recommend it to non-Christians like new-Agers, Wiccans, Pagans, or what-have-you. Simply put, I don’t trust the things your prayers are targeted at. Nothing personal, I think most of you are reasonably decent people, but Wicca is a nature religion, New Agers are convinced the universe is everything, etc….

Even if this doesn’t work, it should at the very least prepare you for dealing with hunger and may reduce your food consumption so the amount you have will last longer.

Then, there is the love factor. If God is love and love is God, you might be able to nourish yourself on pure love and replace food with the energy of love. The greatest source of love you’ll probably have access to would likely be Jesus. And those around you, of course. That might be worth a shot, too.

However, to quote a book I have yet to write, “A host of special powers does not a deity make.” God is about love and open communication not miracles or rituals. Satan is all about special effects and miracles. Feeding on love may be your best bet as opposed to praying for miracles. Not sure.

Again, I want to point out, I am NOT omniscient. I could be totally wrong. If you try to give up food and water, however you do it, do so at your own risk.

New Age Stuff, Maitreya, the AntiChrist, and Pedestals

A Couple Strange Things

I’ve had a couple strange antichrist experiences that I feel I should share and warn about. Under the assumption that I am kind of the focus of strange stuff going on, I want to warn about putting me on a pedestal (yeah, I know that’s pretty arrogant. But hey, arrogance is one of the major flaws of the antichrist – guilty).

Regarding Omniscience

Anyway, when my father was in a nursing home, on one of my visits to him for a nursing home church service, my father was surprised to see me. He said, “How did you know?” And one of his CNA’s said, “Oh, he knows. He knows.” Another one chimed in, “He knows everything.”

This was a real experience I had. It may have been all in my head as the product of mental illness. It may have been a auditory hallucination created by Satan, or it may have been the voices of real sincere people. However, I feel obliged to point out that, I am NOT omniscient. The second CNA was just wrong. It was very flattering that someone might think that about me. But, no, I do NOT know everything.

I know (okay, the philosopher in me still has doubts) that God is a perfect Transcendal Deity. Satan is an evil pantheistic wanna-be deity. And Jesus of Nazareth decked him through the floor 2000 years ago, six ways to Sunday. I know a few other things, like talking (reverse relativism) and repentance are very important instruments on your path to Jesus and Heaven. Oh, and I want God and Jesus to win instead of Satan.

Regarding Dreams

Growing up, I, like everyone, had dreams. Maybe not every night, but often enough. The character of such dreams was such that the other people in the dreams were kind of strangely sluggish – I wouldn’t say zombified, but not totally present mentally/emotionally. Occasionally, I would have a lucid dream and, whereas I knew I was dreaming, the rest of the people still seemed a little off.

After my antichrist experience, the character of other people dreams changed. Most of the time, they seemed more there and aware. Kind of like I was intruding on their lucid dreams. Anyway, last night I had a dream like that. Most of the details of the dream aren’t particularly important.

However, at one point, I was with a couple people. A woman was nearby and said, “Do you realize you are talking to the Messiah?” Or something like that. I thought she was referring to Jesus, but I don’t remember seeing him around there. So, I realized she was talking about me and thought I was the Messiah and then I woke up.

To be perfectly clear, I am NOT the Messiah. Jesus Christ is the Messiah. NOT me. I’m just the antichrist. The woman in the dream may have been a New Ager expecting Maitreya and confusing him with the Messiah. Again, I’m only the antichrist. Jesus Christ was the one true Messiah.

He figured out Satan first. He refused to bow to Satan (I kissed his feet – of course, I didn’t realize he was Satan at the time I was kissing his feet). So, on the chance that the woman in dream was not a mere figment of my unconscious, but it was a kind of shared dream or astral projection thing with a New Ager, I want to emphatically state to her and everyone else, I am NOT the Messiah.

Basically, I want to warn against putting me on a pedestal (in the unlikely event that you actually think there is something unusual about me and I am not insane). I am a flawed individual. One of my flaws is my enormous arrogance. It would be very easy for me to lose control because of my arrogance and become the Antichrist (see elsewhere for discussion of Antichrist, antichrist, antiChrist, and AntiChrist).

Other people telling me that I am omniscient or the Messiah would likely pump my swollen head full of even more arrogance than is already there.

To Sum Up

I am the antichrist. I am NOT the Messiah. I am NOT omniscient. I have a whole host of horrible sins I have to wade through and deal with. I am arrogant, awash with lust, and a little whacked out. And I believe in truth.

A Recipe for Chaos

Satan is the Universe

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

All right, I had an inspiration of horror regarding Satan. As you may know, I believe the universe is Satan because I believe the Yin and Yang symbol to be Satan’s arrogant attempt to pull one over on us. Let’s analyze that a little bit.

The Yin and Yang are (according to me) representatives of the lie and the truth. The lie is hell. It is a place filled with quasi-divine (Satanic) fury that tortures the very foundations of a soul although lacks the ability to truly annihilate a soul.

The (Satanic) truth is a (false and insincere) heaven which us mortals cannot truly differentiate from the real Heaven (the one created by the real God). Both hell and heaven are filled with souls. Not to be too much of a super-Christian, but I think non-Christians wind up in heaven, not Heaven.

Who is in Heaven and heaven?

Jesus and all the Saints, on the other hand, might be in Heaven or they might be in heaven. I’m not sure. If they are in heaven (which I suspect, but do not truly know), all of them believe they are in Heaven except Jesus. In this case, Jesus alone knows the truth about the nature of heaven (and Heaven).

He’s spent the last 2000 years in heaven burdened with a terrible secret: the knowledge of what Satan is. Alternatively, He and the rest of the Christian souls might be in Heaven, safe and aware of the nature of Heaven and, by contrast, the nature of heaven and hell.

Satan’s Efforts in the Apocalypse

Anyway, let’s assume the Apocalypse is happening and Satan wants to cause absolute chaos. He could do this easily by sending down to Earth hordes of spirits from heaven (all of whom—except Jesus—think they are coming down from Heaven following the orders of God, not Satan) and instructing them (remember they all think he’s God) to do various things, contact various people, and basically set the people of the Earth at cross-purposes.

The spirits and souls Satan sends mistakenly believe he is God. The people these spirits and souls encounter on Earth believe that God has sent these spirits and souls to them from Heaven. Naturally, the living people will cooperate and obey these “angels.”

Some False Supernatural Interventions

So, Saint Frances might appear to a Catholic nun and give her instructions for some mysterious purpose (but it really serves Satan’s purpose).

A great Buddha might appear to a Buddhist somewhere and give him instructions (realize, please, that my knowledge of the intricacies of Buddhism is very limited. They probably don’t have “apparitions” like Christianity, but I’m sure they probably have some kind of “supernatural contact” of some sort in their religion. I’m saying, generally speaking, “supernatural contact” is really Satanic contact—either Satan is masquerading as God, or he is sending someone who believes he (Satan) is God when he is not).

So, Mohammed might appear to a Muslim, or the Mahdi might arise “guided” to conquer the world, etc… (Again, my knowledge of Islam is limited like Buddhism.)

To reemphasize and clarify the point: Saint Frances, the Buddha, Mohammed, and pretty much everyone else (except Jesus) are, unbeknownst to them, really being instructed by Satan masquerading as God, not God.

How to Increase Religious Tension

How easy will it be to set everyone at cross-purposes to increase tensions to ever higher levels and incite violence and warfare?

Moses tells a group of devout Jews that Solomon’s Temple must be rebuilt. Mohammed (or the Mahdi, or whoever) tells a group of Muslims that the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock must remain and be preserved.

Who’s going to win that fight? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure there’s going to be a fight or, at least, some serious arguing and rising tensions.

I think you get the idea. Satan can use Saints and heroes to inject dissension across the globe. And the only one (besides myself) who really knows what’s going on is Jesus. And now, you do, too—actually, “know” is too strong a word here, except for Jesus.

Basically, my point is that Satan, as the (false) Being of Light can contact this world in ways that appear benevolent, but which will really create total chaos in the end.

An Example from My Own Experience

At the beginning of my antichrist journey, I was convinced that Jesus and I had to expose Satan “real quiet-like,” one person at a time, slowly but surely. Now, I’m not sure if that was a good idea. I think it was a better idea than exposing him all at once explosively, but, currently, I have no idea if anyone anywhere has learned the truth about Satan other than myself (and Jesus, of course).

I suspect that one of the things angels, unwittingly serving the purposes of Satan, are doing is instructing people who I encounter to not verify to me anything about my Yin and Yang suspicions regarding Satan. That puts me in a terrible fix because I am getting nothing but denials that anything I believe is true. From EVERYONE!

So, I am left with a series of knowing looks, coded messages, and similar vagaries from the people around me instead of serious discussions about Satan and what I (and we) should do. I’m feeling quite alone, and I am repeatedly questioning my sanity.

But I know what I experienced. And my Yin and Yang theory explains it quite well.

Disclaimer: I am the AntiChrist

Of course, remember, I am the antichrist. I am a sinner (actually, the man of sin). And I am absolutely NOT omniscient. Oh yeah, and as I am a mortal sinner who is NOT omniscient. Satan may be manipulating me, despite the fact that I am like 99.999…. percent sure that I know what he is. I mean, he’s the universe, and I’m little ol’ me.

So, please don’t take what I tell you as true-unless Jesus of Nazareth backs me up. If He doesn’t back me up, please treat me like a plague-carrier. I don’t know what else to do.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Don’t Trust the Virgin Mary?

Who to Trust

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

In my previous post, I warned people to not trust messages from religious figures except Jesus. Upon reflection, I think I need to elaborate (not that anyone takes me seriously, except me).

Trust and the Spiritual World

Most Christian religious would take the Virgin Mary’s word over mine. When I was speaking of not trusting the Virgin Mary or St. Frances or whoever, I really had one specific situation in mind: their view of me.

Basically, I wish to warn you not to trust the Virgin Mary or anyone else (except Jesus), if they have good things to say about me. If the Virgin Mary tells you that I am a good person and listening to me would be beneficial: Don’t listen to her! I can imagine a situation where she, being deceived by Satan telling the truth (the false light), would build me up as some great Biblical personage or something to amass a following and start a movement which would just end badly–I might give an honest try, but Satan might be able to twist it into a disaster.

When it comes to me and my intentions believe ONLY Jesus Christ. If He tells you I mean well, feel free to listen to Him. If He tells you that I mean ill, however, ignore me, or get away from me, or do whatever you have to do.

If the Virgin Mary tells you I mean ill, well, you’re on your own there.

But Jesus … listen to him. He’s the only I’m sure who KNOWS (short of the Father Himself) what is actually going on.

So, to summarize, my warning on trust applies only to statements about me, nothing else. If the Virgin Mary asks you to help some orphans, feel free to help them. Only question her if she is speaking about me.

Trust and the Mortal World

As for the mortal world … I think trust is a good thing to cultivate. As I’ve said elsewhere, I am big on (though poor at practicing) talking. That requires trust. However, do NOT confuse talking with diplomacy.

I think I said that somewhere else at some point. Diplomacy is different from a sincere heart to heart between friends because in diplomacy the participants are not representing merely themselves, but entire nations of people. There is such a thing as being too trusting in diplomacy, I think, as Afghanistan, in my non-omniscient opinion, seems to demonstrate.

I think the U.S. withdrawal was poorly executed at best. Of course, being non-omniscient, I don’t have all the facts. Still …

We left both Americans and Afghanis who trusted us behind and made the mistake of blindly trusting the Taliban. I’m not opposed to trusting the Taliban in principle … just blindly trusting them with their record. A Ronald Reagan “trust but verify” approach or something similar might have been more prudent.

Now we’ve basically supplied terrorists and enemies with the most advanced weapons on the planet. The thing is (if you read my preceding post), I may be to blame. Unfortunately, I really don’t KNOW if I am to blame. Did I have influence on Biden? I don’t know.

My life is a whirling mix of clear periods and confusing times full of suspicious events. I have difficulty sorting through it.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

The Virtue of Relativism?

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

As many readers (all five) of this blog know, I don’t support moral relativism—at least when you are talking about truth.

What I do support is relativism of knowledge. One expert knows one subject well, another expert knows a separate subject just as well, and the amount of knowledge each individual has is probably quite similar to the other—just not identical in content. Indeed, that seems to be an obvious truth.

So, if that’s the case, what do we make of it?

Relativism of Knowledge

If there is a virtue in relativism, I think it is this: it allows you to approach the bulk of other people with the assumption that most of them are reasonably honest. I listen to both Anderson Cooper and Glenn Beck. The picture of the world you get from two such disparate sources is a convoluted mass of contradictions.

You can barely recognize the fact that they are describing the same world. As a result, I think most people come away convinced that one or the other (or both) is lying. I don’t reach that conclusion.

If we ignore my Satan issues, at the very least, I recognize it as an instance of relativism of knowledge. Anderson Cooper presents a certain knowledge set and Glenn Beck does likewise. But the knowledge sets are not identical. Each presents different information which they have individually selected as important while ignoring other things the other might think is important.

Then, if you add in things like personal biases, minor unconscious distortions, etc … it’s not surprising that the accounts each gives of the same event/s is so different than the account the other gives.

Most People Are “Honest Brokers”

As a result of the above, I think both Glenn Beck and Anderson Cooper are sincere and mean well. And I don’t think either one deliberately lies—at least, not much, despite the fact that both of them are pretty much convinced the other is lying.

A case in point: the status of Florida with respect to the coronavirus. Anderson Cooper reports that Florida is, because of the lack of a mask mandate and such, doing poorly. Hordes and hordes of people are getting sick and dying, etc… And he’s got facts to back him up.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, reports that Florida ranks in the top ten best states with respect to the coronavirus results despite the fact that they have a disproportionately larger older population. And he’s got facts to back him up.

(At this point, I feel obligated to point out that I think Satan is involved here providing contradictory facts to each of them, weaving conflicting narratives to drive them each further and further apart. His goal is to get us to destroy ourselves … anyway he can. Of course, when I start talking about Satan, I’m quite sure a lot of people tune me out. So, back to “normalspeak.”)

Relativism and “Honest Brokers”

Anyway, back to relativism. If you realize it is relativism of knowledge you are dealing with and NOT relativism of truth the whole dynamic of situations like these changes. Glenn Beck knows certain things. Anderson Cooper knows other things. (They are also each likely mistaken about some things.)

Given that situation, how should you react if you are discussing something with someone who has a knowledge set different from your own (which, most likely, is every other sentient being in the universe)? I think, clearly, you should be interested in acquiring some of that knowledge for yourself, and, perhaps, sharing some of the knowledge you’ve acquired.

That seems like the rational approach. Of course, if you confuse knowledge with truth here, the situation gets hopelessly muddled. You have no reason to acquire someone else’s “truth”, if it is only “true for him” and not “true for you.” But if you substitute knowledge for truth in those statements, you certainly do have a reason to pursue such.

A Brief Tangent on Satan

(Again, because of my Satan issues, I am convinced that Satan is capable of warping reality in a way that is relativistic in the sense of truth. I can look at an object and see the color red, you can look at the same object and see the color blue. There were even a number of Internet pics that demonstrated that scientifically a few years back, but that is a topic for another post.

The long and short of that Satan stuff is that I think Satan is relativistically altering “facts” to sew confusion and impress on each of us that those with whom we disagree are not “honest brokers” but are, in fact, lying and may have evil intent. The evil intent here is important because Satan’s end goal is violence on both sides.

As to relativistically altering “facts,” I will use an example to explain. Imagine Glenn Beck and Anderson Cooper get the same source on Florida stats. Glenn Beck reads it and sees data clearly stating that Florida is ranked 10^th out of 50 states for coronavirus deaths in the country. Anderson Cooper reads the exact same stat and sees data clearly stating that Florida ranks 40^th.

Basically, Satan changes a 1 to a 4 and back again depending upon who is viewing the stat.

If that happens, Glenn Beck and Anderson Cooper will each think the other is lying, but the true liar is Satan. And the fact that he can do that to anyone (and has done that to me—or I had a mental illness related hallucination that appeared that way) in any fashion he chooses makes him very dangerous.)

Conclusion

Of course, I could be totally wrong. You decide. Oh, and with respect to Satan, we should probably bring back prayer to society at large. We need it.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Embracing the Deep State

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

The Deep State. A.k.a. the Swamp. It was, apparently, the bane of President Trump. I may be conservative and a Constitutionalist, but I think I’ve come to the position that the Deep State may be worth preserving.

One of the major distinctions between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want people to help themselves without government interference or they want to help the needy through charity, but not through government. Liberals want the government to help the needy (at least, that’s what I’ve gathered).

The Deep State has grown because, to be frank, the liberals are winning. Actually, not really. They win off and on, trading their positions of power every two or four years. The thing is, whenever they get power, they add to the Deep State and once the stuff is added in, it’s almost impossible to remove it.

For one, the people in the Deep State are unlikely to vote to remove their own jobs. And two, the people “helped” by the Deep State are unlikely to vote to cut off their stream of benefits. Is there some way to address this?

I’d like to, perhaps not remove, but at least reduce the Deep State. Because I am convinced I am the antichrist, I have been diagnosed as having schizoaffective disorder. As a result of that, about 12 years ago I started receiving Disability payments from Social Security. Then there was Medicare and Medicaid and a few other programs designed to “help” me.

The problem is that these programs help sustain me, but they also trap me. The more programs you get involved in, the more difficult it is to get out of the system. The social safety net isn’t a net; it’s fly paper.

For one, the programs seemed to be designed to suck people into subsistence living and hold them there. Two, the people who work for these programs to “help” people in such situations are incentivized to keep a steady supply of people in those programs. If no one were in those programs, the employees would all be out of jobs.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the people so employed actively try to discourage people from escaping the fly paper. But there may be some who do. I don’t know. Regardless, I think it is a bad idea to incentivize people that way.

Perhaps, we could pay the civil servants for every individual they actually extricated from the fly paper. Then, we could make better progress, I think.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. Back to the Deep State. As a conservative, I am leery of the government doing anything. But I realize that liberals, obviously, are not. Why don’t we split the difference and make the taxes that go to support the Deep State voluntary? Then if I want the government to be my means of charitable giving, I can support it. If I don’t, I don’t have to.

Of course, playing Devil’s Advocate, this would likely last only a year, at best, or until the Deep State had a shortfall. From that point on, the mandatory tax-supported government would bail out the voluntary tax-supported Deep State, and the mess would continue.

So, it probably wouldn’t work. I do, however, like the idea of giving financial rewards to Social Service employees who help a disadvantaged citizen get off the flypaper and back into the workforce to become a self-sufficient member of the economy. I don’t see any negatives with that.

So, I will throw that idea out into the Internet Cosmos to be discussed and cogitated upon by my whole 4 or 5 visitors.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?