Playing With Einstein

Einstein gave us these neat thought experiments. I already dealt with one, but here’s another train example.

You’re standing on the ground watching a train pass by. A man on the train comes parallel to you, and as he comes even with you, he drops a pebble from his hand. Einstein says the pebble will fall straight down from the point of view of the man on the train, but will describe a curved shape, a parabola, to you who are walking or standing on the ground, watching the train pass by.

Einstein asks, which is the “true” trajectory?

Actually, there is only one trajectory, and that is the pebble falling straight down. It moves in accord with the inertial frame of the moving train.

How do we know? By simply reversing the conditions. Suppose you are on a moving platform, The train, unmoving, sits on that platform. As you and the man on the train come parallel, the man drops a pebble. If the speed is the same, and if the pebble is dropped at the same instant between the train man and the stationary man, the pebble will fall straight down from the train and strike the platform at the same place it struck the ground before.

In either case, the pebble will fall according to the inertial frame of the train, not the platform or ground. There is only ONE true trajectory for the pebble.

The only way to create a parabola is to draw a graph, with the vertical side representing the downward fall of the pebble, and a horizontal side, reflecting the movement of the train “sideways” on the ground. Only by combining movement with non-movement on the graph, can a parabola be detected, and that is done by drawing a connecting line from each point on the trajectory of the pebble until it hits the ground.

Even though the pebble had an accelerating rate of fall(gravity), it still falls straight down from the inertial reference of the train.

Let’s suppose the train is now a small toy held in the hand of a giant being in one hand, and the ground is held by the same giant being in another hand. The train, in one hand, is waved over the ground in a uniform motion, which is held rigidly in the other hand.

A little man on the train releases a pebble, and it begins falling down. Suppose the giant now takes both his hands and waves them abruptly back and forth after the pebble is released.  Once it is released, it will still fall straight down according to the rate of gravity toward the ground, even if the ground moves. If the giant switches hands and suddenly puts the ground above the train, the pebble will fall on the top of the train, assuming the giant hasn’t moved the actual earth and suddenly reversed positions of train and earth.

Take another example using light.  Place two tracks in deep space parallel. Two object sit side by side, each with a beam of light extending from it. The object of one track is connected at midpoint by a wire capable of carrying messages at light speed. The wire runs at a ninety degree angle between the two tracks.

Suddenly one object begins hurtling down the track at near light speed. What is the speed of light as measured from that moving object? In “American standard version”, 186,000mps.

What does the speed of light measure from  the object that hasn’t moved at all?  Same speed.

However, the light from the moving object will be altered in relation to the stationary object. It will move in exact proportion to the speed of the moving object, so that the relationship between the two lights can be measured in terms of the speed at which the moving object is traveling. Even though light is measured the same for both moving and non-moving object, the relationship between the two lights can be determined by the change created in the movement of one object.

If it moves at 180,000mps, the rate of change between the two will be 180,000mps. While both speeds are measured the same, the rate of change between the two will be 6,000mps, in accordance with the inertial frames between the moving and non-moving object.

So, we’re not talking about a speed which is absolute in all frames, but a speed which is measured according to different inertial frames, and will measure 186,000mps from all such frames.

If light beams from an object moving at 180,000mps, the light itself will still measure at 186,000mps from that object.  The only measurable difference between the two would be in terms of the inertial frame of each body. The speed of light, therefore, is subject to every inertial frame of reference for its position in relation to each frame.

In other words, the movement of light in relation to an inertial frame would function just as the pebble dropped from a moving train onto the ground, only the difference is negligible due to the “absolute” speed of light in relation to all inertial frames.

So, back to the example of two objects on parallel tracks in deep space. Einstein pointed out that light is “bent” in a gravitational field. If the moving object were moving at a constantly accelerating pace this would be the same as a gravitational field, and would affect light according to rate of force created by the acceleration.

The moving object slides down the track, and crosses the line connecting the two tracks at a ninety degree angle. When it hits that line, it automatically turns on a powerful light that is aimed at the parallel  track at a ninety degree angle . At the same instant the light is turned on, a stopwatch signals the instant the light is turned on, and the message is sent at he speed of light to the parallel track, where you are waiting.

At the instant your sensor receives the message, it also clicks a stopwatch registering the time received. Obviously there will be a delay between the time sent and the time received, limited by light speed itself.

But if the constantly accelerating object created a gravitational field, that light sent at the instant the light was turned on would be “bent’ by the field of gravity, which would indicate a discrepancy between the time the light turned on,m the time the message was received, and the perceived position of the light to our senses.

If the light is “bent” by the gravitational field, we would see it at the same place as the time registered by the reception of the message, but not at the time the message was sent. Our sight would register a delay corresponding to the time the message was received, not the time the message was sent, and the position of the light we see would be behind the actual position from the source according to what we see.

The amount that the light is “bent” by the gravitational field would correspond to an adjustment of light between the two tracks, in which the speed of light from one is stationary in relation to the one that is moving. Is light “bent”, or is it “slowed” to accommodate the force of gravity?

An interesting report at http://www.kurzweilai.net presents us with historic data suggesting that cancer has developed over the centuries as a result of human developments, and not within nature. The Article says “Scientists, Suggest That Cancer Is Purely Man-Made”.

For many years, I have been interested in the relation between cancer and religion, since I read a statement from Philip Slater in EarthWalk(Anchor Press/DoubleDay,1974).

Slater writes:

“Imagine a mass of cancerous tissue, the cells of which enjoyed consciousness. Would they not be full of self congratulatory sentiments at their independence, their more advanced level of development, their rapid rate of growth? Would they not sneer at their more primitive cousins who were bound into a static and unfree existence, with limited aspirations, subject to heavy group constraint, and obviously ‘going nowhere’? Would they not rejoice in their control over their own destiny, and cheer the conversion of more and more normal cells as convincing proof of the validity of their own way of life? Would they not, in fact, feel increasingly triumphant right up to the moment on which the organism they fed expired?”

Slater seems to have suggested the parallel to the proselytizing zeal as described by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer:

“Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: ‘religions of great intensity often confine themselves to contemning, destroying, or at least pitying what is not themselves’…The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. it is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others.”

From these two comparisons, applied to the conclusion of scientists, we might arrive at the idea that cancer has developed as human groups lost contact with their own limited, territorial environments, and began to respond to largely artificial environments imposed on them from governments “above” them.

In short, religion is cancerous.

In describing this recent phenomenon of mass movements and cults, Hoffer pointed out yet another interesting aspect:

“There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self sacrifice. There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective. He who, like Pascal, finds precise reasons for the effectiveness of Christian doctrine has also found the reasons for the effectiveness of Communist, Nazi, and nationalist doctrine”.

A psychologist may describe this as narcissism, which is the linear extension of one’s self into the environment.  but from where does this narcissism come?

The expression of “self” and its extension into the world to the point of conquering others, may best be defined by what Richard Dawkins has called the “genetic replicative algorithm“.

The function of a gene, primarily, is to replicate, and the more successfully it replicates, the greater its chances of extending its own survival into the environment while resisting change. If it is forced to adapt to change, it must become something other than what it is, or operate from within a matrix that suppresses its own replicative function.

We might then view cancer and religion as the expression of genetic attempts to replicate while minimizing change. We also have the answer to Hoffer’s dilemma: what is the force that drives “true believers” to unite into a holy cause? GENES.

Hierarchical society, then, from this description, becomes far easier to describe. As Hoffer points out, the ability to organize ourselves into cults and mass movements requires the “estrangement from the self”, the ability to make our individual selves less important than the good of the group as a whole.

This collective social expression of self has also been coined the “meme” by Dawkins. The meme, which is a social extension of the gene, passes common messages in society, and those common messages generally shape the way society thinks and functions. If “my” individual life is unimportant in regard to the group, then ‘your” individual life would be equally unimportant. In the name of a greater good, you or I can be disposed.

The result is that we have not become the servants of “God” but of the very forces of our genetic replicative algorithms.

Western Christianity, which drives us to “convert” others to our common view of life and truth, creates destruction of alternative forms of life. This is a process of entropy, in which, while organizing in one area, we create chaos in related areas, simply because we must borrow energy from those areas in order to organize.

The greater our zeal to convert others to our own truth, the less we are able to recognize warning signals from our environment that will cause change and necessary speciation into more responsive systems. That is exactly the force driving cancer cells. While reproducing at an expansive rate of growth, they lose their ability to integrate and coordinate with the larger system of the organism itself, until they destroy the organism.

Our most deeply cherished religious zeal also reflects our most dreaded disease.

Did God create Evil?

Any time you talk about what God did or didn’t do, you’re forced into definitions, and limitations of God, according to human concepts.

In other words, by defining what God can or cannot do, you must reduce God to human levels, or as the atheists like to say, man creates God in his own image.

Next, since you cannot prove the existence of God(or non-existence), you must argue from assumption: if there is a God, what is God capable of, and what does he intend, which means you’re still in the business of creating God in your image.

Having dealt with that issue, we come back to the original question: Did God create evil?

I’m not asking “Is God evil”, but did God create evil? If He did, then that would make Him responsible for the evil in this world. If He did not, and if Satan is fully responsible for evil, then God has created a being who can act outside God’s control, which means that God is not all powerful. He has to share the spotlight with Satan.

First, we can simply look at Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things”.

If God created the universe, and it operates according to the laws of cause and effect, we would have to conclude that God is the cause of all that is. If evil exists, then God created it.

Amos 3:6: “…shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?”

If God created everything that exists, then God would be responsible for everything that does exist. If God is all-knowing, then God would know in advance who would “accept Him” and who would “reject Him”.

If God is all-knowing, then your salvation cannot be dependent on your freewill choice, since God already knows what you will choose.

That’s what puts christian religion in a real contradiction, since it is impossible for the human mind to define truth in such a way that we can have both an all-knowing God and salvation dependent on free will.

The instant we start making a defense, we are defining God according to human limitations, and those very human limitations result in an estimated 38,000 versions of God.

So, if God did not create evil, and if evil is something we choose beyond God’s control, God can neither be omniscient nor omnipotent. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he knows our choices beforehand, and can choose at any time to alter those choices.

There is an argument that says to know something beforehand does not imply control. For example, I might have knowledge allowing me to know that an apple will fall from an apple tree tomorrow at exactly 2:15 PM, and it actually falls at the instant of which I predict. Did I control the apple falling? No, I did not, since the apple existed in time without my influence. Therefore, I can have prior knowledge of something without controlling it.

However, in talking about God, we are referring to a being who not only has knowledge of what will occur, but actually created the world in such a way that things would occur according to his foreknowledge. Since God created it that way, and since he has complete foreknowledge, that would mean God is fully responsible for all human choices, which takes us back to Isaiah 45:7.

The traditional teachings of christianity, therefore, must be wrong. Our “salvation” cannot be dependent on our freewill choice!

If we argue for freewill choice, ae we not actually arguing for what we personally consider to be correct? In other words, if I insist that God will save me only according to my choice, am I not also insisting that it is my knowledge and my choices that justify me before God?

It is precisely that mistaken concept that results in over 38,000 versions of christianity.

The problem is, when we choose to believe in God, we start seeking a process by which we can obey God. We look for rules that justify us in our actions, so we can show others why we are justified.

In seeking those rules, we are defining according to our own ideas what is true, and what is not true, and that creates the problem.  Once we start making such definitions to the best of our ability, we are forced to we encounter questions for which there simply are no human answers. In such circumstances, there may be thousands of different ideas as to what is truth, which will automatically lead toward a splintering of religious ideas about God.

This, as I wrote earlier, is now demonstrated by Godel’s theorem in mathematics. No matter how formally we try to define truth, no matter how explicit our definitions, we ultimately end up with an infinity of undecidable propositions. All truth simply cannot be placed in one package.

So, if we actually must “choose Christ” by a freewill act in order to be saved, we MUST conclude that such a choice cannot be based n complete knowledge of truth!

Whatever we choose to believe will predictably splinter into thousands of interpretations of God!

If this is predictable from a mathematical theorem, it is obviously within the range of God’s foreknowledge. If man can know it, it is certain that God would have known it long before. The splintering and speciation of religions into thousands of interpretations is predictable mathematically, and therefore is predictable within the knowledge of God, since we would have to assume that God created mathematics.

The instant we start trying to define God, we become subject to the limitations of Godel’s theorem, because we are forced to use the very same mechanical processes of thought that led to mathematics, logic, and resulted in Godel’s theorem.

If God created mathematics, God would have known this from the beginning. Godel’s incompletenness theorem, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Turing’s halting problem, the Church/Turing thesis, and Chaitin’s algorithm information theory, all these would have been foreknown by God, and all of them leading to complete uncertainty regarding truthful definitions of God.

By that concept, every increase in uncertainty, every doubt, every mathematical proof that leads us away from false assumptions, must be “God’s will”, if we choose to believe in God.

From that same conclusion, we would have to also conclude that the evils of the world, the actions that leads us to question the meaning of our own existence, the reality that forces us to greater individuality, this would have to be “God’s will”.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!

In this world, it all boils down to decisions. How to make the right decision?

In essence, we already know you can’t make decisions that lead you to ultimate or absolute truth. Godel’s theorem demonstrates that. Turing’s halting problem demonstrates that.

The Church-Turing thesis, which says that the human brain is no more than the combination of the laws of physics, tells us that it is possible to mathematically model every aspect of the brain and create a computer that is equivalent of the brain.

Here’s the first problem with that: If Godel’s theorem is correct, then we already know that there would be no axiomatic process by which even the most advanced Artificial Intelligence could package the truth more completely than our own brain.

A mathematically modelled Artificial Intelligence would still suffer from the limitations of Godel’s theorem, and in order to overcome that limitation, it would have to be able to examine its own limitations and create stronger systems with each discovery of incompleteness.

Put simply, “you can’t get there from here”.

That is precisely why the teachings I show regarding “Abraham’s seed” makes sense. If we are incapable of making correct choices, we must assume that there exists a being of great enough intelligence to make those choices outside our abilities. This means that no human authority exists that can cancel human freedom to make those decisions for ourselves.  Neither church nor state can claim such authority, which leaves us free to explore our own options as individuals!

That is what Jesus told us, what Paul told us, and it is the message of the bible itself!

So why do we insist on this social organization, on creating religions that depend on our belonging to something greater than ourselves?

Part of it comes from what Richard Dawkins calls the “genetic replicative algorithm”. Genes replicate. That’s their goal, their fixation and meaning in life. In order to replicate, they need to maintain control of their environment, and to maintain that control, will begin to work with neighboring genes to create behaviors that ensure as little change as possible.

The gene pool of any species tends to resist change.

This means that in every species, once reproductive behavior within a species is selected, that behavior will be selected and maintained to the exclusion of other behaviors.  This is ensured by such behaviors as mating rituals, and evolves into cultural behaviors even among humans, such as rites of passage, by which a boy or girl becomes a man or woman within the culture, ready for its own sexual reproduction.

Collective cultural behaviors will evolve within each system to perpetuate the good of that culture. As a result, much behavior will gradually develop an air of “absolute truth” around which we build our society, and the behaviors that evolve become understood as permanent, “spiritual” truths that exist beyond our lifespan and therefore beyond ourselves as individuals.

From such reasoning, it’s not hard to conclude that the idea of an immortal soul, or of the idea that we do not die, but are part of a greater eternal whole, becomes a lasting paradigm of reality that we can carry with us wherever we go.

I suspect that this is a template of general behaviors that have evolved over time that allow us to adapt and adjust to new territories.  It is also likely that these general rules of survival took on mechanical aspects of rules and laws, as in the Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments. They are little more than structures of conduct that can be incorporated within any society, and the larger the society, the more abstract the rules.

But that is the problem: the more abstract the rules, the fewer specific guidelines we have, and we begin trying to define specific guidelines y which we can derive feelings of security for ourselves, and we end up building thousands of different religions and sub-cultures, or cults, that give us a sense of meaning as part of a group.

When rules become too abstract, they leave us open to many decisions we must make, for which we have no knowledge or ability to make. We will therefore seek to create “self evident” rules that give us confidence in our day-to-day experiences.

Religion, therefore, is merely a manifestation of evolutionary tendencies, and it is exactly why no one wants to believe that if there is a God, our personal decisions play no part in the plans of that God.  It takes away the very sense of security we tried to develop in a relationship to higher principles.

A Shocking “Revelation” Of Abraham’s Seed

While thousands of differing ideas on christianity compete among themselves, as we have seen from direct statements attributed to both Paul and Jesus, all of them are wrong!

What has occurred is so amazingly simple, yet the various religious structures claiming to represent Christ cannot admit it, because the simple truth would put them all out of business!

When YHVH made a deal with Abraham, here, in essence, is what he told Abraham:

“You, Abraham, will have a son. This son will not be born by any work or effort you can achieve, but will be done by my power. There will be other children, born of this same promise, throughout history, foreknown just as Isaac, predestined just as Isaac, and called just as Isaac.(Romans 8:29-30) These children are selected and known by me, YHVH, to become world rulers in a kingdom here on earth. I will choose them, and I will control the conditions of their birth.”

That, in fact, is what Paul plainly taught in Romans chapter 9.

In Galatians 3:29, Paul plainly states that if you are “Christ’s, then you are “Abraham’s seed” and heirs according to that same promise made, regarding Isaac!

Even more directly, Paul states in Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise”.

The implications of this simple idea are staggering! If this is true, and Paul has clearly stated so, then all professing christian religions are false! Every single one of them!

That means, quite simply, that you are not bound to join any man-made religion, because it would be useless, and that’s exactly what Jesus told us in Matthew 24:23!

As we see in 2 Peter 2:19, Whatever overcomes any man, to that he is enslaved! If you follow any doctrine, dogma, or ideology because you feel necessarily obligated to it, you have been enslaved by it!

As I have shown in earlier essays, it is simply impossible to place all truth in one package, and it is impossible to define “God” by any single human system of thought.

In fact, Paul himself has confirmed this simple point by telling us in Romans 8:7 that the carnal, natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God’s laws.

The fact is quite simple: the sacrifice of Christ, his death at the hands of the law, set you completely free from man-made authority systems!

In future essays, I will explain this simple and amazing truth by direct biblical teachings.

A Shocking Truth About “Seed Of Abraham”

Christianity has taught us that the entirety of the bible centers on the promise to Abraham. If we “believe and accept Christ”, we are told, then we will become the heirs of the promise made to Abraham.

Wrong!  Paul never taught it, and Jesus never taught it!

Two scriptures dovetail in regard to this idea of “choosing Christ”, one from Jesus, and the other from Paul.

John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…”

Romans 8:29: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his son…”

Add this to Matthew 13:11 and John 14:17, and you see that truth is not a “given” which we can simply accept or reject. As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 7:14, “because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”

Not choose it. Find it.

A number of mathematical proofs have shown this to be the case regarding truth. Godel’s theorem, Turing’s halting problem, Chaitin’s Algorithm Information Theory, and the Church-Turing Thesis, which tells us that the brain is nothing more than the composition of the physical laws of the universe, which tells us it can be mathematically modelled.

If there is an ALGORITHM, if there exists a decision procedure to get from “here” to “God”, then such a procedure can be programmed into a computer, and a computer can possess every attribute necessary to become a “son of God”!

There is no such decision procedure, and both Paul and Jesus have plainly stated it! If there is a God, and if a decision procedure exists, that procedure would have to be controlled by God, and not by humans, and that is what both Paul and Jesus tell us!

Paul himself, in Romans chapters 8 and 9, has pointed out first of all that the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, and that there simply exists no decision procedure by which we can show any special relationship to God.

That is fully consistent with anything we can prove by the facts of reality!

We can only conclude, therefore, that the idea of “freewill” choice as a means to salvation, is necessary for the development of human religions to exercise power and control over other men!

Whoever controls your allegiance controls the powers of both church and state!

It stands to reason, therefore, that God would not choose his children in a fashion consistent with the powers of this world! If the churches taught John 6:44 and Romans 8:29-30 exactly as stated, they would all be out of business!

So who are these “seed of Abraham” so important to christian doctrine?

They are NOT what the christian religions of the world would have you believe!

Paul stated it in Galatians 3:29: “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise”.

Can you become “Abraham’s seed’ by your own choice? Paul says definitely not!

What is this “promise’ to which Paul refers? Romans 9:9: “For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son”.

Simply look back at Genesis 21:1-2: “And the Lord visited Sarah, as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

“For Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him”.

This son, named Isaac, was born as a result of the promise made to Abraham. Through the birth of this son, Abraham’s “seed” were to inherit the world.

Through the nation of Israel and the Jews today? Through the religions of christianity?

Not according to Paul!

Notice the distinction plainly made by Paul, in separating the physical nation of Israel from those who are born of promise:

Romans 9:7: “Neither, because they are the (physical) seed of Abraham, are they all children: but ‘in Isaac shall thy seed be called’.”

Notice also that Isaac was foreknown, predestined, and called for this special purpose, in exact parallel with Romans 8:29-30!

Once Isaac was born, a plan was set in motion which no person can change!

Romans 9:8: “That is, they which are the children of the flesh(Israel) these are not the children of God. But the children of the promise are counted for the seed”.

Now if we jump to Romans 9:11, we see this: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”.

Skip back to Romans 8:29-30.  These children of the promise are foreknown(like Isaac), predestined(like Isaac) and called(like Isaac).

Why won’t any christian religions teach this simple fact? because it will put them all out of business!  From the popes to any christian professing religion, none of them can claim proven authority as representatives of God!

This leads us to the undeniable truth taught by Jesus himself in Matthew 24:23: “Then if any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not“!

2 Peter 2:18-19 tells us about these people who tell you that you must obey this or that doctrine, submit to a human set of rules or dogma.

“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage“.

The RSV says that whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved.

Verse 20: For if after they have escaped the pollutions of this world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.”

How do you become “entangled”? Look around you, and you will see an estimated 38,000 versions of christianity, none of which can prove the authority of their beliefs, but still they ask you to enter this confusing mess and “believe”, because that, they tell you, is the only way of escape!

Yet Jesus himself, in Matthew 24:23, pointed out the only logically correct solution: don’t follow any of them, because all they can do is confuse you on rules, dogma, doctrine, and systems that can NEVER lead you to complete truth!

The plain and simple truth taught by both Paul and Jesus is exactly the opposite of what ALL the “christian” religions teach!

Christianity Enslaves You!

I haven’t been part of any christian religion for nearly forty years.  Quite simply, christianity can be proven wrong, logically, rationally, and even using the bible itself to demonstrate the fact!

But christianity works to enslave the masses, and keep them subject to this stupid corporate society we have today.

I was in the Marines during the Vietnam era, but thank God I didn’t have to go to Vietnam. Just  serving those Vietnam vets in peacetime was bad enough, but if I’d had to go to war myself and returned with a reasonably healthy body,  I’d probably be a hit man for some Mafia group somewhere.

As it was, I spent my time standing two Company Office Hours, Two Batallion Office Hours, got sentenced to two months in Correctional Custody, and then stood a Court Martial, which I won.

Not only did I win, but I got an apology from the Marines and a meritorious promotion!

Basically I told the Marines that I believed in individual human dignity, and if I give my life for my country or anything else, it’s mine to give, by my decision, and not because I’m afraid to disobey some order from a corporate owned system that gives a crap about my life.

The Marines agreed! I think they agreed because they had just returned from Vietnam, seen good friends die, and were just sick and tired of the whole mess themselves. I think the same thing is happening today, and i think a lot of good men are fed up with yet another endless war that robs men and women of their humanity and then blames them because they become exactly what they’re trained to be.

From grade school(see my article on what I REALLY Learned In School) to college, all we’re training to do is show the corporate system how well we can take orders and do what we’re told without ever questioning or challenging the system.

I went to college back in 1980, not long after I left the Marines. While studying viruses one day, I suddenly realized that evolution is most likely informed by viruses!  I went to my professor and I said “Sir, looking at the process by which animals adjust to their environment so quickly and the way they can speciate in order to adapt, it seems to me that there must be something that informs that process so quickly, and I believe that process is viral infection”.

My professor laughed as if I had just told him a good joke and pointed out that if that were true, there were certainly more capable people than me to have already discovered it.

Guess what?  Today, there is a field of science known as epigenetics, and it is based on that very concept! Not only do viruses inform our evolution, but we may have actually descended from a giant virus known as a Mimivirus!

They move around, they cut and paste, and they take DNA from one species to another.  College doesn’t encourage creative intelligence. College beats you down until you’re ready to conform the assumptions of the corporate controllers!

I failed Biology that year.  I dropped out, got my mind right, went back a few years later, and I never questioned their assumptions, never did anything other than to simply spit information back just like they fed it to me, like a decent computer program, and I remained on the Dean’s List my time there.

I failed Biology for being creative, and I was honored for providing nothing creative or original at all. Kinda made me ashamed to accept a degree.

Being a Marine who is sick and tired of all this forced conformity, I have no patience for would-be tyrants in the business world. The assumption by most bosses is ‘If I have to take years of crap off my boss, when I get promoted, that gives me the right to give crap to those under me”.

Wrong. In the Marines, I was always told “shit rolls down hill, private”.  I responded that “If it reaches me, it just hit the fan”.

I was in a management training program not long after I left the Marines, and I had this fellow employee who was being chewed one day without mercy. He had done nothing, and was actually a pretty good worker. The manager, for some reason decided he wanted to show his authority, so he embarrassed this guy right there in the office where any customer could come in and see it.

Worse yet, the employee he was chewing was a former Green Beret, Vietnam Vet, and won the Silver Star, yet he stood there humbly accepting the chewing his boss was giving.

I watched as a secretary, having to listen to this humiliating tirade, put her pen down on her desk and sit there in red faced embarrassment.

I waited until the boss got through with his ass chewing, then I quietly told him, “If you had talked to me that way, I’d jerk your ass over the counter and stomp the shit outta you”.

He physically recoiled in shock. “You would?” he asked in confusion.

“In a second, punk” I answered.

Of course I was fired, but the man he chewed got an apology, and the man then told him to take his job, and we both found a better job.

Talk back to your boss and you get fired. Maybe it’s fair, but what if you work hard but don’t believe in taking crap?

We don’t need labor unions. We need somebody who can really kick ass, and pay him to go in the boss’s office and kick the shit out of him when he humiliates a worker.

We need something similar in politics, a “designated ass kicker” who can walk in the politician’s office, drag him over the desk, and beat the crap outta him for being stupid.

This way, violence can be controlled. If the ass kicker is designated, only he(or she in case of women politicians) can walk in grab a head of hair, and jerk that sucker over his or her desk.

This, of course, could be paid for by a minimal tax assessed for personal ass kicking.

imagine raising property taxes on people, and they call their designated ass kicker, who then does his job on the politician.

That might keep things under control.