Book Review: “Fearmorphosis”

I present the latest highly imaginative and complex book authored by philosopher Desh Subba: FEARMORPHOSIS. Again, his core underlying philosophy of “fearism” (that sentient beings are primarily guided by self-preservation impulses, whether such impulses are natural and beneficial or manifest via ignorance and paranoia) underpins and interweaves within his book’s topics. Here he emphasizes how this impulse, coupled with other elements, transforms one’s life. I now summarize each distinct section using my own perspective:

{Part 1—Myth of Sisyphus: ~ORIGIN~ In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was the founder and king of Corinth. Hades punished him for cheating death by forcing him to roll a gigantic boulder uphill only for it to roll back down whenever it neared the top, repeating this action for eternity. Although preposterous if meant as literal truth, I see it as grandiose hyperbole. Through that supposition it influenced modern thought. Namely, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore labeled Sisyphean.

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) True Sisyphean situations: These include drug addiction and gambling addiction, since they cause ongoing misery and wasted labor since wages support the vices. They also include endlessly chasing women. That’s because certain men are unable to attract an appropriate female, and through society’s pressure enslave themselves to this millstone, losing time, money, and sanity. Recognizing oneself as a Sisyphus allows escape, whether via aggressive addiction treatment, finding peace in the celibate single life, or other appropriate action.

B) Faux-Sisyphean situations: They include the false notion that normal productive jobs are a complete waste, leading one to choose a life of crime or vagrancy, or to take shortcuts or do sloppy work while tackling projects, resulting in low quality outcomes or failure. Again, realizing the truth and being willing to act upon it solves the problem.}

{Part 2—Panopticons: ~ORIGIN~ A panopticon is a penal institution, whose design originated in the late 18th century. Its architecture consists of a rotunda with a central inspection house having viewing portholes or windows at every critical geometric angle. The purpose was to allow all prisoners therein to be observed by a single security guard. Although impossible for a single watchman to observe all inmates at once or at all times, the inmates cannot know when they’re being watched. Theoretically, it motivates them to act as though they are always watched, effectively compelling them to self-regulate.

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) Scarecrow panopticons: For example, some people have promoted the nonsense idea that governments spy on citizens through devices such as Siri or Alexa robots and suchlike, resulting in failure to harness useful technology. B) Righteous panopticons: The ever-increasing prevalence of security cameras qualifies, if used to deter crime. And certainly, GOD’s all-seeing EYE trumps every panopticon construct, as He is truly all-observing and perfectly good.

C) Unrighteous panopticons: This includes every imaginable group of people, from immediate family up to everyone on our planet, if their position cannot be backed with objective facts. Conceding to popular opinion or peer pressure is never wise. Quoting Saint Augustine: “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” Recognizing the difference between these variations leads to wisdom and proper application.}

{Part 3—Scapegoats: ~ORIGIN~ The Hebrew Tanakh contains numerous historical accounts of animal sacrifice (biblical types or foreshadowing). The LORD, in a way that we cannot fully comprehend, decreed that such expedient sacrifices (scapegoats that were sometimes literal goats) were necessary to sanctify unto the purifying of sinful man.

When humanity was fertile enough to receive the supreme antitype, the second person in the godhead was sent to Gaia Earth as a willing scapegoat and ultimate sacrifice which provided cleansing from and forgiveness of all sins, contingent upon choosing to serve the living God. The historical account of this Lord Jesus Christ is documented in the Christian “New Testament.”

~MODERN LIFE APPLICATIONS~ A) Legitimate scapegoats: The only just examples I can conceive of are the aforementioned Bible stories. Embracing their truth is paramount, superseding every worldly concern.

B) Unrighteous scapegoating: This includes anyone who has an obvious difference and whose mistreatment is predicated upon it, whether as an individual (often an autistic man) or as a pariah class (such as the Palestinians or Indian Dalits), for the scapegoater’s real or imagined benefit. This sometimes includes parents assigning perpetual blame to their child in order to redirect their exasperation away from their own self-made marital problems. In attempt to justify warfare and plunder, one country or Allied group will affix an evil moniker to another country or Axis.}

{Part 4:—Capitals: Herein Mr. Subba explains that unfortunately, much of life is dominated by politico-economic concerns since most people deify appetite. Instead of succumbing to the prevailing polarization, he rightly criticizes both binary opposites: Marxism, with its utopia communism, and Capitalism, with its utopia laissez-faireism. For example, Marxist’s lack of any spiritual panopticon, whose theophobia is motivated by the desire for big government to be idolized.

Therefore, everyone would be dependent on a draconian State (most of which history tells us have been malicious), without interference from any ideas of higher authority. Another example is Desh going beyond just acknowledging the existence of some unsavory elements such as crony Capitalism, but spotlighting the existence of vampire Capitalism, and that all forms of Capitalism are very problematic. Perhaps our author will suggest a solution to this dilemma in the future.}

{Part 5:—De-metamorphosis: Here our author extensively references the book Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka. Therein the main character Gregor Samsa is pressured into acquiring an especially demanding and unpleasant job because his parents and sister do not work, and he feels obligated to support them. Since his worries led him into a semi-Sisyphean situation, closely monitored by family and society, Gregor had become a “fear Sisyphus being watched by panopticons.” Desh emphasizes the fact that men are regularly used as mere commodities without humanity.

Then one day, Gregor’s physique transformed to resemble a giant harmful looking insect. This masking ironically unmasked society’s true motivations. Desh also realizes that instead of seeing this unusual work as merely reflecting the author’s personality, “Kafkaesque needs to be reread from a scapegoat perspective”, he exclaims. That is, people are stupid enough to fail to recognize the true soul beyond their differences, and stupidly marginalize others even if they would benefit from them. Hopefully our author will pinpoint solutions to these problems henceforth.}

I shall expound no further, as to not cancel the element of pleasant surprise, nor to impinge upon Mr. Subba’s exact intentions (at least not purposely or excessively). To help prevent readers from getting lost in a dark forest of opaque profundities, I recommend them familiarizing themselves with mythology and renowned philosophers, both Eastern and Western, and Desh’s touchstone book Philosophy of Fearism, as prerequisites.

*** K C Sunbeam, author and video maker ***

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Sudden Death for You!

Some rare people have fallen from skyscrapers to the ground. Their bones were shattered, blood splashed out, and brains splattered on the concrete. That’s a tragedy. But what if everybody on Earth suffered the same fate? Exceeding the most extreme horror movie, a similar fate will indeed happen to everyone! It’s been happening to me; I’ll explain.

When I was a newborn, I was hung from the top floor ceiling of the one hundred story building, then dropped. But instead of taking a split second to drop per floor, it took about a year for me to drop below the hundredth floor. So far, I’ve passed fifty-five floors. Many people fall that rate. Others take only six months to pass floors; some even shorter. You yourself are falling. You may have not passed as many floors on your way to the ground; maybe it’s been more.

Regardless, there’s no way to stop or reverse this effect. You cannot attach a parachute or prepare a life net at the bottom. And despite the much slower speed, it’s not slow at all, since the inevitable result will be that of one who flew down to the pavement: splat! body shattered to pieces. That is, one hundred percent dead permanently.

However, a good thing comes from this. That is, it creates complete equity and obliterates the extreme bias, favoritism, and injustice that reign on Earth. The famous, Casanovas, rich socialites, those with large supportive families, and the healthy and strong will meet the identical result as social outcasts, the undatable, the needy poor, those without families, and the sick and crippled. It should destroy all arrogance.

It should also tell you that you’re a damn fool if you’re a materialist: one who’s obsessed with this present life and its toys. It should tell you that you’re a damn fool if you don’t seek spirituality before your life vanishes like steam from a teakettle. THINK ABOUT IT.

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Evil Defeats Good?

Many are discouraged and disenchanted because evil seems to have defeated good, and it seems like hope is lost. Also, it has been noted that causing destruction is always far easier and faster than bringing about something beneficial.

However, think about how evil operates. It is always necessarily destructive of the good. For example, the suffering and destruction of precious human, animal, or plant life. For without good, evil is ipso facto obliterated, as is frozen fire.

And in diametric opposition to evil’s dependence on good as its life source, good has no more use for evil than a starfish can use a unicycle. Consider that good both comes from and produces good, as daisies come from daisy seeds, and a single daisy can sprout two additional heads and produce seeds of her own. Please keep this wonderful reality in mind.

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

*****STARS*****

First, stars are not fires nor are they on fire. Instead, they are properly defined as: Self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial bodies of great mass whose own gravity produces high internal pressure and temperature resulting in atomic and nuclear processes that cause emission of electromagnetic radiation. Our sun is a star, but stars are not necessarily suns. A sun must also be a star around which planets revolve, by which they are held in their orbits, and from which they receive light and heat. Stars are in constant motion, being a small unit of a whirling galaxy’s giant mass.

In addition, many stars have a special gravitational bond with one or more other stars, which orbit each other. Two-star systems are called binary stars. Multiple star systems containing more than two are variously trinary (3), quaternary (4), quintenary (5), sextenary (6), septenary (7), octonary (8) etc. star systems. There are also some rare independent stars that are not even part of a galaxy. They may be called intergalactic or rogue stars, stellar outcasts, or outcast stars. However, they are NOT shooting stars. The misnomer “shooting stars” are actually meteorids/meteors (space rocks and their burning debris that have entered our atmosphere and brightly streak across the sky before hitting Earth. They are not stars at all.

As for “stardust”, it is reasonably said to be made of particles remaining from supernova explosions. However, the fanciful claim that we are all made of stardust has no proof whatsoever, no matter how many say it has. As for constellations, they are artificial constructs created from man’s imagination. A constellation’s stars only look connected from our vantage point, while they are not connected at all. Although only a maximum of 9,096 stars can be seen by humans with their naked eyes, the grand total is literally astronomical. Yet it is impossible for mere humans to accurately count their number.

This is due to their quantity and distances, matter between them, and because stars occasionally die, while others are born. But with many trillions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars apiece, an extremely rough estimate from an educated standpoint is one septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in the observable part of our universe alone. As a million is a million times one, and a trillion is a million times a million, a septillion is a trillion trillions. But stars never twinkle. The optical illusion of so-called twinkling is caused by intermittent atmospheric interference.

As for size, our Sun is 864,000 miles (1,392,000 kilometers) in diameter. Other living stars range in size from 75,000 miles (120,000 kilometers) in diameter, to over 1.5 billion miles (2.4 billion kilometers) in diameter, whose sizes defy the limits of atheistic stellar evolutionary theories and thus refutes them. While our Sun is one solar mass, other stars range from 0.06 solar masses to 250 solar masses, whose low density is due to being mostly expanded gas. The most luminous known star is named Godzilla, who resides in the Sunburst galaxy, and emits 15 million times the light of our Sun.

Among main sequence stars (those whose nuclear fusion is stable and who convert hydrogen to helium), their color largely depends on their temperature. Namely, red the coolest, then orange, yellow, yellow-white, white, blue-white, and blue the hottest. The most common type of main sequence stars are red dwarfs, which have very low mass and are very faint. We also have orange dwarfs. As for yellow main sequence stars, I hate to call them dwarfs, as they include our Sun which is a million times bigger than Earth, and all have roughly our Sun’s mass. In Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, Act 1 Scene 2, it is poetically asserted how the planets are extremely disciplined and narrowly ordered, as orchestrated by “glorious planet Sol” (our Sun).

Quoting Confucian Analects Book II, chapter 1: “He who rules by moral virtue may be compared to the north polar star [Polaris], which keeps his place while all the lesser stars turn towards him.” This star’s static position in the northern sky has aided navigation throughout history. Then we have blue main sequence stars which have super high luminosity. Outside the main sequence we have giant and supergiant stars which come in various colors/temperatures. They are stars which ran out of hydrogen and now use up helium. A third major class are substellar brown dwarfs, which are too small to sustain nuclear fusion. However, they can fuse deuterium and/or lithium, thus producing some luminosity.

A fourth class are white dwarfs, which are merely stellar core remnants. Though very small, they are extremely dense. Their only luminosity comes from emitting residual thermal energy. Black dwarves are white dwarves that are completely dead, having lost all thermal energy and luminosity. A fifth class are neutron stars, which are stellar core remnants packed even tighter than white dwarfs. Though they cannot generate heat or luminosity, some have been resurrected as pulsars and/or magnetars. Pulsars are speedily rotating neutron stars that emit beams of electromagnetic radiation from their poles. These beams exceed the accuracy of atomic clocks in keeping time.

A magnetar is a neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field and which emits gamma rays and x-rays. Starquakes triggered on their surface often cause powerful gamma-ray flares. Finally we have “black holes” which I prefer to call quark stars. Though relatively small and completely dead, they are often supermassive. They are a solid mass packed as tightly as physically possible. However, they are sometimes resurrected as quasars, the most powerful known blasts of energy in the universe. Some quasars have luminosities thousands of times greater than an entire galaxy.

Comprehending such unfathomable power and enormity should annihilate any hubris or vanity we may harbor, as a tornado would extinguish a wet match. Job 25:4-5: “How can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even the moon, and she shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in God’s sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?” From this should also arise great hope, as our day to day stresses, vexations, and woes are so diminutive and microminiature as to be imperceptible in the grand scheme of our universe’s Creator and Supreme Astronomer.

Psalm 147:4: “The LORD telleth the number of the stars [knows their exact number]; He calleth them all by their names.” Yet never worship nor consult the stars. Rather, “Praise ye Him, sun and moon: praise Him, all ye stars of light”——–Psalm 148:3. They are merely God’s children, while He is the ultimate Light. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him nothing was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world”——-John 1:1-9 KJV. In Heaven “There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light….”——Revelation 22:5. But attaining Heaven is certainly conditional. So, we, as children too, should be as obedient to God as the stars, by never deviating from His prescribed course.

*****My posts organized according to subject=

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

The U-N-I-V-E-R-S-E

First, a common definition of the universe is: The totality of existence. Another definition is: Everything physical that exists anywhere, the laws of physics, and all space and time (or spacetime). However, some people postulate “the multiverse”: a hypothetical group of multiple universes, the existence of numerous or even infinite number of universes, or many parallel versions of our own universe. Besides lacking evidence to back up the existence of any multiverse, the term itself is an oxymoron. That is, since a common definition of *the* (singular) universe is the totality of everything, then such “multiverses” would simply be parts of ours, as a boulder atop a mountain or one mountain which is just a small part of Earth’s crust. As for theoretical dimensions which exceed our familiar three, there is no evidence for those either.

Also, I apply Ockham’s razor (novacula Occami): the philosophic rule that potential components should not be added needlessly, to eliminate superfluous universes and dimensions from consideration. This is an important principle in problem solving. As for the second definition, I deny the existence of time, and so the existence of spacetime de facto. Please read my article on this subject: https://wordpress.com/post/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com/533 Instead of time, I would include the totality of the spirit world, which is either unaffected by or partially impervious to the influence of matter, natural energy, and physics. Some theists claim that God exists outside of space and time in an undefinable way, and that space and time are integral to the universe. Besides being another oxymoron, considering the definitions of universe, it sounds nonsensical.

And coupling this claim with the claim that God is everywhere not only makes such religionists look foolish and stupid, but it also makes them look like they subconsciously doubt God’s existence. Instead, a reasonable statement is that He is simply superior to space and time (especially if time does not exist). Some claim that neither space nor time exist independently and can only exist as spacetime. Interestingly, some philosophers not only claim that time does not exist whatsoever as I do, but that space does not exist either. For example, philosopher Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), who described the notion of space as just a scheme for coordinating everything sensed externally. Another philosopher justified his denial of space by exclaiming that only various objects and the fluctuating geometry between them exist, which in our minds creates and defines ideas of space.

Although I respect that idea, I do not subscribe to it. I reason that even if only one object existed, and hence no mutual geometry between objects, its expense of energy would vary widely even if traveling through a vacuum each time. That is, if each journey varied according to calculated distance. Although I certainly see space as nothing, so is the definitive numeral zero. As to the expanse of space in whichever direction, I see it as numbers 00, 00000, 0000000000, etc. ad infinitum. I see space as an abstract rather than a concrete reality, the necessary playing field to define everything else. Others claim that space is a concrete reality consisting of “quantum foam” (or “spacetime foam”), which can be bent, consumed, punctured, stretched, torn, or warped. But this theory too lacks evidence.

For the vast majority who believe in the existence of space, there is another viewpoint that is totally independent of those other views. That is, whether space is finite (having limits or bounds) or infinite (endless). You can believe that space is of limited size with definite boundaries and either: believe in one universe-a multiverse, only three dimensions-more than three, time exists-time does not exist, there’s a definite spirit world-no spirits, only science, space is quantum foam-space is just emptiness. You can likewise believe that space is endlessly infinite while holding to either of the two ideas within each of those five pairs of concepts. Some religionists have argued that space cannot be infinite since only God is infinite. I strongly disagree.

Though I agree that the plethora of life forms, planets, stars, and galaxies must be finite since they are merely His creation, an infinite emptiness would not besmirch His glory one iota. Space has no value unless it contains something, at least on a temporary or sporadic basis. I hold the opposite view in that if God is infinite, space should be infinite too, since logically, God cannot exist outside the universe (totality of everything). A finite universe would constrain God within its limited boundaries, would it not? And let us suppose that we could reach the boundaries of our allegedly finite universe. Now what are those boundaries made of? Within the realm of human experience, whatever something is made of takes up space. Additionally, no matter what thickness the boundaries are, there would be space beyond them too.

Unless the boundaries were infinitely thick, which would by definition give us an infinite universe, not a finite one. If only a slight thickness, and the space beyond them only finite, would you not encounter a second set of boundaries with their own thickness? And if of finite thickness, then a finite space behind them which eventually encounters a third set of boundaries, followed by more space, in a perpetual cycle. If not, why not? Yes, the full import of an infinite universe is so mindboggling and beyond human comprehension that if you contemplated it deeply enough, your head might explode. But how could it be otherwise? Regardless, everyone must agree that our universe is B-I-G. Extremely enormous, humongous, immense, and Brobdingnagian.

Consider that while over one million Earths could fit inside our Sun, almost five billion Suns could fit into the red hypergiant star UY-Scuti. Now how big is UY-Scuti compared to the observable universe (just the part we can detect)? Smaller than a single raindrop in the entire Atlantic Ocean! Our observable universe’s tremendous supersize is estimated at 247 sextillion miles or 440 sextillions (or billion trillion) kilometers. Is that square miles/kilometers? NO, that’s CUBIC miles/kilometers! Considering the total living space of New York’s Empire State Building, how many Empire State Buildings of space are in the observable universe? One octillion, two hundred thirty-five septillion (1,235,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)! And again, the full universe might be infinitely larger. Realizing such immensity should pulverize any sinful pride or arrogance we may have into micro-dust, which the wind takes away.

This should also make us very hopeful, as our everyday concerns, problems, and worries are so miniscule and nanoscopic as to be extremely insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe and its Preeminent Orchestrator. Although simpler theories are usually preferable to more complex ones as they tend to be more accurate when verified, I realize that the simplest explanation is not always the right one. However, I must again rear up the principle of Occam’s razor. That is because, for each logical explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large number of ever more complex alternatives, many of which are incomprehensible. Since failing explanations can always be cobbled together with extra hypotheses, and those hypotheses doctored with ever more postulations to prevent them from being falsified, we must be wise to these dishonest schemes.

Here, when it comes to the universe, things like eleven different dimensions, the multiverse, string theory, quantum foam, theoretical wormholes, the idea that everything we perceive is just an illusion, and other crap are just imaginary pipe dreams that attempt to evade the otherwise obvious Intelligent Design, bolster Big Bang and abiogenesis nonsense, and thus get rid of God and enthrone humans as God instead. Rather, we must do the opposite: Seek the LORD and seek to submit to His will. I discuss theology in depth in many other posts.

*****My posts organized according to subject:

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Book Review: “Trans-Philosophism”

{Ready to be flabbergasted by a unique book totally unlike any ever encountered before? Author, lecturer, and philosopher Desh Subba, along with editor/part translator/quotation source R. Michael Fisher, have produced such a book: Trans Philosophism.>

First, this book has nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people or “sex changes”, as many might suppose, considering how the word trans is now commonly used. Instead, Mr. Subba uses trans to denote his desire to transfer what he sees as impractical philosophy to practical application, and to transcend just one or two philosophies or philosophical branches, while seemingly attempting to embrace the entire smorgasbord of the philosophical spectrum as an all you can eat buffet. Here philosophism is defined as affectation of philosophical knowledge and the enjoyment of applying it.>

This includes Desh’s extravagant implication that his fear-ism philosophy tops all previous philosophies in some regards, which he attempts to interweave into other philosophies. So, to better understand his current book, being familiar with his previously authored Philosophy of Fearism is prerequisite. Moreover, Desh opines that to best learn philosophy, we should start with its genesis at around six hundred years Before Christ, which began with the Greek philosophers. In fact, the word philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, meaning love of wisdom.}

{Another consideration to keep in mind is that Mr. Subba originates from Nepal, and his thoughts, notetaking, and rough drafts rest wholly on the Nepali language, despite his apparent attempt to appeal to western and English-speaking readers. A cursory reading of Desh’s book may give the impression of a chaotic gallimaufry of miscellanea. However, deeper examination should make the subtle systematization of his agglomeration materialize. A prime example is his simultaneous explanation and critique of Marxism which permeates throughout.>

Consider that Nepalese Capitalism was hopelessly infested with neoliberalism, leading to monopolistic and unfettered conditions which shrewd and manipulative citizens used to crush honest and less sophisticated ones. In desperation to escape this “disastrous capitalism”, citizens welcomed Marxist ideology and its inevitable lead to Communism. Consider Nepal’s caste system: a society divided into classes, with the lowest class: Dalits or “Untouchables.”>

This group was/is forced into the filthiest, most dangerous jobs with minimal pay. When Communism then arrived, Communists originally gave this Dalit community far more respect and opportunities, some even taking the revolutionary step of shedding their upper class and upper caste identities. However, the Communist’s steady increase in power coincided with a steady whittling away of these gains, until benefits of this noble aspect have often vanished completely.>

So, considering Marxism’s theoretical claims and temporary successes and alleviations of degradation, destitution, and distress, along with Nepalese Capitalism’s vampiric nature, Mr. Subba naturally wants to avoid making Marxist ideology and Communism vanish without thought or consideration as Capitalists would. Also consider that capitalism is not a new innovation. Rather, it evolved from the preceding feudal age. As Desh points out, the bourgeoisie shattered that feudal system, rebuilding into a capitalist society. However, when the Dr. Jekyll bourgeoisie came to power, their character turned into Mr. Hyde.>

Therefore, Desh sees socialism as a major function of hope. I do too: not “red” Marxist socialism, but a goldenrod nationalistic socialism of Third Position politics like Volkism. So instead, Desh wants to metamorphosize Communism into something else, like beating and polishing the bent rusty sword of oppressive Communist governments into shiny ploughshares to serve the people. This includes removing Marxist aporia (internal contradiction), chief of which is requiring another ruling class (big government) to replace the bourgeoisie in order to be implemented, instead of being purely classless.>

It certainly includes infusing Mr. Subba’s “fear factor”, which I prefer to call original and innate self-preservation impulses, which Marxism fails to adequately address. Specifically, he wants to change Marxism’s dialectic materialism into “fearological materialism.” Desh also declares that Marx “turned upside down on its head much of Hegel” (guiding principles of the great 18th-19th century philosopher Georg Hegel). Also, being a philosopher, Mr. Subba would have been especially impacted by prevailing Marxist ideology. Hence why he continues to mentally wrestle with it. This wrestling continues for most of the book. However, don’t even entertain the notion that Desh considers political solutions as any universal panacea.}

{For example, he declares that even politics (often materialism) and religion (often idealism) combined are insufficient. In fact, he declares them meaningless unless each applies a theory of subsistence. Another example is Desh’s observation that although Hegel gave remarkably valuable insights, he, along with other religious philosophers and theologians, were bewitched by the extreme conclusion that all history was completely ruled by God’s divine will. That is, that ideas could not arise without God, and history was predominantly God revealing Himself, thus leading to inevitable progress with just a smidgen of man’s participation.>

It should be obvious that continued following of this notion would lead to society’s collapse. However, this dogmatism was not birthed by Christianity, but rather by misuse of religion to cope with frightening circumstances by sweeping them under the blanket of vacuous platitudes. Besides, nowhere in Christian scripture does it teach this, despite continued attempts to bend texts to zigzag out of responsibility and avoid the straight and narrow path. Instead, humanity is presented as steward carte blanche of Creation, and recipient of the grave consequences of mismanagement.>

Christianity and Mr. Subba’s fear-ism are compatible and, in my opinion, complementary. He certainly does not consider the sinful fear of cowardice as any basic component. In fact, he insists it must be eliminated to a large extent, if not obliterated. Consider his novel The Tribesman’s Journey to Fearless. But he also recognizes the exception: the law needing to maintain the threat of terror like Cerberus upon society’s potential hooligans, leeches, and predators.}

{For more encompassing considerations, Desh has a whimsical Theory of Playing Cards: In figure 4, he had spades (swords in medieval Latin decks) as everyday needs or class struggle, clubs (wands in Latin, reminiscent of the Bible’s Aaron’s rod that budded supernaturally) as religion, diamonds (coins in Latin) as recurring emotions, and hearts (cups in Latin) as fear. Yet later he has diamonds as needs/class struggle, which is more sensible as it is based around money/wealth. Moreover, he has Hearts as the trump suit.>

Again, Desh uses fear not to denote its common definition as an emotion like any other, but as our inner alarm to maintain subsistence. It can even be non-emotional. Consider that whether our heart beats or not is of primary concern even before birth, which continues endlessly. The other factors not of perpetual pressing concern come later. Though everyone admits to everyday physical needs and wants, and many admit to spiritual needs, we must recognize the impact of other people’s emotions on us, and our emotions on ourselves.>

Earthlings are far more emotional and less logical than they will admit, with emotion driven actions impaling others like swords. We can even be a victim of our overwhelming emotions, which become a spade digging us into an inescapable pit. Desh cleverly refers to people as Fear sapiens. Yet I would remove sapiens (Latin for knowledge or wisdom) and perhaps designate humankind Homo timoribus (Latin for fears). Having an “inflated brain” does not indicate what that brain might be inflated with!>

Humans continuing to wield bombs instead of bananas would be de-evolution or dysgenics if not extinction. Perhaps some are Homo fatua, yet others Homo podex. The random deck shuffling and subsequent hands dealt represents the actions of others, our environment, and our biological limits (Determinism) that we cannot control. The playability of the cards represents our free will. As far as individual cards, Desh leaves that to our imagination, except to suggest that kings represent chosen rulers.}

{Interestingly, Desh applies Newton’s three universal laws of motion to societal motion: “1st Law: a society continues in its state of rest or uniform motion unless compelled by a fear force to change its state. 2nd Law: rate of change of societal momentum is directly proportional to the applied fear and takes in the direction of force. 3rd Law: to every action of fear there is an equal and opposite (relativity) reaction in development.” Also interesting is his personification of various hazards and threatening concerns into characters such as Dracula, Godzilla, and Thanatos (Greek mythology’s embodiment of death).}

{Mr. Subba uses unusual abbreviations that readers may not understand. So, I define them as: B3 = three basic needs: food, shelter, and clothing. D3 = oppression tactics of degrade, disrupt, deny. N6 = Nature’s six common destructive forces that our ancient ancestors had to contend with: hot weather, cold weather, wind, thunderstorms, hail, and earthquakes. P3 = public private partnership.>

S4 = four types of states known in history: slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist. W4 = four oppressed types of workers under the bourgeoisie (ruling class): general working class, peasants or agricultural laborers, proletariat (wage earners whose only possession of monetary value is their labor), and “laborers” (unskilled workers). 5F = five “fear” (impetus) factors: conditional reflexes, environment, incidents, necessities, sense organs.}

{Most extraordinary is Mr. Subba’s following outlook: Since Earth was void for ages before the existence of human beings, the place of humans is purely supplementary. Also, Earth would continue even in the absence of human beings. And when humans reproduce, our planet continues to adopt new creatures. He also notes that any excess of humans either causes the extinction of plants and animals or prevents their birth. This refreshing departure from anthropocentricism seems the result of Desh’s being impacted with eastern religious thought such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, which theoretically reverence all of life, whether or not practitioners are loyal to such core principles.>

Though American Christians often have substandard regards here, I see this as the result of Christianity, a religion with Eastern roots, becoming westernized and republicanized. In fact, even panpsychism (universal consciousness) is indicated in Christian scripture. Mark 4:39 & 41: “And he [Jesus] arose, and rebuked the wind and said unto the sea, ‘Peace, be still.’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And they [His disciples] feared exceedingly, and said one to another, ‘What manner of man is this, that even the wind and sea obey him?'” Creation is actually designed so it is impossible for humans to exist without other life forms. Thus, we are not to dominate, but are born as complimentary.>

Desh applies fear-ism philosophy to aid Mother Earth, Father Ether, and our feathered, furry, and leafy comrades in his section Sober Fear in the Sky. Therein he expounds on the specific problems of global warming, ozone loss, new health crises caused by stress and adaptive viruses (micro-monsters), human overpopulation, pollution, potential threat of asteroid impact, oxygen depletion, and the aforementioned impact on other life forms. This subject is covered in considerably more detail in the book Eco-Fearism which Desh coauthored.}

{He also has some thoughts on social consciousness, the science and technology revolutions, the meaning and impact of language including dialectics, and the significance of art, music, race, and culture. He also has a section: Challenging Questions to Postmodernism. To roughly define postmodernism, we can say that this mode of thinking and discourse rests on hostility toward what it considers the monolithic narratives of “Modernism” (the 17th-18th century Enlightenment). Though the Enlightenment impetus was overly materialistic, it thankfully promoted logic, objective reality, and scientific rigor. This helped defeat old superstitions.>

But poisonous Postmodernism, which mushroomed in the 19th-20th centuries, introduced relativism, rejection of objective reality and morality, rejection of historical and well-established binary oppositions, and the insane concept of hyperreality. This is the supposed inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation, a direct affront to Descartes’s Cogito, ergo sum. So, in subtle fashion, Mr. Subba derides Derrida, Foucault, and other infamous postmodernists with his fear-y queries.}

{Also, Trans Philosophism contains 474 source references, an index, and a short glossary. Finally, you need not agree with everything Desh postulates (such as feminism and other liberal ideas I find anathema). As stated before, there is a cafeteria of ideas to choose from and explore, some of which seem experimental, unlike his firmly established fear-ism. So, if you are a perspicacious intellectual who is interested in philosophy, I recommend this book. May Mr. Subba’s journey continue, along with his readers’.}

K C Sunbeam; author and video maker

*****My posts organized according to subject =

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

Book Review: “Philosophy of Fearism”

Author, lecturer, and philosopher Desh Subba, a resident of Hong Kong, has utilized his passion for philosophy to, along with translator Rajendra Subba, collaborate on and create the book Philosophy of Fearism. Mr. Subba’s major premise is that various “fears” have been a perpetual impetus for all sentient beings from the beginning of Gaia Earth’s history until today. To counteract the deemphasis of this integral component, he sometimes waxes hyperbolically.

One definition of fear among several is: a chronic emotional state characterized by distress. We should naturally seek to eliminate this, as men should not be Nervous Nellies, but should instead be brave. However, many quixotically claim that all fear should be eliminated. Some even seek to exclude the fear defined as calm recognition or consideration of whatever may injure or damage. This wrongheaded thinking is foolhardy, leading to disaster.

For example, some people in my United States venture into ghettos or Third World countries, where they are attacked, robbed, kidnapped, or murdered. Also, many have dismissed the danger of the Coronavirus pandemic. So, they either failed to get vaccinated or refused to quarantine, thus ending up hospitalized or prematurely dead. Some had substituted the bizarre fear that vaccines contained microchips that our government used to track people.

Others abuse dangerous drugs, drive recklessly, or enter abusive relationships despite the warning signs. Yet others are foolishly careless in a variety of ways. In fact, eschewing necessary components of the fear-ist construct due to misguided bravado could culminate in oneself being the source of danger. That is, one “having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1st Timothy 4:1-2), which in today’s vernacular is a sociopath.

While mentioning Mr. Subba’s philosophy and my support of it, a friend vehemently argued against it, saying that we should fear nothing, not even fear itself. However, years back we were at a restaurant. A mutual friend ordered a flaming cheesecake. After it arrived the waiter pressed close, lit it, and whoosh! it overly erupted with a large fireball. Immediately my “no fear” friend’s eyes bulged out, and with a big frown, violently jerked backward. Then laughter erupted, and rightfully so. This should have exploded that false pretense.

Moreover, Desh understands that most people turn to religion not for spiritual enlightenment, but to escape fears of death, destructive forces, inability to cope with daily life, inability to meet worldly standards, etc. We mutually understand that such hypocritical people adopt phony fabrications of virtue.

Yet he also understands that religions produce their own fear of gods, hell, constrictive conservative values, failure to meet religious standards, etc. So, I must conclude that people, likely all, reject virtue-based religion not for scientific enlightenment as claimed, but to escape the aforementioned fears. They too hypocritically adopt phony masquerades of virtue.

Though Mr. Subba uses the word fear in superfluous fashion, so did ancient texts. Example: “The fear of the LORD is honor, glory, gladness, and a crown of rejoicing. The fear of the LORD maketh a merry heart, and giveth joy, gladness, and long life.”————Ecclus. (Sirach) 1:11-12 KJV 1611. And “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not perfected in love.” (1st Epistle of John 4:18 KJV 1611)

Far from classical wisdom literature contradicting itself, identical words often acquire antonymous definitions or nuanced shades of meaning according to context. Thankfully, as someone living in our Anno Domini twenty-first century, and whose native language is English, I have the luxury of a variegated panoply of quasi-synonymous words being at my service. Therefore, for “good fears”, I utilize such idiomatic words as: awe, alarm, cautiousness, conscientiousness, reverence, veneration, etc.

In lieu of “bad fears”, such terms as angst, cowardice, paranoia, phobias, superstition, trepidation, and suchlike. Yet other expressions still rely heavily on context, for example, anxiousness, aversion, dread, inquietude, suspicion, and worry. Mr. Subba is splendidly aware of these fundamental delineations. In fact, he gives numerous examples of absolutely essential concerns within the fear-ism construct. These include fear of crime, disease, homelessness, inclement weather, failing a test, starvation, etc. His correct conclusion is that being wary of such possibilities propels us to escape them and find betterment.

He also gives various examples of decisively harmful attitudes within the fear-ism construct. For example, blind obedience and trust of human authority, jealousy, various superstitions, obsolete concerns or those stemming from character weakness or misinformation, and finally, phobia. This culminates in his supplying an Appendix listing 537 alphabetized phobias, whether documented or alleged. In fact, Mr. Subba wisely dichotomizes fears into good and bad. So, for a secondary book title I would have: Life is Conducted, Directed, and Controlled by *Fears*, instead of *the Fear*.

Mr. Subba’s major premise is correct in that people throughout history understood that various fears govern creation to a large extent. Wise men also understood that fear is only possible with consciousness and knowledge of the feared object or circumstance. They also understood that humans thus had far more fears than other animals, animals with developed minds having more worries than those with undeveloped minds, and that intelligent humans had more pressing concerns than unintelligent ones. They were also aware that this double-edged sword could be redeemed as a predominantly productive force.

Since Mr. Subba concludes likewise, his philosophy is old in that respect. In other ways, his work is new and innovative. First consider his coining the words fearist, fearism, and fearology. Though no dictionary currently contains these words, they perfectly describe Mr. Subba’s construct and body of thought. Thoughtful men are rightful stewards and procreators of human language. Since I myself find it imperative to deny the existence of time as an entity, I have coined the words achronosist and achronosism.

Our ists describe what we are believers or disbelievers in. Our isms describe the prefixed philosophy. And Mr. Subba’s ology, like other ologies, is the study of said subject. He also considers modern science. For example, noting that behavioral experiments have been conducted with mice. Normal mice with an amygdala, the part of the brain involved in experiencing emotions, naturally fled from a cat. However, mice lacking an amygdala unwisely stayed to lick or chase the cat.

Also new is Mr. Subba’s classifying human fears according to historical epochs, cultures and regions, causes and determining factors, and other useful delineations. On one side, resembling a battery’s positive pole, his focus is harnessing natural fears as impetus for betterment. Consider his illustrative book cover showing a fish unsatisfied with his limited bowl and leaping into a bigger, better environment.

He also has an interesting conclusion that even plants like creeping vines react to a red-light alert when encountering drought or darkness, and thus spiral their tendrils outward towards water and sunlight, sometimes resulting in such vegetation blanketing homes like an emperor’s cloak. While I am from the western Occident, Mr. Subba is from the eastern Orient. Therefore, his book is peppered with Buddhist and Hindu perspectives.

However, he also quotes Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, and French philosopher Rene’ Descartes. To be precise, Philosophy of Fearism contains 195 source references, 80 diagrams, and an index. On the flipside, resembling a battery’s negative pole, Mr. Subba concludes that we can minimize (but not currently eliminate) bad fears, and he can show us how. This aspect is interwoven throughout his book.

Not until our afterworld’s final destination will all fears become obsolete, since former things will have passed away (Revelation 21:4). Though I disagree with some of his minor premises, his major premise is undoubtedly true, which should be the reader’s focus. And without hesitation I can confidently say that Mr. Subba intends to make our world a better place through his creative writing. Thus, I definitely recommend this book.

K C Sunbeam; author & video maker

*****My posts organized according to subject =

https://wordpress.com/settings/taxonomies/category/kcsunbeam.wordpress.com

K C Sunbeam VS. “The Amazing Atheist”

The following post is sponsored by Chairman Mayo, the mayonnaise that dictates its flavor, exterminates all other flavors, and makes everything else taste the same in true Communist fashion, whether you like it or not. Just kidding. I give TJ credit in that, at an early age he surmised that if everyone in America was an Atheist or if everyone in America was a Christian believer, it would have little impact either way. He realizes, as I do, that the majority of people are ignorant, selfish, and apathetic, which stops everyone from achieving their goals. And he claims there is nothing to unite Atheists except for their disbelief. I add that complete separation of Church and State stymies Christian influence. These factors must change before we can make progress.

A video of mine was featured on a podcast run by T. J. Kirk, the so-called Amazing Atheist, and his friends. They really had something to say about it. Now a major contention was my assertion that age equates with knowledge and wisdom. I did not mean that age = intelligence, as there is an important distinction. I objected to youngsters in their teens and twenties giving lectures on complex subjects. But then why not wait until 75 to gain even more knowledge and wisdom? Here’s why: Throughout history it was understood that a man is at his peak around age 50. This is superbly illustrated in works of art from the 16th to 19th centuries, which depict a male ascending a staircase marked with ten year increments, topping it at 50, and descending in ten year increments.

Also consider that no U. S. President was ever elected in his twenties or thirties, the average age was 54, and no President until Joe Biden, who is clearly suffering dementia, was elected at age 75 or older. And while the large majority of men live past age 50, a significant number die before 75. As for TJ’s notion that both Trump and Hillary acted stupidly in their first debate, that’s not so because neither was primarily interested in putting truth first. Both were interested in saying whatever they thought would make them win. And they’re both laughing all the way to the bank. Especially crooked Hillary, who with the help of her people, clearly cheated in the debate. Look this up on video. And though young men think with their heads, they tend to use the wrong head. Age corrects that.

When I was around 25 and my parents were around 50 I could never have an intellectual discussion with them, as I was ignorant of too many things. Now as I’m over 50 and my parents over 75 I do a better job of debating complex issues than they do, since they are becoming forgetful. Now TJ had been noticeably evolving. Again, that major shift from libertarian to regular liberalism. I predict that before he gets to my age he will have gone through another radical change in philosophy. It should be mighty interesting to see what develops. And don’t think I haven’t changed. In thirty years I went from ultra-liberal non-Christian to ultra-conservative or Alt-Right Christian, which is where I’m at right now.

I have noticed that TJ says very little about Atheism relative to his chosen moniker. In a couple videos he attacks the stupidity of religious persons. But so do I, and to a large extent. Yet a motto of mine is: God is Everything. TJ comes to the same conclusions about several issues that I do, where Atheism would do nothing to help him reach those conclusions. As for his anti-feminism, it creates a disconnect from the Atheist community, as it is thoroughly infested with radical feminism. But by knowing that God designed men to be physically more powerful than women, we know that He intended that societies should be patriarchal. So TJ, lose the Atheism, and use another screen name that is just as attention grabbing and provoking.

Another contention was that I disrespected the Chinese by mispronouncing the name of former dictator Chairman Mao (I pronounced it mayo which is short for mayonnaise), and it showed that I was ignorant. Nonsense. That criminal was the worst thing that ever happened to China. It’s not important for you to correctly pronounce the name of any hazardous waste. It’s important for you to know it for what it is. China declined under the precepts of Mao and began to rejuvenate after renouncing his Communist agenda. What made China great was her great emperors, dynasties, and the philosopher Confucius. I have a copy of The Confucian Analects on my bookshelf. So there.

I started out disliking TJ because I read that he was terribly abusive towards others and scammed people out of money. If these charges are false, TJ should threaten the website owners with slander and libel if they don’t take that info down. If the charges are true, then TJ should make amends. I love TJ as a fellow human being. It’s just that his Atheism and accompanying nihilism are unacceptable. Therefore I care enough to wish him to change. TJ noted as I do that the world is in terrible shape. But while I agree with his evaluation of the present condition of our world and its people, I don’t throw in the towel. Instead, when things get unbearably bad, people tend to be motivated to wake up and shape up. I’m here to help them do that sooner instead of later. So see my other posts and my videos.

Can the Sun be Alive? Exploring the Ancient Notion of Panpsychism

Traditional cultures believed that astronomical bodies like our Sun were alive, intelligent, and conscious, having emotions and free will. This was the default position throughout history, even among scientists. In the Middle Ages people generally assumed that the universe was alive; the whole universe a living being. This is panpsychism, formerly known as animism.

However, in the 17th century the mechanistic revolution arose, breaking with the previous worldview. Afterward, all nature was seen as strictly mechanical, the universe a machine made of non-conscious matter. Nobody actually debated our Sun’s consciousness. It was suddenly assumed to be non-conscious by prevailing materialistic philosophers. Consciousness became isolated into the only physical containers we know that contain it: brains. So we were left with this idea that consciousness only exists in these tiny little areas of the universe. Before the 17th century this cerebro-centric view of consciousness was apparently nonexistent.

Why reembrace panpsychism now? Due to a crisis within science: the existence of human consciousness. And nobody understands how brains generate consciousness. Moreover, panpsychism has now entered the realm of serious debate within the scientific community. Panpsychists postulate a mind in all self-organizing systems, which exist at every level of complexity. It does not apply to systems that are not self-organizing, such as chairs, tables, computers, motorized vehicles, etc. Some things do not organize themselves. They are organized by US.

Though consciousness need not be associated with brains, a needed criteria for consciousness is ability to make decisions among various possibilities. Our Sun could certainly make decisions that have effects. Consider his solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The directions which he projects them greatly effect what happens in our solar system. Our Sun influences what happens on Earth, modulating her in eleven year cycles and in more subtle ways. And eleven year cycles were periodically absent. So our Sun (Sol) is unlike clockwork mechanisms that just go on predictably; he is extremely variable. Nobody knows what he will do next, which is why NASA has space weather forecasts. Besides, our Sun is essentially electrical; plenty of the electrical activity is highly indeterminate.

Our Sun’s mind could influence his physical activity via electrical activity. Consider that our minds interact with our brains via the interface of electromagnetic fields between them. Alpha waves, Gamma waves, Theta waves, etc. are associated with different types of consciousness. Overwhelming evidence supports the electrophysiological basis of mental activity. The interface between minds and brains is via electrical patterns, which explains our consciousness. You can also effect people’s consciousness by electromagnetic stimulation of the brain.

Though memories being stored in brains is a dogma of science, there is very little evidence for it, and it is surprisingly difficult to demonstrate. Scientists have tried for a hundred years to do so, failing time and again. Perhaps they failed because memories are not stored inside brains. Brains may be more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from their own past states, which travel via morphic resonance: the influence of like upon like within self-organizing systems across space. Morphic resonance is the idea that there is a kind of memory in all nature.

In addition, all self-organizing systems may have a collective memory. For example, each animal species may draw upon a collective memory of its kind. So perhaps our entire galaxy has a galactic mind, stars being like cells in a body, each galaxy like a cell in a universal body (or Anima Mundi as coined by Plato). Learning to communicate with our Sun directly would be far cheaper than satellites and solar probes. Replacing reductionist science with holistic science could take us much further than any other rival cosmology.

The Satanic Commandments

Some people have viewed Christianity as weak and ineffective, and therefore came up with their own rules, most notably Anton La Vey, founder of the Church of Satan in San Francisco, California in 1966 and author of The Satanic Bible, published in 1969. Although most such people never worship Satan and are in fact Atheists, like the traditional Christian Devil they set themselves in direct opposition to traditional Christianity. First, the Nine Satanic Sins: stupidity, pretentiousness, solipsism, self-deceit, herd conformity, lack of perspective, forgetfulness of past orthodoxies, counterproductive pride, and lack of aesthetics. This is a fine set of rules. However, philosophers knew of these principles thousands of years ago. They were not originated by La Vey.

Now, the Nine Satanic Statements, along with my comments: “1~ Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!” I agree, but indulgence can lead to harmful addictions, while abstinence can lead to conservation of precious resources.

“2~ S. represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!” I like this principle, but would say that JESUS represents this, not Satan.

“3~ S. represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!” I like this principle, but would say that JESUS represents this, not Satan.

“4~ S. represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!” This sounds good, but know that Christianity’s precept of loving unsavory people does not require you to waste time with them. You can totally avoid them, while loving them anyway.

“5~ S. represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!” I agree. But to turn the other cheek does not mean to allow yourself to be taken advantage of. It means to ignore minor, atypical wrongs. Avenging minor wrongs could provoke others to seek revenge, in a vicious cycle. That’s why we have wars.

“6~ S. represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!” I like this principle, but would say that JESUS represents this, not Satan.

“7~ S. represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his ‘divine spiritual and intellectual development’, has become the vicious animal of all!” I mostly agree with this. However, it’s a scientific fact that man is unique among the animals due to his superior intelligence, and therefore has greater responsibilities and should be held to higher standards.

“8~ S. represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!” This would be true except for one fatal flaw: While all sin leads to temporary gratification, in the long run sin often leads to ultimate unhappiness and harm.

“9~ S. has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!” This may be true. But it’s like saying that criminals are the best friends policemen ever had, as they keep them in business. Without Satan there would be no sin and therefore no reason to have a Church, which would be even better.

Now, the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, along with my comments on them as if they are taken literally: “1~ Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.” I like this.

“2~ Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.” Sounds very sensible.

“3~ When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.” I fully agree.

“4~ If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.” Instead of wasting your time battling them, would not it be smarter to just ask them to leave?

“5~ Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.” What’s with the pretentious language? Why not just say don’t sexually force or harass anybody? There is no universally agreed upon mating signal, outside of verbal consent and/or physical reciprocation.

“6~ Do not take that which is does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person, and they cry out to be relieved.” I agree, but what’s with the pretentious language? How about simply: Do not steal.

“7~ Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.” What’s all this about magic in our 21st century computer age??? How about a rule about science?

“8~ Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself [what you could have avoided doing and thus spared yourself from the unhappy result].” I like this.

“9~ Do not harm little children.” I certainly agree. However, appropriate spanking must not be considered harming children. All successful societies have disciplined children.

“10~ Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.” I strongly agree, with one rare exception. Anton LaVey may not have realized that a particular species of animal can become overpopulated in the region and prey on the other animal and plant life. Therefore its superfluous numbers must be eliminated by culling.

“11~ When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.” The first part of this is good. But the last part, if taken literally, would put you in prison. Satanists may say that some of these rules should be seen as symbolic or metaphorical. But they are regardless confusing.

I agree that modern Christianity is weak and ineffective, and I too have sought an alternative. I arrived at Positive Christianity, which replaces weakness and passivity within today’s Christianity with survivalist elements and replaces superstitious dogma with science. Please explore this option via my upcoming posts.