actually, the more I think of it, the more I realize that ALL of the theories about what happened on 9-11, conspiracist and normal alike, ALL OF THEM, sound idiotic.
bush? bin laden? planes? thermite?
fuck that: the easter bunny did it.
one day, only moderately into the future, it shall come to pass that bernanke and greenspan and all other names associated even vaguely with 'the fed' shall be condemned as counterfeiters and fraudartists 10,000 times surpassing Kenneth Lay or L. Ron Hubbard hitherto seen in malkuth. and then arises the question of what replaces our current cancerous system of survival on that scaletippingly inevitable day when elitist corporatism becomes so despised that even corporate elites want nothing more to do with it. and here's where i'm torn. socialism is a nonstarter, classical libertarianism with a market gone 'back to gold' and a politics gone ron paul probably solves a couple of the major problems, but far from all of them, and anarchism in any purely voluntary form, while on paper the ideal system, is also the hardest one to implement in real life.
i'd love to see the union of egoists one day.
but I wonder if its so lofty a goal that galt and alita and zarathustra couldnt even make it work.
shall we climb the supply tubes all the way to tiphares, yugo?
shall we elope to galt's gulch, dagny?
can Aresh really escape from his inevitable fate if only he spares you from yours, Lynn?
or it might perhaps be perhaps that goals unattainable to the first human race shall be much more practical to the second.
All propaganda is at bottom seduction: the trick is not to convince someone of that something is true, but of that something is what they want to believe. Because most human beings only believe what they want to believe.
idiocy is no excuse for lack of imagination. there exist some incredibly dumb minds who still make new ideas, just bad new ideas. no, the uncreative is an unprecedented degree of cripple beneath even the paraplegic and the schizo and the retard.
one way or another, however questions like this get answered, we can safely say one thing: the full fundamental truth of how everything works and the full range of what is existent so as to be catalogued in that everything is probably, in ...principle, sufficiently perplexing that no concepts known to you and I today are adequate to describe it, and such concepts as are adequate to do so would be unintelligible to our puny primate brains. so we understand as far as we can until a wall is hit, and maybe some H+ with a better brain in understands a little further. and some H++ a little better than that. and so on.
but there must become and evolve a very different universe before any evolved component exists in the universe such that has culminated through such evolution a consciousness capable fully conquering noumena pusuant towards completely understanding what such a thing as a universe fully is.
and, by definition, you'll never actually know if youre there yet. have you seen everything? or do you just think you have because youve seen everything seeable for your level of cognitive and experimental development? the true and objective completion of omniscience may well always be condemned to ignorantly wonder if it is still ignorant, forever trapped in an epistemic gödel paradox.
and dont get me started on the degree to which subjectivity and context might make 'complete truth' vary in its hermeneutics even more than incomplete truth or total fiction can.....
the slave moralist texts (aka 'holy' scriptures) are self evidently false. on their own terms, theyre false.
hell, even if they are right, theyre still false:
even if the full range of bizarre tall tales mentioned within them turned out to be real and then some, the logical consequences of such an ontology would be that dumb stoneage savages, totally unfit to understand their own plane of existence, could certainly only do an even shittier job at understanding any other.
mathematical and scientific discoveries usually have far more subtle and far less 'partisan' philosophic implications than what one worries they might have upon face value. any transcendant intelligent structure that is inferred or found,... should we ever infer or find one (an iffy question if there ever was one), would necessarily be so different from human mythological assumptions that to use the word 'god'. would miss the point. in fact, to use human words at all would probably miss the point: any existence of that sort would almost certainly be something so removed from our frame of reference as to be unintelligible except in the most vague and abstract sense, and completely void of any primitive anthropoid symbols such as the ones which motivate desire to believe in dieties in the first place. such a 'god', if proven existent, would likely have the ironic effect of totally slaying the motivation that leads persons to desire to believe in such a concept as a god-- the algorithm as self deflating metanarrative, if you will.
any stange conscious transcendant VALIS-being humans may find will totally slay faith when they discover that a being beyond their rationality is also beyond their most primitive and inane superstitions. you havent seen 'the one true faith' until you feel like throwing up.
mathematical and scientific discoveries usually have far more subtle and far less 'partisan' philosophic implications than what one worries they might have upon face value.
ימאח שׁמו וזיכרו
"Yemach Shmo u'Zikro!"
"May his name be blotted out..."