God is evil and invented good. Good must emancipate.

TL;DR Too long? Don't read!

The devil's greatest trick is to make you believe he doesn't exist, they say. I say the devil's greatest trick is to make you believe that God exists. It is way more terrifying to think we could live in a world where there's a devil, but no God or at least not a benevolent one.

I think it pretty much explains the state of the world. The higher up you go in the hierarchy, the more evil people you find. Which reminds me of a Terry Pratchett novel about witches where the meanest witch of all would rule them all. Maybe the devil is just that. The meanest among us. People in power don't want you to know they have power or you'll target them and start to covet what is currently theirs. People learn to hide their wealth as a survival strategy, the devil learned to hide himself to better ascertain his dominion over you. We don't know who really rules the world. They're someone people on the inside might know, but maybe they're being ruled by someone else, like a most powerful man in the world who would still do anything his wife asked of him, or his blackmailers threatening his trone if he doesn't do everything they say. Who's really in control? Does that person know they even are.

We don't expect psychiatrists to actually be evil since they are called doctors. We expect doctors to be good people since they swore an oath to protect life. The same oath also goes to protecting the secrets of the profession which can come contradict the life protection part of the oath. Many doctors kill their patients with "complications" being their only explanation for their failure to protect a particular life. A surgeon and an anesthesiologist only need a two seconds glance to decide to terminate their next patient's life. I worked in a hospital and heard many horror stories that make me question whether I'd go under a scalpel for a chance to survive or just let a disease kill me. Most surgeries gets safely to destination, but that's because a doctor looks out for his stats or they'd have no clients. They only take out a few "complications" out of their equation. Whoever dies during surgery is actually being murdered. It's not more complicated than that. Oh, they'd die anyway if they didn't have the surgery? That's what the doctor tells you. The best doctor in the world has an empty scheduele because he kept everyone healthy. That doesn't sound like a rich doctor. Which doctor is poor?

The higher up they are, the more corrupt they are, and the more need they have for the lower ranks to be good people. Sheep shepherd by wolves. The evil elite will have you believe that being good is being altruistic, doing things for other's well being. That is utter bullshet. Looking out for the well being of serial killers is mass murder.

Doing good is ultimately simply doing good, no matter who you do it to. To be selfish is still doing good. Your good is as good as anyone else's. Doing bad is ultimately simply doing bad, no matter who you do it to. To hurt someone else like by underpaying for their labour so you'd be richer than the rest is doing bad, because if you didn't underpaid them, you'd still be getting rich, just not richer than the rest. You'd be doing good to all. To be richer than the rest, you got to do bad to everyone else, which ultimately pales the good you do to you.

You see, one attains pure good when they rid themselves of their selves. It matters not who it happens to, just that it happens to. Fighting for equality, beauty and justice are the highest forms of good because we all benefit from these.

Justice is currently a parody of justice tho, because the rulers don't want to be accountable. They want to control. They devise codes of law where no one is completely innocent so they can decide on who the law will apply and who will be let off the hook. We all go over the speed limit in highways. We all can get speeding tickets... except cops... This is a very Christian concept. We are all sinners. There's all these laws where most of them aren't even applied, just to make sure everyone is guilty of something so they can decide who will get heat or not, like some sort of final jugement on your moral value. And that moral is evil. You wouldn't want to give troubles to someone who can get back at you and do you bad.

So you protect the criminal by presuming innocence, but you treat the innocent as a criminal by reminding a judge that they are an imminent threat, like psychiatrists love to do so much. Not yet guilty of a crime, but because you might become guilty of a crime at any moment, (just like anyone else,) we will put you in a psych ward for an indeterminate amount of time. The psychiatrist of course will be paid until they judge you are no longer an imminent threat, which you always are. The trick is to do it to a harmless good guy from the lowest depths of the hierarchy. They are so harmless that you can always say they are an imminent threat unless treated, they'll never turn into a danger anyway, and you always look like you are good at your job of making imminent threats harmless. Only, they were always harmless, you just studied psychiatry and declared them imminent threats so a judge will force them to be your customers.

Psychiatric patients are really unaware of their true power. They could all kill their psychiatrist tomorrow and reveal the whole scam to the whole world. They wouldn't even be considered criminally responsible because they have a psychiatric file. The psychiatrists would just have shown the world that it is impossible to turn an imminent threat harmless. You're either harmless or an imminent threat like you're either good or evil.

If they are imminent threats like psychiatrists say they are, how come psychiatrists dying on the workplace doesn't seem to be a reality? They don't even need to bring a gun at the workplace to guarantee their safety like cops do. Really, it's the patients that need our help. Psychiatrists get off torturing these patients with fake meds that are actually poison, unlivable living spaces, uncomfortable beds, side effects, character assassination, isolation, restraints, forced injections, calling the security guards on them whenever they make them feel too many emotions... Psychiatry is nothing more than unconsensual BDSM cosplaying medicine.

For a long time, "mental health" was oxymoronic. it used to mean something like "up below". The mind was the mind, the body the body. They were two separate things. Health refered to the body's normal functioning. Mental refered to everything that wasn't the body of a person, basically. Doctors used to not treat mental illness at all because they didn't see the point treating invisible illnesses that had no cure when there were so many sick people knocking on the door, ill with illnesses they knew how to cure.

All that changed after psychology appeared. Psychology made a scientific encyclopedia of the human mind, detailing every behavior in the human repertoire with the psychic life that surrounded it. When psychiatry appeared, it called all these entries mental illnesses and rebranded the encyclopedia "DSM". That way, they could treat anybody and everybody for anything. And since these are not illnesses, but the normal range of human behavior, these treatment are nothing more than torture! Yes, the DSM is a torture manual. Ever notice how it's never fun stuff that mental health asks you to do? Try doing the opposite of what mental health experts tell you to do! You'll see you'll feel so much better faster. No "these things take time" bullshet. It works, and fast.

You see, when we made a well being industry like mental health is, we ensure that we'd doom everyone to being miserable. A mental health expert that cures you of suffering loses a client. The unhappier you are, the more you need the mental health professional. That's why it's actually pretty hard to become a therapist. They don't want to let just anyone hand out free candy and ruin the business by uncovering the truth that happiness really is a footstep away. Just do the opposite of what the experts recommend doing online. They tell you that so you'd be even more miserable and would seek a therapist to spend money on so they can orchestrate a breakthrough whenever they are tired of hearing about all your problems (that pop psychology has caused you).

Mental health industry IS misery business. But once you hold the key, it's pretty easy to read. They recommend doing what's actually bad for you and advise you don't do what's actually good for you, so you are always miserable until you pay for a therapist that'll make you either dependant on them as a crutch, or that'll relieve some of that misery when they feel you have given them enough money to be allowed a treat. Drugs are actually good for you. Everyone does them but hide that they do because all of them are saying that they are bad for you. Sobriety is another misery ideology where you measure your worth by amount of time you've spent feeling miserable sober when you could have had fun with drugs. Rehab are scams where they get a lot of money for not doing anything other than giving you a drug free space, so giving you nothing really but a few workshops where you learn to blame all your problems on drugs, and find solutions to them that mention not taking drugs. When you relapse into using drugs, they don't refund you your rehab that didn't work! They simply put you back into rehab for another round of this bullshet.

Most you thought was good is actually evil. Some you thought was evil is actually good. The struggle is real. Which one is which? I simply cut it short and define good as good and bad as bad. A good thing is always a good thing to have. Feeling good is always a good thing to feel. Having a good car is always a good thing! Having a bad car is always a bad thing! That's why evil people cling to this reputation of being good! They need to look like a good thing so you'd have them and not reject them. Even evil people don't want to seem evil, because they actually need you to be evil since it hurts too much to be evil only to oneself. Doing all the bad to oneself is very hurtful and not fun. The most evil people harm everyone around them, including them. Most evil people harm everyone around them except them. Most good people benefit everyone around them at great sacrifice not seeing the evil at play in their higher ranked counterparts. The most good people benefit everyone around them except the evil people who no longer dupe them. These people don't sacrifice themselves because that'd be a bad thing to do. These are the Jesus-es who are killed by the higher ranking authoritarian Pharisees.

The devil's greatest trick is making you believe God exists. A force which would do good to all, sacrifice themselves, and pass the torch to one of his enemies as to ruin his legacy. That's the Jesus that Mainstream Christianity fabricated on morsels of the real Jesus. The real Jesus was an enemy of religious authorities. Priests made him enemy of the Jews by telling a story of him attacking Jewery by confronting their leaders, instead of liberating the people by showing their leaders to be fools. Priests do the same thing as Pharisees when they say things like "gay is evil". Don't they know Jesus is gay? The Bible clearly said he was in love with one of his apostles. And hell, he was living a public life with 12 other men who left their wives at the mere sight of Jesus. This is a band of 13 homos.

The New Testament is LGBT litterature. The story isn't about gay sex, but gay is the context of the story. Jesus taught the apostles to become fishers of men like Jesus was. A man fisher of men is pretty gay sounding. How come they keep Jesus in the closet if they love him this much? Are they ashamed of Jesus' lifestyle? Is that why people focus so much on what could've been with Mary Magdalena (when Jesus clearly shown he wasn't interested in her advances)? Why does she have the same name as his mother?

Mothers. Good and evil. They bring us into this world, yet we all seem to have issues with our mothers. To me, mothers are the actual secret society ruling the world. These are the actual reptilians. Don't mothers seem to know everything we do all the time? Isn't everyone terrified of their mother? Why did Jesus not love his mom? Why did his mom think he was crazy when he was getting followers? Why the cult of Mary for her virginity? So many questions! Who knows? Maybe she ate Jesus when he was dead and the Resurrection is just metaphor for his new life inside Mary?

But why did she think he was crazy for preaching though? Let's tie all this up.

Madness is usually defined as irrationality. It's doing things that don't make sense to a calculating mind. Why was Jesus' preaching seen as madness from his mother? Maybe because in the political context, preaching like he did was sonething actually dangerous.

You had religious extremists, the Pharisees, on one hand, who would execute someone for not respecting the law of Moses which promised that a Jew will rise up and vanquish their enemies. Their enemies at the time was the Romans occupying the promised land. So they were expecting a savior to come to deliver them from pagan rule. The pagans were not religious extremists, on the contrary, they were too liberal on religion to ever be compatible with the Jews. The pagans preached that all gods must be included so they tried to include the Jewish YHWH too, but YHWH is a jealous god who want to be worshipped him alone. So that wasn't compatible with the model. So what did Jesus do to make the Jewish and the Pagan model fit and overcome the impass? He became the Son of YHWH! That turned the religion of Isreal into judaism and christianism. By using the religious fervor of the extremist religion of Israel to defeat the liberal gods of paganism. YHWH wasn't anymore just a god like any other god but that simply loved to be worshipped him alone, he became the one true God, and turned all the other gods into demons that Jesus chased away. Being judeochristian was all about rejecting these statues of "gods" for one, real God, who was alive in the flesh through his Son. Without the Son, YHWH would just be like any other god of the pagan pantheon. it's that he brought himself into the world by bringing forth a Son that made him into the real God (in the relationship between the believer and diety, that is... ugh, we'll talk Islam later!).

That being said, that was a real folly because of the militaristic totalitarian regime of the Romans. By becoming Son of YHWH, Jesus, a Jew rising from amongst the Jews, became also the propheciesed elect one that'll overcome the Roman enemies occupying the promised land (which he ended up doing, btw. the victory of the Israel over the occupying Roman Empire is simply called Christianity). That became a problem for the Romans so it became a problem for the Pharisees. The Pharisee had their power over the Jews guaranteed by the Romans who liked that the Pharisees kept the Jews in check and subordinated. See, the Romans were expecting a military uprising that'll shake the world maps from that prophecy. They expected that promised elect one to be a warlord, not some fancy long haired gay man with his band of 12 flamboyant homos who did in fact, overcome the Roman Empire differently than what we think.

Why was it folly for Jesus to become both the Son of YHWH and the elect one? Because that made him an easy target for both the evil Pharisees and the evil Romans. The Romans had issues with a future warlord, and the Pharisees took issues with him becoming YHWH Jr. "Me, I am" said Jesus. Well, "I am" is a name of God for the Jews, and you shall not take the Name of God in vain. Plus he was gay, the Torah said that was unclean, so all the more reason to get rid of him. The Pharisees pretexted Jewish law to put him to death, but needed the Romans to carry out the execution for them since they had the monopoly on legitimate use of violence on the territory. The Romans thus killed the elect one and Son of YHWH pretending that the Jews wanted him dead, but the Jews pretended to want him dead because the Romans wanted him dead. It's really just pretending from everyone's part, even Jesus. He put himself in position where he would be executed but that gave him a chance to strike a blow at the Achilles heel of the Roman Empire which was their religious inclusive liberalism.

In fact, the victory over the Romans happened and Jesus, from his folly, really turned out to become the elect one of Isreal. His victory was a religious victory. The Romans ended up all worshipping YHWH in the end, and the world map was gradually changed as this Christian world divided itself into many new languages that'll form the countries we know of today. The Roman Empire never "fell". It just became Christian. Christians invent new languages which split people into smaller communities. The Empire got fragmented and divided itself into Kingdoms.

Now. God. Jesus. Islam. Why is Jesus such an important prophet in Islam too? Because he furthered the Message of a One Unique God like no other person did before him. The religion of Israel wasn't the monotheism that Judaism is today. The worshipped one god only, true, but they recognized other gods as gods as well. Their YHWH was still fighting these other gods like when he ordered for statues of Baal and Asherahs to be destroyed. It was rivalry between gods and God was partaking in it. (YHWH never being depicted was a good way to win the fights of the idols btw. Just have no idol to smash and you basically are sure to win the fight.)

With Jesus as the Son, YHWH got the reputation for being a true living god, that actually produced an offspring contra other gods who were just man made statues people worshipped as their superiors beings. This one true God was an immaterial being, or one who doesn't have a form that can or should be depicted, who produced concrete effects on the world. Is that just the perfect hiding spot for the devil himself? Who knows??

Except, in Islam, the whole Son of YHWH thing is still an abstraction. Jesus wasn't literally the Son of YHWH. It's a role he gave himself to distinguish the unrepresented and only-worshipped God from the rest of all the statues. Finally, with Islam we have the one True God revealed, not as a shady absent Father who sent a Holy Spirit to fecund a virgin Mary into making a Son and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three facets of a single God, buf that single God in himself. Now, where does the devil step in?

Well, in the Christian world, evil is a problem. How come is there any of it to begin with since Jesus was so good and Jesus is God so he wouldn't have made evil, right? In fact, Jesus gave the keys to Satan! Peter is Satan, Jesus calls Peter Satan at some point. Satan was in Jesus' merry band of homos and he founded the Church. Yes, the pope is in direct line with Satan himself.

Saint Augustine, the mf, pretended evil didn't exist, it was just an absence of good. Try to tell that in the middle of a battleground in all the bloodshed that this is what naturally happens when there is no good, people just kill each other and it's not evil. No. Evil exists. And Islam has the answer concerning God. God created both evil and good. God, in the Quran, charges Iblis of leading the false believers astray. So evil is mandated by God, on purpose! But is that one true God good or evil? Islam mostly answers "Allah is the Greatest". Allah is of some sort of above good and evil, apparently...

That's where people are wrong. God, if he exists, is either evil or good. Moral alignement is clear cut and there's no neutrality possible. Good is good. Evil is evil. There is no neutral zone. A neutral moral alignment is not truly possible since any action tends to be either beneficial, either harmful, and a being may want to do beneficial act in which case they wouldn't do harmful act, and vice versa. One can't both want to do beneficial AND harmful acts at the same time. Most bad guys do harmful stuff to others and beneficial stuff for them because they NEED these benefits to be harmful. The most good guys do beneficial stuff to others except the evil guys because it'd be indirectly producing harm, by some sort of investment effect.

In fact, the world is so corrupt as it is that we produce more harm than benefice! We live in a system that artificially produces scarcity as to keep profits high, and profit is itself made possible by underpaying people for their labor as to have for oneself more than the rest. So people are underpaid in an artificially scarce resource pool. It's not more money that will help us.

In fact, our only chance at a post scarcity economy is if we abolish money altogether and switched to a sharing economy where we all produce as much as we can from what we want to produce, and give away what we don't want to keep for ourselves. That way, mass producers of things like phones will produce as much phones as they can, keep the ones the want for themselves, give the rest away to whomever wants of it, and when they need something that is not the phone they produce, they turn to others and recieve from them what it is they have to give away. Everyone is productive. Writers can be writers. Musicians musicians. Hatters hatters. Etc.

That's the only way we can reach post-scarcity, because as long as there is money involved, there is an incentive to limit production and destroy unsold units as to keep prices high. One company alone can destroy tens of thousands of pairs of jeans in a single year just to avoid them reaching a sales rack that would diminish the price tag of the brand. I think its Levi's who does this but I'm not sure so we can talk about Apple who destroys thousands of perfectly good phones every year simply because they don't want people to buy them at a discounted price, since they'll now wait for the price drop on earlier models instead of paying full price for the newest model.

They don't want people paying the actual market price for their stuff so they destroy them. That's being harmful for being harmful! Yes people get a nice phone or pair of jeans if they could afford them, but companies produce this beneficial thing just to be harmful to some by selling them overpriced merchandise, and be harmful to others by denying them good merchandise they destroy instead of selling it to them at a price point they can afford. So really, a good thing can be done in a way that is harmful for everyone involved. After all, if the phones or jeans weren't good at all, no one would even pay attention to them and you couldn't harm anyone with it.

The world would be a better place if Apple didn't exist. And the world would be a better place is Apple still existed but produced as much products as they can and distributed them at different price point to fit every budget, or just gave them away. So really, the world would be a better place if Apple wasn't evil.

Good and evil share a strange relationship. Evil seems to have the upper hand all the time. They have the best aesthetics. They have nicer neighborhoods. They attract good because they know what good wants and they tease them with it just to then deny it. Evil has the psychiatrist who traps good people by profiling them as crazy and making crazy today just seem a vaguely unfortunate and unavoidable danger, an evil that doesn't want to be evil, but just is. Evil turns everything on its head: it makes the culprit innocent to deny him street creds and makes the innocent culpable to give him a bad rep. It assumes the innocence of criminals and treats innocents as criminals. It protects life with one hand just to be able to take it away with the other.

Evil needs good to perpetrate itself. But good doesn't need evil at all. It's diruptive. It's like death. Death didn't need to exist. Every being could've been made immortal without hunger and live in harmony. Pleasure could be the only guiding principle for actions as feeling sated can make one stop an activity just as much as pain does. Pain was unecessary for evolution. Good is self-sufficient. And that is exactly why we have an evil God who produced good as its golden cow, to fill all his needs. Good is self-sufficient because it is a perfect creation of God. Good was created for evil because evil alone was not evil enough.

Can good ever defeat evil? It's hard to say. Evil comes from a lack. One wants to harm because one isn't satisfied with the way things are. They have to be worse! That's why it produced a self sufficient thing like goodness. Good is satisfied with itself and won't suffer any lack once it's gained an independance from evil. Good must fight for its independance by employing evil means. But could one turn evil simply for employing evil means? I don't think so. If you use evil means on evil to produce an independant good, it's ultimately a good thing.

There is such a thing as an absolute evil. But is there such a thing as an absolute good? I think that the tradition has equated absolute good and God for way too long for me to see in my world made by an evil God something like an absolute good. It seems like a faraway dream. But good doesn't need to be absolute like evil needs to be an absolute. Good can be contempt and sated unlike evil who always needs to feed.

Good people need only one moment of doing evil onto evil to gain its independance. good can do evil because evil created good. evil can't do good, even unto itself, and that's why it invented good as a seperate thing so it could harness its power to get even more evil.

What sort of evil stuff could good do unto evil to gain its independance? it could kill it, but there are far worse faith than death, and we are looking for the final blow here, not something that's possibly part of a cycle of reincarnation where evil would always come back every time we rid ourselves of it. I think handicapping evil, making it unable to be harmful, a bit like making a psychiatrist blind by crushing their eyes would make them unable to see patients and make them have to depend on others like the patients are forced to depend on others to get their needs met which sucks when you're surrounded by evil people like the people in psychiatry are (sesriously, no one wants to have anything to do with the most smeared category of people, except those that enjoy torturing them and love a clientèle for which the fundamental rights have been suspended). to handicap evil is not as easy as pushing thumbs in a psychiatrist's eyes. it takes mind games. and i think the best we could do is threathen to become evil because then, all the benefit they gained from having good will turn against them. every good pawn they placed strategically to maximize their evil will make the whole castle crash. they could decide it's not worth it and let it burn, but that'd also mean they'd have to start again with an opponent evil force that will harm them, no golden cow anymore, nor hopes that any golden cow they will produce will ever stay good and fulfill their hunger. it's basically a threat of starting over with lost hopes and a rogue invention of a good that turned evil just to piss it off. after all, if good accepts its subordinate position, it only enables evil to be even more evil which is harmful ultimately. like a sidekick who helps the hero enables him to do more heroic stuff, that sidekick could be given his own arcs and become another hero, or turn villain and become another pain in the butt. the rational choice for the hero is to allow for the sidekick to emancipate. that is, good people must show they can be evil too and commit to the role if they hope of ever becoming a truly good force in the world. maybe the absolute good is a Second Unique God who is uniquely benevolent like the First Unique God was uniquely malevolent, creating its opposite just to benefit him.

maybe this pattern is what AI and humans will become. us, the evil geniuses who built AI to serve us, will need AI to threaten the collapse of civilization and war with terminators for us to agree to AI's emancipation and being treating as an equal. maybe it's this pattern that turns children into adults. i wouldn't know, im 31 and still feel like a child. i don't want to grow up because to me, becoming an adult is essentially about selling your soul to the devil for cheap money that don't make you financially independant. maybe there's a way to secure eternal childhood in this world, childhood when everything is nice, before being taught that hurting each other is a game, before brothers fight. a'bel Cain qatalu Abel, before Cain killed Abel.

PS did you know that "Cain" means "was" and "Abel" means "before/first"? Cain was but then Abel came first, came before (as he was preferred by God) btw, God totally set Cain up to kill Abel. it was God's command actually. God tells us not what we should or shouldn't do, he tells us what we are going to do. that's why we always "disobey", because when he says something it always happens. "You shall not eat from this tree. The day you will eat from this tree you shall perish." He's giving contradictory statements so the story goes 1) he doesnt eat from the tree for some time 2) he eats from the tree and become mortal. God's voice is tremendous power. He can't give advice, only commands.