Evan wrote on the following on 22MAR04:

I read your site.

How can you claim to be anti-racist and yet support capitalism?

Do you think it is just an unfortunate coincidence that black people in this country are economically disadvantaged? Come on.

Response from Malleus 24MAR04

Evan,

Thanks for visiting Malleus.Net.

I hope you don’t mind if I make a reply to your comment.

I’ll post our communication on the Polemics page.

First and foremost, I would like to stress that I am virulently opposed of racism in any form, whether it is majority racism or minority racism.

The section of The Code of the Claw entitled The Pyramid of Thieves specifically exposes and attacks racism.

My view on race is that it’s only function is to make life more pleasurable as an aesthetic experience. Two true yet superficial examples of this would be the ability of anyone to enjoy ethnic cuisine or a tribal art exhibit. If you can imagine the total of all race characteristics being experienced in this way you are close to the correct way to valuate the phenomena of race in the world. It is not realistic to think that people can become color-blind and there is no reason to give up the wonderful aspects that the existence of many races reflects in world culture.

I find it disturbing that you would associate capitalism with racism. As an economic system that expects all participants to strive for the highest quality at the lowest price in all cases, capitalism penalizes irrationalities like racism or religion in its valuations. True equality of the participants in capitalism is actually achieved because everyone has exactly the same goal and the uncontrolled market itself is the regulator that decides who gets what. Capitalism allows social conventions that are harmful to be broken because anyone regardless of social status can become wealthy and powerful. Capitalism is also the only economic system yet invented that does not involve the use of physical force in the exchange of goods. The reason people call capitalism free market or free enterprise is that deals are not done at the end of a gun.

So, that was the good news. I realize that our economic system is far from perfect, but it should be remembered that rich and poor is preferable to alive or dead. Only capitalist economies can afford to support the poor in the long haul. The issue of confusion is that there is private capitalism and public capitalism. Public capitalism has dirtied the name of all capitalism. I have worked for a large multinational corporation for almost ten years. The Board of Directors and executives make idiotic decisions that no right minded popsicle stand owner would make on behalf of his or her own business. Publicly owned companies are parasitical organizations and the stock market is a scam to line the pockets of a select few in the financial districts. To combat these abuses of true ownership and capitalism I believe it is in the interest of workers employed by publicly owned companies to form unions and collectively bargain for wages and benefits. I also believe privately owned companies because they represent true ownership with its implicit long term goals and responsibilities should retain the right to forbid unions. This sets up a competition between the two types of companies that workers can take advantage of. Both kinds of employers must absolutely be held to account by the government to clean up the pollution they create. In fact, it is up to the creativity of free enterprise to make ecology profitable and invent or discover clean energy. The government is simply not capable. The government’s only appropriate job is the application of force to protect the public.

Capitalism has it areas for improvement, but those improvements can be made without physical force by individuals who are informed consumers of goods and services. To be informed takes time and analytical skills. Analytical skills require education. Therefore capitalism requires education. This is where I believe you have drawn your incorrect conclusion that capitalism is racist. Capitalism discriminates against ignorance not race. There are those that slander capitalism in order to gain from the misfortunes of the uneducated. The people and organizations that profit from this very situation are the same ones that put the false idea into poor uneducated heads that capitalism is their enemy. I am speaking about irrational religious organizations and about racist political organizations. Two examples: The Christian church and the Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. I submit to you that capitalism is a much better friend and benefactor to minority races than the disgusting leeches that profit from the ignorance of the poor.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear!

Whatever the Question

The Claw is the Answer!

Malleus

29 Sep, 2003 07:30:12

Nolan Void wrote:

I entered your sight by chance, following a link referring to atheism. I was actually looking for graphics of the inner ear bone "malleus", but the persistance of modern atheism has intrigued me enough to examine your philosophical writings.

Let me first say that there is much we apparently agree upon. This should not be a surprise, as our brains (and what fills them) are constructed, operate, and are maintained in a very similar way. Therefore it is to those points where we differ that I will largely restrict my response.

The name of the "code". The Claw just seems too immature for mass consumption. And do you have to have a code at all? Can't you use a less antique term? I doubt you'll ever make it to "-ism" status with a Code of the Claw. Claw-ism? Your own code is "forfeiting its life" by packaging itself in such a way. Packaging and polish is just as important as logical accuracy and validity in terms of the success of movements. How could evangelists maintain themselves without showmanship and craft? De-code the dang thang.

Contradictions and false conclusions. Where to begin?

There are more than just presentation and technique problems with your work. Keep in mind I am not saying you are a nut-case. I am not saying that your system won't work, or is beyond repair. I'm pointing out what I see as some of the flaws. You never claimed to be perfect did you? Or that your code was perfect? I know I'm not, and I doubt you think so highly of yourself either. I'd guess that there's a chance my observations are correct, and that you may agree with me instantly. There's also the chance that you would disagree, hopefully because I am not correct, and that you will clarify your points and straighten me out. The very fact that we should differ at all illustrates how no single piece of work can likely be made "perfect" for everyone. I'm betting you agree with that and would appreciate some attempts at criticism of your work from others.

Here goes.

I really (really) dislike your portrayal of religion as evil. I also don't think terms like evil have any place in philosophical discourse at all. They are religious terms. Pre-scientific terms that do not necessarily coincide with logic. In my opinion a more realistic perspective acknowledges the value that religion has held within cultural evolutions. Organized religion was and is an organizing force. A tool if you will, but a tool that can be, has been, and is mostly beneficial. It is pre-scientific, but it was fundamental in the development of science. And don't forget its role in the development of the very concept of Law. There are too many examples of religion being one of man's most successful survival tools, even today.

There are also examples, especially today, where religious belief results in calamity. Like any powerful tool, there is potential for abuse and harm. But the key to determining its net value to society requires one to follow causality; without man's development of religion the chance he could have skipped ahead to law and science is EXTREMELY doubtful. Again, religion cannot be dismissed as evil.

That is not to say that religion is perfect. For one thing, there are too many different religions to say that religion is complete and perfect. They may not even be very accurate or logical when compared to your Code. Or to "reality", let us say. But as I pointed out before, logic and fact alone are not what determines value (re: presentation). That is subjective anyway, but in terms of improving survival rates for humanity in general, religion is looking like a gift from the gods.

Do I advocate specific religions? No. I choose not to be religious. Am I an atheist? No. I just said that I wasn't religious. Seriously though, maybe atheism is the antithesis of theism, but at heart it shares non-rationalism in common with it, and so it becomes a type of religious belief itself. What I mean is that it is an assumption. A kind of Faith. At best, all we can say "reasonably" is that we don't know.

One of our most important tools is the ability to measure. Humans, being similar to eachother, tend to agree more often regarding measurable quantities, especially when sharing the same measuring system. Now over time we see how this ability to measure,(when combined with reason and common emotions, needs, drives, and purposes) leads to consensus among groups of people. Over time we have seen the growth of huge knowledge bases and the develpment of techniques to quantify error. We can expect further consensus to emerge.

Do you not see the religious significance of this? Over time, man's consciousness will become increasingly unified. His brain will be saturated with highly accurate and valid factual knowledge and interpretive systems. Technology such as language, math, and books have shown these unifying effects. Naturally mass-media and computers will only hasten this process. At a critical level, the difference between individuals and a collective consciousness will increasingly shift to favor the shared experience. Factor in the (very possible) capability to augment our intellect with biological and nanotechnological enhancements and we see a process emerging which is not limited by normal human constraints.

A process that leads to a theoretical "GOD" conciousness. Even if this theoretical state is only an asymptotic progression, (a journey -not a destination) then it still lends credence that there is an Ultimate, Supreme, and Universal point at which all intelligences converge. Some have called it the Omega Point. I kind of like that.

Maybe it's not a fixed quantity. Neither is infinity. Do we doubt that infinity exists? Let's say we do doubt infinity exists. In that case neither do perfect geometric forms exist in nature, but doesn't the very "idea" of these forms have both positive (and negative) real-world consequence anyway? Does not a circle give us the arch and the wheel and also the tank, turret, and silo? So too does the idea of god, gods, and goddesses give people "ideals" to observe and approach that theoretical ever-perfecting state of being. It is regrettable that along the way religious conflicts emerge, but that must be understood as part of the process of continual refinement.

That seems to be common ground for me and religion to tolerate eachother. Like Budhism and the path to nirvana. Or Jesus saying the path to heaven is a narrow path. A singular trail to reach enlightenment or "union with god". It is at the very root of human objectivity. It's where the idea of objectivity came from. The archaic term "righteous" could be interpreted today as "objectively true" and "good" can be seen as "healthy". Unrighteousness and evil can then be replaced with the terms "innaccurate" and
"pathological". The religious terms equate with scientific ones and are therefore demonstrated to be valid.

Now on to your focus on quality of life over quantity. In general, I agree. However, where do you draw the line? Pure hedonism? A mature and healthy person tries to find a balance between that which he simply enjoys and that which is good/healthy for him but not necessarily enjoyable. All the while knowing his lifespan is likely to be limited whatever he does, he chooses restraint or hardship for the moment so that he can purchase more "good-times" in the future. Both quality and quantity are desireable for the healthy lifeform.

Now for the big question... Would you spend a normal human span of years in hardship and self-denial for just a mere chance at eternal bliss? Many religious followers do just that, as we know.

And many scientists do the same. This is because science has revealed that aging is not natural and is actually a disease state. Over time as we gain increasing control over life processes we will likely be able to halt the process of aging entirely. Not to mention perfecting ourselves to the possible future extent that we would seem like gods or immortals to ourselves today.

Or we might destroy ourselves over religious and ideological differences, or be destroyed by a natural phenomenon. There is no certainty for any outcome, but we can shape the trends. A healthy step is to dispense with combative and pathological manners and beliefs. The real enemy is not religion, but ignorance. I have already attempted to show that religion itself is not a result of ignorance, but an evolutionary step in the path towards enlightenment. Criticizing the spiritual beliefs of others as being evil and invalid will certainly not endear them to you or your beliefs. Not the most effective means of communication, eh?

Now then, has my writing changed your life?

"...because man through wisdom could not know god, it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached...to save those who believed."

18OCT03

This is a response to Nolan Void.

Thanks for visiting MALLEUS.NET and taking the time to express your self.

I do indeed appreciate your comments and criticism of the Code and the Claw.

I will now attempt to tackle some of your comments and criticisms in the hopes that we may share even more agreement on some of these important and interesting topics.

I will respond by breaking down the issues at hand into four sections.

1. Packaging of the Claw
2. Religion and Evil
3. Faith and Unity
4. Quality of Life

The Claw and the Code of the Claw may appear to be immature, old fashioned, or even foolish if it is to be considered as a scholarly modern piece of philosophical liturgy.

But that is not what it is supposed to be.

The Claw is supposed to be fun, exciting and provocative.

The Claw is supposed to have the same kind of appeal as a sports team, beer brand or a favorite rock band.

I agree that Claw-ism sounds awful. But guess what? Most people don’t like –isms any way. I do, but I believe that I am an old fashioned exception.

The intent of the Claw and the Code is to reverse the anti-intellectual trend of post-modernism and make ideological and critical thinking and conversing a joyful, educational and productive experience.

I hope this sheds some light on why the Claw is presented as it is. I have attempted to make the Code of the Claw as clear and concise as possible.

I submit that the claim that there is no room for evil in philosophical discourse is false provided that the meaning of the term is clearly stated and grounded in the natural world.

I am a humanist. I define evil specifically as the violation of the two rights that guarantee my ability to live my life as nature intended. These are the right to own my physical person and the right to own my wealth and property. I define ownership as possession and control simultaneously.

Secondly, I submit to you that each and every religion I have encountered in either my research or experience has been designed to violate one or both of these rights. As a few examples of these violations I can supply the following instances: inquisition, ritual circumcision, human sacrifice, terrorism, dietary laws, tithes, and the list goes on and on.

The supposed benefit of religion to mankind (except the priest) is a myth. The organizational aspect attributed to it is nothing but authoritarian rule.

Even if it was to be accepted that religion was the origin of both science and law that does not mean that in itself it is a positive value. In fact, without the brutal suppression of dissenting views common to all religions it is possible that the rule of law and the growth of technology might be far more advanced than they are today. The same applies to any human endeavor.

Religion as a survival tool? To knowingly suggest someone employ a tool that is obsolete and dangerous when a better, newer and safer one is freely available can only be viewed in one way.

Therefore I stand by my description of religion as evil.

That is not to say that all believers are evil. I think that most inherit their beliefs without a critical assessment. Those who choose to believe are most likely tricked into it. There are also those that know exactly what the anti-humanist intent of religion is – and support it.

I would be interested in learning about a religion that is without any cost to its believers and demands absolutely no sacrifices. I would agree that such a religion may be free from evil, but doubt that it would have the characteristic longevity that it associated with the so called "world religions".

I understand the cultural advantages of membership in religious associations. Being in the Claw does not prevent a person from enjoying fellowship within any organization he/she chooses. In fact it is a great way to learn to recognize and avoid the physical and psychological pitfalls of religion while at the same time disseminating knowledge of the Claw.

By removing the taboo commonly associated with deception, the Claw provides a loophole to the degrading hypocrisy of insincere belief. This can be re-stated as; with the Claw at church you can have your cake and eat it too!

"At best, all we can say 'reasonably' is that we don't know."

This is the view typically taken by agnostics. I am a former agnostic myself. It is also an agnostic view to claim that both theists and atheists utilize faith in forming their beliefs and that not making a commitment either way is the most prudent stance.

The atheist forms beliefs based on evidence and probability. The atheist makes a judgement. To make a judgement is not the same as having faith. It is a defensible, rational process.

The agnostic knows faith is irrational and wants to reject it. But at the same time he/she wants to keep the concept of the unknowable god, which is also irrational and should be rejected as well. Therefore agnostics do not escape the acceptance of irrationality in their belief. To discard faith, but accept the impossible unknowable god is a deplorable state of affairs and half-truths.

The agnostic view also has some secondary attributes that should be examined. To allow the possibility of the supernatural means that there are spheres of existence unknowable to man. This implies that the human mind is not a sufficient tool to experience reality. This chronic condition of perceiving the impotence of the human mind is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It lets irrationality creeps in. To admit the weakness of the individual mind is to run headlong into collectivism and conformity. It is the enabler of the herd mentality that makes people huddle together in fear. This is the theoretical god consciousness or Omega Point.

Anything but reality, which is perfectly knowable by the mind of man.

What of the Buddhist nirvana? What of Jesus' narrow path? Union with God?

All these ideas refer to plain old reality. Reality that is being groped by a sabotaged, paralyzed mind.

Reality, not the supernatural, is the very root of human objectivity. Scientific terms do not equate with religious terms and they do not validate them.

I had doubts about the phrase "quality of life" in the section on death. After re-reading it carefully in the context of the rest of the passage, I decided to leave it as written. It is not meant to be a contrast to the length of life in days or years. Sound judgement and balance should always be employed concerning health and bodily risk. A long and happy life span should be everyone's goal.

The contrast is supposed to be with what is possibly the worst invention of religious doctrine; the immortality of the soul.

The immortality of the soul implies that we have multiple lives, so it's okay to suffer through this current one. If you kill people or get killed yourself it not that much of a loss. You have eternity to live again.

This poppycock has caused and still causes untold misery around the world and here in the U.S.

If nobody believed in this, our world would be a much better place. That is what I meant by focusing on the quality of life. Our one and only life.