Saturday, 17 December 2016

The Absolute and The Relative

Watching Tom Cruise we understand that everyone has good and bad moments in their profession, and therefore also in their lives. I now think that we suffer from a syndrome, like we, as a race, do. We think that all has to be absolute and the thought that all has to be absolute ruins our every critical moment, what then frequently leads to our failure in general in that single life or incarnation we have at hand. Hyde and Priest, in that 2000, wanted The Sorites to be solved in an almost mathematical way. Since such was not possible, they started saying that the problem (first of all, why was that a problem) had no solution. I always say the obvious: All is interconnected. Whatever we spread in Academia will probably become the law outside of it, and if we then spread that all is relative, say if we ever spread Ontological Paraconsistency, people are going to be what they are now: Nobody. The how does not matter, they frequently attack others in the most coward and disloyal way as possible, if they have something outstanding, whatever they have does not seem to be deserved if they are oppressors, and whatever they get seems not to be deserved, in terms of what is bad, if they are oppressed, especially suffering atrocity, etc. What we have is a world of complete inversion, what modern psychologists decided to call schizoid: What is declared is frequently the opposite to all that happens, so that the government and the media preach that maximum compliance leads to happiness and fulfillment, but it is only non-compliance that can possibly lead to happiness, even because in compliance you cannot even live or exist, you would be like my mother, me, Jayme or my grandmother, that is, you would be enduring highest possible levels of coward aggression, violence, and crime your entire life, that would definitely happen in your most critical years, the years during which the person usually has more sex, produces more, etc. The government and the media preach that the authorities for law and order in First World have close-to-zero mistake in assessment and application of the rules. In practice, the mistakes are in huge number, and frequently lead to the criminal extermination of any piece of chance that someone like me or my mother can express their potential in practice at any stage of their lives. 

The point was about the relative and the absolute however: I personally think that Cruise does drugs, and every drug addict would have ups and downs in way more number than any clean person. I am not so sure we can measure the performance of all people on earth based on the fact that he has ups and downs. Brazil had a couple of actors, which now could replace Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as role models in my head in terms of marriage, due to several facts of life. Everyone in Brazil seemed to think that Tarcisio Meira and Gloria Menezes were faithful, model of true couple, despite having acting as a main career during the term of their lives. I actually don't remember having watched a play or a movie or a soap opera where they failed in their acting, where a bad piece of acting was noticed. They don't do drugs, and I think I am sure about that. I don't think I would have had not even one bad piece of performance in my career in research if never attacked criminally, if never suffering disloyalty of any sort, especially as huge as what I endure since the end of 2001. I do think people who don't do drugs and who are not promiscuous, who are not marginals, and who do not cheat to become part of a profession usually have a stable line in terms of performance, and, if anything, it goes up, not down and up. I once more would like to see academic research, done in the rigors of Science, involving God's teachings and performance in life, but my intuition definitely points at God's people, those who follow what I have consistently called Common Core, having either a flat or an inclined-upward line in terms of performance in their lives if they don't suffer disloyalty of any kind or if they mostly don't suffer disloyalty or if they don't suffer huge disloyalty, such as violation of human rights. I am totally convinced, since early in life forced to observe human subjects, that if we do what our God has instructed us to do, the Common Core, we will always have the largest amount of happy subjects on earth, and also the best personal outcome. It is a lot of sacrifices, which include not doing drugs, not being promiscuous, for an impressively beautiful outcome in terms of race, world, and even personal history. God does bless those who follow His Common Core, in my humblest, provided the demoniac are not around, but if we follow His Common Core, those should be killed in a way that we always have a chance against them. I deeply believe God personally instructed me via inspiration, so that I would tell First World people, natural people, to exterminate Rio de Janeiro still in 2001, to the last trace, as I did. I am not guilty they destroyed us instead, since I did my assigned share, I passed the message. Who failed, and failed badly, letting the entire human kind down, not only me, was Judith Cook, Cameron Plant, Trevor Skinner, on a first level. That just proves that we can't really tolerate non-God's people on earth. I did not know they were not God's people, since it is assumed that everyone who is authority for law and order has passed God's scrutiny: That is the declared intent we have with democracy. Even though Democracy means government for the people by the people, all the laws THE PEOPLE would have chosen reflect The Common Core, so that, in the end, we are following God's lead in terms of theory. God still tells us what to do, it is just that He does not do that in an explicit way, as it was in the past, anymore. As far as we know, Jesus was the last human being to directly communicate with God. Perhaps God dies there, just like the Hollywoodian movie we had, involving Nicolas Cage, if I remember well, because He chose human life over heavenly, and we then start a new era: The era of angels, spirits, ghosts, etc. That is why God now speaks via inspiration only to those who follow Him. And, in doing so, He clearly instructed The First World Natural People, born speaking English, as I am sure I told Trevor had to be the case, to exterminate cariocas, Rio de Janeiro, so that all that has come over human kind as a  curse, and especially over my person and my mother, was supposed to never have happened. 

If we come with The Absolute again, we will say that God cannot commit any mistake, and therefore He could not have given such an important message to me, since I would either not be heard or not be heard properly by human kind. If we come with The Relative, we will say that I was the best amongst us, the one with the purest heart, and my human judgment had chosen Australians, its native people, as the closest to God that year. It may sound like science fiction: There was a movie with Keanu Reaves where he decides on our destiny, human kind's destiny, for being an envoy of the outer space people who was here to assess things on his own. It may also sound pathetic, like why would God trust my judgement when He is God? Why would the outer space people trust Keanu's judgement when they are what they are? Perhaps all is relative and has to then be seen in terms of comparison with something else... . 

This thought of relativity is perhaps good to bring us consolation however. I think I am sure it is possible, in an absolute manner, to always act in a way to be righteous, so that following the Common Core is not an impossible task. I think I am absolutely sure that that is the best personal and global outcome we can get whilst humans, so that it is something that we would like to impose to each other. That is an almost absolute in my mind. I won't say absolute simply because we have not done proper research yet, perhaps using the hands of the atheists. Notwithstanding, if we are biased for believing God at any expense, they are biased for not believing God at any expense, so that we perhaps should have skeptics or agnostics doing this sort of research to get best results. One of my current projects, which I end up having exclusively because of the nature and amount of crimes I endure now for full 15 years, is called Your Mother Tongue is Helping Me. I think we are millennia behind in Science because we are letting precisely the opposite to God's people lead it: People like me suffer even atrocity to be out of it, but the promiscuous, the godless, the drug addicts, the psychopathic, they are all inside with comfort and feeling as if they are true gods, above every rule and law. Science is lost for nothing else: Absolute disrespect for God's instructions to us. Yet, God's instructions is wisdom, and wisdom that is verifiable, easily verifiable as wisdom. We are silly and rebel against wrong things. I don't think we have to do scientific research to conclude the obvious: people who are clean, in all senses, will hold a much higher propensity of never committing a mistake in Science, people who believe God will hold a much higher likelihood of having the right attitude before research, research findings, fellows, superiors, laws, etc. (humble), and people who are into community living, and therefore believe the Common Core, will hold a much higher likelihood of even willing to improve this world, time, age, and society. If you do proper and unbiased research, however, you will see that harassers are on top of research everywhere on earth. Drug addicts are employed in Academia in place of people like me or my mother. The promiscuous are there, together with them, occupying our vacancies. Certain things are very logical: If you smoke, you will get distracted with your addiction, you will frequently bring pollution and injury to the health of others, and you are self-destroying, therefore acting irrationally by default. That is just smoking, imagine at your own will impairing your senses, your basic tools for Science, with drugs or alcohol? If you are a radical, so say Islamic, communist, monarchist, etc., how can you possibly like conversing, debating, and all that is basic for the progress of Science? Priest was there, at UQ, one of the greatest Australian universities ever, exhibiting a communist flag during work hours inside of his office, which was super attended by students and others. That was Philosophy. We cannot deny the basics we know about life. Whatever we observe around us during the term of our lives has to be the truth in general. Science exists perhaps to make sure we are not having a biased set of observations, but that has to be the truth if we are sincere with ourselves. Who is a radical that can really converse? It is not Islam or Catholicism, it is the concept of religion in general that will split us. All of them. To be able to be in Science and still hold the premises defended by any of those religions, we have to start saying at least that we are mostly Catholic or Islamic. We cannot ever say we are one or the other in full. That would have to determine that you cannot be in Science, unfortunately. When we have to be radical, we are not: No declared Islamic, Catholic, Atheist or anything like that can be in Science. They would have to be at most mostly that, never absolutely that, quite sincerely. No person who is in favor of drugs can be in Science because, first of all, Science has proven that they are harmful or it would not be in our law to stop them. No person who is in favor of promiscuity could be in Science because, once more, first of all, our Science has proven that that is unhealthy in all senses. A few of the most important things that promiscuity leads to is absence of creativity and triviality, disease, and non-community living. Whoever is promiscuous cannot like people in general or the happiness of all beings, for that is the intents of our laws and rules: They have been created for best outcome for society in general. We have decided for faithful marriage. That is also the Common Core, that is, the common factor in the life of all biblical characters we respect as God's people. I lost my perfect career in Science, the most productive ever seen on earth if never violated criminally by anyone else, for an Islamic woman, Asha Baliga. It was nothing but her religion that made this all possible. I am absolutely sure. Judith Cook blamed an Indian woman from EOC VIC for all that has happened to me, therefore another Islamic woman. If Islam were something good, we would never suffer crime or violation of human rights because of it, since, once more, our laws, in the democratic countries, were chosen to protect our rights and our rights must be protected for our maximum happiness and achievement, this considering our race as a whole. Huge part of the problems I had at VUT had to do with Raj, the IT person, a man who was Islamic. Who threatened me most explicitly and all of a sudden, was Gani Abdulah, an Islamic man, this there, at VUT. Who was acting with sexism and crime at all times was George Hannah, who is not a person to declare himself Islamic, who probably does not do drugs, but, if asked, he would probably say he defends promiscuity. Who finished with my life in general and is attacking my rights overseas since 2000 is Agnella Ricci Terra, a woman who is addicted to nicotine. Who finished with my life in general and is attacking my rights in Australia since 2001 is Bradley Paul Neal, who was a drug addict. I never wanted to mix with any person who had any addictions my entire life on earth: I don't have them and I also don't understand them, especially to the point of accepting that they are addicts. Yet, I am forced to these people, in the same way I was forced to Islamic, terrorist, promiscuous, communist, and other sorts of animals, let's say, in what should be the most selective environment of all, Academia. If I only had contact with those of my choice, that is, non-promiscuous, addictions-free, non-radicals, I would never ever have suffered heavy abuse, believe it or not. I don't understand and don't accept, since at most the end of my 7th year in slavery in democracy, First World, capitalism, where they sign for human rights, the presence of this people where I go. There had to be a limit for inclusiveness, and I deeply believe there is no worse mistake than accepting the life of Jesus Christ, its existence, and his preaching in the way we see in the Bible. Once I read a piece of news where the dentist had been contaminated with the HIV for not refusing to serve a patient who had AIDS. A drop of the infected blood came over his slightly open wound or his mouth and he got infected. There had to be a limit for inclusiveness. Why would they not accept studying, living, and working with their alike if what they do is not demoniac? If they claim to be acceptable and harmless, why can't they stick to themselves, first of all? If they are all harmless, and defend that they are equal to the non-demoniac, why can't they do things only amongst themselves? Why would they ever need us?  I fear that Logic leads us to use the same arguments they used to include blacks in white societies, promiscuous in non-promiscuous societies, drug addicts in non-drug addicts societies, and Islamic in non-Islamic societies to exclude them from those, and that would be the only solution for people like me, God's people, and therefore top producers, top achievers, people of highest levels of wisdom, discernment and compliance. 

Perhaps people should just stick to what they formally promise: I was promised a world that would reward people like me and my mother to maximum degree. Instead we are punished in highest degree almost since birth, perhaps even before that. Rewarded to maximum, even to the point of having my only life and body to use in my place for extraordinary 15 years so far, this in democracy, capitalism, where they sign for human rights, is the demoniac instead. Perhaps what they call absolute and radical, in terms of human world, is simply what should be done, quite sincerely. 

I don't know Tom Cruise from close, from normal living, but I know he knows of all I endure since at most 2007 from the perspective of eye witness and he could have stopped all, saving me in full, already in that 2007 by using 5 minutes of his TV time, by simply telling all on TV, all he saw me enduring. That makes me sure that a major sin he commits or has committed, which is doing to others what you don't wish upon you. I then infer that each, and every, one of these low ranked performances he had in his career were due to a major sin, so say promiscuity or polluting his body, God's home, intentionally, say with drugs, or even having intimacy with another man. I think these things can, and should, be proven because the unfaithful, the incredulous, and the atheist can probably be stopped from actually becoming such if having access to those pieces of evidence, and God's people are frequently weakened by pity on these inferior creatures. The more of them we can include, the better, so the more scientific evidence we can produce in the right direction, the better. Please don't get confused, I mean ethical scientific evidence, as said before, not biased. Facts are very clear to me and to whoever belongs to God. It is nothing but unethical Science, irresponsible marketing and media that leads to us having the overall impression that it is precisely the opposite. 

To the record, we say that New Christianity (Edcast), The Empire of God, and things like that are religions, but they are actually philosophical movements instead. Whatever belief that allows for us to discuss things, to use rationality, is a philosophy instead. Religion does imply dogmas that are never discussed. 

Also, let me please clarify: When I say promiscuous, what I mean is a person who promises love to another somehow, so say they utter I love you or they say I am yours, and they effectively have intimacy with another. In this category would obviously be married and engaged people, but also people who go around introducing somebody as their partners and who live with another in a De Facto. If a person is single, lives on their own, and they have uncommitted sex with somebody who accepted that today and they then have uncommitted sex with somebody else tomorrow, that is not promiscuity, that is like a choice of social engagement and behavior. It perhaps becomes promiscuity when they are not trying to make permanent bonds with anyone, like, once more, you should go to bed only with people you think you can be with forever if all works, these are God's words. If you go to bed with them convinced that you cannot take them forever, then you are sinning, since giving the home of Our Lord to somebody else has to be a holy activity and holy means with love, love for yourself and love for The Father who gave you a healthy body, able to have sex, love for the community, so that it is all healthiest and most productive, and love for this world, since only top rationality can help earth. 

No comments:

Post a Comment