Dear diary,
You have heard that song that has that line at the beginning: “I want to be a part of it: New York, New York.” My question is: What exactly is New York aiming to do, that the singer wishes to be a part of? I think that it must be something bad, or else the place is failing at its goal.
Has anything good ever happened in history? Whenever I have been taught any historical development, it is spoken of as a progression; but it seems that everything could just as easily be explained from the opposite point of view: as a worsening.
I like the way that the indoor air of my house is conditioned to be comfortably cooler or warmer than the outdoor temperature; and I also like the way that modern plumbing delivers clean water while removing waste water: so those inventions that made these amenities possible were advancements. But immediately after I write that, I think of how the phrase “clean water” is not altogether factual. And then I think how difficult it is, in this era, to attain a house.
The world before Ancient Greece, and the world after Ancient Greece. The world before and after Ancient Rome.
It seems that people tend to be proud of their homeland. I live in the United States, and I hear United Statesians talk about this place as God’s gift to the planet. Is the post-U.S. world better than the pre-U.S. world?
Why did people who were born in Europe leave their native land for “The New India”? Is there a general answer that applies to most cases? Send some of those people to this café, where I am typing on my typewriter: I’d like to interview them.
Just now I sicced my typewriter upon the Internet Dictionary with the question: “What meaneth ‘motherland’?” and it spat back the definition “one’s native country.” Then I typed “What meaneth ‘fatherland’?” And it replied: “a person’s native country, especially when referred to in patriotic terms.” For some reason, that whole extra clause was included in the fatherland definition. Lastly, an online Encyclopedia came and said: “Patriotism is the feeling of love for one’s country.”
I mentioned people who left Europe voluntarily. (Is any action ever truly voluntary?) There were also people born elsewhere who ended up in the U.S. (The U.S. has an economic system.)
Bondage. Enslavement. Servitude. Subjugation. Thrall. Serfdom. Vassalage. Captivity.
It’s hard to retell the Bible’s history in a way that pleases everybody. Here’s how I see it: The god Yahweh hates slavery; so, when he finds the Israelites enslaved to Egypt, he rescues them. He tries to plant them in a new land. But the people rebel against being replanted, since they do not wish to cohabit with other nations: they would rather commit slaughter and eliminate the surrounding nations. So the god Yahweh slowly abandons them. The Israelites settle to a certain extent, yet before all of them have had a chance to take root in the new land, those who have established themselves begin enslaving their fellows. So, another empire comes and enslaves the Israelites. Who cares whether the name of the conquering empire is Assyria or Babylon – I just think of it as Egypt All Over Again. So it’s a sad story, moving from slavery to slavery, from Empire 1 to Empire 2. The brief interval of freedom was spent warring to amass riches, with the aim of enslaving others. They could have said “We were slaves in Egypt; let us therefore follow the way of our savior, the god Yahweh who rescued us, who is anti-slavery: let us flourish by living in peaceful harmony with others,” but instead they said, “One is either a slave or a master, let us be masters,” and it was like the adage “Live by the sword, die by the sword;” they escaped slavery, aimed to enslave, and got re-enslaved.
More people will disagree than agree with my above retelling. And they will be correct, if the text is to be trusted. I say the text is not to be trusted. For the history was written by the pro-slavery advocates. Or rather, parts were written by anti-slavery poets, other parts were written by others (from allies to opponents); but the entirety of the so-called sacred scriptures was ultimately edited into its final form by pro-slavery factions. That’s why it’s easy to cite verses from the Bible where the god Yahweh says things like “I am angry that you did not follow to the letter my command to murder every man, woman, infant, and beast in Place X; for this, I will punish you.” And elsewhere the scribes made their Yahweh say: “Slavery is OK, as long as you only do it to foreigners.” These teachings are evil, but they exist within the Bible, right alongside teachings that are good. How is this possible? Why doesn’t Yahweh come and clear up the confusion by saying what I Bryan say he should say: “I am against slavery in all forms.” ANSWER: Yahweh does not exist. Humans fabricated Yahweh.
Why speak of Yahweh at all, then? Why not discard him, as other atheists do? Because I’m attracted to the idea of revising Yahweh: I think it’s a healthy challenge, trying to make a bad god better. Why let the priests have all the fun? There’s no rule prohibiting anyone from participating. At least, no rule that we should obey. The priests warn me not to write; and I warn them not to write: we both break each other’s law. That’s fine; I forgive them. I side with the idea that says: “Censorship is not the antidote to mendacity: one remedies false speech with more speech, not with silence.”
The same thing happened to the Nazarene’s story, by the way: he himself was simply anti-slavery, but he was slain by the pro-slavery forces of his era; and that’s why they shifted the emphasis from his economic teachings to his blood sacrifice. For if people follow the Nazarene’s economic teachings, then slavery will become abolished; whereas if people fixate upon the martyr’s death, and look to a nonexistent afterlife for their reward, then the actual resources of this life – the only bliss that exists – shall remain in the power of the hoarding oppressors.
Now I regret writing “Yahweh does not exist.” If, by that name, we mean God, then I think we might someday realize the concept: bring Yahweh into existence. I think we should try. (And let us make it my good version of Yahweh, not the priests’ bad one.) But when I wrote what I wrote above, I was speaking of the “historical” Yahweh. So maybe I should have said: Yahweh no longer exists. He was probably somebody’s dad, once upon a time, but he has long been deceased. The real Yahweh was an above-average warrior. Maybe also a poet. Someone like Archilochus. And then just comb out everything you dislike about Archilochus, over the ages. Give him his own mountain. Fill it with lava. Make an help meet for him. Then, when the priests come and take his lady away, go and rescue her, and return her to Yahweh: “Here is your consort, Sir. We found her locked up in the castle of those who claim to be your intercessors.”
No comments:
Post a Comment