Why Does God Hate the Poor: Virus Supplemental Part III

The individual is in a dilemma: either he decides to safeguard his freedom of choice, chooses to use traditional, personal, moral, or empirical means, thereby entering into competition with a power against which there is no efficacious defense and before which he must suffer defeat; or he decides to accept technical necessity, in which case he will himself be the victor, but only by submitting irreparably to technical slavery. In effect he has no freedom of choice. — Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. Vintage Books: N.Y., N.Y. (1963) p. 84.

The new school epistemic agnosia of nihilism: the only certain or foundational knowledge you have is that you exist, you think, and want more than just existence. All else is unknowing, you know nothing else. These existential meanings are present in all words but precede the meanings of all words and thus are something of which in reality we cannot speak and of which we should be silent and thus are pragmatically meaningless. These existential meanings do serve as the implicit axioms or recursive meanings of all words and all language and of everything else pretending to be foundational knowledge. All such non-existential knowledge is uncertain at best and usually just made-up of socially constructed verbiage intended to hide there is no other foundational knowledge but only pragmatic knowledge and beliefs sometimes called truth for aesthetic effect and sometimes called normative or morality for the same aesthetic effect. At this point, you can accept what you are as you are and the world as it is: a slave can accept being a slave and make do, a king can just as easily and most likely even more easily accept being a king and make do, and so forth. This would be an optimistic nihilist. An existential nihilist would take the next step consisting of an act of will wanting more to life than just mere existence — a will to power. With this act of will, a slave would demand to be a king and a king would demand to be a god and all can demand love from a god or even from God, and so forth. It is this act of will that creates and leads to the struggle between the nihilist and existential reality which results in a life of absurdity and an existential choice that life either is worth living or is not worth living and what to do about that worth or lack thereof. As Orwell wrote in 1984, “[t]he choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better”. In summary, all you really know is that you do not know; ultimately, freedom may be just an illusion anyway, so the choice of being a technical slave is as viable, sound, and valid as choosing not to be one.

 
The first freedom of choice allowed a technical slave if they want it: choose to be one knowingly, intentionally, and holistically in the context of the indifference to the universe to your choice. Do not do it because it is the moral choice to make; because it is the ethical choice to make; because Divine Law requires it; because Natural Law requires it; because the law requires it; or for any other reason pretending your choice has ultimate normative value to anyone other than yourself. In the end, no one not even God cares, only you care — if you care. If the Room 101 prepared for you by Technological Society (TS) makes you happy and you want it, then live it and love it. Like Winston, look up and love Big Brother with a tear in your eye and be happy until the bullet enters your brain — it awaits all of us as would be made clear on this Easter Sunday by true believers if they were not too scared of Big Brother to go to church. If those who “truly” believe in a Resurrection can cowardly hide in the corner, the rest of us certainly can.

 
The second category of freedom allowed a technical slave if they want it: it is not to reject technical slavery because this is not allowed anyone in TS, but to hate it even to hate it with your whole heart, mind, and soul. You are a slave but that does not mean you have to like it and especially you do not have to love it. “To the end I grapple with thee; from Hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” You owe a duty to yourself to do what you have to do to survive as a slave if you want to survive and even to prosper as a slave if you want to prosper. You even have a legal duty to act as a slave so as to avoid going to jail. You even have an ethical duty to act as a slave because ethics is ruling class ideology and all present TS ruling class ideology requires you be a slave. However, you have no duty to be honest, skilled, happy, or anything “good” in your slavery; you have no moral duty, Divine Law duty; Natural Law duty; or any type of ultimate normative value duty to be a slave. You are one because you want to survive, prosper, and not go to jail. If something better comes along or you can get away with dishonesty, negligence, cheating, breaking the law, or anything in your duties as a slave, all without getting caught and punished by the Powers and gods of TS, then do it. In the end, it does not matter to anyone other than yourself. Even if there is a Resurrection, remember Christ died for all sinners as a criminal and outcaste Himself who only gave to Caesar the minimum the law required and no more, so you are still all set — except unlike Him hopefully you will be smart enough not to get caught. You have the ultimate freedom: to reject God or to accept God as He, She, or It is and not how They ought to be.

 
These two categories of freedom of choice and are the power that slaves have to continue class struggle and thus to continue history. They are not available to the Powers and gods of TS because their meaning in life is a purely self-served need for power: they must have a morality to force upon others; they must have an ethics to force upon others; they must have Divine Law, Natural Law, and all the other laws to force upon others. If in fact all authority comes from God, then in addition to their socially constructed gods, rules, and laws, they must also have God despite their aesthetically pleasing protests of the opposite. They cannot think holistically because the world and the universe revolves around them and their self-served need for the power of gods or of God. This is their only weakness. Not much of one but slaves must take what they can get and run with it.

 
Some will object that such nihilist morality is really just anarchy that will result in another world of Nazi and Communist extermination camps and global political and economic collapse. This nonsense admits to both a lack of understanding as to the nature of TS and a delusion as to the Heart of Darkness that is the substance of our nature. If history repeats itself and the conditions are ripe for Governor Cuomo and the law or some other political pyschopath rule of law Inner and Outer Party Powers and gods to wake up one day and decide that extermination camps are needed to stop a virus pandemic in the same way their predecessor godly creators of moralities and ethics decided to stop what they considered to be a people pandemic, the reality is that what present moralities and ethics will do is the same as what Ellul, Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault, and 95% of people did last time: nothing. Slaves do not control the Powers and gods of TS, they control us; there will always be morality and ethics in TS or in any society to control its slaves be they chattel, wage, or the slaves of technology. The extermination camps of the past will not occur because those techniques failed and were grossly inefficient. TS has morally and ethically grown beyond them.

 
Armed force is too efficient and dirty. Creating moralities and ethics that march people into self-imprisonment, self-isolation, and even self genocide (i.e., abortion for Blacks;  wars in the Mideast for Christians; feminism for women) is much more efficient and the easier means to victory for the Powers and their gods. Again, do not forget the beauty of the last few weeks: not just one nation’s culture but the entirety of world culture has changed drastically and substantively without any bloating bodies laying in the streets or blood running in the gutters — no armies and navies fighting, no extermination camps, no mass rallies of armed crowds roaming the streets, no cities covered in volcanic ash, no cities swallowed by earthquakes, and none of the other natural or historical events that usually are the foundation for such cultural revolution. This cultural revolution was accomplished even without martyrs or human sacrifice. (Well, without explicit martyrs and human sacrifice that make the headlines, so they do not matter.)

 
This finally leads me to the big question at issue in these multi-part essays: Why does God hate the poor? Why did God defined as the reason there is something instead of nothing create a reality with a necessary hierarchy? Why will there always be a small powerful ruling class (Powers, Outer Party, Inner Party, and so forth) who can positively control reality so as to create a world and gods in their image and then there will be the rest of us who are stuck only with the negative power to oppose whatever they are doing? Why must there always be a class struggle in order for history to continue and so we can go on to discover, explore, and conquer the universe?

Picking Your Battles

History is class struggle, but within this class struggle exist the individual struggles that make up our lives. In these individual struggles, one must pick and choose the right battles to fight or not to fight in order to have any chance to survive getting involved in the class struggle. There is an interesting historical anecdote about General Robert E. Lee regarding his life after the Civil War. At a mass at his local Southern Episcopal Church right after the War, at communion time the first person to get in line to receive communion was an elderly Black man recently freed from slavery as a result of the War; this was the congregation’s first encounter with the supposedly new integrated South and it simply sat in stunned silence with no one knowing what to do. Until, one elderly but distinguished man got up from his pew and got into line behind the Black man; then, others joined the communion line. According to the story, the man second in line was the recently discharged veteran General Lee. At some point, even after the greatest and most hateful of struggles, if one actually believes in life more than death as meaning in life, one has got to let go and get on with life. Unlike the concepts of race and racism, getting involved in language self-identity battles — be they sex, gender, feminist, or whatever — are not battles worth fighting and should be let go quickly if begun. Once one accepts that language including its words and the meaning of its words is a social construct, it is conceptually inconsistent, holistically illogical, and practically hypocritical and wasteful to engage in individual battles of self-identity either with the proverbial Self or any of the so-called Other or Others and to get involved with self-identity politics unless they have a class struggle component. Fighting worthless battles distracts and detracts from the class struggle that really does ultimately identify and define us.

 
I have contemplated elsewhere the reality of self-identity. The existential reason for one’s existence that makes up one’s soul or the spiritual reality of the proverbial Self precedes the social construction of language and is not something of which we can speak in language — except perhaps at best indirectly or implicitly through the illusions and delusions of aesthetics. The battle for one’s soul and its demons will always be a private battle fought in silence. But, the unfortunate or fortunate reality is also that the meaning of the words “one’s self-identity” or anything similar trying to mean the self-identity of the Self is a social construction created by social construction through the Self’s struggles with Others and by struggles among Others. It is fortunate that there is no self-identified purely private self-identity because if there really were a “self-identity” created only by the Self, there will be no way to avoid solipsism and the possibility that we spend our whole lives talking to ourselves — either as a mind of ideas or as a material brain in a vat. The unfortunate reality is that “one’s self-identity” is what society says it is; you are what Others say you are even if your Self disagrees with it. It is only through the social construction of language that we know we are not alone. Take away social behavior and its resulting language in either direct form or indirect form such as by the experience that makes up memory and there is nothing remaining of “self-identity”. The unfortunate and fortunate reality is that if society and its social construction of language call you or name your identity as a wimp, tomboy, feminine male, masculine female, A or B type personality, as Blackness or Whiteness or whatever race, or as whatever, regardless of how distasteful you find it or how much you dislike being called such words, those words are your identity including your self-identity.

 
Can you try to change your self-identity created by social construction? Yes, struggling for such change is an option. At one time, a social construct “feminine male” for example would start lifting weights, getting involved in physical sports, and be socially aggressive in order to change how social construction identifies them. Now, the option exists to do actual physical surgery converting the physical appearance of someone in order to avoid the “feminine male” identity. The same is true for the reverse. It may work, but it may not. It may occur, as is occurring now, that the concept of “feminine male” will be phased out, be considered bigoted, and replaced by concepts such as transgender or one of the many new socially constructed genders; or, the entire social construct process of assigning feminine and masculine attributes may eventually be phased out in favor of unisex attributes. This latter progression is not that unusual in English because English lacks the grammatical genders contained in Romance Languages such as Latin, French, Italian, and so forth. Unlike these languages, many of our English words and their meanings are and have always been unisex. (As always, the French post-modern and other continental intelligentsia and their worshipers here in American intelligentsia who are so quick to criticize and ridicule English and American language use and usefulness should look at their own glass houses first before throwing stones at ours.) In which case, your new social construct self-identity may be transgender or apparently whatever you want it to be seems to be the new language fad. Regardless, no one controls their self-identity, it is controlled by what social construction is willing to accept. It may be willing to accept only two genders, it may be willing to accept six billion genders; either way, your self-identity is what society and especially its ruling class says it is. Sure you can disagree with it and thus add to the struggle that is life, but is it worth the battle? Is it worth the battle for your Self to fight with the Others who are struggling with their self-identity?

 
Whether one needs or wants to fight their social construct self-identity is a personal struggle all individuals should be free to make. Frankly, if “acceptance” of your self-identity requires that you physically or surgically start cutting off or cutting out healthy parts of your healthy body, I would suggest that you would be better off in acceptance of your social construct self-identity and in the forgetting of whatever your Self’s self-identity may be; however, ultimately, it is your body and your decision to make and you will get no struggle from me on making it.

 
However, what about when this self-identity struggle becomes a public struggle? That is, what about when individuals start demanding social support and perhaps social expenditure upon their individual struggle to change their socially constructed self-identity? This is when intelligent choices need to be on what battles to fight and which not to fight. The guide to use is: first, determine how the battle will affect class struggle; then, if there will be no adverse effect or it will be minimal, go onto more important battles and let the individuals struggle and perhaps even change social construct self-identities.

 
Perfect examples of how this process ought to work are the present ongoing feminist demands and resulting disputes on whether transgenders and the like will be allowed to compete athletically with their social construct opposites or to use their bathrooms — such as allowing transgender females to compete in women’s sports and to use women’s bathrooms and the reverse though the reverse seems to be much less common. This is simply a battle not worth fighting. If feminists really want transgender females to compete in women’s sports, let them. The worse that can happen is that the transgender females will win. This is not a class struggle; if women have a problem with feminists advocating and successfully getting want they want in society, let them work it out among themselves. Similarly, there is the issue of bathroom use. Feminists want transgender females to use female bathrooms, fine, let them. If this is a problem, let them work it out among themselves, it is not a class struggle. I have no problem with a transgender male using a male bathroom with me; compared to some of the things I saw in public bathrooms growing up in the Chicago area and while in the Navy, I doubt this would even raise an eyebrow if I saw it (try imagining what a Navy shipboard crew’s head looks like after sanitary tanks were inadvertently blown inboard instead of outboard — not a pretty site or smell). If you are concerned about a daughter who might not feel safe in such a public bathroom with a transgender female, teach her to deal with it as necessary. A truly independent woman should be able to deal with and know how to feel and be safe in a lot worse things and experiences in life then what may be or may not be a dude using her public restroom. When the feminists start feeling unsafe in their bathrooms, they will quickly abandon the transgender source of their discomfort anyway and amend feminist dogma so as to oppose it.

 
The same is usually true of most feminist struggles: better just give them what they want and avoid the battle. Feminists want women to be treated equally as men treat each other? Fine, treat them so. Men treat each other very badly is the reality of the patriarchy; if feminists want the same treatment, fine. Such surrender to the feminist struggle is much better than the present state of affairs in which feminists want and usually get all the benefits of being in control of a patriarchy without any of the adversities. They want forced affirmative action so that 50% of all professions such as doctors, lawyers, and academics are women; fine, use the same force also to make 50% of all soldiers, sailors, and first responders women.

 
One self-identity battle that is worth fighting is the self-identity politics of Whiteness and Blackness. Here we are 150 years after General Lee got in line beyond someone identified at the time as a Black man; it is universally accepted that race defined by skin color is an unnecessary social construct so that no man or any person should any longer be identified as Black or White; and yet concepts such as Blackness and Whiteness are still fueling all sorts of trouble and racism. They do so because race and racism not only are social constructs maintaining a ruling class but are also economic social constructs that make money for the ruling class and its intelligentsia thus not only conceptually but materially are empowering the ruling class. As I have written in other essays, sycophants and intellectual proletariats such as Ta-Nehisi Coates get rich and become ruling class elitists by complaining about race and racism and would be nothing without them; thus, they have no incentive to eliminate them, and they promote new school race and racism as the source of meaning for their lives. “Race is more than a biological category or a social category. It has become an industry, with its own infrastructure, branches, incentives and agendas.” — Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Race. p. 128. Fighting both the old school racism of the past and the new school racism of the present new school racists such as Coates and the like is not an individual struggle of self-identity but class struggle that must be fought.

Race and Class: A View from the Bottom Up

I have not posted any essays for a few months while writing a book. The book is now available at: They Hate if You’re Clever and Despise A Fool and at the bottom page of Selected Essays/Podcasts.

This book is a conceptual analysis of race and class. It begins as a contemplation of my personal life experience with both varying from my white trash emigrant beginnings to my Ivy League education. It then goes on to an analytic contemplation of the past meanings of race and class, their present use and usefulness, and the future use and usefulness of these concepts. I argue that social class distinctions are a necessary attribute of any modern Technological Society just as they have always been a necessary aspect of all past civilizations. The only new attribute of class struggle that Technological Society creates is its ability to isolate individuals in the lower classes from any social bonding with others in their class and thus potentially ending class struggle and making present ruling class ideology permanent resulting in the death of history. However, the death of history is not the end of history. I argue that such death may not be a bad thing given the material benefits and power Technological Society creates for humanity’s need to explore, discover, and conquer the universe. I argue that race distinctions will continue to be used and be usefulness as a means to maintain class distinctions and as a business model for profit. In modern Technological Society, the humanities act solely as a means for normative power. Distinctions such as race serve both as a means to keep individuals in the lower classes isolated and unable to struggle together and as a means for monetary profit by those humanities holding normative power.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Moral?

If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Is god moral? To contemplate this question, we must have some agreement on the meaning of the words “morality” and of “God”. For simplicity, I will usually use the classical “He” to reference God since I lose track of the present fad of grammatically cycling between “She” and “He” and  because “It” seems to lessen the seriousness of my contemplation. Personally, I do not care whether God is a He, She, or Whatever.

 
I submit the meaning of the word “God” is probably easier to agree upon existentially. We have to contemplate this question in the same way one would contemplate the ontological proof of God: from the perspective of the word “God”, that is of our definition and understanding of the existential meaning of the word “God”. Whatever meaning that word has for anyone regardless of whether they are a theist or an atheist or anything in between, its one necessary and universal attribute would be that the word “God” by definition means the reason for their being something instead of nothing — this is true even of a pantheistic version of God in which the universe and its existence occurs by necessity or simply by luck through the workings of universal scientific empirical laws and thus these laws are your God. Agnosticism is not rational; since this is a rational contemplation, I am not dealing with agnosticism. I am therefore I think — I think in particular and especially about my existence. If I think then I think of the reason for there being something instead of nothing including there being me. It is irrational, delusional, and cowardly to fail to take a position on the reason I or anything exists.

 
For morality, the only attribute for its meaning that is universally agreed upon is that it is an act of will. It is an act of will giving meaning to a meaningless universe. That we “will” may be an illusion and the choices we make pre-destined or pre-determined by empirical material reality but even if such is true, all moral, immoral, and amoral choices would still be called and are acts of will or choices — free or not. Morally, immorally, and even amorally, even if I am pre-determined or pre-destined to be something, I can still reject that something. If there is no free will other than the illusion of freedom, such rejection will only be nominal and a fight I cannot ever hope to win but it is still there as a choice and a powerful one at least existentially if not for anything else. It is a choice that will define me and give meaning to the meaninglessness of my life even if it is a predestined or predetermined life because morality as the absurd hero Meursault of Albert Camus’s The Stranger finally realized as he faced the gallows is “opening [one’s] heart to the benign indifference of the universe” and willing to give its meaninglessness meaning. There is a large existential difference between accepting one’s fate and fighting against it — even if the fight is destined to end in loss. Remember the last words of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; as Sisyphus looked down and contemplated his meaningless task and became conscious of his wretched condition, in this tragic moment he realized “[t]he struggle itself […] is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.  (For a more detailed analytic contemplation of the meaning of the words “free will”, please see Wittgenstein on the ‘Illusion’ of Free Will.)

 
As contemplated earlier, ethics, good, and evil are meaningless when discussing God. But what about morality? Despite His necessary nature, does it make sense to talk about God making moral, immoral, or amoral choices? Or, as Socrates asked, is something moral because God wants it or does She want it because it is moral? If the reason for there being something instead of nothing is simply the universe and you are an atheist or your God is pantheistic, it makes no sense to apply any concept of morality to God — the universe simply is, its meaning is to exist. Its existence precedes its essence and precedes language and thus any wordgame of morality. What if you have a personal God such as the Christian God Who is a Being? He is an infinite, omnipresent, and all-powerful Being but still a Being. As a Being, is He able to will the universe to have meaning and thus have a morality? At first impression, it appears that the concept of morality should apply to a personal God. However, in reaching this first impression, we forget what morality is: willing to give meaning to a meaningless universe. Even a personal God does not need to will anything nor does He need meaning; His existence is its own meaning. She is complete and whole, infinitely and completely in Himself or Herself or whatever your personal God may be and Existence is the meaning of God. Therefore, God is not moral or immoral but the best way to describe even a personal theistic God is to say He is completely amoral. I must say the “best way” or seems because as with the pantheistic God, this existence that is the essence of God also precedes language and thus logically and strictly speaking is something “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

 

God being amoral or the wordgame of morality not applying to God makes perfect sense as Wittgenstein’s famous quote above brings out. If God were really just another moral busybody or even the most powerful moral busybody of all telling me how I should be living my life in the short span I have in life, He is no better than any other moral busy body except in degree not in substance or essence.  He is no better in quality than any other existentially created morality that makes my life simply a mascot for its sense of morality; I might as well create my own morality and enjoy being a god myself.

 
That should answer the question as to whether God is moral for all concepts of God, except for Christianity and its Trinity or any equivalent form of theism or polytheism.  I suggest that the theologians of the early Church came up with the Trinity concept as a way around the amoral nature of God. As always, the ancients were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for being. Since the Trinity includes a person who is human, Jesus Christ, the question of His morality must continue. Given that Jesus Christ — the Jesus Christ Person in the Christian God — is human, is Jesus Christ moral? Regardless of what one might think of Him, there can be no dispute that He is moral. According to the Christian concept of what Jesus Christ is and then on to the Beatitudes and on to anything that can be ascribed to him, this Christ Person does want to give meaning to life and does not exist simply as having the power of His Existence be its own meaning and an end in itself. According to the Trinity dogma, there is a Third Person, the Holy Spirit, that is the relationship between God the Father and the Christ Person. So for a Christian with Faith, the answer is that God, through Jesus Christ, is moral. God loves us, wants us to be happy, will reward us in heaven for following his morality, so on, and so forth. At this point, we are leaving rationality and getting into Kierkegaard’s existential Leap to Faith and of Pascal’s Gamble that are beyond this essay.

 
However, the Trinity problem does not solve the initial question we are asking. So far, there is no problem with the use of words. Like the ontological proof, we are dealing with logically subtle and abstract but sound and valid reasoning derived from the very meaning of the words and concepts used. Morality is an act of the will, not of reason. Morality is an individual willing meaning into the world. And thus, evil is the opposite of whatever this good the individual defines to be. God, in the non-Christian sense is amoral because God just is. The Christian option seems to be that in exchange for accepting as a necessary part of God’s amoral nature all the suffering that has been, is, and will be part of humanity — in exchange for accepting that — we will be rewarded with happiness in heaven by the human person in God: Jesus Christ. By accepting the massacre of the innocents, I will be happy. Such beliefs do give meaning to life and thus are a morality.

 

But it is not one with which I want to be involved. Or, morally should be involved? Why not? Because it is unfair and unjust — it is not a fair and just way of getting results. So what? Again, it is God’s universe. He can do with it as He or She pleases. Why do I not want to be involved in it? Is it altruism on my part or arrogance and conceit? Is it because I want to have greater power than God? Since God is amoral, is He also unjust and unfair? I will consider these questions next.

Why does God hate the Poor? Prologue / Part III

This next essay dealing with this question was supposed to deal with the issue of whether God is moral. However, I’m going out of context for this essay because of comments that I have received. Some still say that the question of why God hates the poor is the same as asking why God allows good and evil. It is not the same question. I’m going to use the argument for “intelligent design” as a means to further explain and differentiate why my question is distinct from and is not the same as the question of why does God allow good and evil to exist.

 
The argument called intelligent design is made by its proponents as an argument for the existence of a personal God in opposition to some evolutionists who argue there is no such God. Logically, in terms of the nature and philosophy of science both arguments are essentially nonsense because neither argument is scientific. Statistical analysis and correlation are all modern science needs to be science. This essay series does not deal in the philosophy of science so I will not deal with the nature of evolution nor philosophy of science but only contemplate the intelligent design argument as a means to specify and clarify the relationship between God and the poor.  The argument from intelligent design is substantively unsound and a fallacy because there is no intelligent design in the universe. From the smallest part of reality and onto the largest and from the smallest event in history and onto the largest historical events, reality and history is ruled by arbitrary and random acts. Everything in life is essentially decided by luck, despite popular opinion to the contrary. For example, even supposed obvious differences in good and evil in popular opinion between a Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and an Adolf Hitler and the events of which they were a part are not the result of any inherent differences in the universe, in their nature, or any intelligent design, but of pure luck. With a change of birthplace, parents, education, and class upbringing, the places of even such obviously different individuals in history as hero or villain would easily have been exchanged. In fact, five hundred years from now historians will treat these three as equals. If anything, historians will investigate and write about how Churchill and Roosevelt got away with their many historical blunders and outright evil acts to cause human suffering that created the power of a Hitler.

 
Reading, writing, or crying about genocide, fascism, Nazism, or whatever the latest fad evil political -ism may be and dividing historical individuals into heroes or villains is a shallow understanding of the absurdity of life, history, and the universe. Only those ignorant of history divide history into the good and the bad and into heroes and villains, male or female, of one race or of no race. Regardless of the majestic greatness of one’s heroes or the despicableness of one’s villains — be it a Churchill, Hitler, Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or whoever — the historical good or evil of individuals and of social constructs is not the substance of reality. Such concepts of good and evil, hero and villain in history are purely results decided as a matter of luck and the roll of circumstantial dice. The winners in life need not ever worry about morality, ethics, or the law; such are concerns only for the losers. Simple creation of historical heroes and villains gives meaning to one’s life and creates a simple morality of good and evil that ignores the banality of evil and the haphazardness of both good and evil in daily existence — that is in individual life, the only reality of which an existentialist is certain. If Hitler had died in his youth in the trenches of the Western Front or during one of the first half-dozen assassination attempts upon him, he would be remembered as a courageous recipient of two Iron Crosses who died for his country and for workers’ rights — in fact, if he had died during one of those early assassination attempts upon him, he would probably to this day be remembered as a hero and martyr for socialism. In which case, Churchill — if remembered at all — would be remembered as he was known during World War I: a self-aggrandizing, dishonest, ambitious, political hack psychopath from a rich family whose fortunes he squandered and who was responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign disaster. Muhammad is essentially a 7th Century Hitler who succeeded in creating a one thousand year reich and thus as victor is a prophet instead of a villain. Dr. King and Mandela were lucky to have racism as their opponent. As exhibited by their sexual conquests of women, patrician personal ambitions, and political shrewdness to take credit for the work of others and to let others do their killing and dirty work for them, they would be just another 1984 O’Brien will-to-power conqueror if they had a more sympathetic opponent. Gandhi was a racist patrician wife-beater who was lucky to have others do is killing for him. Such individuals are not really individuals but social construct values created for marketing purposes by patricians.

 
The reality of history is that 90% to 95% of individual humans regardless of status in life as poor, rich, slave, free, beggar, worker, and so forth if put in the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human being or watch idly as others knowing and intentionally kill every other human being — including eventually those watching. The only difference for the modern patricians of our Technological Society is the law allows them the power to have others do their killing for them. The individuals who make up each of these two classes of bound variables arbitrarily and randomly change each moment of life. The heroes who make up the 5% or 10% at any given moment who would rather be killed than kill another or watch another be killed will move over randomly and arbitrarily as a coincidence of sometimes insignificant changes in circumstances to the other set made up of killers. Meanwhile, some of the killers will at that same moment transfer over to become heroes. Thus, the existential reality is that 100% of individuals under the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human as a matter of brute and irrational or even rational force.

 
It is pure luck that has made one set heroes and the other villain. And the same is true of all heroes and villains throughout history. The real intelligent design of the universe is more analogous to a poker game in which God is the dealer, calls the games, knows the players, and sets the antes, raises, and bets. Not only does He know the players and the cards, but He made the players, who are what they are because He made them in the same way that He made the cards and thus the probabilities are what they are because He made them. In theory, giving God the benefit of a doubt by assuming that He does not cheat and by assuming quantum randomness not deterministic classical randomness, we can say He does not control the outcome of each hand nor of the game. These are decided purely by the luck of the draw, the probabilities of the given deck, game, and hands, and on each player’s ability to read the probabilities and the other players. In theory, this game universe is an empirically just and fair universe in which there really is no good or evil. The best player wins and deserves to win. No one can say that it is an evil that the best player wins nor in any practical sense can we say that it is unjust that the best player wins and the loser loses.

 
It becomes unjust, unfair, and evil only when we bring morality into the mix and by that I mean we view the game from outside of the game. The best player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but win. And the worst player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but lose. The reality of this card game universe in which the winners and losers are set is really much worse. As the dealer, God is entitled to call the ante and to set the highest bets and raises. If He calls a big enough ante, bet, or raise, many people are excluded from playing, let alone having any chance of winning — even assuming they had all equal other abilities to win.

 
In the big picture of this card game universe, it does not really matter whether player A, B, C, or D wins, as long as they keep playing to keep the universe going. To make matters worse, God creates the players so that they will only play if there are winners and losers. No one who wants to play in this card game universe is going to keep playing if there are no winners or losers. Everyone wants and believes that they can be a winner until it is too late. Why would God design such a universe to favor some players over others? Of course, many noncompetitive altruistic types who may be reading this would see an easy solution to the problem: simply don’t play. But that is equivalent to saying simply do not play the game of life and ignore the way the game is designed. This is easy to say if you want to live the life of a hermit waiting for Christ to return in the Last Judgment, then it’s easy to say don’t play the game. You are essentially choosing death. However, if you want to live, prosper, or at least survive in the real world, you have to play the game, and you have to play to win. Or otherwise, those who only care about winning take everything you have: mind, body, and soul. God is God, so there’s nothing stopping him from creating such an unfair universe. But also, there’s nothing stopping Him from not creating this game, so why does He do it — instead of creating a different one that is fair? Is God moral?

 

In the perspective of my poker game example, it seems that this question is one of justice or fairness because He treats some creations better than others, but it really isn’t. Justice and fairness only have meaning in relation to a morality. Is the question of whether God is moral the same as asking whether He is just or fair? Now that you hopefully understand why I differentiate the question of good and evil from the question of why God hates the poor, I will go back to the intended next question in this series, is God moral?

Why Does God Hate the Poor? Prologue / Part II

Why does God hate the poor? It is not my intent to complain about this problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. I accept as an indisputable and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity always will be as George Orwell described it; I quote him from his book 1984:

Throughout recorded time and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world. The high, the middle, and the low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they’ve born countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age. But the essential structure of society is never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself. Just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium however far it’s pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the high is to remain where they are. The aim of the middle is to change places with the high. The aim of the low, where they to have any aim, for it is an abiding characteristic of the low that they are too much crushed by drudgery, to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives, is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history’s struggle, which is the same in its main outlines, reoccurs over and over again. For long periods, the high seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the middle, who enlist the low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the middle thrusts the low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the high. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.

 

Would it be an exaggeration to say that throughout history, there has been no progress of any material kind? Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago, but no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought humanity, human equality, any millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the low, no historical change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

 

The only problem with this great description of reality by George Orwell is its limitation to recorded time. Even assuming there is such a thing as unrecorded time as distinct from recorded time, separation of humans into the lows and highs seems not to be limited to any social construct but seems to be an undisputed absolute truth of human nature. In all possible worlds in which there are human beings, this social construct will exist and thus it is not solely a social construct. All humans living and treating each other as equals and loving each other may be a vision of Heaven but would be a short, boring, mind-numbing, lazy, life on earth. Without struggle and battle for something, human life would be shallow, boring, cowardly, and short — unless you were self-centered enough to become an amoral god ignoring reality to live in the timeliness and thus the power of the moment throughout a shallow, cowardly, and passionless life.

 
Phrasing the problem as a matter of evil existing in the world misstates the nature of the problem. One of my philosophy professors phrased it as follows: evil exists in the world; if God exists, there are only two reasons for evil’s existence: either He wants it to exist, or He cannot stop it from existing; either way, He is not God. This phrasing of the problem is a fallacy, because the concepts of good and evil are human creations. God by definition is the reason there is something instead of nothing. The something can be whatever God wants it to be. If this something involves pain and suffering for His creations, so be it, it is His creation. He can do whatever He wants with it. It makes no sense to say that before creation there existed a requirement that God’s creation must be friendly and kind to any beings He creates. He created creation, it is what it is. As I discussed in an earlier essay, ethics is simply a set of rules created by those in power to stay in power. It makes no sense to demand that God be ethical. He is the ultimate power and source of all power. He makes whatever rules He wants. It makes no sense to talk as if He has a choice between good or evil or wills good or evil. The concept of choice and will necessarily involve an incomplete being that needs something. God is omnipresent, infinite, and complete by definition. He does not need anything, and thus there are no choices that He has to make nor for Him to want or will anything. He and His nature all exist by necessity. As the philosopher Spinosa described, we may just be moments in the infinite necessary existence of God contemplating Himself and thus we have the perception of time, choice, and will; but, it is simply human perception that sees choices and will. God’s existence and all aspects of His nature exist by necessity.

 

The problem as I have phrased it is a more accurate description because the issue is a bigger problem of morality. Given that God is the reason we exist, does He owe individual creations anything for giving us existence we never requested? Do we owe Him something for making us exist? Given all of the evil that has existed in the world, including evil inflicted on innocents such as infants and beasts of burden, even if God were to offer us eternal happiness in Heaven simply by accepting Him as He is, would it not be our moral burden to reject it? Why does God prefer certain people over others? You can call it divine predestination, class conflict, or whatever. The reality of human nature, for other than a completely solitary hermit existence, is that God prefers to have about 1% to at most 10% of humanity at any given time live much better than the remainder of humanity and to have the power of oppression over the remainder of humanity. For this small percentage of humanity, at any given time, life has meaning of their own creation. For the remainder of humanity at any given time, their meaning of life is purely to serve the meaning created by these few Powers-that-be. In the absence of such service, life is nothing but meaningless anguish. At best they are gifted with their life being short. Dostoevsky wrote a couple of great novels asking these questions, The Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed, but never answered these questions. These are questions that must be answered as part of trying to answer the overall question of why does God hate the poor.

 
Let us try to build on prior essays to approach this question, try to answer it, and try to see if there is an answer as philosophers not as polemics by self serving gods. The first issue that we must approach in trying to answer this question is whether the concept of morality even applies to God. Is God moral?

Why Does God Hate the Poor? Prologue / Part I

Why does God hate the poor? This is a question that is very difficult to analyze rationally because of the nature of reason. Other than for logical techniques such as mathematics and pure logic, reason seems only to be capable of expressing pragmatic truth about the subject matter of its reasoning. That is, it only serves as a tool for solving a given problem and that solution can only be proven false by the problem — when the solution fails. Reason can never provide solutions that are true in all possible worlds nor can it state a truth that is true in all possible worlds. I say “seems” because when reason expresses doubt about its ability for certainty, it disproves its own skepticism either by formally stating that it is true there is no truth or by stating it is absolutely true that all truth is contingent or relative. Using “seems” to try to get around or to describe this problem or limitation of human reason causes its own problems.

 
What does “seems” mean? Does rational thought necessarily lead to a phenomenological view of reality that is worthless for anything but allowing academics to generate endless verbiage saying nothing about “nothing” — since according to them there’s nothing except what they are saying about the nothing that is out there for which we need them to “deconstruct” it for us. If I do not know what is out there, how can it “seem” like something or anything? What does “seem” mean? What does any word mean? These are problems in the philosophy of language that are beyond the limitations of these essays.  We just need to be aware of these problems when we try to contemplate questions such as this dealing with the nature of God.

 

I am trying to deal here with a real problem that has troubled many philosophers and myself my whole life: why does God hate the poor? Trying to resolve this problem in any way through religious faith, especially by Christian faith, always fails me; so this problem continues to bother me. Responding to this problem by telling me that life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery or reality to be experienced only makes it worse by proving the severity of the problem. Why are there some people in life who have enough time on their hands and the opportunity not only to sit around and abstractly come up with bullshit such as this, but they also have the motive, opportunity, and ability then to go around and if not lecture at least to profess to others that life should be a mystery or what life should be while the majority of the world, including me, is simply trying to survive and are responding on a daily basis to problems and situations trying to destroy that survival. Sure, telling the poor that they should be poor in spirit as well as poor materially would solve their spiritual suffering, if not their physical suffering, but why should anyone be poor in spirit and poor in material wealth and poor in their options in life when it is just as possible to be wealthy and powerful and to be poor in spirit?

 
The so-called Church Father St. Augustine is a perfect example to what I am referring. He spends most of his life wealthy, carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time, until he gets bored with such worldly pleasures and decides that he wants to possess outer- worldly pleasures. So, he decides to be saved by belief in Jesus Christ. And now with the certainty of eternal life in Heaven, he goes around lecturing to others to be poor and not to live life carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time. Even with this conversion, he does not become poor in spirit or materially in any way. Instead of being a Power-that-be among the upper class of his native city of Hippo in North Africa, he becomes a Power-that-be among the new Power in antiquity, the Christian Church. It was perfect timing. If he had stayed a rich pagan, his class might have expected him to risk his life and to defend the city against the barbarian Vandals coming to destroy them. “Barbarian” is a word to describe ambitious poor people that are trying to become rich. Instead, by converting and becoming a church father, he avoided this personal and economic risk because the Vandals respected the Church, Church property, and its ministers. The rich always get away with such hypocrisy. President George W. Bush is a great modern example. Here is a dude that spends most of his life as a lazy, ignorant, cokehead; who wastes what little education his family paid for him to receive and wastes all the business opportunities he had; until one day he decides he wants to be president of the United States. At that point, he sees the light of Christianity and goes on to use preaching and his family connections to become President and start two wars in which others do his killing for him.

 

(Coates is another example of which I have written about extensively in prior essays.)

 
I’m fully aware that by making such complaints I come off as greedy, whiny, and spiteful, as the poor usually do when complaining about their lot in life — unless they reach the point of complete depression, desperation, or starving in the street, at which point they become a temporary object of pity and charity for the rich. If the poor materially try to fight their way out of hopelessness and material poverty, they are considered greedy and spiteful barbarians again. Unlike the rich and powerful whose greed, ambition, and aggressive competitiveness are the forces that move the economic world throughout history to be sustainable and evolve, regardless of whether you call it barter, mercantilism, imperialism, capitalism, or whatever the present day economic “-ism” may be. My intent here is not to complain about this as a problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. It is an undisputed and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity is and always will be divided into the powerful who can create meaning in life and the remainder of the powerless whose meaning in life is to serve the meaning created by the powerful with their only other choice being a lifetime of struggle, fight, and battle against that meaning — a meaningless struggle that they will always be destined to lose. The details of this division in human nature were best described by George Orwell in his book 1984 which I will contemplate.

 
For any amateur Christian theologians out there who may read this, I want to point out that this issue is also a Christian theological issue. The New Testament quotes Jesus several times as saying, “The poor, you will always have with you.” — Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8. So this is not only a philosophical issue, but also a significant theological issue.