Selfish Beginning Stories

From our perspective, stars have a very small percentage chance of developing surrounds including a viable planet (a planet with the materials thereupon which can use over and over [recycle] that star’s energy).  However, from a different perspective—one in which the occurrence of a star with a planet recycling its energy where the people on that planet are not obsessed with themselves—that percentage chance may not be so small.  It would instead be very large.  

The narcissistic delusions of Earthlings that they are so magnificent, so rare, have served to conceal many things from them.  Recurrent fantasies of a Beginning (“Genesis” or “Big Bang”) are this.  

Think of a child told that it can earn a sweet by performing a task.  To that child, the sweet may seem magnificent.  When that child grows up, it could easily buy 100 of those sweets—the exact same kind—with but a smidgen of but one of that child’s twice-a-month paychecks.  

Consider next how stories of a The Beginning have been a recurring part of Earthly religions.  Once it seemed like a big number to say that God had created everything 7,000 years ago.  Now, 10-20 billion years seems like a big number.  In, say, ^CE2614, a person might think he has developed a grand story of the united verse’s creation 96 quadrillion years ago.  How big, people could then say.  How scientific!  Surely, this prediction is correct! 

No, though.  No.  Even though 96 quadrillion is really big compared to 20 billion (and certainly compared to 7000), it is not even 0.1% of 18.3 octillion.  Fantasies can recur, but they will never—can never—impress infinity.  You can spend as many years as you like holding down the “9” on your keyboard, and whatever number you stop at, you will not even be attaining 0.01% of infinity.  

That is what the stories of a Genesis are trying to do: make time become seen as a finite quantity. Remember that Decay use (they don't know that; divorce from yourself the way that people behave is known by those people) antilife; they like death, so naturally their beginning story is like unto an erotic fantasy about a jillion years not existing.  They are drawn toward the shrinking of time, the heterogenization of the homogenous, the end of borders, etc.  “Common origins” are a variant on “singular origin,” similar to “death star” (like the bukkake of a fantasy about death).  Fantasies like that are also attempts to pin down, to define, things.  Something that is totally, dramatically, utterly deathly is just an expression of that same urge—"A thousand dudes; how hot!"; "Everyone who lives there; how bad!"—in the same way as the plot of a pornographic movie (where she just decided to sleep with those movers who came for her TV, that dude was waling his dog by the house and oops the door was open he must've heard the noise, and then the mailman showed up, can't leave him out).  That is what the sick death fantasy is--like bukkake, trying to reach ultimate capacity.  

Like nailing the wind to the wall, it can’t be done—but it can be tried, and it is incredibly appealing to people designed that way.  That is what universalism is; that is why Decay use it.  People made to live their part of the story of decay find universalism very appealing.  The same way that if you turn 75 you will find out your body is different than when you turned 15, it is going to happen.  Be as saved or as liberated as you like, but it still will happen to you yourself.  

It can be really sad when a lot of people believe Christian falsities, but it is also really sad when a loved one dies and the body rots, because all that is gone then.  But, the loved one would’ve never come to be if other people hadn’t died long ago.  You like rot.  You support rot.  But you don’t want to lick corpses.  

The open secret you must never admit awareness of in Western politics is that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.  Understanding of these agents of decay means, sadly, to think well in a way of what agents of decay are doing.  It is disgusting and it is horrible.  But, viewed from another perspective, it is good.  Clusters of people filled with dumbasses saying they believe in universality need to decay.  Like flies buzzing toward a pile of manure, you are really glad that decay is happening; that Decay are there.  The pile of manure get smaller and then vanishes.  The manure turns into humus which turns into beautiful flowers which turns into dirt again which turns into plant to animal to dinner to a beautiful person whom to look at is very pleasing.  In that sense, it is good that there is manure, and you are glad that there is manure.  The components comprising the beautiful person will one day become again humus (or maybe manure), and it is a separate issue what matter is “really” or what beautiful things are “really.”  

“If it weren’t for the farmers, we’d all be farmers,” it has been said, and the same principle applies to what Decay do.  Specifically, if no one else breaks up waste, you would have to, or there’d be nothing nice.  

If bacteria didn’t decay when they died, you couldn’t breathe.  The whole planet would be covered in bacteria-corpses.  They’ve been around for billions of years, so if decay hadn’t been happening the entire time, even bacteria themselves couldn’t live.  

Surely you don’t want to be around what Decay do.  Being involved in Decay’s decomposition is unpleasant.  Sometimes the human being with stronger minds* may think Decay is evil, in the sense in which what they do is disgusting and painful.  Yet, Decay ultimately serve good, for if they didn’t clean up planets filled with trash, the verse could not grow.  

(It is inappropriate to use the term “smarter” for people who can understand environments such that they can understand what Decay are doing.  Someone may, for example, understand what Decay are doing but get a much lower score on an intelligence test than someone who thinks it is amazingly rude and wrong to ever think there are different human groups.  Decay will overall be seeming to win at achieving benefits in what can be called life on Earth.)  

People will never be the same.  There will never be a “united verse,” because to be anything extant is to be utterly different from nothing.  There will never be a “universe,” and there will always be groups of things which are different from other things, producing things like themselves but never universal things.  Like the question of whether God can make a rock so big He can’t move it, it is impossible for there to be a united verse.  The verse exists because it is made up of different things.  

Like learning about mortality, it is an important component of understanding existence to understand that Time changes things, and that nothing is forever.  Existence is difference.  Nothing will ever or can ever be “universal.”  However, just as almost all humans inevitably fear vanishing and wish to not die, humans will inevitably think that universality sounds good.  Universality does not and cannot exist, and it would be horrible if it somehow came closer to existing, because atoms would stop being distinct from one another and nothing could exist.