The Fifth Petition

By A Thing Not as End in Itself

His great grandfather was a monkey. The Primitive Savage grew up on a tree in Africa. His parents were poor and their tree was not a big tree. All his education was under the small tree. He was told if he walked upright, his brain will grow, but he could never understand why. He tried unsuccessfully to walk, just like his parents and grandparents before him, in order to grow a bigger brain, but all his could do is to lean on a tree to support himself standing on two. But walking was extremely difficult. He only managed to grow a small brain. Now he is a thing.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: May 20, 2019
• ISBN: 9781644623473

Book preview

About the Duck!

Or the Ethical Hierarchy

Justice is complimented only if exonerations surpass convictions. The reason, if so it did, is a sure sign of due diligence, while if not, if the amount of convictions is equal or more than exonerations, and the former heavily relies on perceptions (such as eyewitnesses), it is the speedy conclusion sought and downfall of justice. This is necessary in our time where an insatiable appetite for convictions to enrich the state and its beneficiaries by fees and fines and the private prison enterprise and always upholding law professionals above the law. Is it fear of the law that drives us to do so? Or is it the preconceived ideas? We shall see below it is rather the latter. Justice, unfortunately, is swayed by the influences of the winds of preconceptions. How so, you say? The following may answer some of your doubts as we will explain how the judiciary branch falls victim for the power of preconceived ideas and write laws in precedents that affect every one of us, white and black. But before you get up on your high horse when disagreeing with the method I have chosen to argue my contentions, which is black and white, the historical facts cannot be denied. If you have another way, by all means. Otherwise, fasten your seat belt.

Introduction 2017

I wrote this petition to the president of the United States in 2013. It took me six months to finish what I thought then was the task of demolishing the last pillar upon which evolution was predicated. That is the ethical hierarchy. Then I went through four agonizing years of trying times. It is difficult to admit an appreciation of a reason why I had to go through those terrible experiences, but now, I believe, it is evident there was a reason. Partly because the first four petitions to President Obama I wrote between 2012 and 2013 were the philosophical steps to challenge the 1968 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas on scientific grounds based on new methods of scientific philosophy which were distinct. Also there was a fundamental difference when applying the formal rules of Analytic Philosophy on the matter of morality than scientific philosophy, as well as the intricacy of treating the delicate issues of whether there was a concerted effort by many philosophers to construct a secular ethical hierarchy on the top of which the rewriting of the racial hierarchy was transferred intact from religion into science. Moreover, there were, as I became keenly aware of specific obstacles that, without a doubt, minefields that an inexperienced thinker will sure fall into them which were planted everywhere in any reading of modern moral philosophy written by Europeans. Every step you take may be the last since those minefields were in every concept that was meticulously constructed so as to set traps with no escaping them, so long as you were preoccupied with one problem or another. To give examples of those minefields, consider the following:

Is freedom from the world of sense or from bondage?

Are laws of morality the same as maxims of action or above them?

Or rather, are ethical principles maxims of action while moral laws governing those maxims?

And if so, then morality is twofold—ethical maxims governed by moral laws.

If not, then morality is absolutely about what goodness is, not the attributes of the self.

Philosophers are familiar with these technical issues, but not the common understanding that is often mystified by complicated articulations of moral philosophers, which frequently leads to accepting false premises just because one is unable to fathom. Yet philosophers know for a fact that falling into one of those minefields will no doubt extinguish any effort at overthrowing the ethical hierarchy. Uncovering the boobytraps is a tedious work; on the top of maintaining the proper application of analytic methods, which were never written by any philosopher. The word Analytics was usually referring to linguistics and minor logical issues. The delay was actually worth the pains that I had to go through since I could not see the difference between applying the Analytic tools that I have established to science than those which must also be fashioned for moral philosophy. It took rewriting the whole petition.

It is vital for all of us who live in a human group and believe in democracy to uphold the integrity of the democratic institutions, especially the judiciary. The reason being that the judiciary branch of the government not only plays a vital role in the checks and balances of the other two branches but also affects every one of us even if there were no disputations involved. Most importantly because of the judicial branch’s power to legislate by precedents. Thus, if the judiciary is contaminated by misleading premises or subjugated under a particular worldview, it ceases to properly function. The corrosive effects of erroneous beliefs are often unseen by even law practitioners unless unearthed by philosophers who have been absent from the scene for some two centuries now. Our current standing as far as the rule of law is concerned became rather a tyrannical system unjustly treating people differently. For some, it is to be used for profit, while for others it is to be feared. It is difficult to accept that this state of affairs can exist in a democracy. Especially the American democracy, partly because the United States went so far ahead of other nations in perfecting not only the separation of powers than most other countries but also because of the appellate system to review lower courts’ decisions. Questioning the integrity of this system requires not only absolute certainty in substantiation of facts, but also solid philosophical grounds that are unshakeable. This petition is the last of the series which aimed at challenging the 1968 Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, which I, regrettably, couldn’t finish in time before President Obama’s second term ended. That’s why I am publishing it in a book in the hope that someday soon a serious attorney will initiate a challenge against this law. The foundations for the case are outlined in the five petitions, each of which contains specific issues that directly affect that ruling by the Supreme Court in 1968.

The white man is a phrase extensively used or insinuated in the writings of many European philosophers and thinkers and politicians for at least three centuries. Taken as a category was never brought up by Africans, whether thinkers, philosophers, or black politicians before Europeans did so when they were talking about their human group. We must stress that whites are not a monolithic group, nor does the white man phrase included white women when it was used for long periods of time in European history. Thus, the use of the term white man in this and previous petitions must be understood as an ideal invented by the Europeans far longer than the term was ever used by any other race. I am justified in using the term in such a fashion that is neither derogatory nor undue for the simple fact that it insinuates to a cultural attitude that transcended a lifetime of any individual white man. Nor should the phrase be understood to include white women, because it never was. Moreover, without displaying certain philosophical concepts in black and white, it is difficult to grasp specific ideas in philosophy, as well as to clarify ambiguities and relate the discourse to everyday life matters. I am a black philosopher. Be very careful when reading my writings and detect any praise for my people or whatever characteristic they have. As soon as you see that, you must dismiss entire arguments. Also look for degrading other races between the lines of my philosophy. If either of those were present, please disregard the entirety of my philosophy. If the same yardstick can be used when litigating contentions made by philosophers of European descent, we then can be assured of fairness. But that never was attainable in the past. The minute we start discussing issues in thoughts of any kind, the quicker we are silenced because by merely pointing to the flaws in European social thinking, philosophers included, we are quick to be stigmatized with both ignorance and hatred of the white man. But if you have even the slightest fairness in you, whoever you are, and intellectual vigor to separate the pros from the cons, please allow me to investigate moral philosophy. And it ain’t pretty neither!²

I kept the character of my approach to President Obama intact by addressing him with Your Excellency or Mr. President out of respect for the man and the office but also because, as a foreign national, I am representing my people. I will here briefly mention that the president graciously and, to my surprise, earnestly responded with a two-page letter acknowledging my concerns. It will be inappropriate to dwell on any comment on my part about that response from President Obama, but it seems he was vehemently opposed to an idea that the United States of America has anything to do with the issues I have raised, which seemed as if the president was forceful in defending America’s record on human rights. For most of this book, I still kept the format of the letter (petition) addressing the president, but in some instances, I have departed by speaking directly to black and white and peoples of diverse races.

Finally, to my black people. After you read this letter that was never sent and became a book, make sure to come back and read these words. Do not hate white folks who are alive today. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the stuff that I talked about in this petition. It may seem puzzling to you because of the use of the phrase the white man. But you must understand that cultural preconceptions were never made by one man. Nor were they ever easily let go by any group of humans, whoever they are. They need your help to overcome what had accumulated in their culture for centuries. Not only that you must conduct yourself in a respectable manner that contradict their preconceived ideas about us, but you must never use counterarguments of the superiority of your race or frame your own feelings against them (hatred) to counter what appears to you to be so from them. You can never accept the claim that our race is physically superior because that means we are mentally inferior. I didn’t make this up; it is called evolution. Stop wasting your time protesting and lobbying to voice your disapproval to the side effects of inequality. Those efforts lead nowhere without solid philosophical foundations. Use only valid reasoning and avoid being upset when you encounter what seems to be ignorance. Those people who insist that we shouldn’t vote or have equal pay or be angry when one of us get murdered when it is obvious he was unarmed are not ignorant men. Form larger groups and make sure that the majority of those groups are people of diverse backgrounds and ensure many at least are white folks themselves. You will be surprised how many will join you if you are attempting to amend the Constitution, for instance. Take the immunity of police from prosecution in cases involving the use of deadly force. Without federal guidelines it never will pass even jury trials. Not everyone is evil. Remember that. Most people, including white men and women, are good people who have conscience. It is misinformation and lies they have been told that makes us think they are evil. Reach out to them and reason with them. Many of them do not like a lot of the same things you don’t like. Give them an example if it was their son or daughter, and they will understand. Use your religious and family and work relations to build coalitions of conscientious people. Avoid judging people because they are Republicans or Democrats to affect your efforts for enlisting them as allies or foes. Make sure to spread the most competent works of thinkers and philosophers to ensure that those who join your human rights fight are well equipped to understand the distinctions between criticizing preconceptions and criticizing peoples or races. Many people will sure look at your efforts as if starting a race war or similar stupidities. The fear tactic should never work against you. Don’t appear to be a strong man or woman when approaching people of other races because that is frightening to them. Be firm but be gentle. Be kind. Listen. Listen. Listen, and then talk. And then listen some more. The more you understand where they are coming from, the better you can articulate your falsification of the preconceptions that shall never ever have the appearance of criticizing them or their race. Even though you are clearly trying to eradicate racism as the cause of inequality, a mere misunderstanding may defeat all your efforts. Make sure to explain a point in such a way that is relatable and can be articulated in other formats. Such as poverty does not distinguish between Native American or white or black or Hispanic or Asian or a mix of any two or more races. As you will soon see in this book that neither the racial hierarchy of evolution nor the ethical hierarchy concocted by Immanuel Kant are facts of science and the other is but a pseudo moral philosophy. But without laying the foundations of a secular ethical hierarchy, the construction of a secular racial hierarchy fabricated and glued to science would have been impossible. I encourage you to search in the works of many other thinkers to verify my findings and to enable yourself to speak from a factual stand point. Find the way to convince others that the only way for permanent change is the legislative branch (which includes the Congress and the executive) because that is the only true democratic method. Tell them they must vote; otherwise, all our efforts will be in vain. And if you think that you are the oppressed, then they must be the oppressors in all cases, think again! There is a third kind who are not oppressors. Many of them simply do not know, and some are unable to sympathize with you because they never been oppressed. And even some believe that talking about our plights under oppression is merely to acquire a license to do wrong. Our cries are not for that reason. It is the deep pain suffered from injustice. Even if it is perceived. Remember that the white man is not a person that you will ever meet; he is a mythical figure. Unless you know how to articulate your point, it may be taken as if you are laying your grievances against them in order to justify something else or white folks may shut off completely when they hear the phrase the white man. If you can begin by praising something in their culture or themselves in order not to be taken as criticizing them personally. Finally, I should tell you why the white man is a mythical creature? Because there never existed pure races. The path to the purification of any race is a dead end. There exists today not a single pure white person. To understand this, you need to doubt your biology textbook and study Degenature! Degenature is the title of my first book and was the subject of one of the first four petitions to President Obama. The new theory of Degenature made it abundantly clear that the more we purify a race, the more dangerous that will be to the health of that race. It is a class thing. All the white men and women you ever met in your life were never part of any nobility or have (at the present) titles of nobility. Most were subjects to the nobility while Europe had always been a caste system long before slavery. All the white folks you know are the commoners. They are neither nobility nor all rich, but they been played just as you were to believe the divide message of the racial hierarchy. Look at it this way—if there were no blacks on this earth tomorrow, guess who will be at the bottom of the racial hierarchy? It will be poor white folks.

I have taken the biggest gamble by attacking all philosophers, in which, if I proved to have erred, the cost for my people will be colossal since I can appeal to no friend in any form of philosophy. While I was burning every bridge behind me to prevent myself from wavering, this kept nagging me. But there was no other way than the most powerful insults aimed at philosophers. I have got nothing to lose. I made sure of that. Can’t apologize to my poor folks and black people if I die trying. Too late for that.

---

² In American English, double negation is confirmation or rather stress or emphasis.

Destroying the False Premises of Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Hierarchy

What Ethical Hierarchy?

About twenty years ago, I asked myself if the universe must be expanding in order to realize the validity of the big bang theory, a curious philosopher would have been justified in asking, expanding from where? Because anywhere in the universe could never be a reliable stationary location according to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Any place is relative, hence the predicament! During the past twenty years or so, I was hoping that a woman would have carried a child who will become a man during my lifetime, and as a philosopher, he would have to ask this question. No luck there. At least not yet. He who will someday be born to become a philosopher and manage to ask such questions will be called a scientific philosopher. But the questions we are concerned with in this petition to Your Excellency require a different kind of a philosopher. I was hoping that one was born after 1785 to ask questions about the qualifications of the ethical hierarchy, but I have yet to find one. Darn it. I have to do it myself then. My new name is A ‘Thing,’ Not as an End in Itself.³ I became conscious of this name beginning June 1, 2013, to replace my old pseudonym which was A Primitive Savage,⁴ a name I realized it was mine since 1999. All my previous writings will continue to carry the old pseudonym, but all my future writings will be marked by the new pseudonym. My real name is on the envelop and at the end of this letter.

The Context

It may appear to be oppressively frank to use the term the white man⁵ but without displaying the philosophical concepts constructed by philosophers within their proper context we will be shortchanging the whole endeavor for our future audience. For those who venture into the attempt to understand both the ideas and the soil within which they were planted to become huge trees standing through the centuries as if that in itself is a testament to their trueness must recognize the fact that those ideas have never been seriously challenged, which diminish the influence of this false notion of their correct estimation of the truth. Simply because there was never an intellectual contender to stand with any validity against what the white man had planted of seeds in philosophy that are not only self-serving to him alone but fundamentally flawed; and their premises are, at least, questionable. In order to explain the self-serving component, which will make it easier to understand the rest of the challenges, we cannot evade placing it in its proper context by calling it what it is. That the white man constructed erroneous philosophical misconceptions favoring himself—his intellect—his preferred place among the races of man that were built upon an ethical hierarchy with him on the top of it. In which, like the other races of man had done before the white man appeared on the scene of history, it began with placing blacks at the very bottom of whatever hierarchy on any subject he treated. In fact, the ethical hierarchy is the foundation of the racial hierarchy of evolution. And no, we are not negotiating for our moral rights. We are straighten up the mess the white man created with his erroneous philosophical concepts that are indefensible. If it is offensive for white folks to bear the phrase the white man, imagine what we went through when we realized that we were deemed things by the reigning philosophical regime written by the hands of the white man. We cannot leave a stone unturned.

There are reasons, Mr. President, why we, as blacks, earn less money doing the same jobs—punished harder when we commit a crime—and often even a mere suspicion is sufficient to send us into the darkness of a jail cell—demeaned when we receive help from the coffer made by the whole society in the form of welfare, the humanitarian safety net that was designed to remedy the economic inequality when the very society failed to fix the causes—vilified when we speak up for our civil rights—and encouraged not to think for ourselves—and when our men and women get killed to keep silent because our killing is morally justified by the white man’s philosophers. The society can no longer bury its head in the sand in its happy ignorance bliss. We must bring to the fore the philosophies which led to the solid belief in the inequality of the races of man to be, those philosophies, subjected to discussion in order to see if they are valid or false. We are harming the whole society when we are reluctant and timid in refusing to question the philosophies behind them solid beliefs. The society does not hold fast to those inequality doctrines because all of us, and the white man also, are evil; it is rather because we have all been taught the wrong ideas by our most notable thinkers who most often follow the blueprints drafted by philosophers. Racism is the reason for inequality, which has deeper roots in the philosophical writings of Europeans, which are still relevant and influence us all today; and combating racism cannot be accomplished by treating the side effects and shying from the complicated philosophies predicating racism with rationalizations that without confronting them it will be a futile an endeavor. The reasons for inequality can easily be traced back, without great effort, to the work of philosophers who are, to this day, cherished and were never questioned. Our participation in the philosophical discourse that shall take place when we do not relent and never be satisfied with temporary concessions is a must. If the society is evil and doesn’t know how to abolish inequality it would have made sense to understand why it resorted to such measures of a safety net when we were called welfare queens. But the society knows what’s right, which is enshrined in its Constitution. If a society doesn’t know how to make a car, we should not expect it to claim to know how to do so. But it did make the car without a single declaration prior. The pragmatic Constitution of this great nation shows without a shadow of a doubt that this society knows how to eliminate inequality and racism. What is standing on the way is the stubborn philosophies underlying the act. If we cannot remove those obstacles, we cannot hope for freedom. But even the attempt of confronting those strong philosophical ideas is cause for such optimism, which will make our freedom within reach. It is on the horizon. I can see it from here. Until then, we will, however, still keep fighting the same civil and human rights battles for ourselves and other minorities and the poor folks of any skin color over and over again because the philosophies predicating the beliefs held by nobility in the inequality of the races and classes has never been seriously challenged. It is time to do just that in black and white.

We will explore in this petition to Your Excellency the philosophical precursors that led to the construction of the hypothesis of evolution in order to permit ourselves to appreciate the wide-ranging implications that were never properly litigated by philosophers allowing the myth of the racial hierarchy of evolution to affect every facet of knowledge. In so doing, we will also falsify commonly held philosophical misconceptions that came to be as a result of uncritically accepting false argumentations popularized by evolutionists and many false philosophers—profiteers and the dishonesty of creationists. It is crucial here to expound the methods by which we can trace back the steps leading to the manufacturing of an ethical hierarchy at about the end of the reign of the older religious rationale for the racial hierarchy Europeans constructed five hundred years ago. Tracing back the beginnings of the rewriting of the ethical hierarchy will lead us to an unexpected philosopher, and he is not Darwin. While doing so, we will lay the philosophical foundations for the moral ramifications of the theory of Degenature and put forth the inevitable consequences it carries with its arrival, delivering notice to end the fictitious debate (between religion and science) along with the shaky grounds upon which the false mythology of evolution continued to be protected by both evolutionists and creationists. At the end of the second part of this petition, I will deliver a merciless eulogy to Kant’s ethical philosophy upon which the new secular racial hierarchy of evolution was built atop the ruins of its predecessor the identical racial hierarchy of polygenism that flourished in religion for centuries. We are not oblivious to the fact that the mythology of evolution will never be allowed to die the dishonorable death it deserves, but if the last hidden predication in philosophy is here falsified, what could possibly save evolution from total falsification?

Questions are a good start. What we are trying to achieve in this petition to Your Excellency is to consider the following:

Can we construct a viable reasoning to relitigate the 1968 Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, and could the new reasoning be built upon solid philosophical foundations?

Was ethics made by man, or can man merely make laws and constitutions?

What is the difference between laws, constitutions, and Fundaments of Ethics?

Does moral philosophy have an effect on how civil laws are interpreted?

Could morality have evolved from primitive evil to high morality (goodness) in any linear fashion?

Could morality conceivably be affected by a natural law that affects living beings?

Is there any difference between the arguments advanced by either creationists or evolutionists in their endless and meaningless debate masking the racial hierarchy of evolution by bewildering chatter?

Could morality possibly affect the presumed evolution of any species by enhancing its fitness?

Who is the man as an end in himself,⁶ and who is the man who is a thing?⁷

Was it the moral sense or ethics or the self-betterment of oneself or an ethical hierarchy?

Is evolution a God-killing theory for this assertion to be accepted as a fact by the Supreme Court in 1968?

Can the basis for racism be found in science and rational philosophy, not only in religion?

Did Immanuel Kant intentionally and repeatedly lied in his philosophy?

Was Immanuel Kant an ignorant philosopher?

What are the direct effects of the ethical hierarchy on black and poor peoples?

We must warn at the outset that if Kant hadn’t talked about the moral law his philosophy of morals may have escaped the reach of the harsh tools of Analytic Philosophy by claiming he was only talking about the subjective moral sense, not laws. But when we apply those unforgiving tools, they leave no room for a doubt that he jumbled the moral organ with ethics in a clear intent to pave the ground for the establishment of laws as foundations for ethics. Kant explicitly rejected David Hume’s moral sense argument then turned around and introduced a moral law of the will; notice it is just another organ, as foundation for the categorical imperative. I must confess that I feel pain in every fiber of my brain while destroying Kant’s moral philosophy. What pained me the most is that the work of the most exquisitely charming minds had unforeseen consequences reverberated for over two centuries unimpeded while the falsity of his premises could have not been expressed by European philosophers for fear of their culture. No matter how painful the work I have done, there was no way to save Kant from the humiliating falsification of his masterpiece moral philosophy. Philosophical lies endure longer than those in science.

The quarrels between European philosophers before Immanuel Kant wrote his ethical philosophy was whether the bases or origin of morality can be found on reason or sentiments. Notice that both looked into man as the source of the moral Principles. David Hume was the sentimentalist and Kant was the reasonist. We have no intention of neither explaining the controversy nor getting entangled in it. We merely point to the format within which false philosophical ideas were nurtured. The format of the controversy is sufficient to preoccupy the mind and disable it from considering whether either or both ideas involved in an intellectual controversy are false, simply because this format give a false sense of freedom to pick one over the other. Even if both are invalid. The minute a philosopher starts his argument as a search for the origin of an eternal Fundament, it is a sure sign that he is building a system of hogwash on the top of preconceived ideas if there is no universality. Especially if the philosopher concludes that he found the origin of it in man’s subjective constitution, if it is an eternal Fundament (such as the moral Principles or the Laws of Nature, which both existed long before man). Morality, as we will soon see below, could not be proven to have neither originated from sentiment nor reason. Sentiment and reason are within man, but it is difficult to isolate this fact because the writings of Kant are encrypted in such a way that it was made to hide the intent. If we decipher the encryption from between the lines, it will be evident that it was rather the foundations of the ethical hierarchy, which inevitably led to the rewriting of the racial hierarchy from religion into science giving birth to evolution less than half a century later by Darwin and subsequently to the classification of ethics to slave and master morality by the other ignorant philosopher Nietzsche, who copied from Kant the exact lines of reasoning. Let us begin this research in order to see what is philosophically true or false and if we can answer some of these questions in the next few pages. It is going to take a lot of words though. But we must first put a marker for ourselves not to stray from the facts and in order to see whether an ethical hierarchy exists today, and who built it? We shall use the benchmark of a duck! If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, leaves footprints like the duck’s, looks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it must be a duck! But if its DNA is identical to that of the duck’s, there is no more reasonable doubt that it is a duck. If it is an ethical hierarchy, it must, at least, look like one. When we put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together, they show the duck is an ethical hierarchy with the white man atop it as a godlike being issuing universal moral laws. His fingerprints are all over moral philosophy, and moreover, he claimed DNA evidence are inadmissible. But no man, as of yet, who dared denying the squawking wasn’t that of a duck!

---

³ This name was given to me by Immanuel Kant in 1785.

⁴ This name was given to me by Charles Darwin in 1859.

⁵ In my second letter to the Honorable Judge Robert Moossa, I used tall people instead of the white man.

⁶ Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 46, translated by White Beck.

⁷ Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 46.

Introduction (2013)

The Unfolding of the False Mindset of Evolution

A derogatory racial ideology was fabricated as a belief in religion then went on to become part of science to be universalized to all mankind without a single scientific merit to stand on as a fact. The mythology stood unchallenged for over a hundred and sixty years. Partly because of the clever deception culture came up with to bury its rotten preconceptions inside the universal science in a last-ditch effort to convince the rest of humanity that the superiority scheme made by the white man is a fact of science. Somehow culture managed to confuse itself and the majority of us that it is so deemed scientific fact of the racial hierarchy can only be argued for in the theology department of our conscious but insist on its false claim that the racial hierarchy of evolution must be studied as a scientific fact in educational institutions all over the land. Unlucky for the mythology of evolution that it fell to us who construct the rules for the minds not to fancy their preconceptions by merely deeming them unquestionable Truths, nor are we a yielding bunch to the strength of the powerful methods by which culture enforces upon the minds of its false ideas, locking them in an unyielding mind-set. It is not our job to be practitioners of scientific philosophy, but we have been faced with the strange absence of those kinds of philosophers during the span of over a century for a reason which obliged us to do their jobs for no one else will. Unless we instruct someone to take on the task of watching over science, otherwise science will continue to be restrained by the mind-set of evolution. Philosophers of every stripe have been misdirected and confused on whether ethics has evolved from primitive evil to advanced morality, which the perplexed ethicists been to date aimless. We have to do their job too. But who are we? We do not do the dirty deeds of culture for it cannot entice us with the many bribes it offers at its disposal. We only do the diligent work of falsifying unquestionable beliefs which misguide the minds astray; wherever they are found. We can’t afford to relent in our pursuits for most succumb and praise the great culture they so much revere. We have no such reverence. Our shortcomings surpass our abilities in the art of mapping the scope of the minds, since we have just the minds that are as much susceptible as the others. But we are not less imperfect than any other. For their inadequacies are masked by prides and glorifications of themselves, the bribe culture bestows upon them in which they bask in the glory. For a little while. We, on the other hand, favor displaying our defects for all to see in order to evade the bribing of our minds by contaminants, which are what culture is. No worshipping is required for an imperfect thinker. The more flaws we manifest or lay bare, the better for us since that will sting the nose of culture like a skunk to flee our sight and leave us alone. If there were fleas sold in stores, we would have surely bought a lot of them to make culture dash for cover at our sight and not contaminate our minds. The vast majority of us have lost their minds by being completely isolated so it may appear that the isolation we so desire and seek may not be that good for us after all. I can’t claim that I have been through what others have gone through, but somehow, I think I have the faculties up there, thankfully, still intact. The closer culture gets to us by its beautiful women, handsome men, and innocent children, by its wealth, magnificent homes, beautifully wrapped beliefs and things, the more it drags us down to the valley where the clean, crisp water by the river and the flowers and birds of all colors are chirping. We hate that place and live as far as we could away from it. Until we get hungry or we needed a pen or paper or cloth to enable us to withstand the freezing winds in the desolate place we live alone in. Many believe we are insane, that too we encourage in order to stay as far as we could from the contaminating conceptions that fascinate the childish mind of man. If it wasn’t so dry up in the desolate place atop the mountain,⁸ we would not likely to come down to the valley for a drink. They see the beauty of everything in the valley basking in the comfortable weather of an eternal spring oblivious to the obnoxious odor of the rotten conceptions seeping out of the minds they carry on their shoulders. The longer conceptions stay in the minds the more they pass fermentation to putrefy and rot producing pus oozing out in their words.

The dumb culture mistaken us for loners and idiots who believe they know everything or they can solve anything by a grandiose idea or an ideology or criminal act or violence and wars erroneously justified by other preconceptions similar to those they seemed to have rejected. Those ones, they only built a mirror image of the cultural preconceptions of the culture they have abandoned since they erroneously assumed the new preconceived ideas can solve all problems which drove them away in the first place. I have found many of their dead bodies all around atop the mountain clinging with their frozen fingers to the papers that housed what they believed in. I was numerously disappointed after spending countless hours reading the manifesto of their ideas to end up discovering they have merely substituted the false preconceptions of the culture they so hated by some of their own erroneous preconceptions. This led them to the dead-end roads they got intellectually stuck in and their sincere hatred for their culture prevented many of them from going down to the valley to get water or food or clothes. Some starved to death, others from simple dehydration, and many more froze to death. Those thinkers suffered alone, but I have absolutely not a single sympathy for one of them.

I am not smarter than them; only certain paths in life have taken me into different cultures and specific incidents have awakened in me the proper methods of thinking, not to be fixed to a model set forth by traditions or