Posts tagged Politics

IIWP (If I was President): Taxation

  On occasion I think I’m going to write something about what I’d do if I was President. Now more accurately these are things I’d do if I was a dictator. But we’ll assume that in this fantasy universe the President is not surrounded by a bunch of charismatic but utterly hollow individuals. In this theoretically universe the government is a group of people who actually care about the people who are not in the government. Which is entirely possible, unlikely given the way people vote, but possible.

  Taxation, in this nation that I am President of, would only come from one source: Luxury living. There would be no taxes on food, no taxes on houses, no taxes on income, and no taxes on land. There would only be taxation on living luxuriously which includes all non-necessity purchases. We are going to assume that in this fictitious universe people are going to accept the somewhat ambiguous term “non-necessity” and not try to abuse it. To save us the thousands of pages of documentation that might be required to stop lawyers or lobbyists from royally screwing the pooch. For those wanting a few examples, services, entertainment, and relaxation would be three luxuries. When I say relaxation I’m talking about products made to aid in that, not the actual act. Nobody is taxing you to nap, then again taxing on a free thing ends up still being free so I suppose it is still fine.

  Taxation of luxury items would be somewhat high, 10 cents on every dollar, which though high would for most people be far less annually than they currently spend. The average American household in 2009 spent 43,395 dollars. Of that roughly half was for things that would no longer be taxed under this theoretical system of mine. So we are looking at 21,500 dollars per household. According to the Census in 2000 there are 105,480,101 households in the US. Which means annually the nation would take in 2,267,822,171,500 dollars. Which is 2.26 trillion dollars per year for those curious. Currently in 2009 the US took in 2.15 trillion dollars in Taxes, which in part had to do with every cutting back on spending because of the banking catastrophe that transpired. However it is estimated to increase to 3.4 trillion dollars by 2014 (and 2.3 this year if you were curious).

  The amount of money brought in is the same, as of last year, but the reasoning is very different. People will no longer be taxed for supporting their society (income tax), they will no longer be taxed for supporting their nation (housing and land taxes), and they will no longer be taxed for being alive (various other taxes on necessities). Now people will only be taxed for living luxuriously, which means that our nations maintenance would be supported not by the mandated draining of income but by taking funds from humanities natural desire to live splendidly. If a family was hitting hard times and needed to live modestly they would be able to do so without being taxed and further hurting them.

  The spending of tax money would also be greatly different. Projects would be based on quality of service and not on lobbyists. Companies that prove their worth through projects that are successful and supported by the communities that are affected by them would be hired to work across the nation. Likewise companies that support their local cities and states and do not invest money overseas (specifically to hide income, no punishment for aiding ailing nations). The internet would aid in this quest for quality as state populations could vote and comment on how they feel about a project. Were the roads that were recently repaved now dangerous to ride on? This type of information would be critical in choosing where to spend money.

  We are also working off an assumption that manipulation of information would be an offense that could be penalized. A manipulation of information is any communication whose intended purpose is to mislead people into doing something against their own interest. It is incredibly popular in modern America (see healthcare and basically any political run). If an organization starts spreading rumors that the pavement used in a road job causes AIDS just to scare people into voting against it they’d be punished (this is an example, I wish it felt outlandish but considering commercials these days).

  Reinvestment into the nation would also be prioritized. It would begin with the most vital elements of a society and work downwards.

  At the top tier we’d have the following: Health (both preventative and curative) and Education. These would include organizations that examine foods and products to make sure they are healthy, like the FDA (but hopefully not underfunded or ideologically driven), investments into companies and families that produce high quality healthy foods. Investments into research to provide healthy food at high quantities and investments in providing food that is primarily grown within the states. Using greenhouses and other technology to replicate out of country environments. This is not to become isolationist but to better provide citizens with job availability.

  On the education front we would fund both lower level and high level education and we would invest heavily in science. I would much love to see a nation where scientists who perform at high levels could receive the kind of paychecks a baseball player gets for playing a game as both serve an important purpose (though the latter infinitely more short term than the former). There would also be bonuses to companies who do not patent their products and bonuses to research groups who share information. The goal being to create a network of information that combines the greatest minds across the whole country. Also heavy investment in bringing top minds to all levels of school to help inspire children. I’m a firm believer that people will rise to the level you expect of them, and culturally we have much evidence for that.

  If I didn’t establish it well enough, Health is a blanket term for everything outside of education that is vital for living. Housing, eating, and a clean environment.

  After this you would have restorative work in states. Environmental protection, infrastructure repair (such as roads, bridges, and buildings), and multiple times each decade there would be a panel formed to examine any possible ways to improve on the many aspects of infrastructure. Perhaps discoveries have been made into a new alloy that makes plumbing much safer and long lasting, or a new form of solar energy could utilize unused surface area on rooftops. Just as an example.

  Investments into other countries. Supporting education and health in our close neighbors as well as struggling countries. We would also end the drug war, legalizing drugs would be a good way to stifle crime globally as their major source of income would be struck directly. Plus this is a strong luxury item that could increase profits. A small investment into honest education on drugs would be the replacement, making sure that people know that while drugs are not evil if used improperly they can hurt a person. This way citizens can make informed decisions on the products. There would be a strong push also for companies producing these drugs for honesty on labeling in case extra additives are used to increase addictiveness. Not that it helps since most people know Cigarettes are as addictive as Water (seriously I can’t quit drinking the stuff).

  After that you would have Military investment. Ideally the nation would be able to resolve issues with other countries through diplomacy (why else need diplomats?), but if direct threats are made or an attack is had there would need to be a military. Investments into this branch would involve reduction of casualties and improvements in accuracy. The goal is to end a war with the least casualties on either side as possible and do it as quickly as possibly. If we can launch a missile the size of a poodle up the ass of a man threatening genocide on our people on a Friday over soup I’d be all for it.

  I’m quite sure I’m forgetting major things at this point. But no nation was built on the ideals of one person. That’s the whole point of a group, someone mentions what you forgot. Whatever I’ve forgot would go down here (unless it is a blatant important oversight). In essence my ideal nation would be one that is strongly driven by education, a strong educational background leads to nothing but prosperity as long as it is available to all citizens.

  So this is the first part. Yes I admit that it is somewhat utopian, but the underlying idea is that Taxes would be far less dickish and they’d work because we’d be more conservative in our spending (well pretty damn liberal if the quality is there). Now I’m using the term conservative and liberal in their LITERAL meanings, I don’t really care about the political meaning to either. That nonsense will be saved for another day.

Rico Examines “People, Politics, and Pretense.”

  Basically anyone who has read an article about politics has seen an astounding statement of just how “Out of Touch” the politicians involved are. When people talk about the efficiency of businesses versus government run operations there is a distinct separation of the two. As if there is some magical race of beings that are running one versus the other.

  Lets first establish what people run, people run everything, they run businesses, they run families, they run schools, they run hospitals, they run governments, and they run religions. There is absolutely nothing different about this between them all, each is run by people and each has people picked in some manner of fashion for that position. Perhaps they established kin through procreation, or established quality of talent through election or hiring, or they’ve established belief through convincing parable. Which by the way is a word everyone should use today, try it.

  There is no reason why one should assume that a government cannot run something as well or better than a corporation. Likewise there is no reason to assume that a corporation cannot run something as well or better than the government. Mix and match any of the above examples and the statement is the same. It is not that these organizations cannot do it, it is that they do not do it.

  The fault of course, as it must, falls upon people as a whole. People decide what is an acceptable level of accomplishment for each organization and that acceptance is what decides the level of success the organization performs to. If you accept your neighbors being terrible parents you have set a precedent that that level of parenting is all that is necessary. If you accept that your government cannot run anything properly they will then achieve that level of success. The same for schools, faiths, and hospitals.

  Absolutely everything in this world run by humans will run at a level that is accepted by the people. Because absolutely everything in this world run by humans is (tautology time) run by humans. So they function under the same rules, the same psychological triggers, and will all rise or fall because of the same variables.

  Don’t ever accept anything because of what organization it is a part of if the outcome is not to the standards you feel fair. There is no inherent static wall that an organization cannot rise above, everything is limited only by the expectations of global society. It is, in its entirely, no more complicated than that.

Coming this Week on TheIOS:
Rico Examines “Video Games: Graphics Vs. Gameplay.”
Rico Examines “The Beauty of Mathematics.”
ADIOS: The King of Spes: Votum.
IIWP (If I was President): Taxation

The Failure of the Terror Alert

  I’m sure at this point most people know how futile the “Terror Alert” system is. There are no guidelines for how to act nor is there really a good outline of “Why” or “What” the increased or decreased terror alerts entail.

  If you go back far enough they essentially had a system like this during the cold war. However it was pretty straight forward. You knew if it was going we were being nuked and you needed to go to a shelter. It’s not fun information but at least in that situation it may have been necessary.

  The Terror Alert system however is entirely fruitless. It has been little more than a campaign tool. During the 2004 election campaign the Bush camp intentionally raised the threat level to help secure the win. You can find various websites and newspapers that covered this, if it so suites you.

  The goal of terrorism is to remain on peoples minds. I highly doubt that people will ever forget the events of Pearl Harbor, yet you will not find people incessantly reminding anyone to ‘never forget 12-7"’, it is this never ending push to not allow it to settle that feeds into the entire mechanic of terrorism. While at this point it is painfully clichéd I would say that the moment we decided to not let it rest was the day that the terrorists “won”.

  I realize they can’t win, I realize in death nobody wins, but egos demand that in all conflict there be a winner. While you will never truly find one you will at least find someone who claims to be that one. For as long as we have a terror alert level, for as long as we act differently because of what happened, for as long as we allow this facade that we are in any more danger now than we were before the twin towers, we have lost.

  The Terror Alert system was a failure the moment it was unveiled, it was an insult to intelligence and currently a tool only used for political gain. It is the demand to never forget terrorism that fuels terrorisms growth because it proves to them that they are successful.

  Then again, a simple plane ride, ferry ride, or train ride will prove to anyone that they were successful. How pitiful it is to watch 300 million change their lives because of the actions of a dozen.

Liberalism vs. Conservatism: A Thought

  Now I am probably overlooking something very obvious. But for the life of me, I can’t help but notice that every great genocide, every worldwide injustice, and basically every major negative event that you can find in history books was committed by either a conservative nation or governing body.

  Even now basically the most violent countries in the world are lead by extremely conservative bodies, I just thought that was really odd. You would think with that sort of situation that the conservative platform would be very unpopular.

  However I’m open to being incorrect and would like for some people to present great atrocities committed by Liberal states. Heck it would be neat to see someone research the topic and have in one column all the historical atrocities by Liberal states and then all the historical atrocities of Conservative states.

  At the very least it is food for though.

How much is too much?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30890934/

  Now it isn’t an isolated incident, there are nations that have been battling for hundreds if not thousands of years merely because of a disagreement in literature. I know people say that even without faith we will still have conflict but I tend to think that once people are fighting over which is better, star trek or star wars, we’ll be able to step back and stop it much easier.

  In my mind I wonder though, what benefits do religion give you that you couldn’t acquire by simply being a positive human being? Neither is necessary to have the other so this is not a case of parsing how you could do one without the other.

  Just how much dependency on a belief is too much is another thing I’d be interested in knowing. When you ignore simple medical care and allow your child to die, when you rush to develop nuclear weaponry simply to attack another group of people who disagree with you on a single aspect of your life. At what point do we step back and just say “Whoa”…likewise just when will I start using question marks again to end my questions?

  That’s where I stand though, I’m just not grasping the gain. The benefit of glorifying death over life. For now I just read the newspaper and see event after event that is pretty upsetting. Taking course after course where there is a single theme that holds true.

  However amidst it all I’m pretty positive about life, that to me is what counts. In case you were curious ;) .

Non-existing existence

  “There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.” – Donald Rumsfeld

  For those that peeked up from their sessions of WoW the above quote might be familiar. From what I take from it, there are things that exist that we know exist, there are things that exist that we don’t know exist, then there are things the we don’t know that we don’t know they exist. Which to the casual reader might come off as “Oh so you basically said the same thing twice.”

  So is there actual unknown unknowns? Or is this a case of poor labeling. Modern astronomers might ask the question “What will you find at the end of a black hole?” However if you go far back enough people didn’t even know black holes existed. This would classify to Rumsfeld as an unknown unknown, but to me it is just a further stripping back of your basic everyday unknown.

    Essentially knowledge is not a light switch, we do not suddenly know something is true one day, things gradually become more and more understandable as we dig deeper and deeper into the make of them and their interactions with the universe around them. At no point is anything absolutely certain on a scientific level. You can make literally trillions of subjective statements that appear to be objective and think you’ve proven something absolute but in the end it all comes back to your 5 senses, your language, and the true meaning behind everything involved with that postulate.

  Honestly once you are done parsing just about anything you once thought was rock solid it falls apart, as stated in a very early post here, if it explains in absolution it is absolutely wrong (I used different phrasing before, I thought this sounded swanky though).

  The existence of a non-existent thing is a paradox of language and should be treated as such. Throwing on unknown onto unknown is redundancy and should be treated as such (if you ask me…which you didn’t). Sure one could argue that god is a nonexistent existence, a being that doesn’t exist by the laws of the universe (thusly being nonexistent) however does exist outside of those laws (thusly being existent) however to that I would slap myself in the head, head butt my keyboard, and likely take a nap. Because once again once you start parsing and digging deep just about anything sounds absolutely stupid.

  But who knows, perhaps with further understanding of quantum physics and all these theoretical particles we will find out that indeed in the physical world there exists a non redundant case of unknown unknowns, about that time though I assume we’ll have mixed the genetic makeup of Pigs with Albatross so that we will have simultaneously dealt with an old and abused saying and proved a currently nonsensical modern one.

  One can dream.

 

A Game by Any Other Name

Recently someone brought up the question of why the US tends to be very slow to get certain games that have been released before the ESRB compared to other nations. It has to do with laws in selling the product and the rating system. I have very strong feelings about just how unnecessary the ESRB, but that would boil down into a rant that I can summarize quite quickly and succinctly “Be a better parent and stop expecting everyone else to do your job.” My parents never once looked at the ratings on the games, they weren’t fools and I’ll explain now the art of gaming names.

There is never a goal of hiding destructive content behind a friendly name, this isn’t the Tobacco industry, indeed it’s almost always (if not always) painfully simple to know whether a game can be safely given to a child that you’d rather not spend time with. I say this because anyone who is attentive with their children will not even need to go this far because they’ll be there while their child is playing “Onslaught Brigade Killer Nazi 7” or whatever else that becomes popular this year.

Lets look at a dozen children friendly games and a dozen non-children friendly games. Try and figure out the pattern for each before you go on to the reveal. When I say child friendly I simply mean that even the staunchest ignorant observer would be hard-pressed to equate playing the game to becoming a murderer (which statistically is unlikely if you were curious).

Children Friendly Games

  1. Sonic The Hedgehog
  2. Super Mario Bros
  3. DeBlob
  4. Pokemon
  5. Sim City
  6. Professor Layton and the Curious Village
  7. Dance Dance Revolution
  8. Donkey Kong
  9. Cooking Mama
  10. Lego (Anything)
  11. Club Penguin
  12. Animal Crossing

Non-Children Friendly Games

  1. God of War
  2. Grand Theft Auto
  3. Killzone 2
  4. Resident Evil
  5. Gears of War
  6. Left 4 Dead
  7. Call of Duty: World at War
  8. Resistance: Fall of Man
  9. World of Warcraft
  10. Fallout
  11. Street Fighter
  12. Assassin’s Creed

So have you figured it out? What noticeable difference there is between games your kids can play and what they can’t (well they could play any of them, but for people who actually think it’ll effect the kid). The games that are kid friendly almost always sound kid friendly, sure you could misconstrue club penguin as a verb and a noun instead of one big noun…which I’ll admit is a HUGE difference.

If you go to club penguin for a fun night of dancing is quite different than going to club penguins. But I digress, even the ambiguous titles up there are pretty obvious upon gazing for about a quarter of a second at the covers. Have you ever looked at a cover for a game and thought “Hmm I wonder if there will be death and destruction.” No. While you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover you will always get a pretty accurate view of the ‘danger’ involved with a game by a look at the cover. Lets have a few visual examples.

image
Alright this guy has a gun. Probably involves shooting.

image
Now if the title wasn’t a give away you might notice the pissed off alien with a weapon.

image
Again if the title isn’t a giveaway (Ultimate Fighting Championship) the picture is.

image
Now I’ll admit he eats ‘pills’ and ugh…”kills” ghosts…if you can do that. But obviously friendly.

image
Sure there are lightsabers and ‘violence’ but anyone who knows what Lego’s are knows that they are ALWAYS kid friendly (choking aside).

image
It’s golf. While I realize this could lead your kid to making millions and incidentally losing their ability to feel compassion (joking joking) it is family friendly.

Now I realize I chose all 360 games (a system notorious for adult games) but that was mostly the point. There is really little to no gray area in gaming. If there is going to be death, murder, drug selling, it’s all painfully obvious on the cover if not by the name but by the visual content. Then again on second thought.

image
I can see the ambiguity.

There will likely never be a WWIII.

  While I’m sure there is at least one snooty historian reading this. Not to say all historians are snooty indeed I like basically all of the historians I’ve ever met but I know at least one that is kind of a jackass. Anyways that bit a tangent out of the way lets get down to the meat of this prediction.

  World War I likely had some events that happened before it that lead up to it. I’ve never really studied the first world war but that isn’t the topic of discussion today. People sometimes act like World War II was totally unseen and completely surprising to all parties involved. Indeed whereas World War I was terrible the second World War was absolutely atrocious. Events transpired during it that are the epitome of unbelievable. However it required extremely precise and special events to transpire for it to build to such a level.

  You required a nation with industrial strength to hit a point of absolute desolation financially. This financial destitution really needs the extra bonus of being caused by a series of outside nations who are intentionally destroying you. Germany was essentially a wounded animal that was getting the crap poked out of it by a few other nations with sticks. Basically the world wasn’t ignoring it passively but actively. Making sure that Germans knew that nobody outside of Germany cared either. This set them up to trust anyone who promised to get them out of the situation. Now there are tons and tons of other things that happened as well and I’m sure I’m missing some. However it was a matter of taking a powerful nation and treating it like utter crap until it was nothing but tattered remains. The current economic ‘crisis’ really isn’t that impressive compared to the financial doom of the past.

  Well most people know the gist of what happened during the second world war. Ending with the introduction of arguably the most feared weaponry the modern world has ever and may ever know. This added a new paradigm to future wars. It is now relatively certain that a new world war would end with something far more dramatic than the second world war. Anyone with the power to destroy cities doesn’t want to risk losing their cities and anyone willing to lose their cities doesn’t have the power.

  The introduction of biological weaponry (the lab produced kind) we have another paradigm of possibly creating a weapon that has a global mortality rate in the upper 90’s. This sort of extreme event is a very strong deterrent. Indeed there is little reason anymore to have a world war. While the first world war marked the last great land grab attempt in Europe the second world war was an event brought on by extreme (for a lack of a better term) dickery. If everyone wouldn’t have treated Germany like trash after the first World War there is basically a 100% likelihood that there would have never been a second world war.

  The sequence of needs offset by the costs of execution make any future World War extremely unlikely. Indeed everything commonly used now to support the idea of a future world war is merely a more active observation of events that have been happening for a long long time. The rise in terrorism has been the case for centuries, the rise in dissention and international conflict ahs been the case for centuries, and most other ‘notes’ are really more a case of efficient international communication than a sudden dangerous shift in global paradigms.

  It is more likely that space will send us a global decimator than man will. At least in the next century or so. The old extremists are dying and the youth are less and less intent on following the suicidal nature of their parents. Which you can’t really blame them for, when all you had to play when you were a kid was beat the rock with a stick or paper cut-out GI Joes of course you’ll grow up to be bitter.

  We have I-Phones and Video Games now, even nations that are labeled as ‘haters’ of modernization have high percentages of young citizens who are more or less infatuated with the cultures of other nations. It’s just a matter of surviving the current generation of leaders, once that is done it’ll be quite a long time before another great atrocity happens.

Capitalism a sickly child.

  People often speak of Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and the other 40-50 ‘isms’ that fill up our most well documented governments as if they are all built upon ideas that work well on paper but will never function with humans. That is somewhat true but it isn’t because of the nature of humans it, I feel, is more so the nature of ‘these’ humans. I imagine if there was a mass extinction and a new breed (cognitively) of humans rose to power some of the previously inefficient government forms would actually work. 

  However my point isn’t to debate that, at least not this time. I’m looking more at the wonder that is Capitalism. Capitalism is interesting for multiple reasons but few outshine the fact that people refuse to admit that it is a terrible regulation system. The idea of the Free market, as far as I’ve ever read, has never worked out. You have a short period of time where people think things are working and then a crash where tons of people have their livelihoods destroyed. Then you move on to another period of time, a crash, and the cycle repeats over and over. However when asked how nice Capitalism is most people in positions to speak will say it kicks the shins of all other setups.

  Indeed the idea of Socialism makes many people on television turn red with rage and rant on about how it doesn’t work and how everything will fall apart leaving us with nothing but fire, death, and babies for dinner (I’ve heard all 3). However these same people refuse to acknowledge the huge problems with Capitalism, indeed it is a terrible system. The free market tends to lead to not much more than corruption and those problems only grow over time till large businesses collapse and many people loose everything they’ve worked for. A large percentage of people live under the poverty level, there is a huge separation of wealth where a very small minority (fantastically small even) gathers almost all the wealth of the country.

  I think the reason that Capitalism is so popular is not because it works. Honestly if a race horse worked as well as Capitalism the poor thing would be shot. It is popular because of the possibility of great wealth that stems from it. A true communist country would not have fabulously rich people, a true socialist country likely would not either, however in the realm of Capitalism comes that dream of glory and greatness. The irony is that it is so popular for this factor and yet so few people every truly gain from it.

  To me the free market and capitalism are no different than their siblings. They only truly work on paper, indeed these are merely sickly children that are kept alive by nothing more than hope. It is a lack of hope that caused the recent crash in the US, had nobody cared that Bear Sterns was being as foolish and corrupt as it was and nobody had withdrew their investments it would have never gone under. Likewise if I’m not mistaken the great depression was a similar issue with people fearing banks not having their money so everyone tried to withdraw.

  At any rate I am somewhat interested now to try and fashion my own government system. See how well I can make one and get some input from the folks who frequent these pages.

How and Why the Trojan War Happened. (From a Mythological Standpoint)

Throughout my time in Greek Mythology (and now Tragedy) I’ve had a theory that has seen some pretty good support from the stories that have been left for us to examine. The problem I had before (other than a forced word count) was what the purpose of my theory was, I refuse to accept that anything happens ‘just because’ even if an explanation is merely a more detailed form of that response. Causes and Effects are wondrous things that keep me awake on many a night. The theory is that the Trojan war, much like (I feel) all wars before and after it, in the fact that it was inevitable given the events transpiring a while before it. However unlike modern world wars, wars on terror, and wars on rap music (down with yee!) this was a war laid out by the Greek gods themselves.

Who was involved? Physically on the spectrum of humans (and heroes) we likely can involve Hector, Heracles, Helen, Xanthus, Paris, Priam, Philoctetes, Laomedon, Ajax, Helen, Menelaus, Pandarus, and Patrocalus…woo yeah quite a few people most of which word feels are real names. But who amongst the gods are involved? As it stands I feel we can accuse Zeus, Apollo, Eris, Ares, Athena, Artemis, and likely anyone who placed their godly feet at the lands of either Athens or Troy.

So where does it all begin? Well I feel that we can safely start things with the wildly famous son of Zeus (one of many)-Heracles. For those who know a bit about Greek history it is quite obvious that Heracles was not physically a participant, he died a comfortable distance (in time) before the Trojan war. He never even met Paris, who would be the playboy largely accused for the Trojan war (perhaps unfairly), however he did meet and kill someone very important to Paris. Heracles killed a man by the name of Laomedon, who was the father of a man known as Priam, who consequently was the father of Paris. So many years before Paris was alive the involvement of godly entities in his bloodline was present.

I only mention this because it is by Hercules’ own bow and arrows handed down to Philoctetes, that will indeed poison and kill Paris. It would be (to me) ironic likewise that the very Zeus-like attitude of Paris "if it moves, and is sexy, mate with it" that would end up being the final nail in his coffin. A beautiful nymph that Paris originally found himself in the bed of (before his later rendezvous with Helen) could have easily cured him, however by breaking her heart he ended up dying outside the doors of her shack. A bit of a tangent but I found it funny that by acting like the most successful of Greek gods he would suffer such a terrible end. It may have had to do with the fact that Zeus’s own son had killed his grandfather, setting the precedent that their bloodlines did not peacefully sync. But back on track…

Returning back to the time preceding the Trojan war, there is a series of unfortunate (for the Greeks) events transpiring above the clouds. The events of the heroes below tie in like the string of the fates, this is not an accident by any means. This is likely because of the combined powers of Apollo and Prometheus (without whom it is blatantly obvious that the Greek gods would do terribly in their manipulative attempts). Anyone who thinks otherwise would be well to remember that Zeus, powerful enough to defeat his father (Kronos) who was himself powerful enough to defeat one of the original gods of the universe (Ouranos), could not even end the life of humanity (not for naught of trying either). With the previous piece of information in mind we move onto an event that I originally viewed as accidental but now feels very planned, much like the rest of the things you’ll read here. Zeus after a failed interrogation was (for reasons unknown) finally gifted with the information that had terrorized him for quite a while by a Titan known as Prometheus. Prometheus has arguably one of the greatest powers in the entire Greek universe, he can literally see the future, Prometheus is so powerful that unlike Apollo it would appear that Prometheus can even change the future. Prometheus knew that the lust of Zeus would inevitably cause him to bear a child that will be more powerful than him, much like he was the child that defeated his father, and his father was the child that defeated his grandfather. Perhaps on retrospect this is why Paris was defeated by his own lust, he did not have the forethought necessary to defeat a self destructive trait. More on that later.

Zeus would in his limited wisdom (granted greatly by the consumption of his first wife; Metis the goddess of Wisdom. Who was so wise that her essence would grow within Zeus and sprout from his head (with some assistance from his new Wife’s defunct son Hephaestus) as an entirely separate entity; Athena. I don’t think this was a deed that Zeus did actively, it seemed symbolic of his inability to grasp onto Wisdom (as an entity of raw power). It was with his limited wisdom and somewhat sly nature (still retaining some of his Daughter’s military tact) that he decided now knowing the target of his lust that he would marry her with some modern human. Surely doing so would protect him from his own groin from inevitably defeating him. The wonderful woman’s name was Thetis, a gorgeous sea nymph that would turn most male deities hearts to mush. The decision was to marry her to a man named Peleus, if memory serves he was your average farmer, while that might not be accurate the important information is that he’s merely mortal. A lucky mortal to say the least.

This wedding, much like the birth of Athena, was a huge deal. If you were a god worth mentioning you were invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, in fact all the gods were invited to the wedding except for one, Eris, the Goddess of Discord. I thought at first this was because Zeus knew what she would do if she was invited, than overtime it hit me, it’s not that he knew what she would do had she been invited, he knew what she would do had she not been invited. Likely by discussing the situation with Apollo and/or (more likely) Prometheus, seeing as after the events of Prometheus bound the two had a wobbly but peaceful relationship (finally).

Poseidon’s gift to the wedding were two horses known as Xanthus and Barius, with (likely) the obvious knowledge from Prometheus that they’d play a large part in the upcoming war by the very powerful child that the couple would bear. Eris dropped the Apple of Discord into the wedding, this apple was said to be for the "fairest" at the wedding. It would initiate a scuffle between three goddess’ Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite. Zeus took the apple and handed it off to the human most like him, Paris. This is twofold, Zeus knows that only a complete fool blinded by lust would ever tell any number of Goddess’ (higher than 1) that they are fairer than those around them…short of perhaps getting to bed them all at once and he knew that Paris much like him was someone just horny enough to make such a foolish move.

If all of the gods were in agreement in the war of Athens and Troy the war would be extremely short lived, this was not the desire of the gods (to be explained soon). Aphrodite must like the Trojans was an entity more so of passion than thought (according to the Athenian gods). Zeus likewise knew that if offered power, wisdom, or sex that he’d choose a good lay in a second (albeit for him his own libido is what gave him a powerful Olympian family), likewise if he would so would Paris. The story played out just as he either assumed or was told by his partners. Hera told Paris she’d give him power, Athena told him she’d give him Wisdom, and Aphrodite told him she could get him laid so good he’d be cross eyed. Without a second thought he gave the apple to Aphrodite, at this point one of the world’s oldest (or should be) adages was unleashed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Except for maybe two woman…who are also goddesses. But I digress.

There are events in Tragedy that are remixed many times over and it is difficult to say which is the truer to its kin. But it is important to note that in the tragedy Iphigenia at Aulis, it is said that Artemis came down just before the death of Iphigenia (being sacrificed by her father) and replaced her with a deer. I feel that events like this were done to add a sense of dread to the war, to remind the humans that the war was unavoidable and that great tragedies would unravel during it, and after it.

Fast forward to the war. Unsurprisingly to anyone, Ares would join up with Aphrodite, not surprising because the two were very intimate. It’s difficult to say no to Aphrodite once you are in her bed. Nothing that unraveled during the Trojan was unplanned, nor was anything a surprise to the gods. This can and likely was in large part because of Prometheus, which may be paradoxical because he’s famous for protecting humanity. However perhaps he foresaw something far worse than the Trojan war had it not happened. Much like killing deer to make certain they don’t starve to death from overpopulation. Hector, much like Odysseus, and Achilles would not want to go to war. None of them were fond of Helen and more so none of them were fond with the idea of dying, it’s just not on the plate of most people, hero or not.

When Paris brought back Helen he had activated an Oath made by all of the men (or most) of Athenian alignment, their oath was that if she ever befell trouble that they’d come to her aid. As is shown in many tragedies related to the situation nobody believed that they’d ever have to actually to do anything about it. Agamemnon says in "Iphigenia at Aulis", Those foolish suitors swore that oath to Tyndareus in their longing to wed; but Hope was the goddess that led them on. Indeed these men all longed for a woman as beautiful as Helen and it was this wildly blind hope that led them to make such a ridiculous oath.

Tyndareus was most likely manipulated by some god, I know not which but considering the way all things fall into alignment it cannot be coincidence. When Paris and Menelaus attempted to settle the war peacefully there would be, much like modern wars, a single shot heard around the world that sparks a battle that costs many lives. That shot would be fired by Pandarus, the male form of Pandora, who is famous for being the first woman gifted by Zeus who would curse the world of Man with misfortune and grief. Pandarus likewise cursed the Greek world with a war of great casualties.

A second event happens when Hector attempts likewise to lessen the destruction and challenge any member of the Trojan people to a battle, whoever wins would (hopefully) take credit and perhaps be considered the victor. Ajax would take up the challenge and after a very impressive battle it ended with both deciding it was a draw and handing each other a gift, to Hector came Ajax’s girdle and to Ajax came Hector’s sword. Much like the bow of Achilles, these items would also have greatly important presence later in the war. Symbols of how peace amongst man cannot exist when their destruction is decided amongst the gods.

Apollo would come to the aid of Hector after Ajax felled him with a stone, and explained to him the morbid truth of the war (one side of the truth that is) that no good deed of god would be left without great punishment of a rival god. There would be no gift that did not end with tragedy. Indeed the gift from Hephaestus of Armor for Achilles, with which Patrocalus would wear to his death, was likely done with the knowledge that if Patrocalus the gem of Achilles’ heart were to die that the relatively level headed (for a warrior/hero) nature of Achilles would unravel and leave nothing but a destructive beast. A killing machine that is nigh unstoppable. Likewise the horses gifted well before, Xanthus and Barius, would also be greatly upset and aid Achilles in quick travel and great devastation. Hector would end up being the one that kills Patrocalus, and indeed he would find that the gift from Ajax would be used in his destruction (post mortem). Hector would add insult to injury by donning the armor of Achilles on himself after the murder of Patrocalus, essentially he was wearing the very skin of not only Achilles but Achilles greatest love, an act of Hubris that could not be erased. Hephaestus would then create a second set of armor for Achilles, again a gift from one cannot go without an evil.

Achilles’ rage was in no way masked, Hector would flee in terror around the city of Troy from Achilles. This symbolic chase was to exemplify the end of Troy and the conclusion of the goal of the Greek gods. For those who can’t possibly wait any longer I’ll explain once and for all (I wish) what the goal of the Trojan war was, quoted from the Greek tragedy Orestes by Euripides.

Apollo:


‘Twas I that saved her and snatched her from beneath thy sword at
the bidding of her father Zeus; for she his child must put on immortality,
and take her place with Castor and Polydeuces in the bosom of the
sky, a saviour to mariners. Choose thee then another bride and take
her to thy home, for the gods by means of Helen’s loveliness embroiled
Troy and Hellas, causing death thereby, that they might lighten mother
Earth of the outrage done her by the increase of man’s number. Such
is Helen’s end.

To those who catch the point here. Apollo states that Helen was created to cut the population of humanity that was dealing great levels of stress on the planet that supports them. In other words, we are the deer to the gods and they are trying to thin our numbers in order to protect us. A brutal strategy but one that historically has worked for certain with numerous animals. But back to the war since it’s very interesting to see how far this goes.

Athena, a fan of Achilles, would end up tricking Hector into stopping his fleeing (he was quite a runner) and because of her trickery Achilles would catch and slay Hector quite easily. The gift of the girdle to Hector would be the tool of his blasphemous post mortem treatment, Achilles in his passionate rage dragged the corpse of Hector around (with the aid of Barius and Xanthus) with the girdle he had been handed in good faith by Ajax. Just as the girdle would be the undoing of Hector, likewise the sword he had given Ajax would be the device that killed Ajax (once and for all). To make a long story short, Ajax jumped onto the sword himself and ended his life after an embarrassing event that I seem to remember was created by Athena. I digress like a drunk driver speeding on a thin road I apologize.

Interestingly this point is when Achilles transitions from Athena to Ares in his mindset, this perhaps an example of the worry the gods had gathered. If such a transition can happen so easily with one great man, what’s to say it wouldn’t happen with vast amounts of men? Supporting their decision to lessen the numbers of men (in modern day world wars this appears to have been a reasonable fear).

The Trojan War was planned many years before it unfolded by the Greek Gods, through the aid of powerful entities like Prometheus and Apollo the gods were able to take the most efficient form of control (death) and use it to help lessen the great and destructive numbers of man. As I stated before, this fear is well documented in our own history with entire cities suddenly vanishing beneath the great power of single bombs. We have now reached the period that the gods of old literature had feared to such a great degree that they created the most amazing conspiracy that I’ve ever read about.

Go to Top