trojan dinosaur

The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. --John Milton

Dinosaurs would disagree with the common perspective that evolution necessarily means progress. Natural selection, one of the major mechanisms that propels evolution, "decided" that the qualities of dinosaurs weren't the most fabulous for the purpose of indefinite reproduction. Hence nature--or whatever the hell you choose to call it--discarded the dino option.

The treehugger in us mourns extinct species but we are natural hypocrites. We are not thrilled about a pack of Canis Lupus roaming our backyards, but we consider it a cruel deed when a wolf gets shot in Alaska. Honestly, you don't want to find your Toyota under a pile of dinosaur excrement when you are about to drive home from church. And who enjoys getting stepped on by large animals? The fact that dinosaurs fell victim to extinction is reason to celebrate. What you may call progress meant death for dinosaurs.

Death of a species is not always caused by the evil human race. Tens of thousands of species had become extinct before homo sapiens popped up. And to this day, a bunch of species die PARALLEL to our existence and not because of us picking our noses the wrong way.

Hate me if you like, but I think it's a blessing that certain creatures are dead. Actually, that is true for some people also: who would want the Mao monster back? Or Hitler, Stalin, Che Guevara--I know, there are folks who are in awe of murderers like Che--and Pol Pot? Evolution kills things, and not only bad and creepy guys with body odor. Evolution couldn't care less about good or bad individual specimens of a species, and it doesn't give a rat's pink behind about a single species, either.

Evolution is a process from inferiority to superiority, from worse to better? Bollocks. Adaptation to a changing environment, spruced up by occasional random changes--genetic drift--does not imply that the environment causes a species to improve. Homo Sapiens of the 21st century may be better suited to procreate in an increasingly Orwellian world and perhaps we are fit enough to survive our own idiocy, but that does not say anything about us being a better edition than the Mesopotamian dorks of the iron age some 3,000 years ago.

Do you seriously believe the average dunce of today is advanced compared to the average contemporary of George Washington? I am confident Mr. Washington could smoke each and every politician of today's world in his pipe. Since George Washington, politicians have certainly not progressed. Or do you think they lie so much better today than they did 200 years ago? One wishes politicians would become the new dinosaurs, following the brittle crop of banksters on their heels, but unfortunately they are as resilient as a bad strain of the flu.

We are freaks, and the human race is a strange species. But, that is not what I intend to talk about: I have evolution on my mind, evolution free of progress.

Apropos '200 years' of development and progress: Matt Ridley, an Oxford-educated zoologist, said in a recent interview: "It is conceivable that some people in Africa are living at a lower standard of living than anyone was 200 years ago." (Reason magazine, February 2009). Yes, we are progressing indeed.

Evolution has no interest in pacifying an individual or a collective perspective of "better" or "more" in any department of our humanness. Sure, the tools and technologies we employ today are superior. But are people better individuals today? Are we happier? Objectively, the improvement of quantities or qualities is hardly on the menu of evolution, and it would be silly to expect that the universe increases income, health, or freedom naturally as an organic function of evolving from one Monday to the next.

Survival of the fittest? Really? My observation tells me that the fittest die as well, sooner or later. Often sooner. Athlete's heart, you know? Yeah, I am aware that my exegesis stinks and that I am bending scientific truths for my devious purposes. But some of those truths are crooked and questionable. For instance, people are peddling barrels of snake oil under the intimidating banner of "quantum physics." It's all made up out of thin air anyway, without the slightest scientific base but people are buying it with hard currency. You care for solid evolutionary truth?

It is a fact of evolution that everybody ends up dead. Nobody survives evolution. Nobody wins. If death is progress from your perspective, then yes, evolution means progress. Otherwise, I'll continue to have my doubts.

You want to believe in evolution or in creationism, 'Intelligent Design?' Have it your way, I don't care. Peculiar to me is the fact that the defenders of a creator do not trust their God, just as the church of evolution--c'mon, for Richard Dawkins evolution IS a religion--does not trust the inner workings of evolution.

Denouncing progress in the church of evolution is heresy, and I'm afraid the mind of the average intellectual has not improved since the Catholic church and the Holy Inquisition put Galileo Galilei under house arrest 500 years ago. For the Catholic church on the other hand, progress CAN be heresy if it interferes with the church's manic opportunism:

In 1990, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI., cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology." As evidence he quoted philosopher Paul Feyerabend, as saying:

"The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."

Two years later, in 1992, Pope John Paul II. vindicated Galileo. It must have been "politically opportune," as the church--according to Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI.)--obviously doesn't give a crap about what's true.

The Catholic church does not trust God's creation, and she does not feel comfortable selling creation "as is" to her flock. In this case, church executives waited half a thousand years before they felt sufficiently comfy to inform the faithful of what they had known to be true all along. When the church offers truth eventually, please be aware that it may come with a 500-year delay.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you believe God created the status quo or evolution delivered us where we are today: as a society, we don't trust either of the two. What do I mean? We do not trust free markets! Truth is not opportune and we prefer to fight it with as much money as we are willing to print. Perhaps not for 500 years, because even the dullest union member can calculate that foolishness can't be financed indefinitely, but we are determined to cover up reality with mountains of money.

If you can trust the existence of progress and evolution, why can't you trust the market? Products come and go. The markets are subject to evolution also. Some inventions stay for a long time and adjust to changing requirements. The wheel, for instance, has been around for awhile. Entire professions have come and gone. Other products and services become obsolete within months of their introduction or after a few years. The elevator man, for example, is a rare phenomenon these days, and if you want an exquisite carpenter for your project, you need to go to the Amish or you are out of luck.

I suggest we continue paying all former elevator people. Let us build elevators--useful or not--so that the last remaining elevator men can drive up and down all day until their last pitiful brain cells croak. Manufacturers of typewriters should be enabled financially to employ their workforce again and until the end of time. Steam engine operators, weavers, pardoners (licensed to sell Papal indulgences), and postillions need to get back on somebody's payroll.

Insane? I don't understand! Small business owners who earn barely $25 an hour (and cannot afford health insurance) are forced to pay General Motors' workers who are making $39.68 an hour (including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay), plus another average $33.58 an hour (health-care, pension and other benefits). Difference between the two is that one is productive and the GM employee is not.

GM can't sell enough cars to justify their business model. For years to come, millions of factually obsolete jobs will be artificially propped up by those of us whose services and products find buyers. We may just as well pay everybody royally whose profession has become superfluous during the course of history. A trillion dollars more or less won't make a difference.

When you own a restaurant and you manage it poorly, you'll have to face reality. When arrogant dicks like John Thain run a 95-year old company like Merrill Lynch into the ground, Bank of America may pick up the pieces on paper but the productive tax payer will be forced to deal with the consequences. Mind boggling, that people have to work their asses off on productive jobs and in money-producing businesses--large AND small--to finance jobs that will disappear once it'll be "politically opportune" to describe the Emperor's Clothes as what they are.

If you believe the rich have to pay more in the future to finance the poor, you are so wrong! The productive are being punished for their productivity and forced to pay for the unproductive. Individuals who have to come up with the dough to keep useless jobs on life support, may have less money than those who benefit from this disgusting scheme.

AIG Insurance, the 18th largest company in the world, is "too large" to let it slide into bankruptcy. Your puny business and mine are apparently not too small to support giant losers like Bank of America (who has received $45 billion), AIG Inc. (who has access to $190 billion), and Shitty Group (who has received $50 billion). Goodness, AIG lost $62 billion buckaroos in the last quarter of 2008 alone! How does one do that (unless that money was never really there; unfortunately, that comes painfully close to the truth)?

Dinosaurs die. That used to be an evolutionary fact. Since governments never met a crisis they didn't like, dead dinosaurs are being mutated to Trojan dinosaurs or transformed into economically undead, if you will. The harsh reality of boom and bust cycles is "politically not opportune" anymore for the pussies--oops, please accept my sincere apology!--we have become while progressing lazily. We are crying for mom to help us, and the political nannies are thrilled to comply. With a little unforeseen twist, that is.

Am I angry? Not at all. Frustrated, demotivated, or depressed? On the contrary.

Freedom and individuality have always been fragile and precious, and this moment is as good as any to claim them for yourself. Governments come and go, and what one government can give you, the next may take away from you. Getting upset over government waste is a waste of time. Evolution has not been able to improve politicians, and neither will we perform such a miracle.

The real question is: will you allow anyone--the recession or the undead--to take away your happiness? Don't. That is the first step into freedom. Reclaim your full power over your happiness! The following steps may not be as easy, but they will be simple as well.

The fight to expand your individuality is so hard because it must be fought against and for yourself.

Egbert Sukop



P.S.: To all of you who have purchased my new book:

Thank you so much! I feel privileged that you chose to read my rebellious and provocative material. Not everybody can digest it without (growing) pain and I appreciate the daring individuals who are embracing the challenge. You are truly exceptional!

'How to Better Hate Your Job' is now available on
www.amazon.com (ISBN: 978-0-578-00314-6).