"When a legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what's the real difference between them and the thief? Darn little! They hide behind the excuse that they're legislating democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob can justify its act because a majority participated." ~ H.L. Richardson
Know This Or Die
It is a fact that we will all die, the converse of life. It is pointless to speculate on what comes after life or anything without a factual linkage to reality. Practical people are concerned solely with what can be seen, touched, experienced and proven. To concern oneself with speculation (apart from discovering the possible whys of observable facts) is to waste one's time, which is far better spent dealing with reality.
What then, is life? It is an event in time, with a beginning and an end. Since it exists in the real world, it occupies an environment which places constraints on what life can and cannot do, dictated by the laws of physics such as gravity precluding floating. Life also has a compelling need to survive. Since all human lives are different, what is this difference and where does it come from? Why do some survive and some do not? What does science (the art of proving the provable and ignoring the un-provable) have to say about life?
Despite the appearance of substantial (political/media created) controversy, Charles Darwin and Evolution (not theory of) is the hands down winner, forming the basis of all biological science, for the simple reason it is proven knowledge which explains observed phenomena and has the ability to predict consequences of experiment. No scientific experiment has ever produced results which contradicts Evolution. What exactly then, in layman's terms, does Evolution claim and why are the political/religious classes so afraid of it?
Charles Darwin claimed/proved that something as innocuous as a random cosmic ray is able to cause a genetic mutation which may confer a statistical survival advantage, allowing a species to be better adapted to its environment (able to use time and energy more efficiently), which, over time will lead to major survival advantages for species possessing this gene/attribute. Life can be explained without a 'Creator.' Diversity is different individuals and species adapted to diverse environments. Survival 'fitness' is how well a species or individual is adapted to its environment and how well it is able to adapt to changing environment.
Thus far, only organized religion is offended, no big deal, we can tolerate their dissent, since objective thought will ultimately rule (we hope). Religion is offended because it is claimed that Darwin killed God and our noble species (the image of God) is thus descended from apes. Darwin did not kill God, he just provided an alternative explanation by discovering and proving some very fundamental laws of Nature. Since God supposedly created all, God's laws as proven by science cannot be rejected by religion without rejecting part of creation and thus God. So, the argument is claimed to come down to apes. The false argument ends at God is a perfect ape and, since man changed (evolved) from apes, we are less than perfect, having evolved from the perfect ape image. The truth is that the beginning of life, as claimed by Evolution, starts with random events in a primordial chemical soup, leading to increasing complexity, resulting in life. The point is that religious issues with Evolution are falsely framed, to keep a large social group opposed to the acknowledgement of fundamental truth which in no way disproves God, although it does alter some Biblical timescales. It is still possible that God created the universe and the laws of nature to fulfill creation. In this interpretation, Darwin just discovered some of God's methodology. So, what is the real threat of Evolution?
The taking of one path over another is a choice. It does not matter that there is no intelligent chooser (i.e.; random cosmic ray caused a genetic choice, a path to be taken). In essence, Darwin proved it is all about CHOICE. This gave the powers that be (PTB's) a major insight both into how to rule and what knowledge must be suppressed at all costs. Mankind must not find out it is all about CHOICE. This is what intelligence does, it CHOOSES. We must not EVER know this. We must not be allowed to CHOOSE. We must instead be blindly reacting to contrived events.
Darwin gave rulers the insight that controlling environment and thus choice is the road to power. All of history/politics since Darwin has been shaped by this. We are in the final stages of a war against intelligence, and it may cost civilization. Ever since Darwin, mankind has been reacting to contrived events such as the Lusitania (WW1), Pearl Harbor (WWII), Tonkin (Vietnam), 9/11 (WWIII), being steered (predictably reacting) along a path back to feudalism by elites. The defense is to not be 'Pavlov's Citizen.'
Those who claim that natural law is 'unfair' completely misrepresent natural law. Survival of the fittest does not mean 'the most powerful.' If it did, we would all be Romans. The truth is that the fittest are those most able to adapt to changing environment, choosing to use time, energy, fact, knowledge and the environment to the best survival advantage.
Thus, it is scientifically proven that life and survival is about the wise usage of time and energy to adapt to environment, and, in the case of man, this is achieved by using intelligence applied to proven facts to choose wisely.
The PTB's claim that man is basically evil, conflictual and thus requires a powerful, morally superior force such as themselves restricting our choice (which is freedom, which is the ability to survive) for 'our own good.'
The truth is the converse, instead, (as proven by Darwin) man's choice (and apparent behavioral nature) is determined by the opportunities presented by environment which is controlled by the PTB's (faulty education, corrupt media) as opposed to us, guaranteeing their survival (since they choose and create our false environments) and not ours (since we fear them and do not exercise our choice).
Bottom line is, all words and intellectual concepts (your environment) have absolutely no meaning unless they have precise definitions, related to proven fact and knowledge. They are rationalizations, intended to confuse by introducing false concepts and relationships. The only thing that is real is when a force is applied in the real world (for whatever rationalization) and meets an equal and opposite reaction (consequence).