I. Introduction

We feel offended when being lied to because it creates the impression that we are not worth the truth. Truth, though it hurts a lot of times, is what we want so as to end the wandering of our thoughts in the wilderness of uncertainty, confusion, and doubt. In any of these conditions, there seems to be an endless flow of information intended to resolve our problems. Unfortunately, not all of them are trustworthy for their sources are basically “ego-massagers” who thrive in manipulative schemes that draw us away from the “real score” and feed into our minds a bunch of lies to make us feel good. More unfortunate, though, is the fact that many of us really feel good and have no intent in abandoning the lies even when presented the truth. With this kind of dogmatism, who needs the truth?

Lying is on every level and facet of human existence: from the individual to the social, from local to global, in the spheres of economics and culture but more rampant in politics and religion. Having this in mind is like swallowing hook, line, and sinker the notion that the world is ruled by the liars’ lying and lies. We are engulfed within a network shaped and sustained by a conspiracy of lies. In a system like this, truth-seekers and truth-tellers are easily dismissed as unfit and abnormal. They are ridiculed, booed, heckled and jeered at because they don’t toe the “normal” line, so to speak.

II. Destructive and Non-Destructive Lies

But let’s start off with the most fundamental on the individual and social levels. Lying here may indubitably be rampant in both destructive (i.e., intended to destroy the person of a human being) and non-destructive (i.e., not a serious threat to destroy the person of a human being) manners. In many instances, the non-destructive ones are generally taken lightly and apparently intended as jokes that could easily be forgotten in the passing of time. This point doesn’t, however, condone lying for deep down its roots, it distorts the truth even in its simplest and seemingly insignificant configuration and may thus be construed as immoral in the final analysis.

Destructive lies, as its modifier obviously denotes, are disastrous. “These are lies sustained and in turn further strengthen the clout of malevolent forces in human interaction. Their sole intent is to wreck relationships, mess up circumstances, obliterate plans and ruin people. These are the lies that originally and unilaterally conditioned our minds to think across the board that all lies are immoral.” (1)

III. Lies in the Corridors of Power: When Religion Intersects with Politics

The most devastating variety of lies is concocted in the corridors of power (2), both political and religious. In fact, in many serious instances, it emanates and solidifies at a certain point where the political and the religious intersect. This intersection is actually the foundation of what is known in contemporary geopolitical consideration, “The New World Order.” But before we get into the nitty-gritty of this conspiracy, let’s focus first on the lies that originate from the fundamentalist evangelical-pentecostal-charismatic variety of the Christian religion.

Most of the denominations under this classification are perpetrators of the lies of miraculous healing and prosperity gospel (e.g., Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson, Gordon Lindsay, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, John Hagee, Ernest Angley, Joyce Meyer, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, et al). These are the same leaders of denominations that promote the supreme lie of Zionism which is characterized by the belief in another classic lie of “Jesus Christ’s Second Coming”. The latter lie is literally taken by these charlatans to occur when the lie of the Jewish people’s return to “God’s promised land” called “Israel” (which in reality is the land in the Middle East called Palestine) is finally effected.

The lie of Zionism which favors the establishment of “the state of Israel” is basically a fundamentalist Christian lie. However, Jews, in general, don’t believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, much less in the latter’s “second coming.” But Christian Zionism has strongly and solidly supported the lie of the Jews’ return to “the promised land”. In the course of time, Zionism has been officially adopted by the Jews themselves as a viable political platform which has become a powerful lie to claim Palestine as “the real Israel”. Now that Zionist Jews are trying to strengthen the lie that Palestine is actually “Israel,” massive violation of the Palestinians’ human rights that commonly results in the loss of precious human lives and destruction of properties has been going on for years on a daily basis in Gaza Strip.

The catastrophic consequences of this stupendous Zionist lie are further reinforced by the lie that the violent retaliation of the Palestinians against the abusive treatment of Zionist “Israelis” towards them is pure and simple anti-Semitism. The truth is, being against Zionist “Israel” is not anti-Semitism because the “Israel” that now occupies Palestine is not Semitic on the basis of Biblical genealogy. Arabs–which include Palestinians–are Semitic but not “Israel” whose origin was the ancient Khazarians of Central Asia who converted to Judaism for convenience. In this connection, even their claimed Semitic origin is a lie and their monstrous abuses against the Palestinians is in the truest sense of the term, anti-Semitism.

The whole gamut of this disastrous enterprise has been politicized as it is fully sustained, encouraged and fortified by the US government by way of financial and logistical support under the direction of the “Deep State,” (3) a shadow government more powerful than the legitimate US government and composed of big industry magnates with close Zionist ties. This is the intersecting point where Christian Zionism, Zionist Israel, the US government and its Deep State puppeteers converge.

IV. The Supreme Global Hegemonic Power that has Ruined the World through the Enormous Perpetration of Utter Lies

The US imperialist power is not only the sustaining power behind the arrogant posturing of “Israel” in the Middle East. As a co-creator of the massive Greater Israel Project (4), the US government which takes its cue and direction from the Deep State is the destructive power behind the ruins of Libya, Iraq, and Syria. The destruction of Iraq was grounded on an unabashed lie that Saddam Hussein had developed and stored weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in preparation for a wide-scale attack on western countries. It was later confirmed by reliable investigators that there were actually no WMDs stored somewhere in Iraq. A similar brass-necked lie was used to wreak havoc in Libya and later in Syria.

Now, the US government has spearheaded a horrendous lie in its destabilization campaign in Venezuela to topple the government of Nicolas Maduro who like his predecessor, the legendary Hugo Chavez, has never capitulated to the whims and wishes of the US global hegemony to take control of Venezuela’s enormous petroleum reserves considered as the biggest in the world.

V. Conclusion

The lies will continue and lying will further be used as a geopolitical platform to advance and achieve the grand agenda of the US hegemonic power all over the world. What is really so pathetic in this entire state of affairs is the passive obedience of western European allies despite the fact that they perfectly know the truth. Perhaps, it is the common economic interests forged between the US and western Europe that the latter unabatingly protects even to the point of putting up with the former’s inexorable lying.

(1) From: “The Value (or Transvaluation) of Lies”

(2) With apologies to C. P. Snow in whose novel Homecomings (published in 1956) the term “corridors of power” was first used.

(3) Cf. “Securitization, Dual State and US-European Geopolitical Divide or The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order” by Ola Tunander file:///C:/Users/ruelf/Documents/Ola%20Tunander_The_Use_of_Terrorism_to_Construct_World_Order.pdf

(4) “The Greater Israel Project” Explained by Ken O’Keefe

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 26 March 2019

What Do We Really Want?

As a superficial and immediate reaction, the question is not only very general but it doesn’t even have boundaries at all. In other words, it lacks a parameter and hence the context is impossible to establish. Who are the “we” in the question? Are these the people of all the world regardless of where they are located? Basically, the issue of wanting is individual and in that sense, it is only me who is bothered about what I want. As far as the others are concerned, I don’t know what they want unless I’m given a vantage point to at least approximate what they really feel on the basis of their demeanors and facial expressions. But the question, properly understood is, what do they really want that I also want? I may ask them what they really want and everything now depends on their answers which will give me the opportunity to say if what they want is also what I want.

Basic in the scientific field of psychology is the principle of individual differences. There may be certain points of agreement on particular issues but the general norm is that human beings are individually different from each other. However, there are intersecting points every now and then when two or more people find themselves sharing the same beliefs or opinions and on the basis of such beliefs or opinions come up with a unified expression of what they want. But whatever we may want to think of in connection with the question, What do we really want? we can almost be sure that in general, different people have different wants and when the question, What do we really want? is asked, we can get responses that may not only be contrasting but essentially different from each other.

Nevertheless, in a highly commercialized consumer society, we have witnessed the strong influence of advertising in all forms and in all media outlets. Advertising agencies have employed the most powerful techniques and gimmicks to capture the minds of people whom they perceive as prospective consumers to patronize lines of products that range from foods and drinks to apparels and accessories, from fragrances and cosmetics to footwear and bags, from laptops and tablets to iPhones and iPads among others. Looking at how people positively react to these ads is proof enough that by and large, these are what a lot of people collectively want. These are the things people really want. These are the things we really want.

In a situation where we find a polarization of different groups of consumers in terms of their buying patterns and capabilities, members of one group have determined once and for all what they really want. Such is also true among the members of the other group. In this connection, really wanting something over the other is not a monolithic condition because there isn’t such a thing as that.

Elevating the present discussion to a higher non-material level, it is interesting to note that there seems to be a one-way trajectory that leads people in general towards consensual goals like achieving the good life, so to speak. In simple terms, we could say that this is what we really want. But the further question is, What constitutes the good life? Perhaps if I may venture to share my two cents, the good life is a condition where there is minimal suffering, toned-down conflicts among people sharing a community, and being happily and peacefully associated with family and friends. This is what we really want.

But the realization of the good life we want seems to be next to impossibility particularly in places where large-scale violent conflicts have been ongoing for years. The good life could even be construed as a figment of imagination as we witness famine and drought, malnutrition and sickness in various parts of the world. For people caught amidst these pathetic situations, what they really want is to end their suffering as quickly as possible.
At this point, we have been able to expose two contrasting scenarios of wanting: One in the luxury of a prosperous state of affairs while the other in a situation of suffering. One is out of desperation and anguish while the other is out of opulence and comfort. And the question remains: What do we really want?

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 19 March 2019

Ethical Dealings with Fellow Animals


“The truth of the matter is we cannot escape from the reality of our physicality. We are here and now in flesh and bone and blood. It is only the arrogance of our well-achieved evolution that has given us the illusion and the delusion that there is nothing animal in us anymore. In recognition of this incontrovertible fact and to turn the table around, it might be rather more meaningful to say that there is something human in our animality. What makes sense at this point is not the animal in us but rather the human in us who are actually animal.” — Ruel F. Pepa, “The Animal in Us”  []

I. “A Clearing House”

Let me initially establish the parameters of the matter at hand. About “animals,” there are seven main taxonomic ranks to consider: kingdom, division, class, order, family, genus, and species. The Animal Kingdom is a vast domain with myriad species ranging from the microscopic to the gigantic. I don’t intend to get into a comprehensive and lengthy discussion covering the entire animal kingdom for it will surely be one herculean task to accomplish. With all the limitations considered, I’d rather focus particularly on Class Mammalia and Class Aves specifically on both categories of wild and domesticated species where pet animals and farm livestock are included in the latter category.

Furthermore, it is important to take note of the term, “fellow animals,” for it implies that in the present discussion, the discussant who belongs to the human species–homo sapiens sapiens–is the point of reference in the discussion topic. Simply put, the issue is on how the human species–which is scientifically classified as an animal–ethically deals with its fellow animals.

Regarding the term “ethical,” my fundamental presupposition is the humanistic framework where the main emphasis is the primacy of human flourishing through (1) amelioration of suffering, (2) resolution of conflict, and (3) promotion of happiness. This particular ethical framework shouldn’t, however, be misconstrued as an exclusivist position that lacks environmental/ecological concern. The truth of the matter is, the humanistic ethical framework is an all-encompassing principle which is cognizant of the fact that the destruction of the environment is tantamount to the destruction of humanity. Nevertheless, this general ethical framework shouldn’t collide with the institutionalized morals of society as long as such morals do not deviate or assault the cardinal principle of human flourishing.

II. Being Responsible Stewards of Nature Protection and Preservation

Taking this issue from the perspectives of both primitive and modern western socio-cultural orientations, there’s nothing irresponsible, immoral and thus unethical in killing animals for food. Even in the context of wildlife hunting, the same principle applies: Hunt for food, i.e., when shooting and killing an animal in the wild, let it sink in the mind that such is done with a useful, beneficial and constructive purpose. It is obviously a serious problem among vegetarians but they appeal to a totally different set of ethical criteria which have always been posing the question, “Why is it wrong to eat animal meat?”

The truth of the matter is, it is not wrong. Human beings of variegated cultures in diverse societies have been consuming socially accepted and approved animal meat cooked in various ways since time immemorial and nobody has ever reacted vehemently negatively to that practice and call it immoral. In fact, in modern societies where such is common, livestock is raised on the farm to provide food for the people. In this sense, animal meat is useful, beneficial and constructive (in the sense of physico-biological nourishment). Among these farm livestock, no animal species is destroyed in the process, much less pushed to extinction. Raising them for food requires all the technicalities involved to continually improve their quality. Animal meat consumption, therefore, serves well the basic ethical principle of human flourishing for such contributes to the health and well-being of the human consumer.

Ethics doesn’t even really have the role and obligation to infringe on the socio-cultural practice of animal meat consumption since the practice goes back to the ancient primitive period when nomadic bands of families roamed around to look and hunt for food, both vegetation and animals that they deemed edible and harmless to the human physico-biological constitution. And it was how hunting was inaugurated as a food-procurement practice. Besides, such practice is considered natural in the animal world as other non-human animals take the role of predators to their common preys and the whole circumstance is not recreational but a fundamental aspect of survival. Ethics blends well within this natural system of predator-prey chains as the undercurrent of events aim for the continuation of every species in the animal world despite the unending series of deaths which in the final analysis is considered and accepted as normal, common and of course, natural. Within this natural survival network, the human animal is no exception since, under normal circumstances, s/he is basically a hunting predator her/himself.

III. The Human Animal is More Than a Natural Survival Predator

There is however a serious problem in the case of the human animal for s/he is way more than a natural survival predator hunting for food. S/he is an abusive perpetrator of immoral activities that violate the universal ethical standards of human flourishing. It is a known fact that non-human animals kill for food and such activity is not committed within the sphere of their own species. In contrast, human animals kill their own kind for different motives like anger and hatred, jealousy and envy, among others. But the most barbaric and diabolical is when a human animal kills one of his kind just for fun and entertainment. This is “recreational murder”. Nowadays, a blatantly prominent example of this kind of heinous and barbaric crime is unscrupulously carried out by Zionist Israeli murderers in Gaza Strip against the hapless Palestinians, regardless of whether they are old men and women, teenage boys and girls, young children, even babies. These are flagrant cases of human beings’ inhumanity towards their fellow human beings.

Moving down to the issue of how the human animal viciously and brutally deals with her/his fellow non-human animal in the context of wildlife hunting activity, the human animal traverses the “hunting-for-food” frontier as s/he finds extreme feelings of thrill and exhilaration in “murdering” conventionally considered non-edible wild animals like wolves and foxes, tigers and lions, elephants and giraffes, among others. This is the height of flagrant idiocy just to show to the whole world the ridiculous feat of the destructive ego of an adult who has never overcome her/his childish proclivities.

IV. Certain Exceptional Cases When Some Non-Human Predators Have to be Eliminated

There are, however, certain “non-hunting” instances when some non-human predators like wolves and foxes have to be necessarily dealt with as they get aggressively destructive and damaging to livestock farms. Yes, it is their carnivorous nature to obtain food for themselves but attacking a corral of livestock is uncalled for and they have to be stopped drastically.

Perhaps the same retribution could also be applied to human animals doing similar disastrous acts towards their fellow human animals. In their context, these acts are more accurately known as homicide (and could even be called murder when premeditated). Although, taking the law in one’s hand is not the standard norm in the human justice system.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 13 March 2019

Is Materialism Destroying Society?

The Material World and the Formation of Human Society

The foundation of social reality is the material constitution of the world. The basic structure of social life is grounded on the economic factor whose parameters are within the range of what we consider as material, i.e., concrete in the general context of what the senses can grasp and thus universally experienceable. With this notion, we affirm a vital fundamental activity to keep society alive and functional and that is economic productivity. In other words, the material world is the principal platform of the economy of a society which in this light makes the economy the foundation of such a society.

This is known as “economic determinism,” i.e., the economy of a society conditions, regulates and controls practically all aspects of what we call social life. In fact, there can be no society without the economy that is supposed to make it close-knit, functional and vibrant. The economy is, therefore, the substructure of every institution that arises in society. Nothing is non-deductible from the economic substructure.

Until this point, we have seen how the economy creates–not destroys–society and it is the material reality that makes the economy practicable and realistic. There is, therefore, no economy without a material grounding. As a matter of ideological configuration, the material upon which the economy stands as the begin-all and end-all of social interaction constitutes the philosophy of materialism.

The Emergence of Philosophical Materialism from the Incontrovertible Reality of the Material Environment

Philosophical materialism assumes that human consciousness is consciousness of the material environment. What is immediately given in human reality is the material environment which we as human beings automatically confront right at the dawn of consciousness. Consciousness is consciousness of something and that something as far as human experience is concerned is the incontrovertible reality of the material environment. It is a fact that only human beings are capable of being conscious of their consciousness but this comes much later, i.e., some periods after we have affirmed the irrefutable existence of the material environment. What therefore constitutes the most basic principle of human reality is its connection to the material environment. This is materialism taken philosophically.

Philosophical materialism isn’t metaphysically formulated because it is grounded on humanity’s direct experience of the material environment, not on certain fabricated nebulous metaphysical notion that is disconnected from material reality. This I would venture to call, “epistemological materialism” because any statement about any aspect of this reality is empirically verifiable and justifiable and any inference concerning events occurring in this reality may be rendered valid and sound through logical analysis. From the condition of this reality, myriad ideas rise, develop and flourish in the human mind. Simply put, material reality is the fundamental focal point of human perception and conception so that thoughts, ideas, and concepts are all impossible without it. Consciousness is possible only when there is an object of consciousness and objects of consciousness are located in material reality.

Materialism as the Foundation of Society through Economic Pursuit

Materialism taken in its philosophical sense cannot be a destructive antagonist of human society; it is the foundation of human society. Without realizing the fact that the economy plays the most important role in society, we won’t be able to see the most significant value of material reality and the radical import of philosophical materialism.

From the inception of humanity, it is the material reality that steered the course of social development through the economic trajectory from the most primitive stage of survival to the most complex development of social institutions whose realization has been determined by humanity’s economic pursuit. To put it logically, there is no society without economic aspiration and there is no economic aspiration without the material environment or reality, the latter being the most rudimentary condition that possibilizes all productive and meaningful undertakings of humanity in the world. This is the essence of philosophical materialism.

The Dark Side of Materialism

However, apart from its philosophical sense, materialism may take the form of a sinister configuration as a prevalent human attitude. This type of materialism is more associated with the insatiable tendency of some individual people and nations to acquire more and more material possessions at the expense of depriving others of the same. The most common term we use for this kind of materialism is greed and in most instances, it likewise operates in the economic sphere of social circumstances. This variety of materialism is characterized by manipulation, exploitation, and oppression. We have seen how it is mirrored in world history as tyrannical powers subjugate, repress, abuse and enslave weak nations to divest them of their rights and material wealth.

As a case in point, we have witnessed how a powerful North American nation utilizes its mighty military machinery to invade oil-rich countries and take over their flourishing petroleum production industries. Zionist Israel, a strong ally of this powerful nation, has likewise operated the same pattern of oppression as it has subjugated the original inhabitants of a small piece of land called Palestine and has strategically positioned itself at the core of the Middle Eastern region to have a dominant vantage point and facilitate its North American partner in overseeing a grand economic endeavor through the formation of what is known as the Greater Israel Project. In conjunction with the consummation and realization of this project, we have also seen how the unholy alliance of this North American power and Zionist Israel has wreaked havoc, shattered, demolished, and ruined countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

In light of this global materialist scheme, powerful nations hegemonizing weak ones to take control of the latter’s rich resources are not only destroying societies but the world in general. This is destructive materialism.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 6 March 2019