Pseudo-philosophy
the man who was very smart

I
There can be, sort of, a unified theory of everything, but whether or not we can actually reach this theory is questionable. Philosophy can be understood as a consequence of consciousness describing/interacting with itself. What we call philosophy, then, is an extension of consciousness, a name for a physical phenomenon.

II
I believe that everyone should have unconditional access to the most reliable and peaceful means of euthanasia available - today, the veterinary standard is nembutal, a kind of barbiturate.
My position of advocacy for absolute and total access to peaceful exit may seem extreme to some, should they ever read this. If so, then perhaps a middle-ground could be considered - maybe a waiting period, a diagnosis of mental illness, some other such means-testing... but for me, I cannot, myself, in good conscience advocate for any less than total mortal autonomy, total right to die, and to die as peacefully as possible.

The sound-of-mind should have the right to euthanasia because they are sound of mind. The unsound-of-mind should have the right to euthanasia because the sound-of-mind's society cannot accomodate them, and the project of trying to force them to fit is often total torture, and frequently fails. To tell someone that they are insane, chronically miserable, etc., and that therefore their desire to die is invalid makes no sense. For a schizophrenic, a person with severe bipolar disorder, a person with mental retardation, etc., the desire to die may be one of the most rational thoughts which they have the fortune to think.

To deny them the benefit of this moment of clarity, to instead lie to them, to say "we have a place for you" is deeply irresponsible, and on the whole is a behavior which seems to persist only to make those saying it feel better. When the statement turns out to be wrong, it is not the people making the claim who suffer, but rather the fool who trusts it. Modeling society to accomodate such empty promises rather than basing policy around accomodating for the failure of these promises is, at best, misguided. At worst, it is sadistic and exploitative.

There are many ways in which society, and everyone's lot within it, could be improved. These reforms, however, are not happening. Even if they were to occur, I would have no more desire to exist, and as things are, I do not love myself; even if I did, in order to live a fulfilled life, I would have to also muster contentment with this society.

Our last two presidents (our sitting one included) have been rapists. The height of civilization, our society, rapes, hurts, and kills itself. The rich are so dissatisfied that they constantly steal from those who have less. Those with less are so desperate that they steal even from those with little of value to steal. The greatest thieves, rapists, torturers, and murderers in our society get off easy, while smalltime crooks are unforgiven and murdered without trial, brutalized in the streets. The effete morality of our intellectuals could not exist without the ceaseless brutality and exploitation which work behind the scenes to uphold our institutions and our way of life.

"Productive" society is contented to be "apathetic," an "apathy" which is, in practice, an endorsement. If I could even think straight enough to reach this contentment, to be "productive," which I will not, how could I sanely justify this? When my own hate, neuroses, etc. bother me so much, what apology could I offer for the social order which I've described?

I want to die, and this is rational, in part because I understand how I am at odds with my surroundings. I do not love myself, nor do I have any desire to love the rest of humanity. It is wasted.
So, to say that people can improve, that they can assimilate, when this is what they assimilate into seems strange. By comparison, death is not at all an unreasonable preference.

III
I think that there is a degree to which people may tend to think of philosophical prose as being a bit weedy - and, at a glance, this rings true. Though, having read more of it now than I previously had, and understanding some things which I might not have expected to understand, I think that the contrary may be true - I think that it's not impossible that the 'weedy' prose of philosophers may often be the most efficient way to communicate the ideas contained within.

I think that a similar principle may hold true with religion and metaphor. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the most effective way to get someone's understanding of a concept is to more-or-less trick them into understanding. This puts literalists of Christianity in an interesting position - the position of possibly serving as wilful obscurants of the religious doctrine rather than as extreme adherents to it.

IV
Maybe experiencing pleasure is a valuable tool for understanding how worthless it is.

V
Culture and War

It's sad to think of the culture, morality, and art of our civilization in the context on which it relies. We take for granted these things which we value, and elevate them in our consciousness to the status of something innate and unchanging; values such as peace, egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and every right and opportunity granted by the state or supposed by society and the people of the city. We value that people should have plenty, that they should have the things they need, that they should have decent standards of living in step with current technology, and that they should have opportunities. Even where these things are denied, urbanites may reach a near-consensus that these things are rights. Alongside these rights are elevated figures and schools of the arts - great musicians, painters, etc., entire understandings of styles of art and music - recordings, scribblings, etc. treated like pieces of history.

Behind this entire state of affairs, holding it all up, but so unspoken as to even seem contrary to the values we claim to hold, are the real values of the state. All of our opposition to war, imperialism, exploitation, etc. is paid for and propped up by military might, financial world domination, and exploitation. Far from sturdy social structures standing the test of time, morality, art, music, and culture are in actuality fickle things, colors which would run when washed with the blood of conflict, superficial decorations when compared to the displays of power which direct the course of history.

Should our country fail to exert military power, should it not financially dominate and exploit other nations, then all of these decorations could be removed with ease.

Yet, perhaps by design, the superficial values and artistic/entertainment side of culture is often what people in cities are especially focused on. It is more palatable to say that the things our society values are good morals, good ethics, our artistic achievements, our shared culture, and the 'pretty' ideas which we say are virtuous. The average urbanite disowns American war crimes, but gleefully accepts American surplus; they embrace the values which are enabled and protected by American global liberalism and the strength of the American military state.

Resistance is offered by American urbanites to the inward face of the American state, but almost always superficially - the American left, the well-meaning radicals, seem almost never equipped to rule. Not only this, but they seem to have an aversion to constructive social organization. Those who take on leadership postitions in the movements of resistance seem too often prone to the same sociopathic narcissism which runs rampant through the political leaders of the still-existing state. Those who do not occupy these leadership positions are too often uncritical fools, driven by appeals to ideology which they can recite, but struggle to actually think about. They are the left they have been told they are, and it is a product of urban cultures cultivated through American hegemony. There are exceptions to this, to an extent, but I think that this is largely true. Their success as a project is limited by their incapability to supplant the American state and their unwillingness to face their own symbiotic relationship with it.
They are allowed, even encouraged to an extent, to revel in art, music, and the feeling of being "right" because these things are meaningless and, when rendered as near-abstract identity signifiers, maybe even more meaningless than they otherwise would be already. Effete urban morality becomes bound to the consumerist diversions of the rest of culture, ever tied to superficial identities formed around cartoons, rock bands, and private philosophy classes. Not only is it an attractive front put up to cover for the true, much less pleasant values of the nation, but this front's character is also extremely subject to manipulation. To the necessary extent, America's effete urban morals, forever tied to identity, are vulnerable to modification. Although many hold to the values for their own personal understanding of what those values mean, for many others, their personal values are tied to what's 'hip' or perceived as acceptable by crowds. Simply the appearance of a general consensus (whether or not one actually exists) is enough to change their minds, and no new information is required in order to do this. This is, obviously, not universal - but this occurs to the extent necessary to muddy the waters and render the nation's urban idealists even less of a threat than they otherwise would be to the machine which has created them.

VI
Life After Life

When I look around, I can see no evidence that life ends at death. It's clear that the life of an individual ends, the illusion of separateness is broken, but life continues. Life continues to emerge, and with it, so do consciousness and perspective. The process by which consciousness emerges is material, and we can, in fact, see what happens at the end of individual life by observing the material world. The parts which combined to create consciousness, the subjective life of the individual life form, are separated and gradually integrated into other living forms, many of them conscious.

For the individual, understanding what this 'after life' is like is incredibly difficult, as it is a form of experiential existence in which the previous material of individual subjective existence is no longer unified. 'You' are no longer you, nor are you anyone else in particular... and yet, what was you will still experience existence in decentralized forms. These are not your satellites; you and your processes are material.

I long to be removed from this process for as long as possible. It is mostly miserable. Life abhors life. We are all the same, and all at odds.

VII