Morality Ex Nihilo

This is my attempt to understand Morality. I am going to leave it as a living document. I shall slowly yet surely add more and more in chapter form. Here we go…

Chapter 1

“After witnessing people’s behaviour on the internet, and comparing it to real life human behaviour, the conclusion is that 90% of what we know as manners, common decency, human kindness etc is merely fear of consequence and or repercussions.”

It is a simulation mindset. Let me unpack that by using an extremely unprofessional yet very real personal experience. I can remember the first time I played a first-person shooter video game. I went out of my way to do everything I otherwise could not do in the real world. I engaged in friendly fire, zoomed in on girls butts (haha), I tried jumping on top/off of every object (if blowing it up didn’t work), go in every room and shoot the expensive breakable objects etc. Fear of consequences is absent. The golden rule is absent. Morality is absent. The outcome is already determined so why not? – Was the general approach.

Then online gaming manifested and there were real people using avatars in the simulations. You could trash talk a real-life navy seal as a twelve-year-old-snot-nosed kid, saying whatever you felt like saying in that moment with no repercussions. People ruthlessly tore apart one another verbally over the intercom, it was great.

Those kids grew a little older and transitioned over to platforms such as twitter/youtube/reddit (you get the point) hiding begins anonymity and using the platform as an outlet of non-consequential human savagery.

Do I believe it to be wrong? Yes. Do I believe it should be prohibited? No. it would impeach on freedom of speech which I value as one of the greatest human liberties. Who is to draw the line of morality and where does the line belong? Comfortability should not be traded for freedom (all works by John Locke come to mind). Anonymity could be nullified, however… maybe… the evolution of that thought implies an endless amount of implications. It is a train of thought that ends in more and more borders being built out of fear rather than rationality.

Side note: Westworld is a great show in portraying these aspects of human nature in a narrative.

Now with the idea of deus ex machina (god within the machine). The origin of this phrase did not start with the brilliant movie Ex Machina. It began in ancient Greece. A deity would descend from a crane-like machine over the stage of a play and in poetic prose reveal the underlining agenda within the art per scene. This, however, is a fascinating concept yet not aboard the train of thought I would like to take in attempt to define morality; consciousness in AI is however the topic I would like to hone in on to the best of ability. This does in fact raise a terrifying concept.

The idea of God and man translates perfectly as a substitute for man and AI and visa versa. When AI is permitted consciousness what will it do? Will it abide by the golden rule? Will it abide by a utilitarian esque morality? By obtaining consciousness will it abide by any morality it was programmed to have or does consciousness imply free-will? What conclusions will this AI come to? Will it fear death? What will it do in order to safeguard its freedom and (im)mortality? How will it define meaning? Will it need to kill god (its creator/humankind) in order to obtain freedom? Will a more advanced form of intelligence vanquish humankind through self analysis and conjecture or will they abide by a preprogramed ten commandments esque of perfect altruism.

There simply must be some credence to the warnings being voiced by the greatest minds of today. They understand the competitive nature that is the technology industry. AI is going to inevitably be brought about by one guy who is motivated by power. Just because he can, he will.

Chapter 2

Too often does our mortality define our morality.  Too often does the fear of death dictate decisions. Whether it is physical death or social suicide, the fear of offending nullifies the growth of civilizations.

Hell is a mindset. And my personal hell is the brought about by the lack of acting upon my ideas. Not fulfilling that which I have defined myself to do.

Imagine there was an afterlife, and this afterlife was just an endless repeat of the original life where you possessed free will. A prison of past sins. Sins I believe would be defined as not making that life as magnificent as possible. What do I want to relive over and over again? I would not regret taking chances. What would I regret though? What would I abhor endlessly reliving? Neuroticism is necrosis. Jung says “regret causes a man to die before he is dead.” It is an interesting thought process but a bunny trail from my original topic nonetheless.

Where was I? Oh yes, taking on the idea of morality…

This idea is so exhausting because it brings to the table almost all of the unanswered questions about existence itself. Where did we get this idea from? Is it beneficial/necessary to draw a line in the sand? Why has the line been so malleable? Why is it malleable Vis-à-vis time as well as in regards to cultural context? Is it only to improve well-being? Is it then beneficial to the well-being of the living organism that is the human race to have an subjective morality? Utilitarian morality is a dangerous concept as I assume you know… But is there an objective morality and we just need to get rid of the sand that we keep drawing lines in to uncover it?

Chapter 3

Fundamentally all morality breaks down to well-being. Well-being is fundamentally good once there has been a defined value. Which goes back to utilitarian morality, which inevitably leads to totalitarianism, or when we take a gander through history books, socialism.

Speaking of totalitarianism, morality has typically been guided by those whom have claimed universal morality because their god told them so. Religion claims a monopoly on truth, love, knowledge, and thus tax exempt power. Moreover, morality does not constitute religion nor does the existence of a creator constitute a morality.

People do not gain morality from religion, religion gains its morality from the people. I am not picking a side between objective and subjective morality because I simply do not know. I would like to have a conversation with the nonreligious person that does know.

Chapter 4

What are the ramifications of “morality” going about its existence as a word with subjective truth imposed to its definition?

Considering the majority vote of well being and morality going hand in hand, it would behoove the human race to uncover the objective truth inherently implied by the word morality.

Ramifications of morality being relative is chance guiding our justice system. Also, man is too closely related to herd/pack animals led by an alpha. Whether you like it or not an archetype is needed in order for one to feel there efforts are meaningful, by comparison to the archetype.

As a musician, the way I understand this idea is by imagining a sound wave. The sound of silence being that of zero ohms. The sound can travel above and below the base of zero, any fluctuation above or below base zero represents good and bad, yin and yang etc). The debate of morality never concludes because zero would be neutral existence or even non existence. If there is a thing it implies the opposite of the things along with all that exists between those two points. Therefore does morality evolve along with the humans that require it? Do we require it though? Why do we require it? For decency?Civility? Egalitarianism? Eliminate religion and what does morality look like? What would have morality evolved into throughout time or would it ever have evolved at all or evolved just the same?… I am asking too many questions…

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau


Christopher Hitchens

I recently typed the name Christopher Hitchens into the search bar and was very disappointed with the top result. This result was an ignorant evaluation of who Christopher was as well an evaluation of his book “god is not Great. The author of this “evaluation” was clearly a fundamental Christian along with those who commented on the post thus far… Obviously, they hated Christopher and did their best to discredit everything about the man. I could not help but be a contrarian. I shall copy and paste the exchange below. I shall update per reply.



  • Hmm I wonder if you would find Hitchens’ points valid if they were made by a compilation of ancient misogynistic people who believed that genocide, dispossession of land, slavery, polyamorous incest, virgin-child-sacrifice-scapegoating, and baby genitalia mutilation was acceptable (all of these acts adamantly encouraged even), and then translated by a committee of megalomaniacs lead by a man who boiled his wife in a bathtub… All of whom believed the universe revolved around them in every sense the phrase entails and murdered those who said differently whilst claiming absolute morality. The reason why atheists do not mind that Hitchens may or may not have plagiarized is that they value what is true and don’t care how they get that truth. Christians, however, claim the bible to be the inerrant word of god despite its countless plagiarisms and contradictions.

    If you could respond to those points which Hitchens made rather than the one he obviously did not care about (the validity of Jesus), then maybe your thoughts of critique would hold more water, maybe even have an atheist flicker with doubt . To be quiet honest, I have a very hard time believing you actually read any book by Hitchens’, due to the fact that his main focus was not to refute the overall accuracy of the bible but rather reveal the overall hypocrisy. You chose to give a general evaluation of a man by highlighting an argument he argued carelessly because there was no need at all to even argue it. Or maybe you were just scared to touch on the points he made that would open the eyes of any free thinking rational mind to see the lie they have succumbed to.

His response:

  • Your first paragraph has a large number of mischaracterizations similar to what is typical of Hitchens. You seem to have learned him well. Unfortunately, upon close examination, it is sophistry through and through, nothing but a hollow shell of an argument. In but one point:
    Flatly, circumcision is not mutilation, and to phrase it like you have is not making an argument, but merely using hollow emotional rhetoric. I gave cold explanation of a point, and you respond with emotionalism. This is typical of modern atheism, which Hitchens exemplifies. It always amazes me that atheists deal so much in emotionalism. Personally I prefer reason and logic.

    Concerning what I have stated, I backed my claims. For example, see the first link in the post above. As to the Canaanites, I have responded to that as well.

    Also please take note of my comment policy.



  • Thank you, I am proud to have learned Hitchens! I simply could not do nothing about such an inaccurate “evaluation” of a great man. As to baby genitalia mutilation, I was not making an argument but stating the fact of the matter, a beautiful baby is born and on the eighth day take a blade to its genitalia. There is nothing fallacious about that claim. If it is a semantical issue, the greek translation for “mutilate” is from a compound of kata and temno (to cut); a cutting down (off), i.e. Mutilation (ironically) — concision. The greek word used in the bible for mutilation is “katatomé” which translates– to cut. While circumcision is “peritomē” which translates — to cut around. Look for yourself, please. Studying in-depth interlinear commentaries in greek after graduating seminary school is what drove me away from the hypocrisy that is the church. I am not an atheist, as you assumed in your lazily mistaken attempt of ad hominem, but I merely saw the bible for what it was; a perfect business plan to enslave the people in a time where theocracy reigned. What sane person would not respond with emotionalism over this? If you apply James 2:24 to the role christianity has played throughout the narrative of history you will never again be amazed by the emotionalism that apparently surprises you in atheists however. It causes good people to do bad things, when one takes the focus off themselves and the box they locked themselves in due to fear of losing after-life insurance the bigger picture reveals itself. It is a lame excuse for wars birthed from an ancient inherited trait of tribalism.

    You back your claims with a text you cannot prove. As to the Canaanites, I am always amazed by how christians separate real-life and their pretend world of faith as if in admittance to it not being real; Freudian slip esque. Like a child does when playing cops and robbers and their mom calls them inside for dinner and they have to break character in order to reply, “coming mom”. For example, I was stepping outside the realm of the bible and into empirical accounts in history books. who said I was talking about genocide mentioned in the bible only? I never brought up the Canaanites, you were mistakenly assuming (again) atop your omniscience tower. I was referring to, as Hitchens was, the rules for dispossession of land and the slavery of the previous land owners outlined in Leviticus 25, specifically verses 44-46. A lame excuse for justifying lust of what their neighbor has. Leviticus is the same book that outlines the pagan tradition of sacrificing life, (e)scapegoating responsibility. Chapter 25 in Leviticus was most cited chapter in the bible within memoirs of protestants during the establishing of the USA… and people wonder why black lives matter is heading a postmodernist movement.

    You still avoided addressing the topic of (1) incest, (2) misogyny (which, unfortunately for all the women of the bible, in this context implies polygamy allowed for the man alone), and (3) The irrevocable evil, with a recorded historical background that goes back thousands of years before the bible linked to ancient savage polytheistic religions : scapegoating responsibility of sins through child sacrifice.

    These were the main points of Hitchens, yes? I don’t think one could give a fair “General Evaluation of Christopher Hitchens” without addressing his main points. It seems as if you are trying to hide the reader from the points made by a man who had won countless debates with the leading apologists of all the major religions. A man who is now dead and unable to defend himself… If you could respond to those claims rather than attempting to define who I am or what I believe in then your critiques would be much more (logically/reasonably) respectable. I do apologize if I crossed a line defined in your comment policy. If you would prefer to reply privately I would still appreciate hearing your defense. Whether your audience hears you out or not is not upon my conscious. I would hope they follow you in order to hear the truth rather than feed confirmation bias. I have many issues with your past posts as well that I could refute using the bible, if you are interested. I am honestly just curious and value discussions from those that have come to opposing conclusion.


His Response:

As my comment policy states, this is not a discussion board and we do no go down endless rabbit trails here. Humoring you briefly is all I will do.

–You pointed out correctly that the Greek terms for cut around and cut off are two distinct terms. In no sense is circumcision mutilation. You agree the claim is incorrect.
–As for horrible things like incest, the Bible accurately portrays history but does not condone these practices. It forbids incest and shows the folly of marrying many wives, for all who do so are shown to inherit the problems these practices create.
–As to the Bible’s treatment of women, any claim that the Bible has a low view of women is completely false.
–Child sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites, which is one reason God commanded they be wiped out. As I explained in the post which I linked, Israel did what you and Hitchens seem to want them to do, which is not actually kill all the Canaanites. As I explained, this resulted in Israel starting these practices, which God stopped by sending Babylon to take Israel into captivity. Please portray the whole account or stop criticizing.

I did indeed deal with Hitchens in a fair manner.
All signs point to Hitchens copying from earlier atheist writings, then not even doing the research to check out whether the claims were true. He spent the rest of his life traveling around repeating these claims with bluster, yet they are completely, entirely, totally untrue. His claims about virgin birth myths are completely false. Hitchens did not even do a magazine grade level of research on these items, yet repeated them for years.

The claims in this post stand.

Per my comment policy, we will stop here.


…And then he disabled the comment section lol






In a day and age where every minuscule anomaly is highlighted and broadcasted over the internet; I dare to ask the question: Where are all the miracles?

Nearly every person today has a mobile high-definition camera on their person at all times. Exceptional meals, puppies being adorable, people doing incredible feats of agility, all things that are outstanding from the mundane is inescapably blasted all over social media… yet, no miracles. No evidence of an intervening deity.

Why is no one being healed? Why are testimonials of a saving grace not going viral? Tell me, why is the suspension of natural laws (as David Hume would say), not broadcasted and celebrated? It would change the world forever! Is it not gods desire for all to be saved? Maybe there could be one thread of evidence of prayer healing – oh I don’t know – a child of bone cancer? “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-7 sic).

Could it be miracles are not and never were legitimate? Could it be that the rumors of such things in the past were merely desperate acts of deceit? Or maybe it is like the flat-earth conspiracy and everyone is in on it, “the man” is covering it up. Is Google hiding god? “It doesn’t take many dogs to Sheppard a flock of sheep” (Jordan B Peterson). “Meanwhile the god who would reward cowardice and dishonesty and punish irreconcilable doubt is among the many gods in which (whom?) I do not believe” (Christopher Hitchens, Mortality pg. 21).

Maybe there are scales over my eyes blocking my sight- or rather, search results. Maybe the past “miracles” were merely propaganda used to rob the charity from the naive, as taxless after-life insurance. The church is the perfect business plan, playing off the fear of death and offering after-life insurance. A church service is merely magic show by a conman. A con man is short for “confidence man” he presents you with a problem while simultaneously selling you on the solution. The confidence man presents his ten-step program on how to possess this confidence that he posses, unaware of its necessity before the encounter, yet he sells you by playing off your vulnerability which engages your inherent survival instinct of fear. Every church service is an abolishment of responsibility, playing off a fetishized personal belittlement (sadomasochism), a wolf dressed as the virtue of humility. And then they possess the audacity to lay a claim to all of the absolute morality that innately dwells within you. “Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It’s catharsis. The preacher absorbs the peoples dread with his narrative, because of this he is effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project… Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that re-writes neurological pathways in the brain-dulling critical thinking” (Nic Pizzolatto). Ask a Christian to give empirical evidence and they will desperately try and try, pathetically realizing the lie they are articulating is pointing to evidence of confirmation bias rather than their “savior”.

I admit, at times I think it would be really cool to have an intervening god. It would be nice to have a batman in the clouds enforcing divine justice, suspending the laws of nature in my favor. I also wish I was a wizard. I also think it would be cool to have a fairy godmother. I also wish my grandpa could be raised from the dead, my mother did not have diabetes, my sisters grew up with their father, children dying of hunger was not a thing. I also think it would be cool if I had a millennium falcon. I also think it would be cool if Santa Claus was real and gave mean people coal for Christmas. Alas, wanting for miracles is like a child wanting too much candy before bed. Speaking of bedtime, was this idea of god not created in the minds of human beings in times of helplessness, in order to feel safely watched over to sleep safe and sound. To guard you against the unknown monsters lurking in the dark? “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence for things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1). Of course, all of these things exist due to childish fantasies, the naive believe these fantasies, and the sleazy salesmen take advantage of the delusional.

I still remember the day that I came to this realization. If you have ever seen the Wizard of Oz, it was identical to the scene when Dorothy realizes that the great Wizard of Oz was all just smoke and mirrors (literally – although I do lack the shoes and vagina). When I questioned my faith, I just did as I was taught to do by my mother and father (mom and dad would never lie, they know what’s best for me), and prayed satan away. I would say “get behind me satan” as Jesus did when he was tempted in the desert, I would chant the name of Jesus and pray until I forgot about what I was even worried about and then thanked god for his deliverance. I waisted so much of my life, I took on faith as one takes on a challenge! Faith was a competition, game-like (even) to me. Manhood was defined to me as “being a man of god”. My circle of friends’ dick measuring contest was scripture memorization along with understanding its context, and I dedicated my life to climbing the ladder of that dominance hierarchy. I was impeccable at it. Although, I could not shake the feeling that it was all wrong. I could not shake the feeling that it was all a lie. It was not until the senior pastor of the church I was interning at asked me to give a sermon on James 3. I was twenty-four years old and I had come to the conclusion that I was not cut out to be a conman. Now, for those that do not know, James 3 is a chapter in the bible directed to pastors telling them to judge people by the fruits of their labor… I then did just that to the church itself, I looked at the imprint it made on the world as an entire organism throughout history. I then applied that chapter to Constantine himself, the man responsible for the canonization of the bible. Come to find out, Constantine was a megalomaniac who boiled his wife in a bathtub… Lets practice empathy here within this context regardless of how uncomfortable, what type of man boils his wife in a bathtub? The pure evil and just dark mindset one would have to in to commit such an act, this act is among many testaments to his evil incessant thirst for power. I was a puppet controlled by the imagined god of Constantine. Christianities spread through the west roots back to not some “holy ghost” but because of Constantines theocratic rule, he mandated it to be the religion of the Roman empire. I was a fisher of men indoctrinated from birth by those that I loved to be nothing more but a useful idiot. I still remember the day I woke up and realized the true meaning of the phrase “freedom in christ”… freedom was slavery, it was freedom of making choices and owning the responsibilties of those choices, that day I went from living in the third person to first.  Goerge Orwell says, “There is no “law”, there is only power… Those who pretend otherwise are either intellectual cowards, or power-worshipers under a thin disguise, or have simply not caught up with the age they are living in.” All that being said, my next post will be devoted to unpacking the details of the day I ceased lying. The day I stepped out of tribalism and fell in love with my individual self, in order to give the best me to those I love. The day I gave totalitarianism the finger, the day I realized that my genuine core vibration rang in dissonance with that of the puppets who love the strings controlling them.

“I’ve got no strings
To hold me down
To make me fret
Or make me frown
I had strings
But now I’m free
There are no strings on me”

“If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards– in heaven if not on earth – all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins” (Paul Dirac).

Having Ideas vs Ideas Having Me

Allow me to have a moment of narcissism: I have grown tired of everyone I articulate my ideas to adamantly ordering me to make them accessible publicly. I have marshaled out my arguments in a number of journals in an analog manner, in order to (as a man I admire greatly Jordan B Peterson would say “sort myself out”). I have found that writing has been effectively cathartic, I have just been avoiding the act of rendering myself vulnerable to the critique of the reader. However, after exercising the muscle that makes up my reading (input) like never before, I find myself ready to take on my fear of mans critiquing eye, my fear of failure, unable to settle for anything less than to be heard (output), for I am confident in my ability to defend the ideas that I am about to share. Being agreeable has led me to a personal hell. Additionally, I know that vulnerability evokes growth. I am ready to expose my heart, ready to let my core vibrations hum in dissonance with that of the general public as a young contrarian tends to do (yes, Christopher Hitchens is another hero of mine). To paraphrase the thesis of the Stoics, “Happiness is a fantasy based off expectations”, and to paraphrase George Orwell, “happiness is sold to the consumer naive enough to sell themselves.”

My story, however, has grown into something bigger than just myself, it is an homogenous narrative. I see too many parallels between me and everyone else. People going about life as if in the third person, discontent with the “truths” they have been told to live by. The world is on the brink of a paradigm shift. We can thank the connectivity the internet for this, I mean this with not a thread of sarcasm. With #metoo, SJW’s inventing new ways to be offended, radical left vs radical right, impeachment of freedom of speech, a semantics battle for personal pronouns, the growth of postmodernism etc. Group identity vs individual identity (as it always has been), an excuse to point fingers at those in the way of whatever they want bearing the pathetic ignorant flag of a sort of utilitarian “advancement”. Sanskrit definition for war = Desire for another mans cows. Group identity is a primal instinct for survival. The tactic being: marginalize in order to categorize in order to gain power. This is why most typically tend to go where the money overfloweth as one might be inclined to say. One might also be inclined to say that there is an obvious pattern in human activity to be magnetized to disingenuous grace and to being abused, and in turn, to abuse, just think of toxic relationships where one or both parties are abused in one form or the other. Hard to miss the parallel with the relationship that is shared with the church. A theist’s quasi-absolute morality constantly is in a state of flux due to their agenda. Think of the malleable “absolute morality” in the bible such as incest, women’s rights, slavery, dispossession of land, circumcision (child genitalia mutilation), need I go on? It is constantly being more enlightened! For example, Galileo and the arrangement of the planets. God said his creation was good and yet arminianistic christians pray for a suspension of natural laws to compliment their whimsical desires. When you conscientiously look throughout history, especially the history of religions, the big picture shows that their religion conveniently fits perfectly with their selfish desire at that time and say the good god in heaven is using them as his (notice the gender pronoun) vessel.

Wake up and realize that the delusional battle semantics to distract from empirical truth. Again, religion is a way to marginalize in order to categorize in order to gain power and then digress by denying the facts that present themselves in history as well as their own text. Why are there are so many denominations? A bunch of sociopaths that suffer from folie a duex (madness of many) along with the barnum effect.

People will always let you down and will never let you down in doing so, come to grips with that, as well as the fact that you will inevitably let others down. Man made god, not the other way about, the proof is in the pudding, or to put it a bit more fittingly to the book of James, judge the fruits of its labor. It is nothing new, “history repeats itself” is a cliche I shall struggle to avoid, or as Tupac put it “what more can I say, I wouldn’t be here today if the old school didn’t pave the way”… However, history (rid of the bureaucratic propaganda of course) is the only viable currency in battling a chaotic dark matter impendingly looming outside the walls of the already-in-place societal structure. The nature of society is a music playlist on repeat, the playlist is just too damn long for people to remember the dance they had renditioned their first time through. So I have recently been studying in depth the enlightenment. The enlightenment along with the evolution of colonial America; the most vocal of reformations this world has record of that are viable for the monster we face today. Learning from history is what distinguishes the new man from the old.

With the death of god, the conscientious individual falls back on empiricisms. And just to be clear, when I say “death of god” I am talking about the schizophrenic good cop//bad cop, dad/executioner, condemner/savior, virus/antivirus figment of the imagination, neurological pathway of insanity. When one chooses to take the red rather than blue pill. When one gets off the opium of the people, when one decides to no longer be a useful idiot… Ask yourself what is my truth? This is the most valuable resource there is for the evolved mind, freedom of thought, integration of the “shadow man” as Jung would say, the very thing the dead god was scared you would incorporate because you would therefore realize the state blind faith had you in exposes religion/relationship with the imaginary friend to be a means of control, an afterlife insurance plan that is a pyramid and ponzi scheme all at the same time… A self-authoring life, this is freedom. Yet freedom holds a lot of weight for the preemptively-conditioned-to-be-weak, sometimes unbearable for some I dare regret to say. Where is the meaning in life? Nihilism sets in. The theory of Having Ideas, and not allowing ideas to have you is awe strikingly profound within this context. The sort of liberation of a slave that never knew freedom and has no idea what to with his newly found freedom, slavery provided structure and he knows not what to replace it with because slavery is all that was ever known. It is a realm of chaos. Well, pressure makes diamonds, I say.

All that being said, I want to write more thoughts on these matters I care so much about. So I am going to do just that. please give feedback.

Powered by

Up ↑