Get a grip!

stand-up tragedy

15.4.14 09:40 - The Most Dangerous Superstition

As another example of how the belief in “authority” distorts perception, many “welfare”
recipients openly admit that, given the choice between accepting voluntarily donated gifts
from people they know and receiving something that “government” forcibly took from a
complete stranger, they prefer the latter, because it is, in their mind, the less shameful of
the two options. The fact that anyone would ever prefer accepting stolen property over
accepting compassion and generosity shows just how profoundly the belief in “authority”
warps people’s sense of morality.

In short, every statist – everyone who believes in “government” – deceives himself into
believing that he is a good person who supports good things and opposes injustice,
hallucinating in himself a respect for his fellow man, while at the same time advocating
that his fellow man be forcibly controlled, extorted, imprisoned, or even killed, The
“authority” superstition is burrowed into the minds of the masses so deeply that they can
advocate evil on a massive, nearly incomprehensible level, while still imagining
themselves to be charitable and compassionate, They demand that “government” do
things they would never dream of doing on their own. They imagine themselves to be
non-violent, civilized, enlightened beings while routinely advocating that all of their
neighbors be robbed and forcibly controlled, and put into cages or killed if they resist. In
truth, mankind’s superficial charity, compassion and civility is nothing but a cruel joke
when compared to what almost everyone will do, or what they will ask others to do, in
the name of “authority.”

Many parents and teachers regularly repeat what is perhaps the most basic rule of
humanity, sometimes called “The Golden Rule”: Treat others the way you want to be
treated. However, none of the teachers, and almost none of the parents, who spout that
rule actually live by that rule, because, by way of “authority,” they advocate that
extortion and coercion be inflicted upon everyone they know. “The Golden Rule” is
essentially a formula for anarchy: if someone does not like to be dominated and forcibly
controlled by others, he should not advocate that others be dominated and forcibly
controlled. If one wants to be left in peace, he should leave others in peace. If one desires
the freedom to run his own life, he should allow others the freedom to do likewise. To putit
bluntly, advocating aggression against others, including via any form of “government,”
is utterly incompatible with being a charitable, considerate, compassionate, kind, decent,
loving human being. And the only reason so many otherwise good people continue to
advocate widespread constant aggression via “government” is because they have been
duped into accepting the lie that there is a creature called “authority” that is not bound by
the moral standards that apply to human beings.

The Effect of the Myth on Freedom Advocates

“Government” itself does no harm, because it is a fictional entity. But the belief in
“government” – the notion that some people actually have the moral right to rule over
others – has caused immeasurable pain and suffering, injustice and oppression,
enslavement and death. The fundamental problem does not reside in any set of buildings,
or any group of politicians, or any gang of soldiers or enforcers, The fundamental
problem is not an organization that can be voted out, or overthrown, or “reformed.” The
fundamental problem is the belief itself – the delusion, superstition and myth of
“authority” – which resides in the minds of several billion human beings, including those
who have suffered the most because of that belief. Ironically, the belief in “authority”
dramatically affects the perception and actions even of those who are actively fighting
against a particular regime. The superstition drastically alters and limits the ways in
which dissenters “fight” oppression, and renders nearly all of their efforts impotent:.
Furthermore, on the rare occasion that a particular tyrant is toppled, one form of
oppression is almost always replaced by another – often one that is even worse than the
prior one.

Instead of fighting against a non-existent beast, what “freedom fighters” need to do is to
recognize that it is not real, that it does not exist, that it cannot exist, and then act
accordingly. Of course, if only a few people overcome the superstition, they will likely be
ridiculed, condemned, attacked, imprisoned or murdered by those who are still firm
believers in the myth, But when even a significant minority of people outgrow the
superstition, and change their behavior accordingly, the world will drastically change.
When the people actually want true freedom, they will achieve it without the need for any
election or revolution.

The trouble is, almost no one actually wants humanity to be free, and almost no one
opposes oppression in principle, To wit, the effects of the myth of “authority” remain
intact even in the minds of most people who consider themselves to be rebels,
nonconformists and free-thinkers. During their teenage years, many people go through a
period of apparent rebelliousness, which consists mostly of doing whatever those in
“authority” tell them not to do: engaging in smoking, sexual promiscuity, drug use,
wearing different clothes or hairstyles, getting tattoos or body piercings, and so on, As
such, their actions are still controlled, albeit in a backward way, by the myth of
“authority.” Instead of obeying for the sake of obeying, they disobey for the sake of
disobeying, but still show no signs of being able to think for themselves. They behave
like angry children instead of complacent children, but still do not behave like adults.
And in most cases, their natural desire to break the chains of “authority” does not last
long, they “outgrow” their anti-authoritarian tendencies, and gradually transform back
into “model citizens,” i.e. obedient subjects.

For example, the supposedly radical, anti-authoritarian hippies of the 1960s more or less
became the new “government” in the United States with the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Even the “peaceniks” whose mantra was “live and let live,” when given the opportunity
to become the new “authority,” chose to forcibly meddle with the lives of others as much
as or more than their predecessors did, including via military conquest. Likewise, those in
“Generation X,” the “MTV” crowd, and so on, have always focused their efforts on
putting people who agree with them into power, instead of working to actually achieve
freedom. There is a fundamental difference between having complaints about a particular
ruling class, and recognizing and opposing the insanity of “authority” in principle, In
short, in all the various societal manifestations of so-called rebelliousness and non-conformity,
almost none have actually escaped the myth of “authority.” Instead, they have
merely attempted to make a new “authority,” a new ruling class, a new “government,” a
new centralized machine of coercion through which they could forcibly subjugate and
control their neighbors. In short, nearly all so-called “rebels” are phonies, who pretend to
be resisting “the man,” but who really just want to be “the man.”

And this should be expected, If one starts with the assumption that there should and must
be an “authority,” and that a “government” exerting control over a population is a
legitimate situation, why would anyone not want to be the one in charge? Each person, by
definition, wants the world to be the way he thinks it should be, and what better way
could any person accomplish that than by becoming king? If someone accepts the notion
that authoritarian power is valid, why would he not want it to be used to try to create the
world as he wants it to be? This is why the only people who truly advocate freedom in
principle are anarchists and voluntaryists – people who understand that forcibly
dominating others is not legitimate, even when it is called “law,” and even when it is
done in the name of “the people” or “the common good,” There is a big difference
between striving for a new, wiser, nobler master, and striving for a world of equals, where
there are no masters and no slaves. Likewise, there is a big difference between a slave
who believes in the principle of freedom, and a slave whose ultimate goal is to become
the new master. And this is true, even if that slave truly intends to be a kind and generous
master. Even those who advocate a relatively limited, benign type of “government” are
advocating against freedom. As long as the people believe in the myth of “authority,”
every downfall of one tyrant will be followed by the creation and growth of a new tyrant.
History is replete with examples, such as Fidel Castro and Guevara, who portrayed
themselves as “freedom fighters” just long enough to become the new oppressors. They
were no doubt quite genuine in their vehement opposition to the oppressions which they
and their friends suffered from, but they were not opposed to authoritarian oppression in
principle, as clearly demonstrated by their behavior once they obtained power
themselves. This pattern has been repeated over and over again throughout history, with
the resentment of one tyrannical regime becoming the seed of the next tyrannical regime.
Even Hitler’s rise to power was due in large part to anger at the perceived injustices and
oppressions inflicted upon Germany via the Treaty of Versailles. Of course, as long as the
rebels suffer from the superstition of “authority,” their first priority, once they have
overthrown one “government,” will be to set up a new one. So even acts of great bravery
and heroism, among those who still believe in “government,” have accomplished little
more than replacing one tyrant with another. Many have been able to recognize and
oppose specific acts of tyranny by specific regimes, but very few have recognized that the
underlying problem is not who sits on the throne; the problem is that there is a throne to
sit on.

13.4.14 12:39

Apbrīnojami, kā cilvēkiem iemazgāta totalitārā domāšana: uz visām sabiedrības problēmām defaultā atbilde ir "mums tagad visiem jādara tā". Teikt citiem, kā viņiem dzīvot, skaitās pašsaprotami. Tajā pašā laikā - definēt problēmas skaitās ņegaķifka un slikts stils.

11.4.14 16:34 - pastafari - PAH!!!

11.4.14 14:30

Hehe, pastafārisms Polijā kļuvis par oficiālu reliģiju. So close...
(gribu pases foto ar duršlāgu galvā - folijas cepure neskaitās gana sakrāla)

11.4.14 12:11

neaizmirsti ierēķināt nodokli

11.4.14 12:03 - absolūts pārspīlējums - mērenības atslēga

Tas, kurš lietas sauc īstajos vārdos, izklausās jucis.
(Pieņemot, protams, ka vārdi var būt īsti un garīgā veselība ir reāls jēdziens.)

11.4.14 09:39 - postmodernisms

UrbānDikšenērijs nelika vilties:

Postmodernism: pseudo-intellectual Trojan Horse of tyrants everywhere in the western world. Began in Arts faculties in various universities under "thinkers" like Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault and Irigaray, and spread like a cancer into at least the "soft" sciences, if not further afield.
Works insidiously by establishing in the minds of the faithful that there are no ultimate truths in either a moral or a scientific sense, and dressing up bullshit in flowery language. Postmodernism pretends to be a guarantor of pluralism (a concept far better served, btw, by rational debate), and is in love with concepts such as the "transgressive" and the "paradigm shift". Unfortunately these matters are brought up in the midst of reams and reams of tendentious twaddle which constitute a dreadful waste of perfectly good trees, and the most notable effect of postmodernist (un)thinking is not the freeing of anyone's mind from conservative tyranny, but the scrapping of the very idea of objective truth. Once this happens, of course, what follows (outside the ivory towers of academia) is that the game goes, set and match, to the fellah with the biggest guns. Many conservative factions claimed that September 11 spelled the end of postmodernism. Ohhhh nooo, postmodernist twaddle was only just getting its boots on.

To take an (admittedly anachronistic) example of what is essentially the same thing:

"A new and magical understanding of the world is on the rise, one based on will rather than truth. There is no truth, in either the scientific or the moral sense."

- Adolf Hitler

P. S.
BTW, es ar visu savu cepšanos pārsvarā saskatu mūsu pasaules "orveliskos" motīvus; faktiski, ja starp viņiem pastāvētu kāda sacīkste, drīzāk uzvarējis Hakslijs; bet patiesībā uzvar draudzība, t.i., viņu daudzība, t.i., visu karš pret visiem, naidīgs, aprobežots, augstprātīgs, tukšpaurīgs, sekls, bezjēdzīgs, nepiepildāms un neizsmeļams cilvēcības vakuums jeb, kā mēdzu to - varbūt neprecīzi - saukt: cinisms. Postmodernisms.

Iespējams, ka atbilstošāks būtu apzīmējums "ārprāts".

10.4.14 11:35

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps

I don't know why nobody told you
How to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you

I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps


I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
Look at you all
Still my guitar gently weeps
Powered by Sviesta Ciba