30.9.14 17:47
÷
±
17.9.14 23:27 - Necilvēcības mierinājums
There are times when authority must revert to violence in order to maintain obedience.
There will always be a small minority who refuse to obey the tenets of cultural law. Because of this, authorities employ a constant stream of violence known as law enforcement, or police. These are not police in the defense of liberty, but police in the defense of authority. Cultures always teach that liberty and authority are one and the same; but the design of police is to wield the weapons of violence in the preservation of authority, not to defend liberty.
Authority must also employ violence when cultures break down. Throughout history, people have slowly and steadily learned more and more about their own worth, and hence demanded more and more freedom. Different cultures have fallen as people realized that culture is a lie.
When cultures begin to break down, it is because people are learning about their value. Such cultures and the authorities they protect are doomed. Never once in history has a culture in decline been redeemed. When authorities see that their culture is being dismantled, and obedience is no longer theirs to enjoy, they return to violence. These returns to violence are historically extremely brutal. The violent enforcement of law is a sign of coming liberty.
@
9.9.14 11:16
Brīvību izvēlas.3.9.14 16:24
Cilvēka un Esības attiecības var un mēdz būt tik ļoti dažādas - un tomēr iespēju piedzīvot to pārmaiņas sedz kapa smilšu smaguma baiļu bargā un vilšanās salauztās sirds - pasaules sirdsapziņas - sāpju izlietā maska.Tik mulsinošas ir neaptverami mazā pasaules centra jūtu fīdbeka ķēdes un cilpas, ka vieglāk ir krist - uz priekšu vai sāniem, vai mugurpusi -, zaudēt līdzsvaru, izlekt pirms avārijas tā vietā, lai censtos to novērst. Bailes no sargsuņa pārvērstas baisā ienaidniekā, un mēness debesīs tēmē kā žandarma lukturis it kā uz tevi, it kā uz to, kas vēl notiks. Bailes - un šaubas - vai drīkstu? Vai drīkstu iet tālāk? Policists debesīs klusē. Ēna skrien līdzi un neprātā čukst: paskat, cik tumšs tevī tas, ko vēl neredz! Kā būs, ja to apspīdēs debess?
Bet gaisma, tekot gar ādu, kutina, smejas un raud, pati sevī, un saka: es nezinu, kā tu jūties, bet man ir vienalga. Es spīdēšu tik un tā, pati priekš sevis, kā debesīs, tā virs zemes, kā pirms tagadnes, tā uz tevis, bet tu esi tumsa - tūdaļ aiz ādas, tava miesa ir ēna, tavi plaksti ir slēģi. Gaismai ir mājas debesīs, bet tev ir jāmīt uz zemes. Zeme tik vieglu masu kā gaismai savās smagajās rokās nenes.
Izslīd pavediens un kreļļu bumbiņām ir brīdis laika aizbēgt. Roka nāk no debesīm tik lēni, ka izvēlei tiek dota tikai viena zilbe laika: jā vai nē.
Sekunžu rādītājs neskalda laiku - tas skalda sevi par nespēku sajust un zināt. Tas akli skrien tālāk, pa apli, noteiktās iedaļās. Cik svešs ir šis debesu ķermeņa gājums uz naglas pie sienas! Es te, pie zemes, es te, uz savām kājām, ar savu neredzamo būtni nepavadu dienas! Es pavadu sevi - un pasauli, kura spēj atklāties gaismā, bet zogas klaji pa tumsu, netraucēta. Cilvēka acis kā paparazzi - picto-nazi - krāj fotoalbumam brīžus. Pagātnes zārki un gaismas kauns apspīdēt vēlreiz to, kas ir bijis, - par tagadnes cenu - šalc kā vējš tumšās lapās un nočīkst kā priede vējainā naktī, bet tu tikai jūti, ka kusties uz priekšu - un nav tava daļa, ka tevis šai vietā vairs nebūs.
2.9.14 16:55 - ODD, ISN'T IT?
Ahā. Laikam veselais saprāts jeb nespēja noticēt "varas" māņticībai tagad tiešām atzīta par slimību.Raksts runā par DSM-IV, bet, cik atceros, šogad bija jāiznāk nākamajai versijai, DSM-V. Neesmu pārbaudījis, bet "pēc idejas" nepakļāvībai (veselajam saprātam) tagad jābūt iekļautam starp "oficiālajām" prāta slimībām.
DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) ir "autoritatīvā" grāmata, pēc kuras [autoru] standartiem mēdz "nopietni" spriest, kurš ar ko ir slims un tāpēc pakļaujams vai iznīcināms. Jauki, ka beidzot tuvojamies ārprāta noslēgumam un atsakāmies no labā principā (baigi tomēr neērti dzīvot, ja kāds pa laikam atgādina patiesību). Davai, bļe, beidziet, sūda liekuļi, runāt par "ārstiem" un "valstīm" un tamlīdzīgiem lēnās nāves līdzekļiem! Sametieties, "varas" fanātiķi, "pastāvošās iekārtas" zombiji, kārtīgiem masovņika ieročiem un fucking iznīciniet to planētu visu uzreiz! Ja jau tā garīgā potence vairs nekā nav glābjama, ja vienīgais veids, kā saskarties ar realitāti, ir to iznīcināt, tad neesiet gļēvi vismaz tajā: iznīciniet visu! Un nebaidieties, jūs sūdi, aiz jums pēdas nepaliks un neviens nezinās, ka to varenību izpostīt labo esat sarūpējuši jūs! Nu, bet no otras puses - tas izskaidro, kāpēc negribas iznīcināt visu uzreiz. Gribas taču kādu, kurš tic, ka "valdniekiem" ir tiesības pārkāpt tiesības. Kaifs jau tomēr no tās pretrunas, nevis no neesamības. Ok...
14.8.14 11:23 - Topsy Turvy World
Terminu "anarhisms" un "anarhija" sliktās slavas avots kļūst skaidrs, saprotot, ka psihopāti/sociopāti jeb ar "varas" iegūšanu apsēsti cilvēki bez sirdsapziņas (t.i., ļauni cilvēki) pastāvīgi [patoloģiski] melo un sagroza patiesību (kultivējot "kultūru"), un kā melus šausmina patiesība, tā "varas" mīta kopēja jeb "valdnieka" ("archon") lielākais bieds ir brīvība un tie, kuri aizstāv brīvību (dzīvi bez apspiešanas/"varas"/"valdniekiem"), jeb "anarhisti" ("an"+"archon"). Tādēļ cilvēki, kuri atbalsta ļaunumu (ticību "varai" cilvēku attiecībās), apmelo labo (brīvību) un burtiski sauc labu par ļaunu, bet ļaunu - par labu. Un, tā kā ļaunums vedina cilvēku manipulēt ar citiem, tad ļaunie cilvēki savos maldos cenšas vest arī citus un izveido pieradinātību, automātiku, robotiku, kuru sauc par "kultūru", kuru piesātina ar absurdo nojēgumu, ka "anarhija" (brīvība) ir ļaunums, kaut arī tā ir labā priekšnoteikums (kā tas darbojas visā dabā, šķietami - izņemot cilvēci), bet "varas" režīms (reliģiski organizēta ticība šauras grupas tiesībām uzspiest "kārtību") izriet no ļaunuma un to vairo.Kā vaimanājis kāds sens biedrs:
"Bēdas tiem, kas ļaunu sauc par labu un labu par ļaunu, kas tumsību tur par gaismu un gaismu par tumsību, kas rūgtu dēvē par saldu un saldu par rūgtu!"
13.8.14 10:57 - Why the Gun is Civilization by Marko Kloos
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
12.8.14 12:38 - Ieteicamā literatūra
TamaRe House introduces Veronica: of the Chapman family (as commonly called), herein after referred to as Veronica: Chapman. The reason for this non-conventional way of expressing ones’ name will become clear after reading just a few pages of the book: FREEDOM… Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word. The message is exactly what it says; it’s all about freedom. Veronica: Chapman thinks it will surprise you how much you actually do not know about that subject. And how very little, in essence, you really need to know in order to attain it. We hope that, by the time you have read it all the way through, your path into the future will be obvious to you. You should discover that, even at the age of 7 years old, you had more power than any Government, Judiciary, Police Force and Military combined. But you did not realise it. And therefore, throughout your life, you have thrown it away. But take heart, it is still there. And you can learn how to use it. What is worth more than all the gold in the world is your appreciation that, having read this book, you have become empowered in the way you always should have been- had you been educated, rather than indoctrinated – during your childhood. The author is compelled to stretch certain points within the book in order to attempt to overcome the ingrained indoctrination to which we have all been subject throughout our lives. And the lives of our ancestors living or now deceased.
8.8.14 00:08 - Vergu identitāte
Kultūra ir prāta cietums. Kultūra, kurā svarīgs ir "jaunākais", ir cietums bez atmiņas par brīvību.20.7.14 09:35 - Emociju atmiņā balstītie vērtību spriedumi
Tie trīs vasaras mēneši jau arī nav nekas kreizī īpašs - vnk skolas gados tas bija svēts laiks.Powered by Sviesta Ciba