28.9.14 12:36
Vai nav savādi, ka tie, kuri "netic sazvērestības teorijām", pilnīgi neko par tām nezina?Un vai nav interesanti, ka tie, kuri tajās piedalās un valda pār tiem, kuri tām netic, par to eksistenci sevišķi nešaubās?
÷
±
Un vai nav interesanti, ka tie, kuri tajās piedalās un valda pār tiem, kuri tām netic, par to eksistenci sevišķi nešaubās?
18.9.14 22:41 - pop
Pa kuru laiku vājums kļuvis par spēka pazīmi? Kārtējais vārdu zagļu atvasinājums - savu gļēvumu salīdzināt ar spēju par spīti tam, ko visi domās, rīkoties patiesi. Savu kļūdu atzīšana pārtapusi savu kļūdu pielūgsmē. Pretīgi.P. S.
Pa to laiku, kamēr ērtība nomainīja tikumību.
P. P. S.
Savukārt, tas notika līdz ar melnās maģijas ienākšanu politiskajā dzīvē. T.i., cilvēki, kuri saprot, kā darbojas cilvēka psihe un kā to var izmantot pret viņu, izplatīja domu, ka objektivitātes nav, ka realitāte ir tikai iedoma, ka "neko jau nevar zināt", līdz ar ko "neko jau nevar darīt". "Katram sava taisnība", saka cilvēki bez atskaites punktiem, it kā viņu vārdiem būtu kāds svars, un nesaprot, cik nedabiskās pretrunās nonākuši. "Mīliet visus!" un "katra balss skaitās", kamēr realitātē tas nozīmē šauras interešu grupas patvaļu, kamēr citi atteikušies no savām tiesībām uz dzīvību. Un, ja reiz neko nevar saprast, tad kādēļ censties? Cīsiņus uz šķīvja - tos var saprast. Sievas pupus - tos var saprast. Bērna astotniekus var saprast, divniekus - ne pārāk. Ko vēl var saprast? Var saprast, ka vēlēšanu plakātam smuks fons. Nē, to arī nevar saprast - vienkārši gribas nobalsot. Nu, tā. Dzīve ir vienkārša. Galvenais atcerēties, ka nekas nav pa īstam.
18.9.14 16:43 - sociālais komentārs #235152
Problēma ar garīgo (prāta) aprobežotību ir tāda, ka deģenerāti paši to neapzinās. Un, tā kā šo prāta slimību lielā mērā veido uzturs un citi ārējie faktori un tā kā deģenerāti nav spējīgi izdarīt apzinātu izvēli par labu dzīvībai, tad stulbuma (garīgā akluma) mēris plosās vairākuma nemanīts.Trakākais šī ārprāta sakarā ir tas, ka prāta kropļi ar savu bezpalīdzīgo šaurpierību ļoti lepojas. Kā skanēja kādā dziesmā, "ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand".
P. S.
Šo tēmu varētu arī izvērst, jo pie saviem ierakstiem reizumis gadās manīt šo slimo īpatņu mēģinājumus lāpīt savu pašapziņu, kura balstīta tīri piederībā tādu pašu nespējnieku bariņam. Cilvēki, kuri savā dzīvē nav redzējuši vairāk nekā vidusmēra dresēts suns, savā gļēvumā turas pie tā, ko saucam pie "kulūtru" - pie programmas, vienalga, vai to izdevusi Partija, kurai šādi mēsli kalpo uzskatāmākas spaidu ideoloģijas apstākļos, vai deģenerātu vidū attiecīgā veida aprobežotība vai runas veids attīstījies pats, kā katra slimība, un attiecīgais proto-cilvēks ar to aizžņaudzis rīkli, ķēdējoties pie savas sargsuņa būdas. Šie nelaimīgie zīdaiņi, kuri tā arī nav sasnieguši cilvēka attīstības pakāpi, izkopj cilvēkam līdzīgu veidolu, kurš ļauj uzturēt ilūziju - gan sev, gan citiem -, ka īpatnis ir nevis bezvērtīgs klons, kura dzīvības procesi nepaceļas pāri šūnu kopēšanās līmenim, bet gan būtne ar apziņu, kuras daba tādam pazīstama vien no nostāstiem vai gļēvumā atmestiem sapņiem kādreiz ņemt dalību apzinātā rīcībā. Šo mazattīstīto vienīgā bauda ir vara, no kuras tie visbiežāk smeļas zemāko attiecīgās paradigmas līmeni: komfortu. Tā kā viņu redzējums nesniedzas līdz būtiskajam, tie pārtiek no formām, no ilūzijām, no tā, ko var nopirkt vai nokopēt, veidojot savu personību no tikumu ilūzijām un netikumu augoņiem, kuru uzturēšanai nav nepieciešama izpratne vai spēja godīgi just. Spējīgākie no deģenerātiem cenšas samaitāt arī citus, iegūstot varu pār tiem - iegūstot ietekmi ar savu izteiktāk lopisko stāvokli un kļūstot par kroplāko no kropļiem, kas, sasniedzot pilnīgu bezcerību, transformējams nesalaužamā augstprātībā, kas savā metastāzē atņēmusi cilvēkam draudīgo nojausmu par iespēju iegūt godīgu skatījumu uz sevi un pasauli, līdz ar ko identitāte ir pilnīgi pasargāta neatgriezeniskā aklumā. Deģenerāti iekopj mājokļus un ģimenes, ko uztur kā apliecinājumu savai vērtībai vai spējai izdzīvot, tomēr visa viņu dzīve ir veltīta nu jau visaptverošās slimības uzturēšanai, un, kamēr šo dzīvnieku apzinātais mērķis ir vienkārši izdzīvot (vēlams - komfortā; ideālā gadījumā - varas pozīcijā), neapzinātais šādu neliešu mērķis ir izpostīt visu dzīvību, kas varētu apdraudēt viņu komfortu, vedinot uzņemties atbildību par savu skatījumu. Tā nu šie zombijveidīgie roboti atražo cits citu un sevi, veidojot aizvien stabilāku prāta tumsu sevī un citos. Šo stulbuma kultūru viņi uzskata par labu, jo neko citu nav uzdrīkstējušies redzēt. Tā vairojas ļaunums, kurš vai nu nesaprot neko vairāk par minimumu, vai arī saprot, kā iznīcināt citus. Tas, kāpēc viņi ir ļauni, tiem pašiem paliek noslēpums, jo tiem trūkst minimālās drosmes, kas nepieciešama augstākajiem dzīvības procesiem - intuīcijai, paļāvībai un izpratnei. Ko nozīmē būt cilvēkam, tiem mūžīgi paliek apslēpts, jo tie apmierinās ar cilvēka veidolu. Vairāk par to tiem nav vajadzīgs, jo tas nav izdevīgi savas komforta/varas pozīcijas saglabāšanai. Tāda ir cilvēces sērga, un tā attīstās, allaž meklējot vēl dziļākus garīgā pagrimuma stāvokļus. Saķeroties kopā un citam no cita smeļoties pārliecību par sava nožēlojamā stāvokļa viennozīmīgo izcilību, tie spēj grimt jo ātrāk. Bon vojāž. Pie mūsdienu iznīcināšanas tehnoloģijām tie gana drīz noindēsies paši savā muļķībā.
17.9.14 22:40 - vergu prāti
Culture and Objectivity
Since culture is not objective, it must be subjective, at least to some degree.
To the degree that culture is subjective, it cannot make reference to any objective facts or realities. For instance, if I say, “I like vanilla ice cream,” I am expressing a subjective preference – quite distinct from saying, “Objectively, vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream.”
Furthermore, if I say not only that vanilla ice cream is the best flavour objectively, but also that it is immoral to prefer any other flavour, and moral to prefer vanilla, then clearly I am going far beyond the bounds of rationality.
Not only am I claiming that vanilla is objectively “best,” but also that it is the only moral ideal, and that any preference for any other flavour is immoral.
The elevation of a subjective preference to an objective ideal – especially when it involves ethics – is simply called bigotry.
Thus culture, by elevating subjective preferences for local customs to objective – and often moral – ideals, is merely a species of petty, self-righteous, pompous, false, prejudicial and ugly bigotry.
Culture is the most dangerous lie in the world, because false moral ideals are always required for the execution of evil.
Now, what is moral must be enforced – thus by turning subjective preferences into “objective morality,” culture opens wide the hellish gates of violent control.
In other words, by turning violence into virtue, culture not only excuses violence – culture creates violence.
What Slaves Really Fear
Culture can thus be accurately viewed as a set of moral mythologies that are used to create, justify and extend violence against the majority of individuals.
What is it, then, that prevents us from shrugging off these choking and enslaving falsehoods?
In other words, who are you most afraid of?
If you start to speak the truth about culture, mythology, exploitation and violence, whose response frightens you the most?
If you openly speak about the simple reality that the state is violence, are you afraid that black-suited SWAT teams will burst through your windows and drag you off to Guantanamo Bay?
If you say that religious superstition is an exploitive lie, that the New York attacks were an unjust retaliation to far more unjust American attacks upon Muslims, that soldiers are merely men paid to kill others, like any hit-men – whose response do you fear the most?
There is a reason that we do not say these things.
There is a reason that we smile and nod and wave our flags and cheer our leaders and refuse to speak the simple truths that would inevitably set us free.
That reason is not that we are afraid of our leaders, or their thugs, or their jails, or their tortures.
The reason that we bite our tongues is that we are afraid of each other.
Why We Are Talking About Culture…
The reason that we are talking about culture and statism and religion – rather than only your personal relationships – is this:
The moment that you begin to speak the truth – a prerequisite for any form of intimacy – you will be attacked by your fellow slaves.
The question, then, since no one likes to be attacked, is: why bother speaking the truth at all?
Well, we speak the truth because we want the future to be different from the present – our own personal future, in terms of having honor, honesty and integrity in our personal relationships – and the future of the world, which yearns and deserves to be free.
If you truly take on the concepts in this book – if you speak openly and honestly about the truth – you will be endlessly attacked, your life will become very difficult in countless ways, and very few of your existing relationships – if any – will survive your new honesty.
Now, I could tell you that somewhere beyond the darkness that you will be cast into, lies a golden land of beauty, intimacy, love, laughter and true and deep friendship.
However, I cannot tell you that.
I cannot tell you that, because I cannot guarantee that.
You may be for various reasons stuck in a small town full of patriotic bigots and religious cultists.
You may be 15 years old, and remain dependent upon your parents for years to come.
You may be old, and dependent upon your children.
You may be the only sane rationalist in an Islamic village.
You may find that, if the truth destroys your marriage – or rather reveals its prior destruction – that you may never get married again, or have a satisfying romantic relationship.
You may find that, when you speak the truth to your adult children, they won’t want to have anything to do with you anymore.
I want to be clear about the dangers that always follow honesty.
We are not enslaved because we are cowards.
We are enslaved because we are objectively in danger.
We should take some relief in the enormous difficulties faced by those who speak the truth – because, if speaking the truth were easy, the state of the world, its bottomless and exploitive lies, would make absolutely no sense at all.
No, speaking the truth is incredibly difficult, and very dangerous – and not because of prisons, and not because of our masters, but because of the endless attacks from our fellow slaves.
When you sit around your family table at Christmas or Thanksgiving, it is worth taking a moment to let this basic reality seep into your very bones.
When you look at the ruddy, smiling faces around the table, it is essential to truly and finally understand that, in reality, these people are your masters.
It is not the whips of our owners that keep us down, but the frowns and snarls of our fellow slaves.
It is not the jails of our masters that keep us huddled and frozen in fear, but the disapproval of our fellow slaves.
The “state” is not in Washington, or Rome, or Madrid, or Ottawa, or Baghdad.
The “state” is not the guns of the police, the truncheons of the prison guards, the huts of the gulags, the cells of the prisons, the grenades of the troops, or the jostling darkness of the paddy wagons.
These are merely the effects, not the cause.
The “state” is not far away from you.
It is not distant.
It is not political.
It is not economic.
It is not military.
The “state” is your fellow slaves.
@
17.9.14 09:33 - Julian Huxley, foreword to George Orwel's 1984
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
16.9.14 11:48 - Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand (1959)
[..]Mike Wallace: And cannot man have self-esteem if he loves his fellow man? What's wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in man's history, has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?
Ayn Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself. It is more than immoral, it's impossible. Because when you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately. That is to love people without any standard. To love them regardless of whether they have any value or any virtue, you are asked to love nobody.
Mike Wallace: But in a sense, in your book you talk about love as if it were a business deal of some kind. Isn't the essence of love, that it is above self-interest?
Ayn Rand: Well, let me make it concrete for you. What would it mean to have a love above self-interest? It would mean, for instance, that a husband would tell his wife, if he were moral according to the conventional morality, that I am marring you just for your own sake, I have no personal interest in it, but I'm so unselfish, that I am marrying you only for your own good. Would any woman like that?
Mike Wallace: Should husbands and wives, Ayn, tally up at the end of the day and say, "Well now wait a minute, I love her if she's done enough for me today, or she loves me if I have properly performed my functions?”
Ayn Rand: No, you misunderstood me. That is not how love should be treated. I agree with you that it should be treated like a business deal. But every business deal has to have its own terms and its own kind of currency. And in love the currency is virtue. You love people, not for what you do for them, or what they do for you. You love them for their values, their virtues, which they have achieved in their own character. You don't love causelessly. You don't love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it.
Mike Wallace: And then if a man is weak, or a woman is weak, then she is beyond, he is beyond love?
Ayn Rand: He certainly does not deserve it, he certainly is beyond. He can always correct it. Man has free will. If a man wants love he should correct his weaknesses, or his flaws, and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned, neither in love, nor in money, neither in method, nor spirit.
Mike Wallace: You have lived in our world, and you realize...recognize...the fallibility of human beings. There are very few us then in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.
Ayn Rand: Unfortunately.... yes... very few. But it is open to everybody, to make themselves worthy of it and that is all that my morality offers them. A way to make themselves worthy of love, although that's not the primary motive.
[..]
10.9.14 22:05
Jā,
un vispār, nevaig arī pašiem ēst plastmasu.
Lai to dara sēnes!
Tā planēta beigās vēl izārstēs arī no cilvēka!
Tā planēta beigās vēl izārstēs arī no cilvēka!
16.8.14 01:21 - left hand black
Cilvēki tikumiski (morāli) samulst, kad noliedz atšķirību starp labo un ļauno un grib iet "zelta vidusceļu", kaut gan visbiežāk šis "vidusceļš" ir akla maldīšanās bezceļos, jo labā pamats nav principā skaidrs, līdz ar ko arī ļaunais var paslēpties no vērtējuma un piekukuļot ar bezjēdzīgām baudām, vēl tālāk atvirzot brīdi, kad labais gūs iespēju atklāties. Ļaunums ir viltīgs - tas pārliecina, ka adekvāts skatījums ir slikts, ne-tik-patīkams kā ļaunais. Savukārt, labais, patiesība - bezkaislīgi uzrāda īstenību un ļauj izdarīt brīvu izvēli. Neizdarīt šo izvēli ir atlikt vērtējumu, bet izdarīt izvēli par labu ļaunajam ir pretruna jeb atteikšanās no saprāta un, līdz ar to, vērtējuma iespējas. Bezsamaņā viss ir pieņemams. Un tad rodas dziļā stupora umurkumurs: vai pastāv labais un ļaunais? vai īstenība eksistē? vai es vispār esmu? To sauc par ārprātu. Bet līdz ar ārprātu cilvēku pārņem arī vājprāts, kurš apgrūtina atgriešanos pie saprāta. Tā nu pa ielām klimst vājprātīgo pulki, pulcējas krogos un ofisos, veido sev filmas un mūziku, jokus un formulas, lai uzturētu ilūziju, ka viņiem ir kaut kāda nevērtējama taisnība. Savukārt, uzraugiem, sociopātiskajiem "valdniekiem" tas ir dziļākais baudījums - apvest ap stūri tādu kaudzi cilvēku un turklāt pavedināt attaisnot viņu ļaunprātīgo bezsirdību pašu bezapziņas rīcībā. Tāda ir ļaunuma seja: neizprotoša, apjukusi, nevērtējoša, pārliecināta par iespēju neuzņemties atbildību un neizdarīt tikumisku izvēli - tādu, kura atšķir labo no ļaunā. Jo pastāv taču tikai izdevīgais un neizdevīgais. As above, so below.12.8.14 16:50 - Vārdu "sazvērestība" izdomāja 2014. gadā, taču neviena tāda vēl nav konstatēta
Interesanti, ka sazvērestību eksistencei tic tikai tie, kuri ir pie varas, un "trakie". Visi normālie cilvēki drosmīgi turpina ikdienu haotiskā un neizzināmā bezjēdzībā.“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, 1920
12.8.14 13:57 - Brave New World
It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act.
The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.
Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley, 1958
10.8.14 13:18 - Cēlākās tieksmes
Diez, ja armijā pavēlētu bliezt smagās narkotikas - nevis slepkavot - un par to vēl maksātu, tas skaitītos tikpat cēli?Powered by Sviesta Ciba