÷

±

29.9.14 16:07 - Partiotiskā priekšvēlēšanu laika videozs

video

19.9.14 16:31 - Izplatītākā mūsdienu reliģija

Nav pat jājauc iekšā anglene: vēlātāji nav pilsoņi - viņi ir statisti.

19.9.14 15:14 - Kāpēc tika ieviests termins "cilvēktiesības"?



Epperson, Ralph A. - The Unseen Hand, An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History (1985)

P. S.
Kas bija pirmais - cilvēks vai valsts?

19.9.14 15:05 - Naudu vai brīvību!

LR Krimināllikums
219.pants: Izvairīšanās no deklarācijas iesniegšanas
3. punkts
Par likumā noteiktās deklarējamās mantas vai citu ienākumu izcelsmes avota nenorādīšanu vai par nepatiesu ziņu sniegšanu par deklarējamās mantas vai citu ienākumu izcelsmes avotu, ja šādas ziņas likumā noteiktajā kārtībā pieprasījusi attiecīgi pilnvarota valsts institūcija un, ja nepatiesas ziņas norādītas par mantu vai citiem ienākumiem lielā apmērā, —
soda ar brīvības atņemšanu uz laiku līdz diviem gadiem vai ar īslaicīgu brīvības atņemšanu, vai ar piespiedu darbu, vai ar naudas sodu, konfiscējot mantu vai bez mantas konfiskācijas.
(17.10.2002. likuma redakcijā ar grozījumiem, kas izdarīti ar 12.02.2004., 13.12.2007. un 13.12.2012. likumu, kas stājas spēkā 01.04.2013.)

Tāda tā brīvība, pilsoņi!
Tāda, lūk, ir patiesa noziedzība!

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.

@
Tags: , , , , ,

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.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

16.9.14 23:20

159.9 pants. Nesadarbošanās ar nodokļu administrācijas amatpersonām
Par nodokļu administrēšanai un kontrolei nepieciešamās pieprasītās informācijas nesniegšanu nodokļu administrācijai -
uzliek naudas sodu fiziskajām personām vai valdes loceklim līdz septiņsimt euro, atņemot valdes loceklim tiesības ieņemt noteiktus amatus komercsabiedrībās vai bez tā.
Par nepatiesas informācijas sniegšanu nodokļu administrācijai -
uzliek naudas sodu fiziskajām personām vai valdes loceklim līdz septiņsimt euro, atņemot valdes loceklim tiesības ieņemt noteiktus amatus komercsabiedrībās vai bez tā.
Par neatļaušanu nodokļu administrācijas amatpersonām ieiet nodokļu maksātāja saimnieciskajai darbībai izmantojamās telpās, ja nodokļu administrācijas darbiniekam ir šādas tiesības, -
uzliek naudas sodu fiziskajām un juridiskajām personām līdz divsimt desmit euro.
(14.12.2006. likuma redakcijā ar grozījumiem, kas izdarīti ar 29.11.2012. un 26.09.2013. likumu, kas stājas spēkā 01.01.2014.)

P. S.
Kāpēc nodokļu nemaksātāju sauc par nodokļu maksātāju? Abet tāpēc, ka nodokļus nevar nemaksāt. Jē, rait. Un nevar nešaut sev kājās.

P. P. S.
"ja nodokļu administrācijas darbiniekam ir šādas tiesības"
Nav.

P. P. P. S.
Pasaku grāmatā seko vēl ņirdzīgāks pants:
"160.1 pants. Atteikšanās pieņemt oficiālajā apgrozībā esošās naudaszīmes"
Kroč maucība ne vien nav aizliegta - ir aizliegts sevi nepārdot.

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.
[..]

15.9.14 21:56

[..] Deep down, we all know that the rapes, murders, tortures, predations, corruptions, thefts and brutality committed in the name of “the state” will continue as long as “the state” does.

We can sooner alter the orbit of the moon with our minds than control the actions of our leaders.

It is not knowledge of evil that we are avoiding, but knowledge of our own subjugation – of our own helplessness, of our own enslavement.

The moment that we actually emotionally understand, accept and truly feel the nature of our enslavement, we will find ourselves compelled to action.

And it is that action that we fear – not because it involves violence or physical danger, but rather because we know it will trigger the undoing of our entire world as we know it.

That is what is truly called “taking the red pill.”

The moment that we begin applying objective moral values to our own life – and to the actions of those around us – we immediately step into another kind of world – or rather, step out of a prison that is only visible from the outside. [..]


Stephan Molyneux "Real-Time Relationships"

15.9.14 21:14

Šķiet, pirms gadiem 15 ideja, ka īstenības nav, bija kaut kas tik jauns, ka Matrix rāva jumtus. Tagad ar nožēlu jāvēro, ka cilvēki tādā pašā matricā pazuduši tik dziļi, ka vairs neatceras īstenību - objektivīvākais atskaites punkts ir mēnešalga.

15.9.14 14:48 - Nepretošanās ļaunumam ir kalpošana tam


The End of All Evil

13.9.14 01:48

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...

31.8.14 15:13 - Kur palikusi brīvība? #3

Neviens nav pelnījis cieņu par seksu un dzemdībām 9 mēnešus vēlāk. Ja tavi vecāki neprata sagatavot tevi dzīvei, kurai nav bijuši gatavi paši, tad "cieņa" pret tiem - kas parasti patiesībā ir kauns un bailes - ir ne vien lieka, bet pat netikums (noziegums pret patiesību un sevi).

Tā kā cilvēku saskaņa ir pakļauta realitātei un tās likumiem (tiem, kas ir īsti, nevis tikai rakstīti), tad, uzstādot saskaņu augstāk par likumsakarībām, neizbēgami tiek izsaukts posts (cēloņiem ir sekas, kļūdas rada sarežģījumus). Savukārt, ja patiesība/realitāte prātā tiek nostādīta pareizajā - pirmajā - vietā, tad nereti nākas atzīt ļaunumu, kuru paši uzturam, un apturēt to, atsakoties no kaut kā, iespējams, ļoti pierasta.

Ir pagājuši tie laiki, kad cilvēkveidīgie uz Zemes bija pieņemami viesi. Liela to daļa dzīvo aklā māņticībā (parasti, paļaujoties uz kultūru jeb tradīciju), nesaprotot, kā darbojas procesi, kuros tie ir iesaistīti - sevišķi jau tie svarīgākie, tie, kuri atraisa uztveri, domāšanu un saskaņu. Vairums cilvēku ir vergi jau vairākās paaudzēs un turpina mācīt verdzību saviem bērniem. Reti kurš bērns uzaug labvēlīgā ģimenē. Reti kurš bērns pieaug. Lielākā daļa cilvēku ir bērni - cilvēki bez patstāvīga, saskanīga un godīga skatījuma uz dzīvi. Tie ir cilvēki, kuri savas audzināšanas dēļ nereti pat neapzinās, ka arī cilvēka dzīvē darbojas kādi dabas likumi, ka nepieciešama tikumība jeb apzināta sevis vadība. Un šādi bezgoži taisa nākamo paaudzi, izdarot "lāča pakalpojumu" visai planētai.

Vecāki, kuri neaudzina savus bērnus, ir noziedznieki. Un pirmais to upuris ir pats bērns. Līdz ar to lielākā daļa vecāku ir pelnījusi nevis cieņu, bet gan tikai savu bērnu necieņu, un viss, ko tādi vecāki var lūgt, ir piedošana un žēlastība.

Karma ir kuce. Svarīgām kļūdām ir svarīgas sekas. Un reizēm atzīt patiesību nozīmē atzīt, ka visa tava dzīve ir noziegumā radīta verdzība. Tālākais jau ir tava godaprāta jautājums.

22.8.14 19:24 - kaķi ir ļaunuma sakņaugs

8·3
Powered by Sviesta Ciba