÷

±

12.6.16 02:48 - Damage Inc.

Netaisnīgu likumu/sodu problēma ir nevis vienkārši kvantitatīva (grūtāk neuztrāpīt uz kāda soda), bet, galvenokārt, kvalitatīva. Kad tiesu un likumu izpildītāji ir publiski uzstājušies ar prettiesisku rīcību valsts likuma vārdā un spēkā, neviens vairs nevar justies drošs, ka rīcība saskaņā ar saprātu un sirdsapziņu būs visderīgākā un visattaisnojamākā.
Atliek vai nu bezgalīgā pašaizliedzībā uzņemties gan paredzamus, gan neparedzamus netaisnīgus sodus, noraidot pavēles rīkoties pret savu apziņu un zemapziņu, vai arī drebēt bailēs no soda graujošajām sekām, līdz ar ko, it kā nevēlot sev ļaunu, jāatmet taisnīguma pašsaprotamība vispār.
Ja tiesa ir spiesta sargāt valsts uzdotos spēles noteikumus, tad par cilvēka morālo vadlīniju kļūst ne vairs taisnība, bet gan paklausība. Tā ir dziļa iekšēja pārvērtība, radikāla aprobežošanās, iebarikādēšanās, kuras šaurībā drosmi aprij ērtība, piedzīvojumu - paredzamība, prieku - vienaldzība, niknumu - bezspēcība utt. Tā centieni būt labam cilvēkam noved pie paklausības, bezjēdzības, bezvērtības, bezpalīdzības, bezkaislības, bezatbildības. Tiesu paklausība mākslīgi radītam "viedoklim", visvarenai "valstij", varas principam nozīmē garīgu genocīdu, indivīdu pašnāvību vai slepkavību "kolektīva" vārdā.
Ja pastāvētu vēl kāda iespēja diskutēt ar varas turētājiem cilvēku valodā... Bet vai gan nav zināms, ka templim ir savi hierarhiskie glifi, un tajā valodā vārds "tiesa" nozīmē kaut ko citu? Tāpat kā "likums", "taisnība", "labs" un "ļauns". Tāds mums te morālais pagrimums, kungi un dāmas.

29.1.16 15:34 - Piekukuļo sevi!

Palutini amatpersonu!

2.11.15 22:53 - Really makes me wonder

Tikums:




25.8.15 21:46 - mea maxima culpa

Redzu cauri un kļūdaini pieņemu, ka nespēju saredzēt galveno.
Nav tur galvenā.
Tērēju laiku, meklējot to, kas ir tepat.
Galvā.
Krūtīs.
Vēderā.

25.8.15 20:57 - Chief Seattle to @president Franklin Pierce, 1855


THE GREAT CHIEF in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and good will. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer, for we know if we do not so the white man may come with guns and take our land. What Chief Seattle says you can count on as truly as our white brothers can count on the return of the seasons. My words are like the stars – they do not set.

How can you buy or sell the sky – the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us? We will decide in our time. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and every humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father’s graves and his children’s birthright is forgotten. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the redman. But perhaps it is because the redman is a savage and does not understand.

There is no quiet place in the white man’s cities. No place to listen to the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am a savage and do not understand – the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind itself cleansed by a mid-day rain, or scented by a pinõn pine: The air is precious to the redman. For all things share the same breath – the beasts, the trees, and the man. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench.

If I decide to accept, I will make one condition. The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen thousands of rotting buffaloes on the prairie left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to the man.

All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.

Our children have seen their fathers humbled in defeat. Our warriors have felt shame. And after defeat they turn their days in idleness and contaminate their bodies with sweet food and strong drink. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days – they are not many. A few more hours, a few more winters, and none of the children of the great tribes that once lived on this earth, or that roamed in small bands in the woods will remain to mourn the graves of the people once as powerful and hopeful as yours.

One thing we know that the white man may one day discover. Our God is the same God. You may think that you own him as you wish to own our land, but you cannot. He is the Body of man, and his compassion is equal for the redman and the white. This earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites, too, shall pass – perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by the talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

We might understand if we knew what it was the white man dreams, what hopes he describes to his children on long winter nights, what visions he burns into their minds, so they will wish for tomorrow. But we are savages. The white man’s dreams are hidden from us. And because they are hidden, we will go our own way. If we agree, it will be to secure your reservation you have promised.

There perhaps we may live out our brief days as we wish. When the last redman has vanished from the earth, and the memory is only the shadow of a cloud passing over the prairie, these shores and forests will still hold the spirits of my people, for they love this earth as the newborn loves its mother’s heartbeat. If we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold in your memory the way the land is as you take it. And with all your strength, with all your might, and with all your heart – preserve it for your children, and love it as God loves us all. One thing we know – our God is the same. This earth is precious to him. Even the white man cannot escape the common destiny.

19.6.15 13:52 - Bandwagon

"Tikumības mācībā" vnk jāmāca tikt galā. Tobiš, to priekšmetu angliski varētu vnk saukt par "coping". Nevis, piemēram, "copying".

Bet vispār "izglītības" sistēma ir noziegums pret cilvēci, un tos, kuri to organizē, pēc tradīcijas varētu tiesāt un publiski pakārt kopā ar visiem pārējiem politiķiem, birokrātiem un tamlīdzīgiem noziedzniekiem.
"Skola" būtībā ir netikumības inkubators. Cilvēks iznāk ārā un vairs nahren ne ar ko nevar tikt galā. Var tikt sistemātiski izvarots, tikt izmantots, jes, jes, integrēties cietumā, tas jā. Kopēt, kopēt, kopēt - kā diktātus vai mājasdarbus, vikipēdiju vai učenes interpretāciju, kalt un zubrīt, tā arī neuzzinot, kas ir tas, kuram kaut kur būtu jātiek, un nemaz nerunājot par to - kas īsti notiek un kur tad ar to "tikumību" vajadzētu tikt.

30.4.15 13:30

Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay.

Percy Bysshe Shelley


19.11.14 13:03

Jah!

7.11.14 19:40 - Bērnu okultisms

Būtu mīlīgi, ja meitenītes, mežģot savu bezgalīgi garo gumiju, skaitītu nevis "O-LIM-PI-Ā-DES [tālāko kodu neaceros]", bet gan "PRI-O-RI-TĀ-TES".

P. S.
Es tak ne pats šito rotaļu tagadiņ uzmurgoju?

2.10.14 17:33 - Priekšvēlēšanu informatīvais video

videjo

ja tu sapratīsi šito, pasaule tev kļūs daudz skaidrāka.

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.
[..]

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.

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.

10.8.14 11:18 - Jurijs Bezmenovs

[..]exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom, when the military boot crashes him, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

15.7.14 16:32 - status quo

Ļaunums nebūtu tik populārs, ja cilvēki to neuzskatītu par neitralitāti.
Powered by Sviesta Ciba