Saturday, August 27, 2016

ON PROPERTY & OWNERSHIP AS ILLUSION.

ON PROPERTY & OWNERSHIP AS ILLUSION.
In order to examine my contention that property and ownership do not exist and why such are illusions, it is imperative that I begin by defining terms. When I say that property and ownership do not exist, I do not mean that physical possession of a thing and occupation of land or space doesn't exist. In fact, in my experience when most people use such terms they are not just referring to these physical realities (possession, occupation) but are instead making prescriptions concerning who has the 'moral right' to have exclusive control or access of an object and or a piece of land. After all, to argue that 'one has physical possession of X, therefore they ought have possession of X' is to transgress the is-ought gap.
People say 'That's my car!' which means only he or she should have access and control over it unless he or she consents to allow another to have access and control.
People say 'HEY! Those are my personal belongings. HANDS OFF!' Or 'that guy just stole my watch!' I find that these are often emotive uses of such propertarian language.
Libertarians have been known to argue 'that the principle of 'Self-ownership' is the basis of liberty. And that anyone asserting otherwise is arguing for slavery, as slaves are the property of their owners and that If you don't own yourself, someone else does etc. however this is a false dichotomy as there of course is a 3rd option, that says ownership, the owned, and the owner do not exist. They are mental spooks.
When we use propertarian and ownership language we are often (if not always) expressing our subjective expectations. We are expressing an emotion about X. We say that X 'belongs to me' or 'This is mine!' which means (as I have already stated above) that I and only those I grant permission ought have access to, control of, and use of, X. That anyone who separates me from X, uses and or accesses X without my consent is doing something inappropriate (something I don't like). 
Now whether such language is used to express emotions, mistaken cognitive beliefs or both, is not the subject we are now undertaking. Regardless which of these positions are true, it still follows that such expressions are not true.
Example: If I say the ocean exists, this is a true proposition. If I say the ocean is immoral this proposition is either false and expression of negative emotion about the ocean, or both. But it is not true either way. Either because it is a erred belief or just not propositional or truth apt. The ocean just is, in spite of your feelings about it. 
The point in examining this prescriptive moral usage of ownership-language is not to refute yet more moral claims made by moralists but to point out the implications of moral nihilism in the realm of such prescriptive concepts as property and ownership. For if objective morality is illusion and moral truths do not exist it follows ownership, property, belongings, etc are illusory as well. While I am saying that concepts such as property and ownership do not correspond to reality, that doesn't mean that I think such concepts aren't useful. 
Objective morality, property, religion, authority, these are all illusions and effective implements of control. Nature does what works. What doesn't takes a dirt nap, and sometimes what works is un-truth or just straight up fiction...
It is a fact of our existence that we possess what we do until a greater force than ourselves or death pries it from your cold dead hands. You possess what you do because you have the means (power/ability) to fend off those who would take it by force (either by your own power, the state, or alliances with other powers.) There is no such thing as a legitimate right to control and possess, but legitimacy is a bed time story for gullible 'grown ups'.  You may think that you 'own a house' and or 'land' but you are only renting these things from the tax-man. You may gullibly believe that you have a right to own a thing, but there is no such thing as 'right'— only might. 

Thursday, August 25, 2016

ON AUCTORITAS

 Let us now turn a our critical gaze toward the doctrine of "authority". In order to accomplish this critique I must first define what I mean by the term "authority" and what I do not mean. 
Often the term authority is used interchangeably with power and those who possess it, but this is not the particular use of the term I wish to examine. 
Another way the term authority is commonly used is to refer to a person or persons with advanced knowledge and or experience in a particular field. This is also, not the kind of authority that will under go examination and critique within this text. 
However, I will note that having an advanced degree in a particular field of study doesn't mean that your arguments are valid or that your propositions are true, nor that they should go unquestioned.
When I use the term "authority" in the following text I mean a person or group of persons who have the "right" to exercise power and control over a given populous. That is, a person or group that a given populous is morally obliged to obey. In order to comprehend why I say that this kind of authority doesn't exist, it is necessary to for me to tackle nebulous concepts such as "rights", "natural rights" and "natural law". 
Unlike authoritarians, anarchists and other moralists who argue about what constitutes legitimate authority I refuse to even assume that the concept of "legitimate authority" is even coherent. I will grant no free miracles. 
"The divine right of kings", is a political and religious theory that states a monarchs "right" to rule (authority) is granted by the will of God. Indeed in past pagan cultures rulers were seen as having a "right" to rule others because they were granted this "right" by the gods or because they themselves were believed to be gods. However, even if a God did exist, this fact of existing would not logically produce an obligation to obey (a moral ought). 

Such primitive theories are contingent upon the religio—moral doctrine known as Divine Command Theory and as has already been pointed out it suffers fatal logical flaws and thus I shall spend no more time concerning it. 
How then, can a given group of human primates (or a being called "God") have a moral right to enforce its will on other human beings? And how do these ruled human primates (citizens) come to incur a duty to obey? 
Simple answer: No one has a moral right to rule for as we have seen morality is subjective and non binding. Authority of this kind is a myth. Rights themselves are mere human mental constructs. As already stated within this book there are no categorical moral oughts, only conditioned rational oughts. No one is objectively morally "bound" to obey anyone. At best, one can argue if one wants to avoid un-desired punishment B they ought obey those with the power to inflict such a punishment. 

It is often claimed by advocates of authority, and government 'officials' themselves (Police, politicians etc) that government represents you and that government officials act on your behalf. That they alone have the moral right to do things which you do not have the right to do. That is, those calling themselves "government" claim to have the 'moral right' to commit certain acts that you have no right to commit, while claiming that you gave them that right. But how can anyone give what they themselves do not possess? Also, 'moral rightness' doesn't exist and thus no one who genuinely "represents" you has the moral right to violently rule over you.
It is often claimed that the right to rule is derived from the "Consent of the Governed”. That people (tacitly) consent to be ruled through voting, or using public road ways or living in a given geographic region (and other such non sense). However, "consent” means to be in voluntarily agreement and to "govern” means to control via force. Therefore the "Consent of the Governed" is incoherent as it is self-contradictory. Also, this claim to 'tacit consent' is proven false by the fact that people explicitly express their lack of consent to be governed. I am not aware of any government who has or has had the consent of everyone it claims or has claimed to have authority over. 
Furthermore, as there are no objective moral truths or standards how can it be cogently argued that an agreement can produce the "moral rightness" of a particular government to rule or the moral obligation of the governed to comply with those who govern? Such an argument also assumes that performing an action that has been consented to is morally permissible and that performing certain actions without consent are immoral (Rape, theft, etc) But again, I see no logical reason to make such an assumption. 
Ironically, these same advocates of democratic governance will claim that activities such as 'gang rape' is morally reprehensible while not realizing that such activities are democracy in action. That is, a majority forcing its will on the minority through violent, coercive means. So, by their standards what's the problem? 
A common objection voiced by contract theorist against those who who critique government and authority is what I call "The love it or leave it fallacy." 
That is, the proponent of authority will respond to your critiques of government by stating "If you don't like it you should just leave!" or sometimes the objection is phrased as a command. "If you don't like it, get the hell out!". 
The problem with this objection is that:
1. It assumes that one has the ability to 'just leave' or 'get the hell out.' However, many moral philosophers will contend that 'ought implies can" and as David Hume pointed out impoverished people do not have the finances to leave. It assumes that there exists some habitable stateless region in which to relocate. To my knowledge there is no such place. Every square inch of habitable land has been carved out by those who wish to rule you. As stated above consent is necessarily voluntary. If you cannot leave government because government is omni-present or you haven't the means to escape it, then consent is not possible. 
  1. The 'The love it or leave it!' edict is morally justified (because...)
  2. it is morally justified by 'the social contract' which is morally justified (because...)
  3. it has been tacitly consented to by those who continue to live in a particular region, and use Goverment provided resources etc, which is morally justified because (back to 1) 'the love it or leave it' edict is morally justified.
A common myth believed by the common citizen-slave is that 'Government is a servant of the people'. This however—is a laughable lie! Government gains obedience from its subjects under the threat of lethal force. It perpetuates its existence and expands its power by aggressively gobbling up the wealth of victims. It cages and even kills those who do not get into the goose-step. Government is not your bitch—maid, it is your master! Does the Government provide some 'services'? Yes, but to claim this makes Government your 'servant' is akin to claiming a factory farmer is the servant of his cattle. Sure, he feeds and provides medical services to the heifer he chains to the milking stanchion, but does this really mean that he is the 'servant' of his dairy cow? And by receiving these services will you really argue that the cow has tacitly consented to ending up on your plate? 

There are no beings, human or otherwise with "the moral right to rule" only humans with the power/ability to do so.
"Mastership is eternal. But only for those who cannot overthrow it, and trample it beneath their hoofs...  Strong men are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth, and Material Power. The mission of Power is to control and exploit the powerless, for to be powerless is to be criminal. The world would indeed be a house of horrors, if all men were “good” and all women — padlocked."
 — Might Is Right — Ragnar RedBeard

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Day of The Rope!



Mark Harris a liberal-regressive writes: "Do women remember when they were nothing more than one man's Maid, Cook and Nanny? Back when beating a disobedient wife was expected and condoned, and the Conservatives raged that Women's Equality would destroy Marriage and the Family, and send the country spiraling into Ruin by letting "Pretty Little Air Heads VOTE". Women have come a long way, and President Clinton will expedite their Equality." 
Yeah, I'm not sure what matrix this guy is plugged into but feminism and regressive legislation is in the process of destroying the family (if it hasn't already). In many families nowaday, kids are raised by the State and or someone else while both their parents are at work. That is if they even have two parents in their life. Single mother-hood has sky rocketed and woman initiate 70% of divorce proceedings. 
Domestic violence laws now make men an easy target, as a woman can make an accusation without substantive evidence, she will be given a free lawyer, while the man is assumed guilty because he has balls. In such cases a woman is granted a temporary restraining order based merely on her word. The man's fire arms, residence and children are stolen from him by other men with guns (The liberal-regressive-state). In fact, in most cases such orders are made permanent, and men are found guilty on the basis of the woman's claim. Nothing more! I have been told by a few lawyers that Domestic violence laws are routinely used nowadays against men in costody cases. I find it no surprise that the "MGTOW" movement is in full swing. Just look at the shere volume of MGTOW YouTube channels in existence since even just a few years ago. 
Think of it! In these modern times what incentives do men really have to get married? For many men, marriage is simply not worth the very real above cited consequences. 
As to the "woman were treated as slaves" bullshit! I'd like to see evidence of this. Let me tell you, if a woman worked her ass off all day to put a roof over me and my children's head I'd be more than happy to cook and clean for her. I'd be more than happy to have the opportunity to stay home and take care of my children. Liberal progressive ideology puts resentment in the hearts of woman and minorities. White's trying to keep blackie and Jackie down! As to the "beating a disobedient wife was expected" take note that no sources were cited whatsoever to back up this claim. This docrine is simply assumed as historical fact. Men in general have always been protective of woman. You think not? 
Every woman knows that if she screams for help multiple white nights will flock to her rescue at any given moment. Woman have been shielded from having to fight in wars. This is not the case for men. I do not believe in the doctrine of equality! Men and woman are not equal human societies through out the ages have realized that woman in general are the physically weaker sex. Plus men are evolutionary expendable as they will produce sperm throughout their life time while woman have only a narrow window of opportunity and a finite amount of eggs to be fertilized. 
Now, as to woman given the right to vote. I think men granting woman the right to vote was one of the biggest mistakes they ever made.
Woman overwhelmingly vote left, and are probably biologically more prone to pathological altruism. Who is it that we see disportionally in support of open boarder policies which has lead to the current middle eastern invasion in Europe? 
Now, as to "Women have come a long way, and President Clinton will expedite their Equality." Hillary Clinton is a lying old bag of shit. Her record has shown time and time again that If you trust in this woman to do anything other than line her pockets with special interest cash while lying to your face you are cronically deluded! Furthermore, i have said it before and I'll say it again. I sincerely hope a right wing fascist dictator comes to power and clenses this land of your putrid existence! I would loose no sleep if you degenerate slavish herd moralists were hung from Trump Tower! And why should I?
IT IS EITHER THEM OR ME!
They want to sacrifice the greatness and freedom of the individual, the family, and all else to the herd. As with all other political parties they seek to use the violence of the state to subsume you under their will to power. To force you to comply with their values. Why ought I not want to do the same?

Saturday, August 20, 2016

The Diamond In The Rough


“To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures.”

― Friedrich NietzscheThe Will to Power

I am Anti democratic. I am deeply opposed to democracy which I consider herd rule and a slave value. A democratic society places crucial decision-making-power into the hands of the average un-educated automaton, and the rest of us are forced to suffer the consequences. 

Democracy, like religion and all other slave values is a threat to the human potential for greatness. Democratic ideals domesticates and drives humanity into mediocracy.  
Through democracy humans are forced to live under a facade of "equality" and forced to allow their personal desires and greatness to be subsumed under "the greatest good for the greatest number of the mediocre masses."

DeCasseres articulated the same thought when he wrote: "There exists a 'general good.' It provides for the comfort and well-being of the greatest number of idiots at the expense of brains, culture and character." 

The movement toward democracy and equality functions in such a way as to eliminate or subsume the will to power of the individual under the interests of the common rube. That is, within such societies mediocrity takes precedence over the exceptionalism of the individual in the name of equality.
The potential greatness of a particular individual is never realized but is instead reduced to dependency.
Democracy as a movement yearns for peace, and equality. For me the struggle for individual exceptionalism is preferable as it brings out the greatness of humanity and distinguishes the exceptional's of man kind from the herd animal. 

"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual—profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herdlike, sympathy, [or empathy] as the more valuable side of our nature!"
Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will To Power — 766 (1886—1887) 

Equalitarianism and democracy are instincts of ‘the herd’. They are valuations that favour the mediocre masses. Democrats, anarchists, socialists, and secular humanists (unwitting atheists) have a herd instinct for these christian slave values. They demand a society which benefits the herd and possess an unshakeable faith that the community will be their salvation. The desire to eliminate suffering is a defining characteristic of their 'secular morality', which they purport to be 'objective' and 'progressive'.

Within the modern atheist movement many see themselves as 'free thinkers' liberated from the dogmas of religion. These self professed atheists tend to advocated secular-humanist thought and think of themselves as ‘skeptics' who have over-turned outdated bygone religious ideas of  'good' and 'evil' and fail to realize that they are merely continuing the work of a slave-religion. That is in many ways they are merely substituting 'God' with 'humanity' or the herd-collective. They have replaced the equality of souls before God" with "Equality before the law" and "equality of opportunity" etc.
'Equality before the Law,' is a contradiction in terms because Law by its very nature is Inequality. For all who are under the law are the subjects of those who enforce and fabricate law. 'The consent of the governed is a clever lie as every government on earth rests on force.

In political-liberalism in all its incarnations the individual is to be sacrificed to the idol of "Man", the state etc. Individual freedoms must give way to the impersonal ideal or abstract spook. We are told it is immoral for an individual to put his own interest or will over the will of "the people". 

By my standards, the herd ethic has caused humanity to lapse into a state of degeneration. What I call 'greatness' requires that which the herd animal devalues such as suffering, danger, self-love, egoism, (not to be confused with self deluded eroticism) self-reliance, and inequality. It is in the interest of the herd to promote such characteristics as modesty, empathy, submissiveness, obedience, humility, conformity, and so on—thus opposing the development of the higher man while labeling him "evil". 
As herd morality has continued to developed in the modern secular west it appears to have shed an element of the ascetic ideal and has morphed into a form of utilitarianism. Salvation in the next life has been replaced by 'happiness now' and "the well-being of conscious creatures". With the loss of the vestigial ascetic ideal there exists little inspiration to strive beyond the herd animal. Little room for self evolution or over-coming.

For numerous aeons the human primate has endured environmental pressures and overcome harsh obstacles which have caused it to become the most extraordinary complex aware beast on the planet. Without these external dangers and challenges he would not be the super-ape he is today. With his exceptional brain power man kind has ever progressively mastered his environment and assimilated a vast array other organisms under his will to power. 
It takes extreme pressures to produce a diamond in the rough, and so it is with individual greatness. I suspect most are born with herd instincts, and they yearn to 'fit in'—to be accepted and to assimilate themselves into the collective. And then there are that species of man I call the 'I-Theist' who naturally transcend the modern mediocre ideals which surround him. Within his breast beats the virile heart of a lion...
To the slave mind it is 'wrong' and perhaps even un-thinkable to put his interests over the will of God, the state, the herd, the collective, humanity, the nation etc. The I-Theist on the other hand saith in his heart "my will be done!".