deprave
New Member
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Freedom Vs Statism & ReligiosityThis is a rewrite of a post I wrote in another thread.
When one questions the idealist by injecting philosophy or ethics into a conversation they are met with a strong rejection which bring forth mans most primal instincts, often resulting in name calling such as "crazy" or any other word which grants satisfaction in a simple excuse for the rejection. This rejection in questioning our owners ethics is a trained behaviour, this is what keeps falsehoods of religiosity and statism thriving, this is what keeps humanity back. In ethics we have the moral rules which there are no exception, common rules which most societies agree upon (Do not murder, steal, lie, cheat, enslave). So why do we allow for an exception for these rules? why should our rulers be the exception to the very moral rules they enforce?
When the slaves were freed, did they work out the details of how it would work, were they frightened by semantics?
NO!
Who would pick the cotton? How would America survive? Many questioned this and other details, this is what kept them enslaved.
In the end the realization that human ownership is never justified, and standing the moral ground triumphed over all of this, persistently arguing "it doesn't matter its wrong" over and over won out.... people were freed and the cotton still got picked. We moved on.
George Orwell wrote
When there is a gap between ones real and ones declared aims, one turns instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms (copy/pasta), phrases like "The Trade Deficit", "National Debt", "Unfunded Liabilities", etc...These vague accounting phrases are not actuary, not human, they are not "me". You see the reality behind these phrases its very simple, but the simplicity is so freighting to both statism and religiosity it is denied and thus defended by the zombies who want to believe that some politician/party somewhere is on their side. Its not dollars that are being sold, or bonds, or treasuries...It is your enslavement, the only asset that governments have to sell. Your leaders are selling YOU. Our leaders have as much loyalty to us as the plantation owners had to their slaves.
you see..many today like to think of 1984 as a sort of right wing thing. Fear mongers like Alex Jones use this to sell fear in Liberty Lovers. The fact is 1984 was against what was seen as capitalism or fascism, it was a left wing book actually. The idea was that corporatism would swallow us whole, because this is the nature of corporatism to devour without remorse.
The truth is, we see this enemy of Liberty from both the right and the left in corporatism and in whats perceived as "socialism" ...so it is really just a waking up to this that needs to be accomplished. Waking up the fact that neither have human interest in mind, waking up the fact that their are no exceptions to moral rules and ethics, its very simple. Only then can we be free, once like the black slaves and other slaves of the past, we realize that we don't need owners, and that they don't have our interest in mind. It is inevitable and it is the destiny of humanity or any society. Human ownership is never justified. All we can do is stand on our moral ground and argue this persistently.
So here we sit on the heels of yet another election, Statism vs Religiosity and a character battle, while philosophy and ethics questions are still denied. We are given another false choice between two authortarian statist who praise religiosity and pretend as if they are addressing our cries but do just the opposite. What do I propose? I propose that we continue to argue persistently for philosophy from the moral high ground. We should continue to spread the truth among lies and one day we will win out. They will continue to reject the philosopher and call us crazy as they have since the begging of time they will kick their feet like little children but in the end we are right and that can not be denied.
[video=youtube;H_vQt_v8Jmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_vQt_v8Jmw[/video]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Freedom Vs Statism & ReligiosityThis is a rewrite of a post I wrote in another thread.
When one questions the idealist by injecting philosophy or ethics into a conversation they are met with a strong rejection which bring forth mans most primal instincts, often resulting in name calling such as "crazy" or any other word which grants satisfaction in a simple excuse for the rejection. This rejection in questioning our owners ethics is a trained behaviour, this is what keeps falsehoods of religiosity and statism thriving, this is what keeps humanity back. In ethics we have the moral rules which there are no exception, common rules which most societies agree upon (Do not murder, steal, lie, cheat, enslave). So why do we allow for an exception for these rules? why should our rulers be the exception to the very moral rules they enforce?
When the slaves were freed, did they work out the details of how it would work, were they frightened by semantics?
NO!
Who would pick the cotton? How would America survive? Many questioned this and other details, this is what kept them enslaved.
In the end the realization that human ownership is never justified, and standing the moral ground triumphed over all of this, persistently arguing "it doesn't matter its wrong" over and over won out.... people were freed and the cotton still got picked. We moved on.
George Orwell wrote
This is very much the problem with both Democrat and Republican rhetoric, Insincerity. How could they have it when their goals are vastly different than ours? The theory was that they would want to follow the will of the people in order to be elected, those days have long since past, and its not just because of apathy in the public but because of the separation brought forth by many various factors (corporations in politics, money, greed, the list goes on). To have a sort of blind faith in this working out is not only historically inaccurate, not just being optimistic, but I believe it is also fool hearted.
When there is a gap between ones real and ones declared aims, one turns instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms (copy/pasta), phrases like "The Trade Deficit", "National Debt", "Unfunded Liabilities", etc...These vague accounting phrases are not actuary, not human, they are not "me". You see the reality behind these phrases its very simple, but the simplicity is so freighting to both statism and religiosity it is denied and thus defended by the zombies who want to believe that some politician/party somewhere is on their side. Its not dollars that are being sold, or bonds, or treasuries...It is your enslavement, the only asset that governments have to sell. Your leaders are selling YOU. Our leaders have as much loyalty to us as the plantation owners had to their slaves.
you see..many today like to think of 1984 as a sort of right wing thing. Fear mongers like Alex Jones use this to sell fear in Liberty Lovers. The fact is 1984 was against what was seen as capitalism or fascism, it was a left wing book actually. The idea was that corporatism would swallow us whole, because this is the nature of corporatism to devour without remorse.
The truth is, we see this enemy of Liberty from both the right and the left in corporatism and in whats perceived as "socialism" ...so it is really just a waking up to this that needs to be accomplished. Waking up the fact that neither have human interest in mind, waking up the fact that their are no exceptions to moral rules and ethics, its very simple. Only then can we be free, once like the black slaves and other slaves of the past, we realize that we don't need owners, and that they don't have our interest in mind. It is inevitable and it is the destiny of humanity or any society. Human ownership is never justified. All we can do is stand on our moral ground and argue this persistently.
So here we sit on the heels of yet another election, Statism vs Religiosity and a character battle, while philosophy and ethics questions are still denied. We are given another false choice between two authortarian statist who praise religiosity and pretend as if they are addressing our cries but do just the opposite. What do I propose? I propose that we continue to argue persistently for philosophy from the moral high ground. We should continue to spread the truth among lies and one day we will win out. They will continue to reject the philosopher and call us crazy as they have since the begging of time they will kick their feet like little children but in the end we are right and that can not be denied.
[video=youtube;H_vQt_v8Jmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_vQt_v8Jmw[/video]
