Reality is anarchistic

Reality is anarchistic. This is the bottom line.

You may not like this fact, and I assure you it is a fact, but reality simply doesn’t give a fuck.

Anarchy is no law.

Now there are what we have called laws such as gravity. But really we’re playing a game there. We have constructed morality and a legal system and we see that reality behaves in an ordered fashion; because we find it difficult to understand things in non-human terms and since language arises from human behaviour we have transplanted human terms onto non-human things.

That is why we call physical laws physical laws.

The thing about a law is that it can be disobeyed. There is a law prohibiting murder but it is quite easy for me to pick up a knife and stab you in the face. So whenever I am confronted by an opportunity to break a law there is a decision on my part about whether or not I will break it.

Bodies of mass aren’t out there umming and ahhing over whether or not they are going to behave according to the law of gravity.

All moral or legal order is established upon a basic fact of anarchy: whoever is strongest gets his own way.

You can articulate this as “might is right” but that masks the fact that right only comes about as a behaviour of might. That as long as a certain right is maintained by might it is right but when that might ceases it’s maintaining activity it becomes futile to hold onto that right. Might don’t give a fuck; it will stab you in the face.

Now you can certainly turn around and say “It’s not right” but so what?

Say I say murder is right and you say murder is wrong what evidence are you going to use to back your claim. Maybe you will come up with an analysis of murder and it’s effects upon society. That is you may say that the statement “murder is wrong” rests upon pragmatics or the statement “society cannot exist if everybody murders” well I would agree but then I would say “It is right for society not to exist”

Whatever ground you give for a moral claim will be another moral claim with the same weakness as the claim you are trying to maintain.

Even the Christian argument for morality rests upon this undeniable fact concerning the reality of moral claims; that they are backed ultimately by might. If you do what is wrong the mighty god will put you into eternal prison which is the ultimate expression of might.

Advertisements

On lying

I don’t mind if people lie to me.

This is for many reasons. One of which is that it is utterly up to you what you tell me or don’t tell me.

This isn’t a freedom I impart to you; it’s reality. Whether I like it or not you can tell me whatever you want. Luckily I am glad about this state of affairs.

It would be good if we had social structures and constructions that made people less wary of being honest. Even less wary about simply stating what ever the reason they are lying for is. I don’t mean telling the truth behind the lie but just saying “no” or whatever occasioned the lie in the first place.

People cannot help honestly expressing themselves. Even in a lie there are deep truths about the liar such as their preferences, what they applaud and what they boo. These are generally of a much more useful and deeper significance than whatever shallow truth they are trying to hide.

Even when they are lying to you and not disclosing their own preferences they are never-the-less disclosing their opinion about you. They are showing you what it is they think you like or dislike, what you will applaud or boo. Again this is incredibly useful information that can be put into immediate use by correcting or affirming the construction the other has made of you.

A lie is never really an untruth in a deep or absolute sense. In fact I don’t believe untruth in that sense exists. There is just misappropriated truth.

For example the majority of lies told are of the nature of false intentions. A person wants to do you damage but in order for him to do so he has to convince you that he intends your well being. So he says “I’m only trying to help you”. In this particular instance the stated intention is false but it is only false because there is a hidden intention. On it’s own it just is and all that is is absolutely true.

A personal instance of how morality is used to control the working-class to their own detriment

The correct view of the working-classes’ relationship to their bosses is that of warfare.

Your employer wants to get as much labour out of you for as little money as possible.

They know that the majority of the working-class has been hoodwinked by morality. They believe such things as debts must be repaid, you should take pride in your work and of course the old chestnut of work being valuable for it’s own sake.

I remember when I worked with my dad looking after a severely handicapped person on the way to this organization that let them pretend to work on a farm and back. Basically my job was to sit in the back of the car with this person and make sure he didn’t smash the windows or masturbate.

It was a decent job that took up 3 hours of my day and paid me £40. Basically a full-time wage for part-time work.

I loved it.

My dad would work on the farm where the project for the handicapped was so I would spend the day at my grandmas.

Now my grandma was a lovely woman. Sadly she was conditioned, like most of the working-class the ethic she was conditioned into was not to her benefit.

In fact she was part of one of the greatest brain-washing institutions ever created: The Church.

During the mid-day I would like to nap. I find that I’m at my best in the evening and left to my own devices I will sleep in till 12ish.

She couldn’t stand this! She would try and have me up and doing stuff, reading books wasn’t doing stuff in her mind.

It’s really sad because in a sense this conditioning that was inflicted upon her acted as a wall between us. She wouldn’t hear any rational discourse about it. No matter how much I exclaimed that I had earnt all the money I needed and now had no obligations to myself or my land-lord she would have none of it.

Really what this ethic is saying is that a man only has value in so far as he is exerting himself for someone else. It is the slave ethic and the heart of protestantism. It is the means by which the elite deceive the oppressed into being their own oppressors.

Morality, love and freedom

When I express the idea that morality is a fiction some people say to me:

“But what about the murderers and rapists?”

As if the only defence we have against them is the law. Apart from the fact that criminals don’t obey the law by definition I think this indicates that people don’t trust themselves.

At some level they believe that if they didn’t have this outward prescription for their behaviour they would rape and murder.

Personally the reason I don’t rape is because it isn’t what I want. What I love about sex is that it is two people both doing what they really want to do and in that doing they fulfil for the other what the other really wants to do.

It is like two rivers gushing into each other, becoming one and then separating out again. This is beautiful and it is what I want when I think of sex.

Sex is the ritual that sustains love, that expresses love.

Anyway to get back on point rape would take away from sex all that I want from it.

The same with murder. I simply don’t like hurting people so I don’t.

A more extreme version of the reply I’ve had to my lack of belief in morality is when a Christian says “Why be good if there’s no hell?”.

To which I reply “So the only reason you aren’t viciously raping toddlers is because you think that if you did you would go to hell?”

Now I do think as a society we should institute laws. That is to say we should tell people within our society that if they do certain things then we – as the society – will fuck them up.

I also think we should be honest about the basis upon which we rest these laws. That is a consensus of preferences within a society. We shouldn’t obfuscate the matter through an appeal to some cosmic order.

The fact is that if the cosmos, God or whatever didn’t want murder to occur it simply wouldn’t occur. He doesn’t want people breaking the law of gravity as you can tell by the lack of people flying unassisted.

Thoughts inspired by “Eating animal flesh in this day and age is fucking grim”

How do you even make this moral claim?

I mean how to you resolve dispute.

You say it’s wrong I say it’s right.

How are you going to solve that?

By talking about the barbarity of the animal harvest system?

It doesn’t really solve the issue because at most you could say that the way in which we farm and kill these animals is bad not farming or killing in itself.

And anyway say I think it’s fine to hurt things… how are you going to solve that dispute?

To make any moral claim as an absolute is ridiculous because someone can disagree with you and the most you can do is say “All these other people agree with me” Which is silly… I mean consensus isn’t truth.

To offer a positive though…

I think true radicality now lies not in trying to change the world, not in trying to change anyone or anything.

It lies in giving the middle finger to every standard that is outside of you and discovering your own standard. Find out for yourself who you are and live that… If it means you go to prison or get killed then go to prison and get killed.

It’s better to die me than live a zombie walking around speaking hollow words to hide my true intentions.

What values should we use to judge our value?

The last blog I wrote leads naturally to this question:

“How are we to judge values?”

Which is a funny question because it is asking “What values are we to value a value by?” and whenever you say the same thing three times it sounds funny!

Anyway the first and obvious criteria would be “Does it cause suffering?”

If that were the only value by which we judged values then loads of things that have to be done but are unpleasant to do wouldn’t get done.

So the second criteria would be: “Is it necessary?”

Now the definition of “necessary” would necessarily be subjective.

For me mess and disorganization in my immediate environment cause me no suffering so it isn’t necessary that I always clean my room.

In the case of someone who suffers in the presence of mess it would be necessary for them to maintain a clean environment.

That’s funny!

The second criterion comes from and is modified by the first criterion!

I think I’ll change the name of the first criterion to “axiom” and the name of the second criterion to “theorem” because I am defining a necessary act as an act that causes the cessation of suffering.

That is that the 1st theorem arises from the axiom.

Anyway so here are two criteria:

      1. Does it cause suffering

      2. Is it necessary

Of course there is a hidden assumption here about values.

That assumption is that values are fictions, man-made constructs and as such are subject to review and change.

Even if that’s not the case and values are some objective thing so what?

What would they be but a set of statements; and if there’s one thing I know about a set of statements it’s that they don’t give a damn about anything.

They’re not going to complain if they are unfulfilled; they’re just fucking words and us silly billies make ourselves miserable by trying to maintain values that have long ago gone past their sell-by date by saying that they are objective and need to be followed because…. well because (and we all know what that means don’t we).

The second assumption is the values we have are really preferential statements in disguise and that because of this values should change with time.

What grounds do I have for the second assumption? Nothing other than might I’m afraid.

Imagine “Murder is right” were a value.

It would fail to pass our test but so what?

I’m not that strong and could easily be murdered.

But the thing is – and this is a big but – there are loads of people who don’t want to be murdered! So we form a club and one of the rules of that club is “Don’t murder people” and what backs that rule is the might of the majority.

Now to base a value system on the preferences of the majority can lead to some not very nice consequences.

One day the majority could decide that it liked eating babies alive and create the value “Eating babies alive is right”.

Now then you may not like this value but what grounds would you stand on to change it if you were in the minority?

God? Well God allows everything and if he doesn’t like the values man has made he hasn’t done much about it has he?

Really what I’m trying to get at is reality here. What are values really based on – I say preferences – and how we can use this knowledge to realize that we have licence (which is a nice way of saying power) to change the values that already exist.

Naked Revolution

Naked Revolution.

 

The thing is freedom!

 

I should be free to wear nothing if I want to!

 

Clothes cost money and take effort to put on; all you have to do if you don’t want to see me naked is not look at me.

 

You know turn your head. You’re doing it all the time anyway so it’s not really that out of your way now is it?

But for me to pander to you commercially inspired social conditioning I have to waste money and effort on trousers, shirts and what not.

You know what I think you should do? Yes you with the morally outraged look on your face. I think you should fuck off!

The Aberrant is the Monster of Society and Society is the Monster of the Aberrant; The grounds for true compassion!

 

Tis a sad thing that few realize
That all are retards or none are;

That we are all abnormalities
Born with unchosen deformities;

That to call one shameful and evil
Is to call all shameful and evil.

But

If instead

We realize the truth:
That good and bad are nothing
But ways of saying:

I don’t like this”
And “I like that”

That give the illusion

That justifies the vicious acts
the likes of which were used
As the excuse to commit the acts.


Justice is ever the cover for man’s bestiality.

Have you ever looked

Into the eyes

Of a man

As he describes

What he’d like to do to those “evil” men!

And seen the same “evil”….

stare…..

Right back out at you.

As if it’s a dog on a leash

Just raring to go.

The collar, my friend, is untied by Justice!

No-one was born,
Given a contract to sign
Then told to live accordingly!

We were born free!

We washed up on the shores of life

Through no will of our own.

We owe no-one nothing!

And guilt is ever the illusion

Of the man who believed

The man at the docks who said

Gotta give us something

To be here mate! It’s only fair!”

And if a man wishes to murder
Who are we to say he’s wrong
In any inaccessibly objective metaphysical sense;
Because all we’re really saying
When we say

Murder is wrong!”
Is
“I don’t want to die, please don’t kill me!”


We have to be honest

About the basis
Of our legal system!


It just so happens the majority
Share preferences
That the majority finds bearable.


So we

The majority

Gang up on the “Aberrant”
On the “Freak”

On the “Retard”

And the “Criminal”


And with no justification

Other than might

We deny them the
Ability for fulfilment.

And I whole-heartedly participate

Because

I don’t want to get hurt,

Because

I want to keep my stuff

Because

I want to live in a world
Where we can all dance

Our freaky dances fearlessly

But there are those whose dance

We cannot tolerate.

We cannot like

Because it stops our dance.

So we gang up
And beat up
Those who can’t step to our rhythm.

To make ourselves feel better

We create the myth of morality,
Of justice!

To cover up the brute fact
Of the brute bullies we really are!

Do you accept this truth?

I do!

But it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

I must wash it out!
But what’s the answer?

My answer? kind sir:


If the resources are sufficient
Then comfortable accommodations
Are most pertinent.


If not then we are left with the question:

A quick painless death
Or a lifetime in horrid conditions.


Which would you prefer?


Given the choice
I’d give society’s victims the choice.

Seeing as it’s his fate to be decided.

The aberrant

Is a monster to society

And society

Is a monster to the aberrant!

Dialogue between an old man and a young man

Young Man: You’re an apologetic thinker

Old Man: I’m who I am. Not by my choice; but by the choice of the one who’s in control. [He means the biblical God]

Young Man: You could be open-minded like me. Instead of being a Liverpool fan clinging to the post bleating “we are the best” no matter what. You could be free to frolic in the sunny gardens where you can say a team is best because it’s scored more goals or something.

Old Man: I believe in the Christian God because I know; I’ve had a revelation. So have you! I choose to believe; you don’t.

Young Man: I don’t choose to believe or not believe. What’s the difference anyway? Belief and non-belief are fictions we create to give ourselves a means of creating an identity. To confirm to ourselves we’re here and we’re who we want to think we are.

Old Man: Will you choose to comment back? You have a choice; we all have.

Young Man: “I don’t choose to believe or not believe – – – what’s the difference anyway? Belief and non-belief are fictions we create to give ourselves a means of creating an identity.”

That was my comment back.

Old Man: That was your choice. So you had a choice! You also have a choice to accept your revelation from God; instead you chose the world.

And how’s it working out?!?!

Young Man: https://christopherjack101.wordpress.com/…/more-on…/

I did accept my revelation. I just saw that it was the same thing that had been given to millions of others with hundreds of mutually exclusive beliefs.

Old Man: And all from the one same [bilical] God.

Young Man: If that’s what floods your penis with blood then I don’t see why you shouldn’t go on believing it.

Old Man: I don’t understand why you have to drag the conversation down to the level of personal private parts…

Young Man: I like the level of the personal private parts. Think of me as some centipedy grub wrapped round your hard on, with a proboscis inserted into your japs eyes, that has one of those ball like things sliding up its length like a mosquito sucking blood as I extract whatever it is you keep in that shrivelled hole!

Old man: I would never ever have talked to an Old Man the way you have talked to me! The sad drop in standards of this generation does not surprise me at all.

Young Man: It’s not a drop in standards; but an increase in freedom. I talk to you like I do to anyone. Rather than hiding it away and only furtively beating up the man of the cloth whilst Napoleon is out conquering the dirty houses; I nakedly luxuriate in the living room (whilst my mum’s watching on the buses) masturbating to rape porn and spunking on the dogs.

Old Man: No, Young Man! It is a massive drop in standards. We had more freedom years ago when I was your age.

You are just making excuses for your terrible and disgusting behaviour.

The way you treat yourself and others is awful.

Young Man: I treat no-body terribly. It is the stupid ideals you defend that forced people into ugly masks that is the disgusting behaviour you are referring to.

I treat everyone as adults.

You are just illegitimately extending the rules of your stupid sub-culture to include everyone. Sorry mate but you’ve gotta open your eye’s and see the beautiful fact that we can live out our freaky dances in freedom!

And standards!?

Whose standards would these be?

Who chose them?

I certainly didn’t choose them!

So you know what I’m gonna do with them? I’m gonna fucking defenestrate them! That’s what I’m gonna do. If you had two synapses to rub together you’d do the same.

It’s you and you’re stupid traditions and standards that have made the world the shit hole it is today: where everyone wears too much make-up and are too concerned with how they appear.

They constantly feel the need to consume because your fucktard of a generation has left everyone feeling guilty and ashamed when they don’t need to be.

It’s to alleviate the pain of the false guilt and shame that they have to consume and consume.

It’s because or your ideals and beliefs that the world is fucked up Old Man

And all because I treat myself in a manner you wouldn’t want to treat yourself doesn’t mean that the way I treat myself is wrong. It just means you would prefer to treat yourself differently. Most of how you treat yourself is driven by a concern about what the Jones’ will think of you anyway.

I’m a free individual and from the perspective of a trapped individual I appear aberrant. I am; but that’s because you (like most people) are trapped by your need to get other people to believe what you believe just so you can confirm to yourself you’re the man you want to be.

Whereas I’m free to explore idea-space fearlessly having left behind the illusion of an identity and the exhausting effort it takes to maintain one.

Old Man: People see how you treat yourself and it has an effect on others.

You can believe whatever you want. What you need is some common decency which is very sadly lacking.

Young Man: Often “effect on others” is just a term we use to justify being dictators to others.

I don’t like the way you behave or your sub-culture and I’m going to express that dislike by saying “It has an effect on me” when the only effect it has on you is your stupid opinion regarding that behaviour which ain’t yours anyway. It has been brainwashed into you by your parents social milieu and your own social milieu.

You need to discover who you are Old man cause currently you’re just a puppet dangling on the strings controlled by the media and powers that be. You’re just an empty clone of a man who repeats what he’s heard again and again.

The lights are on Old Man but I’m afraid no-one’s home.

Benefits are Good

The idea that someone should not stay on benefits; that they should put something into the system in order to get something out of the system is unjust given the current state of affairs.

To make this point more clearly I will attempt to delineate a state of affairs in which it would be just – or fair – to not allow people to stay on benefits.

Imagine a world where there are a number of societies that run on a model similar to ours. They each have a system in place whereby people work when they can, pay a percentage of their income into a common fund so that when they are unable to work due to physical ailments or scarcity of work they will be looked after until they die or work becomes available.

In a sense you could call what these people in these societies are doing a game. The rules of which are you work for money when you can and get rewarded by being cared for when you can’t.

Now say an individual doesn’t want to play that game. In a world where he can go off and live how he wants, in a world where he CAN do that, it would be unfair of him to stay in one of those societies and live off their benefit scheme.

Just as it would be unfair for him to be a parasite upon these societies it would be equally – actually I would argue more so – unfair for those societies to force him to stay in them. This would be slavery and most people don’t want such a state of affairs. It is actually the state of affairs we are in. Most people do not realize it but in all but name we are slaves.

Our society is one from which there is no escape. We don’t chose to be born in the country we are born in and if we could easily move geographical location (which we can’t!) it wouldn’t make any difference because everywhere is playing the same game. The game players like a virus have covered the entire planet and there is no escape from them.

Given such a state of affairs as we now have it is only fair that the people that play the game give the people that don’t want to play the game an opt out. It would be best if the people that don’t want to play could go off and eke a living off the land however they see fit and live or die doing so. But the game players – that is our world society – doesn’t allow that.

To stop our society from being deeply and fundamentally a slave pen it’s only fair that we allow those who don’t want to play to not play. That is – or rather should be – the function of benefits.

Some may say “Oh but if we allow that then no-one will play. The system will break!” Good let it break!