ENDS BEFORE MEANS - PART TWO!
You want windows, doors and curtains, because sometimes you want to enjoy your privacy. Who doesn't? Big wigs and top brass and high rollers all build walls around themselves and their property, guarded by armed guards and surveillance, and they even try to keep any news or hacks about them out of public view. Are they up to no good? Yet, they are the ones who like to propagate this little meme: "Well, if you've done nothing wrong, what are you worried about?"
So, why worry if you are being tracked, surveilled, infringed upon - usurped - everywhere and every moment of your life? Why should you be worried? - UNLESS YOU'RE UP TO NO GOOD!!!
So, this is one tool of the elites, used to manipulate people, into their vices of control. It's called the assumption of guilt prior to being proved innocent. Completely backwards to basically the whole point of the constitution, etc. The Founding Fathers knew that this was one of their devices of coercion and force, and so they institutionalized it into law. When you allow the putting of some people's ends before other people's means, this allows the most powerful to prevail against, and dominate, everybody.
When you're sitting in your home, at night, with curtains wide open, you don;t especially want to be looked in upon by stranegrs out there. Am I right? Why is this? It's because of two important things concerning human nature, if not all of nature.
1 - Some people take and take - exploit - to whatever extent they may be allowed. Because our crazy word-poisoned brains rationalise anything and everything, and our ids are forever hungry.
2 - Most people, even as innocent as doves, find it more difficult to focus on their own needs and wishes - their own ends and means - when they feel they are being watched.
So, the intimidating meme, "Why should you care, if you have done nothing wrong?" is complete bullshit. And smart people need to see it for what it is. In fact, it, in itself, is a social evil, which we should all work together to eliminate from our culture - along with all the surveillance, the censorship, the misrepresentations, and so on. It is a rudeness that deserves to be expunged in the manner of any Dodo or Tasmanian Tiger - moreso, of course. Society cannot gorw creatively when rudeness like this becomes pandemic. It is the skids for tyranny.
As a great man once wrote in this journal, "A nation full of assholes soon becomes a nation full of soldiers."
Tyranny is the emergence of one, dominant end over the ends, and means, of every one else. Which is why it eventually leads to THE END.
Rationalisations for leaving the border open, so that 20 million illegals can disrupt society and economics in this country, are similar bullshit memes. "Why would you want to close the border, unless you are clearly a racist white nationalist?" And so forth. But, just as curtains help preserve mental health and activity, walls can bring security, stability and peace. Good fences make good neighbours.
But, as I hinted, walls can also be built around the ends of the powerful, to protect and further their crimes. The important thing is to know, in your heart, that you have negative interest in involving yourself in the sorts of sins and corruptions of which abusive elites may be guilty. You must know in your own heart, with full certainty and confidence, that you are, in fact, an innocent person.
To arrive at this certainty, you might partake in a purifying religion, or ideology. However, for best results, one should dwell less in words, and mind more one's own consistency of actions. Moral consistency, as Emerson addressed in such esseys as, "Self-Reliance," and as Thoreau wrote in, "Walden," and, "Life Without Principle." To know that you sought, with conscience, the best course of action, and proceed ahead with the sanest of intentions, with least malice towards others. That you wish to adhere to laws, but know that law is derivative of moral choice, and that you may sometimes make decisions inconsistent with written or assumed laws or mores of others, such as refusing to go to war, or to be vaccinated, and so on.
Such exceptions to law is one reason why we have juries in our justice system, who may sometimes nullify charges or decisions by judges. Again, the Constitution understood that sometimes, the ends of the individual shine more justice on society than can the painful light let in through a little prison window. Maintaining the assumption of innocence - of good will - is the fundamental check we have against emergent tyranny. And this foundation to our rights is sometimes underwritten by reference to higher powers than silly humans in their ridiculous robes.
Moral consistency of action does not always lead to righteous decision, in and of itself. One make make almost as much of a fundamentalism out of it as can a state justice system, or a woke revolution, from their own laws and mores. Just assuming that the decisions of System judges are always unfair, unwoke or inequitable, is as wrong as System judges basing all of their decisions on racial prejudice, or such.
Not only are laws inherently unreal, there can be great error inherent in our justice systems. For one thing, judges are made of lawyers, who have been accustomed to arguing for or against the truth, depending on who pays them per case. They are relativists who get paid to nevertheless construct great truths.
And, most people who are in law are there because they have a lust for power, or for appearing right, whether or not they actually are right. Thus the profession with the highest percentage of narcissists and psychopaths is the legal profession.
Finally, lawyers - and so judges - with little deep spiritual or personal moral grounding tend to have a political inclination to side with the more powerful, forceful or charismatic. I have seen this Machiavellian character flaw in various lawyers and judges with whom I have been acquainted or related. It is usually subconscious, but significant.
Give to Caesar only that which already belongs to Caesar.
Just as law in itself is never complete and true in and of itself, neither are words, and neither are any kind of fundamentalism, where some assumed black contradicts some assumed white. So, the so-called moral choice to go protest at a Supreme Court Justice's home, seems more a bastardisation of the progressive ideas of wise sages and civil rights leaders, going back thousands of years.
So, how does one know when one's decisions are consistent and moral, when they might just be extensions of dogma or prejudice - or of animal wants or fears? The only answer is that one be true to oneself, in commitment to the fairest course action. Not to assume one is right at every turn, but, rather the opposite: One is innocent, open and beginning, every step along the way. In other words, don't put ends and ideals before means and reality.
And, certainly do not put the ends of the state or the powerful before the means of your own humanity.
So, this is called getting in touch with your own spirit, in various religions. Your own affiliation with innocence. It is a therapy in "woke" times, and times of action, with similar healing and guiding powers as have dreams in your sleep.
When there are all these fundamentalisms - ideologies - groups - mass movements - clashing all about, it can become easy for lazy or frightened actors to base decisions and judgements on preformed laws mores - on prejudice. Woke fanatics do this when they base their end-before-means "equitable" identity politics on skin colour. The outcome is, inevitably, destructive racism, and violence. And, the elites, meaning to be in charge, know this.
And there is also so much selfishness about, which has at its disposal almost infinite means of rationalisation, and justification, from words and laws, to technology, to money. How do we know when anyone is neither making a fundamentalist judgement, or a narcissistic play for power, based on the drives of their id and a deranged ego - and an entirely mal-constructed superego? How do we know if we ourselves might be making the wrong decision, and merely be deluding ourselves that whatever we choose if correct? Which seems to be the main style of the times?
Again: be honest with yourself. Be scientific. Be open-minded and studious. Desire to be fair. Be aware of your humanity. Do not invest yourself in false ideologies. AND DO NOT JUDGE.
This is why I try to convey that most of what I try to do is based on hypotheses of various probability strength. Ours is not to judge, because it gets in the way of things. Not to judge means not to proclaim guilt prior to fair enquiry. Not to put prejudicial ends before discovery means. The ironic thing is that the more one pursues this method, or life-philosophy, the more one learns about what is really true. And so one appears to judge every damn thing he or she now sees, in the end. Well, this may actually be the point - the inevitable end. Its better than going to war for fish. It's better than mass genocide. And so on.
If one must judge, then take the slowest possible route. Smell the roses, in the crap. Take your time, lest you find yourself another lie, just travelling halfway 'round the world, in search of an honest conscience. Carry your own conscience on your back, and this will make a lighter time of your travels. In the end.
When we judge - ourselves, or others - we may not kill, we may not imprison, we may not even usurp power. But, we distract the innocent. We are looking into a window, distracting, and taking people away from their ongoing consultation with their spirits. We are destroying their freedom of innocence and will. The very creativity that forms the foundation of our shared society. You can't share a society when every member is held accountable to it every minute of the day. No more individuality means no more community. The ends of tyranny have won.
Our system is based on culturing that very freedom. Free choice thereby improves the economy and the public welfare. Free and moral choice in a non-monopolistic economy benefits everyone.
The point is not to build the widest window or the tallest wall, from behind which one controls all other neighbours. The point is to allow each other the ease to be free, by suspending judgement, and keeping the forces of tyranny from destroying it all.
I do a lot of judging in this journal. But I think I am mainly trying to point out the failure of many people in adopting such humility or fairness. Which is a very good thing to do, imo.
For more on ends-before-means DO THIS SEARCH. - ( PART ONE is HERE).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7SO67RydKc
So, why worry if you are being tracked, surveilled, infringed upon - usurped - everywhere and every moment of your life? Why should you be worried? - UNLESS YOU'RE UP TO NO GOOD!!!
So, this is one tool of the elites, used to manipulate people, into their vices of control. It's called the assumption of guilt prior to being proved innocent. Completely backwards to basically the whole point of the constitution, etc. The Founding Fathers knew that this was one of their devices of coercion and force, and so they institutionalized it into law. When you allow the putting of some people's ends before other people's means, this allows the most powerful to prevail against, and dominate, everybody.
When you're sitting in your home, at night, with curtains wide open, you don;t especially want to be looked in upon by stranegrs out there. Am I right? Why is this? It's because of two important things concerning human nature, if not all of nature.
1 - Some people take and take - exploit - to whatever extent they may be allowed. Because our crazy word-poisoned brains rationalise anything and everything, and our ids are forever hungry.
2 - Most people, even as innocent as doves, find it more difficult to focus on their own needs and wishes - their own ends and means - when they feel they are being watched.
So, the intimidating meme, "Why should you care, if you have done nothing wrong?" is complete bullshit. And smart people need to see it for what it is. In fact, it, in itself, is a social evil, which we should all work together to eliminate from our culture - along with all the surveillance, the censorship, the misrepresentations, and so on. It is a rudeness that deserves to be expunged in the manner of any Dodo or Tasmanian Tiger - moreso, of course. Society cannot gorw creatively when rudeness like this becomes pandemic. It is the skids for tyranny.
As a great man once wrote in this journal, "A nation full of assholes soon becomes a nation full of soldiers."
Tyranny is the emergence of one, dominant end over the ends, and means, of every one else. Which is why it eventually leads to THE END.
Rationalisations for leaving the border open, so that 20 million illegals can disrupt society and economics in this country, are similar bullshit memes. "Why would you want to close the border, unless you are clearly a racist white nationalist?" And so forth. But, just as curtains help preserve mental health and activity, walls can bring security, stability and peace. Good fences make good neighbours.
But, as I hinted, walls can also be built around the ends of the powerful, to protect and further their crimes. The important thing is to know, in your heart, that you have negative interest in involving yourself in the sorts of sins and corruptions of which abusive elites may be guilty. You must know in your own heart, with full certainty and confidence, that you are, in fact, an innocent person.
To arrive at this certainty, you might partake in a purifying religion, or ideology. However, for best results, one should dwell less in words, and mind more one's own consistency of actions. Moral consistency, as Emerson addressed in such esseys as, "Self-Reliance," and as Thoreau wrote in, "Walden," and, "Life Without Principle." To know that you sought, with conscience, the best course of action, and proceed ahead with the sanest of intentions, with least malice towards others. That you wish to adhere to laws, but know that law is derivative of moral choice, and that you may sometimes make decisions inconsistent with written or assumed laws or mores of others, such as refusing to go to war, or to be vaccinated, and so on.
Such exceptions to law is one reason why we have juries in our justice system, who may sometimes nullify charges or decisions by judges. Again, the Constitution understood that sometimes, the ends of the individual shine more justice on society than can the painful light let in through a little prison window. Maintaining the assumption of innocence - of good will - is the fundamental check we have against emergent tyranny. And this foundation to our rights is sometimes underwritten by reference to higher powers than silly humans in their ridiculous robes.
Moral consistency of action does not always lead to righteous decision, in and of itself. One make make almost as much of a fundamentalism out of it as can a state justice system, or a woke revolution, from their own laws and mores. Just assuming that the decisions of System judges are always unfair, unwoke or inequitable, is as wrong as System judges basing all of their decisions on racial prejudice, or such.
Not only are laws inherently unreal, there can be great error inherent in our justice systems. For one thing, judges are made of lawyers, who have been accustomed to arguing for or against the truth, depending on who pays them per case. They are relativists who get paid to nevertheless construct great truths.
And, most people who are in law are there because they have a lust for power, or for appearing right, whether or not they actually are right. Thus the profession with the highest percentage of narcissists and psychopaths is the legal profession.
Finally, lawyers - and so judges - with little deep spiritual or personal moral grounding tend to have a political inclination to side with the more powerful, forceful or charismatic. I have seen this Machiavellian character flaw in various lawyers and judges with whom I have been acquainted or related. It is usually subconscious, but significant.
Give to Caesar only that which already belongs to Caesar.
Just as law in itself is never complete and true in and of itself, neither are words, and neither are any kind of fundamentalism, where some assumed black contradicts some assumed white. So, the so-called moral choice to go protest at a Supreme Court Justice's home, seems more a bastardisation of the progressive ideas of wise sages and civil rights leaders, going back thousands of years.
So, how does one know when one's decisions are consistent and moral, when they might just be extensions of dogma or prejudice - or of animal wants or fears? The only answer is that one be true to oneself, in commitment to the fairest course action. Not to assume one is right at every turn, but, rather the opposite: One is innocent, open and beginning, every step along the way. In other words, don't put ends and ideals before means and reality.
And, certainly do not put the ends of the state or the powerful before the means of your own humanity.
So, this is called getting in touch with your own spirit, in various religions. Your own affiliation with innocence. It is a therapy in "woke" times, and times of action, with similar healing and guiding powers as have dreams in your sleep.
When there are all these fundamentalisms - ideologies - groups - mass movements - clashing all about, it can become easy for lazy or frightened actors to base decisions and judgements on preformed laws mores - on prejudice. Woke fanatics do this when they base their end-before-means "equitable" identity politics on skin colour. The outcome is, inevitably, destructive racism, and violence. And, the elites, meaning to be in charge, know this.
And there is also so much selfishness about, which has at its disposal almost infinite means of rationalisation, and justification, from words and laws, to technology, to money. How do we know when anyone is neither making a fundamentalist judgement, or a narcissistic play for power, based on the drives of their id and a deranged ego - and an entirely mal-constructed superego? How do we know if we ourselves might be making the wrong decision, and merely be deluding ourselves that whatever we choose if correct? Which seems to be the main style of the times?
Again: be honest with yourself. Be scientific. Be open-minded and studious. Desire to be fair. Be aware of your humanity. Do not invest yourself in false ideologies. AND DO NOT JUDGE.
This is why I try to convey that most of what I try to do is based on hypotheses of various probability strength. Ours is not to judge, because it gets in the way of things. Not to judge means not to proclaim guilt prior to fair enquiry. Not to put prejudicial ends before discovery means. The ironic thing is that the more one pursues this method, or life-philosophy, the more one learns about what is really true. And so one appears to judge every damn thing he or she now sees, in the end. Well, this may actually be the point - the inevitable end. Its better than going to war for fish. It's better than mass genocide. And so on.
If one must judge, then take the slowest possible route. Smell the roses, in the crap. Take your time, lest you find yourself another lie, just travelling halfway 'round the world, in search of an honest conscience. Carry your own conscience on your back, and this will make a lighter time of your travels. In the end.
When we judge - ourselves, or others - we may not kill, we may not imprison, we may not even usurp power. But, we distract the innocent. We are looking into a window, distracting, and taking people away from their ongoing consultation with their spirits. We are destroying their freedom of innocence and will. The very creativity that forms the foundation of our shared society. You can't share a society when every member is held accountable to it every minute of the day. No more individuality means no more community. The ends of tyranny have won.
Our system is based on culturing that very freedom. Free choice thereby improves the economy and the public welfare. Free and moral choice in a non-monopolistic economy benefits everyone.
The point is not to build the widest window or the tallest wall, from behind which one controls all other neighbours. The point is to allow each other the ease to be free, by suspending judgement, and keeping the forces of tyranny from destroying it all.
I do a lot of judging in this journal. But I think I am mainly trying to point out the failure of many people in adopting such humility or fairness. Which is a very good thing to do, imo.
For more on ends-before-means DO THIS SEARCH. - ( PART ONE is HERE).
Click to viewhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7SO67RydKc