Some Baseline Principles – Read This First

It is always useful to have a framework with which to grasp concepts, principles, and ideas. Since this blog is the work of one person, if you wish to interact with it (or me) meaningfully and hopefully in a mutually beneficial way, it is probably useful for you to understand some guiding underlying principles of my philosophies. As such in an extremely abbreviated form here are a few bullet-point like items you might be interested in:

  • Lysander Spooner’s Essay – Natural Law (also known as The Science of Justice) is all the politics and all the laws any sane and honest human being requires. It is about 8 pages of printed A4 and it is brilliant. Its brilliance stems from the fact that it is not ideology, but purely fact-based observation. The concept of justice or fairness is innate in human beings and can be seen (either in its true, clean form, or in its quickly corrupted or damaged form) in very small children, practically from birth. If you are a true scientist by nature and can observe impartially, and have children, you may have already noted this. Most parents sadly do not. Most humans are not natural scientists at this present time on Earth.
  • All ideology is ultimately dehumanising. Pretty much regardless of the ideology and/or its initially good intentions. My current working theory is that this is probably an almost absolute rule and the more entrenched the ideology gets the more dehumanising it becomes. If you wish to understand why, read the essay The Power of the Powerless by Václav Havel. In effect this means, that essentially all official religions ultimately become dehumanising, in direct proportion to how dogmatic they become as they fossilise into absolutist principles rooted in human nature rather than divine origin. However, excepting Islam, which is an intentionally and absolutely violent creed as a matter of its very clearly stated aim, most religions are not quite as dehumanising as political ideologies. Political ideologies, be they communism, capitalism, democracy, or whatever else, invariably become tyrannical. And similarly, things like the more subtle “liberal” nonsense commonly referred to as feminism, egalitarianism, sexism and so on quickly descend into utter darkness. To understand this better it helps to know what Cultural Marxism is, and the fact that it operates in the shadows. A good general introduction to it (and why the world is going to Hell so rapidly) is to be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs. Now, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t some divine truths (I believe there are) but the moment you try to codify them, generally, at least on some level, you fail. Nor does it mean there aren’t some common-sense principles of general behaviour it’s a good idea to observe lest we descend into a simple rule by those most able to use force against others (and it is very arguable that this is actually how we live now on Earth). Nor does it mean that there aren’t racists, misogynists, misandrists, and evil scum that roams the Earth, because there are. But the moment you try to say all human beings are equal to the extent that you come up with nonsense such as “gender is a social construct”, or that all human beings are physiologically or psychologically equal, then you have left the realm of reality and have become an intentional mental retard. Someone who avoids reality because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
  • Facts are not ideology. They are facts. Some ideologues (feminists, men’s rights movements radicals, religionists, atheists, etc.) will sometime say things like: Well, if all ideology is dehumanising, then the very idea that ideology is dehumanising is itself an ideology and as such it is dehumanising. No. This is intellectual sophistry and argument by rhetoric. In other words, lying. Neither is rooted in truth, logic or facts. They are merely an “artistic” way of avoiding reality and trying to “look good” in order to disprove a reality they either do not want to accept or which puts them in a bad light. (Usually one that does not allow them to continue to rely on their lamentations of victimhood).
  • I’ll take a racist bigot over a Social Justice Wanker every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The Bigot is merely ignorant. Possibly pigheaded. Possibly mentally deficient. Some of these things can be cured and others can’t be helped. But a Social Justice Wanker is that odious little fog-fart of an individual trying to claim moral authority when they completely lack a spine to begin with. They are wilfully deceptive. Wilfully avoid taking responsibility for their own actions, wilfully ignore, distort and lie about facts, and are in short, wilful hypocrites. The one thing I cannot stand above all is hypocrisy. You can be actually evil. Outright evil, but as long as you are coherent, I can at least respect your integrity. I may actively be ethically bound to do my damnest to end your life, and I may have no respect for you as a human being at all because you might be so evil. But even in such an extreme situation (say the hunting down of a child killer-rapist) internally, while I may question at the origin of your soul, your evil or whatever else, I probably will not judge you on a personal level. Not that it would mean I wouldn’t happily pull the trigger and sleep at night if I had to be the executioner on the day. But a hypocrite is a different kind of beast. A hypocrite is one who at the most root level tries to deceive by claiming purity, victimhood, special sanction for themselves whilst giving none to others who are truly deserving of it. It’s the difference between a Nazi in a full-on Nazi uniform and swastika armband and loaded machine-gun and the bureaucrat that signs the gassing of women and children from the comfort of his desk. I can see the Nazi coming. The faceless autocrat, however, there should be a special place in hell for them. And I hope more and more people like me will increasingly make life for such beings as difficult, uncomfortable and painful as possible. Burn them out of their nests. Question their bullshit ideologies with brutal and unrelenting facts. Ridicule their stupidity and expose their hypocrisy. Expose it at all turns. And hold your ground. The one thing these vermin cannot handle is someone holding their ground fearlessly against their preferred weapon: “social stigma”. These people are invariably moral cowards and try and use the power of “society” and groupthink to condemn and disqualify. Well. Stand your ground and fight back directly and clearly. It is only hard at first. Over time, people will begin to see the difference between an honest man standing on truth and facts and a bunch of coyotes snapping at his heels. Be strong. Your one and invincible weapon is truth. Real science. Facts. Sunlight. Give them no shadows to scurry into.
  • Logic is not optional. Neither is integrity. If you want to argue with me that’s fine. If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine too. If you disagree so much that you feel our differences can only be resolved by duelling, that’s fine with me too (as long as I feel strongly enough about the issue at hand to accept the duel). BUT. You will make your arguments against me based in facts and logic and reality. Not your feelings. No one gives a damn about your feelings. Or mine. Here, on this site, we only care about reality. The truth. Honesty. And these things matter. Which brings me to the most basic and important principle of all (see next point). If you can’t do logic, then don’t start an argument. If your logic fails, own up to it. Defeat in an argument is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, human advancement depends on us arguing and the best approximation of reality/truth being supported and the weaker approximation being discarded. If you contribute by having your approximation improved upon and thus discarded, you have helped all those who come after you to better their thinking. This is called science by the way. Very few “scientists” actually do science behaviour. Sad but true.
  • There is only one truth. Only one reality. And it is the same for all of us. No, you most certainly do NOT have your own truth and me mine and so on. Reality is real. No matter how uncomfortable that may be for you. There is no such thing as relativity. Not in physics (the theory of relativity is really badly named, it should really be the theory of absolutist reality) and not in ethics. And yes, that means that even if there were a million alternate Earths and realities, then THAT would be the truth of it, but until that day when such a thing is clear, the only reality that exists is the one we share; and it is the same for all of us. Ethics are as clear as brick walls if you use logic and should be respected as such. And morals are NOT ethics. Morals change with time and place. Ethics are an innate part of healthy, normal human beings (which can be and mostly IS corrupted and twisted very early on, but which nevertheless exists in us originally). Ethics can be studied and learnt, much like any natural science, like physics or chemistry. Morality on the other hand is a mish-mash of religion, politics, ideology, tradition and sometimes insane ramblings (more often than you’d think). I think of myself as a potentially quite amoral man, but an ethical one. Morals are related to human laws and rules (and human laws and rules are often based on might making right and then creating “laws” to protect such inequities) ethics are like physics for the human condition, are not so numerous, and are probably the underlying truths that originally sparked most non-violent religions.
  • Violence is NOT always wrong. For one, violence is an appropriate response to violence. While violence can be seriously labelled as unethical, and most probably would be right to be labelled as such, unfortunately, given the level of current corruption/lack of evolution/bestial nature of the human monkey, sometimes, violence is the most appropriate response.
  • Violence is NOT limited to the physical. Mental, spiritual and emotional violence is real. And for some of us, quite a bit worse than physical violence. I certainly can think of several situations where physical death is preferable to certain emotional or mental states of anguish. I also can think of several situations where a slap to my face would be infinitely preferable to sets of words that are designed to cause harm. You may disagree with me, that’s your prerogative, but you don’t get to tell me how reality operates on my nervous system based on what suits your ideology. And if you do disagree with me, let’s compare notes with a few hypothetical situations. Just so we are clear by the way, I do not disagree with freedom of speech. I agree with it. At a pretty absolute level. The difference is I also believe it can and should have consequences in certain instances. For example, if I were busy burying my son and a group of freaks picketed the funeral because they had disagreed with some aspect of my son’s lifestyle, maybe he was gay, maybe he was a soldier fighting in a (let’s say unjust) war, such freaks would not be immune from physical harm. Similarly, in the admittedly unlikely event that a child rapist knocks on your door and informs you that at the first opportunity they will kidnap and rape and murder your young daughter….well…in the event that I were the judge in a trial that follows after the disappearance of said child rapist, even if you were found guilty by nature of having been stopped for a traffic violation with his body in the trunk of your car, if it was established as fact that he indeed was a child rapist and he had indeed said such words to you… My judgement would be “time served”. With compensation due if it had been a longer time than it took to get you from arrest directly before the court in a  timely manner.

Given all of the above, if you find that those baseline principles make us incompatible as good neighbours or potential friends, then do us both a favour and go visit another website. Or at least, be aware that given I have clearly stated my position above, I expect you to consider these facts when in dialogue with me. Even if that dialogue is designed to change my mind or prove to me the error of my ways. In other words: Logic is not optional. Etc.

 

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website Design by Kaizenet London