Unique, central to Stirnerian egoism, isn't another ideal but rather an outcome of the antagonism between the material and the ideal. It resists description by ideas, bordering on the mystical—a spatio-temporal emergence of the individual as a singular, contingent anti-essence.
The concept of The Unique, central to Stirnerian egoism, is not another ideal but rather an outcome of the antagonism between the material and the ideal. It resists description by ideas, bordering on the mystical—a spatio-temporal emergence of the individual as a singular, contingent anti-essence. As Stirner puts it, “You are nothing until you are named.”
They are now trying to popularize diagnosing early stage CANCER with PCR.
With this fraudulent test they can claim anyone is sick with anything for any reason to subject them to the Medical Death Cult.
"Contagious" Cancer Pandemic anyone?
#mRNA
When I think of USAID, I think of Dan Mitrione, the USAID contractor who taught torture techniques to Latin America juntas, using homeless subjects as human guinea pigs for live demonstrations. Mitrione was only stopped when Tupamaro rebels in Uruguay kidnapped & executed him.
The MSM, for some odd reason, believes it can incite the public with shocking stories of:
* nonprofit NGOs are cut off from largesse!
* lifetime government employees are without job security!
* bad orange man wants to know how taxpayer money is spent!
* Agency about which we know nothing suddenly shut down!
* social media is no longer forced to censor politics!
* Tax-funded bureaucracies can no longer discriminate on racial grounds!
* new and unknown journalists granted access to government stuff!
* Tax-funded doctors can no longer cut off kids' genitals!
#confirmRFKjr #RFKjr
Property is derived from power.
You own something/yourself because you want to/have the will AND power to do. Property in abstract is meaningless.
Unowned things are not property, act of taking over things makes things property.
Public is a spook, so is public property.
RFK JR: "Frances Kelsey was a young scientist at NIH who came in and objected to the panel having approved thalidomide for American children ... All the scientists of that day and the scientific panels that worked for the agency approved green lighted thalidomide. She stood up and screamed and fought and risked her job and risked her reputation and she blocked it in our country three years later ... My uncle gave her the highest civilian honor because she questioned science and was courageous enough to stand up and say, I don't care what happens to me."
Contrary to repeated claims that vaccines save millions of lives, @denisrancourt's analysis of the relationship between vaccine rollouts and infant mortality rates suggest that these programs have contributed to increased infant and child mortality.
Globalist plans
#mRNA
Anyone knows why openvibe is a blue octapus?
The problem of hierarchy
It is fascinating sometimes when one realizes that they are not completely unique. The meaning being that, although each of us shares many things with other members of our species, we are also thoroughly unique. Even the offspring of a person, while sharing traits with a parent, is, of course, not identical. When looking at a child, a parent could see some partial reflections of himself, but not a complete picture, like looking at a mosaic where some pieces of a mirror have been used. We are unique in our combination, yet we are also partly the same. This is perhaps why, from time to time, we discover things and feelings that have been experienced by millions before us, and will be felt by many after us. Each of us is a unique entity in this spatiotemporal part of the universe; I am unique, yet I reflect some aspects of others. This is how and why we sometimes approximate the essence of our species, and sometimes even ascribe qualities of race, sex, nation, or tribe. We always end up creating fixed ideas, or "spooks," so to speak.
The problem of hierarchy came to light through a feisty woman, Dora Marsden, nearly 120 years ago on a cold, damp island - England. She articulated this problem as "archism versus anarchism." The same or a similar epiphany occurs when another unique individual grapples with similar situations. The mosaics are different, yet they are partly made of pieces from broken mirrors that reflect similar things. Dora found out that true anarchism is, of course, impossible. The state is merely an organized form of domination, but domination is a part of our behavior. Removing the state would not, therefore, eliminate domination or hierarchy of all kinds. Her fierce disagreement with the anarchists of her day stemmed from this realization.
Sidney Parker eloquently summarized this dispute: "Anarchism is a redemptionist secular religion concerned to purge the world of political government. Its adherents envisage a “free society” in which all archist [domination] acts are forbidden”. One might even propose that anarchy itself is a fixed idea; certainly, we could have known this without needing to be intimately familiar with any particular political movement, as all political movements are based on metaphysical assumptions about the existence and importance of ideas such as humanity, law, justice, and society.
"Archism," or the unique’s will to rule and dominate, is a natural and normal survival instinct. Without such a drive, no one would exist or thrive. However, we cannot deny that the opposite is sometimes true as well; the tendency to accept domination and submission are, in fact, the same. In short, dominating or submitting to a dominant power, both are archist acts, signifying an acceptance of hierarchy and domination.
Why then is the urge to reject domination so powerful? Firstly, this tendency is not as universal as we might assume, and secondly, it is mostly a matter of positioning and perspective. People reject outside domination and dominators, not domination itself. Anarchism, as a novel and liberating idea akin to a new secular religion, capitalizes on this rejection of external authority. However, it fails to recognize that this rejection is externally derived (from the unique society around us). This is the problem with anarchism; it recognizes a natural tendency, then formulates a political ideology based on it, all the while missing its perspective.
We are all archists. We have archists within us; we are anarchists (as well) but archists to others. Faced with this deep and real contradiction, the anarchist then, like any adept creator of spooks (be it a priest, shaman, or philosopher), resorts to metaphysics. Both left and right anarchists weave alien ideas to justify anarchism (to make it reasonable). The metaphysical principle employed by right-wing anarchists is the so-called "non-aggression principle." There is nothing inherently nefarious about assuming such a rule; the real issue lies in assuming any rule, law, principle, or edict. There is no guarantee that any given principle must be in the interest of any unique person at any time or place.
As Wolfie Landstreicher wrote, "[Philosophers] conceive of wisdom as something objective, as something that exists beyond any individual, and so, something they must pursue rather than possess as their own property, to use as they see fit." He goes on to say, "Stirner chose to be a 'wise guy,' not a wise man." There is no general wisdom that is universally beneficial; wisdom is personal, fitting to the individual. One can live wisely by owning wisdom that suits him. Perhaps Wolfie was contrasting the "wise guy" to the colloquial meaning of the expression - akin to Tony Soprano. Regardless, this leads to the actual resolution of our internal archist conflict with external hierarchies (state, religion, society, etc.) - breaking all laws wisely, acting against as many laws and rules as possible without leading to consequences that negate the whole idea of breaking rules (i.e., against the unique's own interests). This is being a wise guy. This is how one can sidestep hierarchies and live in real freedom.
Left anarchists rightfully recognize that state hierarchy is not the only hierarchy imposed on the individual, but they lack a way out of this dilemma. As said, hierarchies have always been part of our lives and are shared among all species. Right-wing anarchists deny this as a problem and focus solely on the organized and monopolistic hierarchy of the state, assuming its abolition as the sole solution. The egoist, in contrast, acknowledges the objective reality of life - that we are all archists. The egoist does not offer metaphysical solutions; he does not propose general ideas. The egoists accept life as it is and encourage individuals to consume ideas - to use them if they serve their interests and discard them if they do not. Be the archist; dominate and consume ideas, use resources, and have it your way. Sometimes, this means being a state employee, at other times a member of an illegal gang/group , or perhaps a school teacher, etc. Just remember, there has never been a spatiotemporal being quite like you, and there never will be again. Live freely.
Caitlin Johnstone
Xiaohongshu and then DeepSeek have had an unusual volume of westerners speaking positively about China for the last couple of weeks, which of course means we're also seeing many westerners falling all over themselves to say "Well actually China is actually quite bad actually" in response.
Western liberals who fancy themselves enlightened and critical of power tend to get very squirmy and uncomfortable in their skin when they hear people saying positive things about the PRC, and love nothing more than to tell you that China is just as evil and tyrannical as the western power alliance, if not worse.
This is objectively, measurably false. China hasn't spent the 21st century killing people by the millions in wars of aggression. China isn't circling the planet with hundreds of military bases while working to destroy any nation or group anywhere in the world who disobeys it. China isn't strangling nations around the world with starvation sanctions for refusing to bow to its dictates. China didn't just spend 15 months lighting the middle east on fire and backing a live-streamed genocide. China hasn't spent the last three years endangering the world in frequently terrifying acts of nuclear brinkmanship with a rival nuclear superpower. Only the US-centralized empire has done this.
Whenever I point this out I get empire apologists going "Well yeah, SO FAR! We haven't seen China doing all that evil foreign policy shit YET because they're still not powerful enough!" Which is just silly. China absolutely is powerful enough to be a whole lot more abusive and murderous abroad, and it simply isn't. Westerners love to claim that China has secret agendas to conquer the world someday (hilariously implying that these hypothetical future abuses make China morally comparable to the US empire's current known abuses), but if you actually dig into the evidence for these claims what you'll find every time is that all they provide evidence for is China's openly stated goal of a multi-polar world that isn't ruled by Washington.
Our ancestors set sail to conquer the world; their ancestors built a wall. This notion that China has an interest in ruling over a bunch of white foreigners has as much rational basis as old racist superstitions that black and brown people wanted equal rights so that they could come and steal white men's wives and have sex with their daughters.
They're just a better civilization than ours — not because theirs is miraculous or perfect, but because ours is just that murderous and dystopian. They simply do the normal thing while we do the freakish thing: they make the lives of their citizens better and better and avoid unnecessary wars, while western governments make the lives of their citizens worse and worse while plunging into new acts of mass military slaughter every few years.
Any criticisms you could level at China — that their domestic policy is more authoritarian than ours, that their culture is more conservative, etc — are eclipsed in moral terms by the depravity of our own western governments by many orders of magnitude. And why would you even level such criticisms while living under the single most bloodthirsty and tyrannical power structure on earth? That would be like a German living under the Third Reich looking overseas and bitching about Brazil.
I find nothing more pathetic than a westerner who lives under the shadow of the US empire spending their time and energy criticizing the abuses of nations who lie outside that power structure. It's an embarrassing, bootlicking way to live. Focus on criticizing the far greater abuses of the far greater evil that you actually live under, loser.
Property is neither theft nor a "right"
I remember a short trip I made to the Soviet Union when I was a younger man. What I saw astonished me and left a lasting impression on my memory. There were things, buildings, and stuff. However, everything appeared devoid of purpose, orphaned, and abandoned.I asked myself why. After pondering it, my conclusion was this: the government owns everything, which essentially means that nobody truly owns anything, resulting in a state where everything lacks an owner.
Now I am thinking back, and I can cook up a more convincing idea of property based on that youthful observation and Stirner’s brilliant ideas.
We are going to talk about “property”.
Classical liberal idea of property as put forward by John Locke is as follows: self-ownership allows a person the freedom to mix his or her labor with natural resources, converting common property into private property. Locke concludes that people need to be able to protect the resources they are using to live on their property and that this is a natural right (Lockean proviso). More recently Robert Nozick used this idea to form his Lockean proviso which governs the initial acquisition of property in a society. His proviso says that although every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property….whew… do not you get a over-digestion from all these “rights” given to you? (I am of course joking).This implies placing one's trust in the concept of "property" or one's possessions being governed by the notion of imaginary "natural rights." These rights are something that people possess, although it remains unclear how, why, and for how long they exist. What's even more challenging in Nozick's case is his belief in a moral obligation on the part of the property owner towards other imaginary proprietors, some of whom may not even have been born yet.
This property thing gets even funnier when you approach it from the left. Prince Proudhon, from some rather peculiar moral standpoint, asserts: "Property is theft”."He believes that he is making the most condemning statement about property by calling it theft, however, is the concept of 'theft' even conceivable unless one acknowledges the concept of 'property'? How can theft occur if there is no notion of property in the first place?" (Max Stirner). This idea of denigrating property (presumably private property) from a leftist point of view which Stirner so elegantly destroyed, by moralistic/christian language of “theft” has its roots in the spook of society or commons. The idea that there actually is a sacred property and that sacred property belongs to some even more sacred cow, that nobody knows, or feels but has to believe in, namely commons or society.
There is of course a more mundane and vapid idea of property, namely the state ideology of property. The state is created by citizens to (among other things) protect property. Well, in state, you never own anything. The state (whatever type or name or color it has), has just permitted you to use stuff, land and even your body as long as the state deems it right and permitted. The state can seize your land, gold, or even your life at its discretion. It is both a theoretical conclusion of the state’s nature and empirical evidence of our eyes. It matters nothing if you are Chinese billionaire Jack Ma, Russian oligarch Khodorkovsky or world’s richest man Elon Musk, step out of the allowed lines too far, and you are done for.
I think a discerning reader sees through the spooks and inherent contradictions of these poor tries on constructing a tight edifice which could be called property, and from the right hedging it to some Godly natural rights, and from left, gifting it to some imaginary new God (call it whatever, call it society, nature, sustainable future, or the slogan de jour of the newspapers). Objective reality and our intuitions both refute these endeavors, and deep down, we all know that it's merely empty rhetoric. What we all know, deep inside is that property does not really exist in any meaningful sense but in possession. If you have power over and mastery of a thing, an idea, a land, or yourself, you are the owner, you are the proprietor and you are that as long as and as far as your power permits. Property in other words is only the act of owning. This in the end produces a useful conclusion as well, that there is no such thing as public property, because the public is just a spook or a fixed idea, it cannot own things and it has no power of its own. The power of spooks is always a negative power, it is the powerlessness of those captured by the spook. If you reject this spook, and free yourself from it, it loses all its powers and loses all its “property”. All owned by the “public”, the fixed idea that wants to enslave you, is indeed yours, as soon as you decide it. Your volition is the end of the spook.
Unowned property has no value, there is no value for you (the unique) if you do not own it, but when you go ahead and take it, then it becomes of value.
Property is neither theft nor a "right." It is not merely a stamped piece of paper; rather, it is the outcome of one's power and one’s act of ownership.
China China China
Just another AIPAC stooge
How many highly educated people bought the horseshit this rat was peddling?
How many regular people with onze of common sense rejected same horseshit?
Schools do not make people smarter. They make people docile, dumb, blind and deaf.
And we must end centralized social media. We must populate nostr.
View quoted note →Zionist plan
Exactly. Actually this itself is the reason they will try to not let become known to larger public.
View quoted note →
