Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Right and Wrong Ways and Reasons to Arm a Polity

There are two ways or reasons to disarm someone, just as there are two ways and reasons to arm someone. Both have a rationale, but one always frustrates tyrants more, especially evil and weak tyrants. One is the favorite of Good men (self defense and of one another against any crime against their life and property or other rights), and the other is the favorite of evil men (to get the upper hand against their victims, whom they prefer to be unarmed and weak-minded, and feeble of body also).

Look at what sort of society your culture and government and financial system, by their policies, would prefer. You will know them by what sort of society they prefer to arm. Either a caste society of the armed and the disarmed, or a legal system where only convicted felons are disarmed, or those who suffer severe mental debility which prevents them exercising their own rights to the point that they cannot be relied upon to defend themselves or others from a violent attack because they might not be able to tell the difference between a violent attack and a family hugging one another (it has to be that bad... sorry, be polite to offset the risks). But that would be a generous limit, and would well-define the matter as to rights and risks of those who would infringe them. Know well your limits and do not aggress or threaten another (including with any threats of calling the police and lying hysterically). If someone "gets crazy" enough to go across that line, it is as likely to be an intelligent, cunning, and ambitious person as it is to be someone just trying to control the room where they like to hang out frequently and has no other ambition in life as far as can be discerned. If they do that, and they get violent, in both cases "the room" will vote, on the spot, to defend themselves if he draws arms against them. Bullying will go on in subtle ways, as groups will still be groups with their regular (perhaps psychotronically reinforced) sociodynamics. But basically, the odds are much more evened out across society, and everyone is, overall, much safer from crime.

That is exactly why we have to clearly distinguish between a society of unarmed serfs and a society of armed citizens. And we also need to distinguish between two types of armed citizens: those who wish to disarm only convicted felons (and retards, and incoherent idiots, to use the classical senses of those terms), and those who wish to disarm anyone but themselves, who are defined as the only who are worthy of the right to bear arms... and they claim to be, by some degree, more worthy than the average citizen, to a degree that is either to imply a greater degree for them, a lesser one for the rest of society, or both. This leads to a range of polities, distinguished in their outer form on a continuum which could be represented as being between China and Switzerland on the extremes. Those are consistent extremes which bear out extremes of dealing with the issue of a citizen's rights and liberties on other continua, all of which have something in common: their privation upon the citizen increases in direct proportion to the disarming of the citizen relative to the arming of the police. If the military is used AS police, then that is a case on the extreme end. It's like the renaissance cannot be extended as a benefit to anyone unless they are well-armed....

Living in a world of grown up, rational men armed with guns is not bad, because you will one way or another. Either you can be among them, or you can be disarmed and be among them. The issue is that there are two kinds of grown up rational men: mature, moral, and decent men or infantile (even bestial), immoral, and unscrupulous evil greedy men. They will always gladly be armed or protected by armed guards, you'll note. But if you live among the rational armed men who are good, then you may disarm yourself if you want, though in a safe society you are now among the weakest links in the chain of good and decent people who want to exercise their rights while respecting your right to do the same, so long as you respect theirs, then why shouldn't you be armed also, to help defend that? And why would they dare think to disarm you? Then an armed police force would be a service, selected from among those already honorably protecting the peace! Therefore, the only other world, where power derives from the barrel of a gun ONLY, then you will have a group without all that goodness and decency, but a lot of evil lust and the rationality to plan accordingly when taking office and gaining resources. Organized crime is their means, ill-gotten gain of power and wealth is their objective, but their primary objective is control of others to make them submit to what is tantamount to slavery pure and simple. Naturally, they would want exclusive rights to arms, and would like exclusive rights to legitimacy in bearing them in any case. That is their means of culturally coercing people to accept such a thing, by means of false flag attacks and media and cinema and other arts. But if organized criminals ever got behind the facades of authority, they would use it as a mask to manipulate people into seeing all legitimate force being exercised by them, THROUGH the government. They would argue that it is for the government "per se", but of course they are wearing government effectively as a mask, and mean "themselves, the beneficiaries of power". THEY will want to erode the legitimacy of non-government actors being free to defend themselves and forge their own fates. They would do that by creating false alternatives and fallacious arguments of all kinds pumping them through their propaganda machine as augmented by a toxiceutical assault, psychotronically reinforced human slave grid, the "digital ghetto", the "hologram of human action". When you are disarmed, then those criminals who happen to occupy government offices will be able to steer events toward their further control with less risk to their own personal lives, and also with more efficient use of criminal "operatives" in the streets... Do you see how a police state has formed, how secret police run everything, and how that is so much smoother if the citizenry are disarmed? Then of course they would implement any strategy which leads to this result. Only a fool doesn't see this. Here you are being disarmed as a de facto criminal, just meekly and defenselessly awaiting the day it will be declared de jure (upon sufficient contrived evidence.. you've seen the movie). I prefer the world of rational men who, if decent, can also defend themselves, and who would prefer, even if being the vast majority of people, that we disarm only citizens who are convicted of a felony offense of any kind. No other prohibition will be considered, except gross mental debility. In other words, we're not so much talking any of the symptoms seen in a DSM and more the sort of side effects of taking any drugs or eating any poisons which have been excused as "safe" for consumption or as medicine. But that's commonplace now, along with corruption, as so many sectors of the economy are now a part of DE FACTO EMBEZZLEMENT RACKETS.

For example, and in the same vein as being disarmed, people are now under risk of being dis disimbursed of their property known as "cash", which are actually just promissory notes and not money per se, but at least has a physical form you can "keep to yourself". If they are allowed to take cash out of your pocket, that's legalized crime. When they are allowed to take ALL cash out of ALL pockets and give them a merely digital representation in a computing system used to swindle you more securely and covertly than ever before possible, then that's also legalized crime. Motive, method, opportunity, then you find the agent. Que bono? Controlling, organized criminal actors. By what means? Using facades of authority, along with psychological, toxiceutical, toxological, cultural and other means of covert civil warfare, the methods of such psychopathic narcissists is more easily understood. Opportunity was had throughout the formation of the country, in its wars, political developments, in all the "normal" vicissitudes of the nation state organized around some legal principles in spirit or letter. So we would expect such a move toward enhanced control and security over "the cash that WAS in your pocket" and now isn't... It's like taking your wallet out of your pocket and then requiring you to use them as a middle man, by sending some goon or footservant to follow you around holding your wallet for you. Someone you don't even know or trust, but has a name tag and a government number. Anyway, instead of having it that "good", all the footservants are digital, inside a computing system, and all of this is far from your direct access, and surrounded by fortresses bristling with modern weapons surrounded by an "outer court" of well-managed foolish slaves...inside a psychotronically reinforced political gulag that some dare call "cities of free people". Pretty sad state of affairs if psychotronics is also implemented, and you are DISENFRANCHISED OF ALL PROPERTY ALSO DISARMED on top of all that corruption. It would be a clear symptom that you had passed over into the realm usually reserved for the Dark Ages. It is much easier to impoverish a disarmed citizenry by means of increasing the pressure by what are by definition criminal means. But doing it more systematically and through institutions which should prevent what they are doing magically makes it seem okay to most sheep, because they are embedded in a control grid as I've outlined many times. The effect has a cause which is proportionately absurd to disbelieve (given the effects it explains) just as it is absurdly difficult for people to face as the actual state of affairs. Of course it would be... But leaving the absurd behavior unexplained is not bad, and finding flaws in the proposed explanation is always appropriate, but if in failing to do that one has no better explanation, then the resistance is due to some well-motivated resistance to accepting the basic realities of right and wrong which properly stand in judgement over human action. That's the mind of a criminally insane victim, a robbed, disarmed criminal who refuses fulfill his duties as a citizen, and de facto has come to deserve his fate, and has dared to lurk on the battlefield hoping to avoid doing what is right OR what is wrong, eventually being devoured by the sea of events around him as a mere ignavus (meaning "coward").

That's a sea of self-destruction which will devour any society which indulges in covert civil warfare with the help of technology and covert actions, integrated by networks of instant communication and funded by counterfeit fiat money. That has to be stopped, either by proper police work or by some force greater with the proper Authority to redress this sort of collective and pervasive corruption. That will be the inevitable result, coming sooner or later merely as people are more or less resistant to corruption. But in the end, each will be found manifesting a final moment of their truth nature. The vision of that being complete for either an Ultimate Good or an ultimate evil is what is encapsulated in the visions of eschatology. But the logic of eschatology is what you ought to be concerned with here. Certain results cannot obtain without the requisite causal precursors being qualified in terms of moral decision making, and then the ontology of those processes can be completed. Matter is supervenient upon this sort of mind, not the reverse. Therefore, all minds and mentalities will be polarized for or against certain principles which cannot share the same polity except by means of a compromise between Good and Legitimate Society and foul, petty, and degraded pseudo-society at the other extreme. All societies will oscillate between these extremes, but eventually there must be a decision on that entire bunch, as the compromises between Good and evil can only disfavor evil in the long run while benefiting it in the short run. The only question is what will Good Men do in the short run, which may or may not add up, as it runs on and on, to a "very long run, indeed" Those who would sacrifice that of Eternal Value for what is evil and temporal will lose both just as they deserve neither. Only those who properly steward what is of temporal value have even a snowball's chance in hell of being worthy of Eternal Existence. The rest have at best an eternal oblivion. But there is Justice in the Cosmos, and so they will have worse, just as the Just will have better.

No comments: