Article by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.
My last article was running kind of long, so I’ve decided it’s time to create a fresh article to follow up on the ongoing conversation taking place about my introduction of Transegoism to the «Philosophy Forums» website. A lot of interesting points have been brought up there.
In spite of the Philosophy Forums admins best efforts to bury my post (short of deleting it outright), the traffic on the post is still going strong (they’ve attempted to bury it by reclassifying my post from «General Philosophy,» to «Philosophyesque Disscussions,» which has the effect of, firstly, insinuating that Transegoism is quasi-philosophy — an interesting take, given that they chose to do this after I substantially put them on their intellectual butts in open debate, and, more importantly, causes it to not show up on the «New Posts» thread — the most important portion of the website, which keeps track of ongoing conversations). It took them a while, but a couple of well informed and refreshingly mentally stable readers have actually succeeded in finding my post; so maybe I’ll stick around for the time being.
This update is as of 0943 11 MARCH 2013.
Petrokotoiphas: Mark, you get me horny. Wanna have sex (I’m not on welfare)?
Mark: How nice of you to offer. No thanks.
NOTE: In an online context, it’s sometimes hard to tell whether someone is proffering a compliment or just being a «troll.» When dealing with someone you’ve never spoken to before, it’s usually best to maintain a respectful demeanor until the person’s intentions become a little more clear.
Atticus II: Heidegger would remind some here that history is key to a sense of being. The US & UK Governments have already tried out sterilizing mentally ill people. The holocaust and final solution are mentioned as if you know the Jewish questions they had, you don’t. I like the idea of working hard for what you get, this and my attention for effort led me to cycle and walk everywhere and never drive a car because I preferred moving under my own steam. Driving and walking get us to two different places.
Athis: Good point. Heidegger was a good buddy of the Nazis too. Transegoism is a fancy term for sociopathic narcissism.
Mark (me): I like people; because I like people, I don’t like parasites. You clearly do like parasites. Why do you hate people?
NOTE: I am employing the «Either Or» fallacy as a tactic, because I feel it’s the only appropriate response to this person’s fallacy-ridden non-arguments (in this particular instance, Athis has committed a Straw Man fallacy and a Genetic Fallacy — it is not the case that I am a Nazi, as I do not ascribe to their socio-economic ideology, and it is not the case that because they sterilized people, that sterilization is therefore inappropriate for welfare recipients).
Jorndoe: And with a touch of fascism? Elitism?
Mark: Really? It’s «elitist» to insist that it’s not OK to be a parasite?
Jorndoe: Who’s stopping you from going to live on a deserted island or putting together a space station, where you can implement your political ideology? You might even get followers.
Mark: I’m not Richard Branson (unfortunately), and America was supposed to be the place for people like me.
Atticus II (in response to Athis’ comment about Heidegger being a Nazi sympathizer): Meaning what? You think only Germany develops fascist nationalist tendencies? You think the scientists of Operation Paperclip were all about making cures and world peace? You seem horrified at the idea of Transegoism when there are worse things going on; democracies that claim to defend liberty when they fight freedom in every continent and spin you a line to offset the enormity of their crimes. Regime change wherever it suits them. Secret courts and an abandonment of human rights…these seem very much like the predictions Mark made a few posts ago, no? Some people here aren’t thinkers but are bleaters and half-witted critics with a need for a sense of belonging, gripping tightly to false ideas about the worthiness of your own societies.
NOTE: Amen, brother.
Mark: Well said. I don’t advocate sterilizing the mentally ill, and I’m not a eugenicist. Look, it doesn’t take a genius to see that our situation is untenable, and will collapse within 1 or 2 generations at the current rate. What do you think we should do about it?
Atticus II: Mark, my post was not to question your ideas of sterilization but to remind Athis that our freedom-loving democracies have been there and done that. I do think there is a looming problem with work versus welfare; whether sterilization is the best solution — this is not yet clear. It certainly reflects things in the UK; two doors away, a girl lives on benefits (don’t think she’s ever worked). She has three kids from three different fathers and no stable relationship right now. I pay tax and I would love to live in some places round the UK but I can’t because of work and the high cost of housing. People on benefits can live there no problem, so why should I subsidize for them what I can’t afford for myself? I’m not a girl so I don’t know how easy it is to drop a sprog but I don’t think women do it with the kids’ best interests in mind a lot of the time. My buddy just had another kid; he was going to leave his wife and thinks she got pregnant on purpose. What is the value of a life? Is it that a baby can save a marriage?
Mark: Brother, I feel for you. Things aren’t quite that bad in the US yet, but in about 10-20 years we’ll be there if we don’t do something drastic. Already, the welfare crowd sports phones and cars that the working class can’t afford, and are better able to afford groceries; you don’t hear about it in the US media, but there is a growing sense of resentment against welfare recipients. I wouldn’t be surprised if the American people eventually started to take matters into their own hands. We are being killed by the sense of entitlement; and the tragic thing is that most of the welfare crowd isn’t even capable of understanding that government benefits have to be paid for by people who produce, and that they don’t spring magically from the government’s rear end.
Athis (in response to Atticus II): I don’t support the criminal activities of the democracies you allude to. Why would you think that pointing out the profound evil of Transegoism implies I support
destabilisations [destabilizations] & regime change etc. A most peculiar conclusion to jump to. Indeed your entire post is a litany of non sequiturs.
Atticus II: It all depends what you read in to things, Athis. You do support them by going along with them or letting them lead you to the kind of chaos they choose. The only conclusion I have jumped to is that by using a computer I expect you live in a consumerist democracy, am I wrong? It isn’t that you support criminal politicians but you aren’t shouting out about their crimes while you, as I said, seem horrified at the idea of Transegoism and the promotion of sterilization. You haven’t even considered that some people would accept money to become barren. I’m a great believer in Bucky Fullers’ vision; that the world should work for 100% of humanity. The welfare versus work conundrum puts this beyond reach; sterilization or, something like the Chinese, limiting people on the welfare to «X» number of children. Wanting a sister or brother means the parents must work for it not let it all hang out like mindless f^c<!ng [obscenity redacted] animals. Rather than my post being full of non-sequiturs it begins as a response to your witticism about Heidegger. From there I go to National Fascism; do you remember bringing that up? I then offer you my thoughts on your over-reaction to the possibility of sterilization. I added a bit of depth about the US and UK being into sterilization because you mentioned that Rome had said it was a crime against humanity — are these regimes in the dock? Liberal democracies do it, so why is Transegoism equated with Auschwitz and fascism for suggesting it? As a I said from the start, if you see non-sequiturs in the words, that’s what you make of it.
NOTE: Atticus II brings up a good point, here; it’s not only a matter of solving problems — it’s also a matter of taking the initiative away from the people who, whether intentionally or not, are wrecking the world.
Athis: I have read your post. You don’t know me or what I think and you jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions. You confuse and conflate issues. Transegoism is an evil ideology. There are other evil ideologies; I don’t support them either. Compulsory sterilization is a crime against humanity….morally and legally. That the crime has been committed before does not make this intent to commit the crime any less evil. If you want to court & support the evil of Transegoism that is your choice. I stand against it.
Atticus II: OK, can you show that you’ve read my post and present some of these assumptions I’ve made? Going from this wild-eyed accusation I can see you will have problems with the above. Mark has not said compulsory; only if you want welfare. I don’t court any philosophy but I do flirt with ideas. As a humanist I prefer to think about ecocentric connections. You seem to be living in the mind of utopian idealist. You want to worry about moral and legal ethics and people are dying because you get to choose from 24 types of cornflake?
NOTE: Oh, snap.
Mark: I won’t presume to speak for Atticus II, but speaking for myself, a lot of the things I accuse you of supporting are tongue in cheek. I feel justified in having a little fun at your expense because you have an extremely melodramatic manner, and your arguments are riddled with fallacies and «bleating» (as he aptly put it) insinuations. To be honest, I do feel that this whole welfare debate has somewhat drifted from the topics I was hoping to discuss on this post, but I’m more than happy to continue to speak for my beliefs — and if you have a better solution to the welfare problem, I’m all ears. It’s easy to call someone a Nazi. It’s harder to solve problems. Given your apparent penchant for taking the easy way out, I find myself asking: are you a welfare recipient, by any chance?
Athis: Yes I am unemployed at this time and fortunate to live in a compassionate society that provides some welfare to the unemployed. Almost 20% of the population is unemployed. It’s worse in Greece and Spain. All the European nations have been bankrupted by the irresponsible speculations of the private banking system. We are paying the debts of the private banks which amount to many times our annual GDPs. It’s the same in the USA. I would suggest getting rid of unemployment; not getting rid of the unemployed. I have had my say on this thread; I have been honest; I am not able to understand or communicate with your mind at all; so I will now leave you to your evil project and wish you complete failure in your vile schemes.
Mark: I’m sorry to hear that you’re unemployed. I’ve been there. I didn’t seek unemployment benefits, but it was stressful to not know how I was going to pay my bills from month to month. It used to be that a «compassionate society» was one where if one of their own was down on their luck, the society would voluntarily come together and support that person until they were back on their feet. I don’t see that there’s anything compassionate about taking by force from those that have and giving to someone else. I think it’s good to help people, and I know that the job market sucks right now, and, in fact, I’m not in favor of letting the unemployed starve. But we need start being proactive about reducing the welfare state before it tanks our economy. And just so we’re clear — I’m against corporate welfare, as well. We should have let every one of those banks fail. And when they, inevitably, started to threaten us, we should have kicked them out of our country, the way Iceland did. The only way to get bankers to make responsible choices is to make them have to suffer the natural consequences of their behavior. So long as we keep bailing them out, that’s not going to happen. The same is true of generational welfare recipients — except that now there’s just too many of them to make it feasible for us to just cut the purse-strings (in my opinion).
Atticus II (apparently frustrated by Athis’ inability and/or refusal to answer his questions): OK, Athis. Should I remember to $#!+ [obscenity redacted] on you in a thread and leave your questions unanswered?
Athis: As a courtesy I will say this Atticus II; and then I will say no more on this thread. I am not going to debate with someone who thinks Transegoism and its vile plans to
sterilise [sterilize] people is defensible. That was where the Nazis began their road to the final solution. Transegoism is by moral and legal criteria a criminal ideology.
NOTE: Not only does Athis not bother answering Atticus II’s questions, but returns to her default of assaulting the character of anyone she happens to disagree with. Also, this has to have been the third or fourth time she’s sworn off commenting on my post.
Atticus II: Then you’re a fool who can’t make out the difference between «considerable» and «defensible.» Further, I would like you to reflect on where we are; in a philosophy forum in a virtual environment; how else could one be further removed from thoughts chewed over here yet be open to the information the world has to offer?
Mark: I have contended that individual rights derived from the principle of self-ownership and «human» rights as defined by the UN are at their roots incompatible. This Athis demonstrates in spades. According to this person, I am a criminal by virtue of exercising my right to free speech. We need to kick the UN out of our country, along with anyone on the board of the Federal Reserve. And they can take Athis with them.
Cant [Can’t] restrain my right to free speech. Yes, you are quite correct; under international law your right to free speech does not extend to inciting others to commit crimes against humanity.
NOTE: I can’t restrain your right to free speech?! Says the person who has been trying to silence me by calling me a Nazi and a criminal for days now! The hypocrisy is staggering. And for the record, I have made no attempt whatsoever to restrain this person’s free speech — that sort of thing is coming 100% from her side of the table.
Mark: «Crimes Against Humanity» as defined (and selectively enforced) by the very organization seeking to censor me. Besides, the UN has no business telling anyone what is and isn’t a crime against humanity [see: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/…lians-nato-committing.html; http://ijcentral.org/news/u.n._cou…_ex-ministers_of_genocide/; http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080213.htm]. Bottom line: I either have free speech or I do not. And if I do not, then I am living under a tyranny. Don’t you see that the government is standing behind welfare recipients while adopting policies that ensure that there will always be more welfare recipients? You are the government’s excuse.
Athis: I agree that international law is ignored and perverted wholesale by other criminals; not just by you. The USA government is a criminal enterprise in this respect; it is the
principle [principal] rogue nation threatening the world today. But the crimes of others are not credible or acceptable evidence in your defence [defense].
NOTE: In my defense?! What, am I on trial here?! What presumptuous condescension!
Mark: Your inability to discern the complexities of international relations is astounding. Look who is on the UN Security Council: Russia, China, the USA; these countries are the UN — or, to be more precise, elements within these countries’ governments that want to be able to have a way around their own constitutions operate the UN. If any of these countries commit atrocities (and many member states do, with no adverse consequences from the UN), then that can be attributed to the UN, as well. I’m not going submit to being censored by this nasty little band of hypocrites. Stop being so naive, stop being so melodramatic, stop pretending this criminal organization has any credibility or legitimacy, and stop trying to silence me.
Supernumeria: As despairingly useless as the UN is; taking ourselves (we are talking about the US, right?) off the stage is quite extreme and would only serve to alienate other nations.
Mark: It depends on how we handle it. If we pull a George W. Bush and say «Screw you guys, I do what I want!» Then yes, that’s exactly what will happen. There’s a right way and a wrong way to go about it. The right way, I feel, is to say that the UN Charter of Human Rights is no longer seen to be compatible with the US Constitution (it’s not, by the way), and for that reason, in order to protect American sovereignty and the rights of the American citizen, we have found it necessary to remove ourselves from the UN, and that we will uphold any treaties that are not found to be incompatible with the US Constitution, and renegotiate those that are. If we handle it this way, we should be able to do this without making an enemy out of the entire world. The UN won’t survive without us, but that’s probably for the best.
Supernumeria: And yes the federal reserve ticks me off as well — primarily on the basis of quantitative easing being over-used (thus driving the dollar downward increasing the debt) they don’t need to be kicked out they need a good kick in the ass and some balls to let the economy slip rather than purchasing debt that’s the equivalent to dust in their hands.
Mark: This is true, however, I do think we need to get rid of it entirely. It takes the power of the purse away from Congress. There’s no reason that the Treasury Department can’t issue fiat currency without using it to create a national debt. Now, it might be best to have an act of Congress that puts limits on currency expansion to go along with it, but I don’t see why we need to be creating debt every time we issue currency. Furthermore, our central banking system is actually illegitimate. The 16th Amendment, which was supposed to allow for a private central bank, was never ratified by enough states to pass, but it has never been challenged at the Supreme Court, so the Fed continues to operate as if it had a right to do so. The best thing to do would be to move to a government issued fiat currency while allowing for private companies to compete in issuing currency (see the Liberty Dollar case), and then transition to a commodities based currency, once the US Treasury Department buys enough silver (or gold, or whatever) to back up the currency. Supernumeria and Attica II: it’s been good to talk to people who are not misinformed and/or crazy. I was beginning to abandon all hope.
NOTE: As before, I will update this post as the drama continues to unfold.