One down side of being principled is that it rules out people “buying influence” from you. If your viewpoints and opinions aren’t for sale, if dollars can’t make you change your tune, then most of the people with big bucks will just ignore you—they won’t pay you to say things they disagree with (obviously), and if they already agree with what you say, why should they bother to give you money to do what you were already going to do anyway?
This isn’t a complaint; it’s mostly just an observation of a natural phenomenon, which has somewhat unfortunate side effects. In short, in most cases it is a lot more lucrative to sell your soul than it is to stick to your principles. If your “opinions” are for sale to the highest bidder, there will always be some political organization or someone else with some political agenda, who can get you to be their cheerleader by throwing money at you.
“Endorse my candidacy and I will pay you!” “Vocally support this legislative agenda and I’ll give you cash!” “Talk more about this and less about that, and you will be rewarded!”
And the more money and power some individual or organization gets from the authoritarian system, the more they can afford to buy the support of more and more people. In contrast, if your opinions are all about removing political power and control, then the people who benefit from the game won’t give you anything, except maybe to offer to pay you to shut up—which also doesn’t work if you’re not for sale.
And totalitarian control freaks often have massive amounts of ill-gotten wealth with which to buy the support and approval of anyone with an audience. And they do. Meanwhile, the regular people who just want freedom rarely have huge piles of money to throw at fellow freedom-lovers, and even if they did, why would they bother? If you’re going to advocate freedom anyway, why should they pay you to do it? If someone has a choice between a free car, or paying a bunch of money for the same car, why would they choose the latter? The same holds true of opinions.
Obviously, there are exceptions. For example, over the years there have been a number of people who have helped support me with various projects and getting my “message” out there, without trying to make me change it at all. (Only a few times has anyone tried to use money to get me to alter my message, or my focus, and it didn’t work.) So it’s not that no one will support people who stick to their principles, but there is definitely a huge financial advantage to being willing to sell your soul to the highest bidder. (I will refrain from giving any specific examples and names here, but you can probably think of plenty on your own.)
So maybe this is just me venting about how frustrating it is to be in a game that is so thoroughly rigged, where the advocates of authoritarian control and domination have nearly limitless resources they can use to “persuade” people to see things, and say things, the way that serves the masters. There are literally thousands of very well-paid politicians, columnists, “reporters,” and other talking heads, getting rich by advocating statism. The puppet masters pull their strings, and sign their paychecks, and own their souls. Meanwhile, those of us actually condoning “liberty and justice for all” (the real kind, not the BS statist version) are often not only on our own, but more often than not are the targets of ongoing and continual orchestrated, well-funded propaganda, demonization, suppression, harassment, and sometimes outright sabotage.
Sorry if you were hoping this would end with a rousing pep talk, because the punchline here is basically that if you advocate freedom for all, and authoritarian power for none, and if you refuse to compromise your principles for a paycheck, then you are far less likely to be financially successful than the people who will sell out, accepting money to support this or that candidate, or party, or policy, or idea. It’s just the reality of the situation. The state, and all of its minions, mouthpieces and puppets, have a nearly unlimited supply of stolen loot with which to buy “loyalty” and support. Meanwhile, advocates of freedom have only whatever we can acquire through voluntary means, and manage to keep the parasite class from stealing.
I will always be thankful for the stubborn bastards who would rather tell the truth and be poor, than get rich by “believing” and saying whatever pays the most.
(P.S. In case anyone wonders, no, I’m not saying that anyone who is prospering financially must be a sell-out. I’m just saying it’s an uphill battle. Of course there are people who manage to be financial successful without selling out or compromising their principles. I hope to be one some day.)
(P.P.S. When I was looking for an image that conveys the concept of an “uphill battle,” I happened to find that last image, which just happens to bear a remarkable resemblance to the anarcho-capitalist “flag.”)
Hello Larken, hope your well.
I feel the same about this topic.
I have lost much in the past for not compromising my opinions but I am who I am, that's what I am, A FREE MAN!
"The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men."
Ayn Rand
"No valid philosophy can't be practiced to the nth degree." - Ayn Rand
Enjoy your day!
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
That quote asumes that capitalism = freedom. But thats false, they are very much diferent. As capitalism is a form of authoritarian control too, control through scarcity my means of money. exibit a here is the point that is made in this article that its more profitable to be corrupt. That is a form of capitalism. Money is just one of the tools of control.
Money is one of the tools of exchange - not of control.
In capitalism (which means - truly free-market) there's no deal, no exchange until both sides of that deal are satisfied from it.
Those who have more money can have more "power" than others, but it only can (not must) lead to use of physical coercion.
Coercion doesn't need money - man can be phisicaly beaten even by the poorest of the poor.
You're confusing alternative definitions for words with arguments against a particular point of view. No anarcho-capitalist would define their philosophy to include fraud as acceptable behavior within society. Corrupt political or media influence is fraudulent behavior not supported by any philosophy I can think of save for maybe hedonism.
Larken,
You're preaching to the choir.
I'm grateful for your efforts as they are uniquely differentiated from mine. In my perception there are two statements that can frame a great deal of your work.
1 "There is no separateness."
2 "Love does not imply pacifism."
You are definitely under attack and are obviously conscious of it. Truth always has been, and always will be under attack. A life in commitment to the pursuit of infinite truth is an ever expanding reward through enlightenment. If you ever doubt this reward just ask yourself "what good would my life be with less truth and less enlightenment?"
Emotions are byproducts of thought processes, not vice versa. The attack(s) by design attempt to advocate separateness, which is not real. Love affords and requires the pursuit of infinite truth, lest true self dies and ego arises. It is not possible for a conscious person to initiate aggression against others, and that includes aggression against your true self. Once awakened one can not go back, true self does not allow it.
Sometimes I am reminded of the song "All Is Loneliness" by "Moondog" a blind man whom dressed like a Viking and sold his poems and music on the street in New York City. Janis Joplin recorded the song live and spoke of the man. This memory has visited me countless times since my teenage years. Such is the nature of enlightenment to shine upon me as I seem to pause momentarily on my journey in this life-form. The loneliness that invades and clings to my heart dissolves into pity as I realize my attackers are suffering through unconscious behavior. Pity and love coexist to carry me forward in consciousness. All suffering is unnecessary. However focused misanthropy is rational.
Carry on larken, throw the love on heavy as that's your differentiation. Mine is a preference to be underestimated. In the Roger Waters album "Is This The Life We Really Want", Roger states "Our parents made us what we are, or was it God, what fucking difference does it make it's never really over." Now I'm no deist, in fact I reject faith in all forms as every leap of faith expands the blindspot in the brain. However I've found no evidence to suggest everlasting life is avoidable. Therefore don't be dismayed if or when you lie on your deathbed realizing the freedom you tried to share and live with others never fully materialized, because what fucking difference does it make if it's never really over?
Peace, Love and Anarchy
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
Are we sure that "Emotions are byproducts of thought processes"? In my experience is certainly true when we have recurrent thoughts which entrap the mind into a certain loop of emotions. Our attention goes to one object, for example "authoritarian violence":), and enjoy many many thoughts on it, fostering a specific feeling. But in other cases I see deeply that thoughts are just the cream of the coffee. There's a much more profound and non-verbal field that contains emotions and generally when we work with them and understand them we have much more profound realizations compared with working with thoughts.
So we can ask: why these attacks are so powerful psychologically? We can understand their material power (threats, exclusion, violence etc), but is our feeling of separateness really depending on their conditioning or on something much more profound in our psyche? And has it something to do with our God/parents as Waters and you brilliantly pointed out?
Thank you for sharing your insights and your critical questioning.
If emotions are byproducts of thought processes, then it follows that every individual owns their emotions 100% as they are the only one able to monitor/evaluate/replace/modify their thought processes and thereby change the emotional outcome.
If emotions are not byproducts of thought processes then individuals are valid in their blame of others for how they feel.
Ego (story and not real) when challenged responds in knee-jerk fear and hostility. Ego blames others for emotions arising when the story is threatened and may respond in unconscious behavior initiating aggression against others. Only individuals are empowered to kill their ego. Enlightenment can not be withheld or given away it can only be accepted from within. True self arises as ego dies. Ego is always dysfunctional because ego is not real, it is only story, however ego wants to be real. Ego is a bio-mechanism of the human brain. Ego by physiology will always reemerge needing to be killed again, and again, and again. Thoughts are autonomic. I am not my thoughts, the ego always throws out thoughts to be monitored by me to determine if they are valid or invalid. I discard thoughts that are invalid and do not blame others for my emotions. I blame others for their initiation of aggression against me. Holding an individual accountable is an act of respect, as surely as vengeance is an act of justice. Nobody is accountable for my emotions as byproduct of my thought processes. I don't have to give a damn what anbody else thinks, and yet I choose to. That's on me, and I own it 100%.
Enjoy your evening.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
3 I completely agree with your point here. Ego is just another phenomenon in the fascinating field of consciousness. It's beautiful the description of the emergence of the ego in this book by researcher Francisco Varela:
https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=896
And I understand your reasoning when you say that my emotions depends on my thoughts which I could be able to control, so I can't blame others for what I feel.
I feel though that things are a little more complicated. Leaving aside for now the question of freewill, we can see that these emotions can change deeply when we are in presence of another human beings and me trying to counteract this movement of the heart is again imposing my will on reality and, essentially, a movement of the ego. Again our parents partly molded our view of the world and I feel deeply that I embody their wishes, fears and good qualities too. I'm not an individual but a living form emerging from a certain human lineage.
Again, these deep emotions, passed from generation to generations, are embodied in my flesh and part of my doing is guided by these structures. And the same with the conditioning operated by regime's media and private companies, which acts more on the repetitive exposure to desired emotions than with thoughts. Can I really be impermeable to those emotions just controlling my thoughts?
At certain times emotions can come before or after thoughts but can we see the interdependence between them and just be aware of the process? Can we understand our conditioning towards submission, authority, violence etc. and be free from that?
Can we be free from Sisyphus frustration and stop pushing the rock?
Best Wishes Raymond,
Andrea
Hello cupiditasvivendi,
Andrea,
Thank you for the best wishes, it adds some sentimentality to my observation of the ever expanding archontic environmental descent that society insists upon.
In reading your words I perceive a great unsatisfied desire despite passionate pursuit of "love". Perhaps you want to justify your choice of underlying assumptions in equating the human art-form (life-form) as noble? Do you think humans are noble? I won't allow myself to assume what your underlying assumptions are, but I enjoy your writing and will now always look forward to it.
Emotionally, I perceive you and I are worlds apart, and I am grateful to know that you may be called to what I am not. My choice of underlying assumption has been established not by parental interaction. I know this to be true by the simple fact that I have chosen not to be psychopathic. I was literally raised in a basement, index fingers broken as an infant and consequently am blessed with an extensive history of suffering which adds a clarity that I would not wish on others. It is through suffering in clarity that I've earned acceptance of the realization that the human body is a prison. I appreciate the promise of an inevitable rescue by death. Until then I am straining at the leash, annoyed with those refusing to get off their knees.
Contrasting my misanthropic vision, the beauty of your inclination (nature) to approach the dying days of humanity with grace is very important, because I know there is no separateness and you are guided by purpose. You appear to approach this purpose with reverence for the human life-form as anything but prison.
However, crazy is as crazy does, and the human lineage is undeniably parasitic. As the biosphere collapses around me from geo-engineering crimes committed by the US military over more than seven decades, I am much more inclined to celebrate the music of "Rotting Christ" than "Simon and Garfunkel", however I own both. And in this moment I find myself feeling relief, and appreciation to have read your words confirming the realization that there is no separateness. However one only needs to turn their eyes back to the words I wrote preceding this sentence to find the thoughts that manifest our dialogue in this present moment.
Yes consciousness, an infinite awareness, is an element of paradigm I position to observe that which I decode as reality, while simultaneously rejecting faith in all forms. Every leap of faith seeks only to expand the blind-spot in my brain. I do not seek to turn away from infinite truth. I'm a unique individual, and nobody is special. In your question "Can I really be" I offer the answer that there is nothing but "be". Consciousness does not require belief or thought. In the statement "I am", any words positioned after the word "am" is just story (ego). I simply "am". Our ego trades stories because that's how it is done here in the biological prison matrix.
Thank you for the link you've provided, I'm always looking for new material to observe. I'm not "conditioned" towards submission or anything else as I am no-"thing". I'm doing what I want, when I want, with whoever I want. The human life-form is over-rated but I have found no evidence that everlasting life (existence) is avoidable and so someday I hope to choose consciousness devoid of matter if the choice presents itself. Until then I'm busy looking for others straining at the leash.
Please have a very nice day.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
Last pic is chillingly accurate.
Keep up the good fight man.
Or maybe do some sort of "book bomb" or something and sell ads.
No. Nevermind. Don't do that. Just keep being a stubborn bastard.
'Tis what we prefer...
The last image also looks a bit like "Atlas Unshrugged"
Good thinking, politics and politicians are very dirty, influence can be bought, as can principles, that is sad.
Good...
Blog and knowledge
i am upvote your post
plz my @dilip77 suppote
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@abhiime/free-earn-cryptocurrency-websites
I'd love to hear a conversation between Larkin and this Steemian:
https://steemit.com/libertarianism/@ekklesiagora/can-progressives-and-libertarians-find-common-ground.
I share the economic/political views of ekklesiagora so you know which camp I sit in.
It's my spiritual worldview which is the foundation for why I hold the views that I do and Larken outlines the fate of most Gnostics throughout history--endless harassment by the 'cult of 33'...Even to death and this has certainly been my experience although I'm not quite dead yet! But give those mofos' time--the archons are efficient killing machines!
Why whould someone pay someone to promote what they already are? Well, one reason is; if they are good at spreadding the messege and to reach people, then paying them makes it posible to have a better focus on that job. Since if one have to work in other ends to optain money too, then that makes a split focus.
But the issue here is that there is manny thats doing this work and too few with enough money with the right moral compas for enough to be supported by them, if they choose to.
And there are some anarchists getting paid by Bcash marketer Roger Ver to help sell his poison joke of an alt. Those people are shamefully not following their principles and shill a centralized shit coin though trying to convince people they are decentralists.
Theoretically speaking, there's nothing that says you have to sell out to provide content that will end up steering donated cash your way. I think it can still be done, although it's a lot harder than the alternatives of just saying what people want to hear or saying what you're told to say. Difficult but not impossible.
The entire system we live in including the monetary system is rotten to the core and that is why truth and freedom are not rewarded or even acknowledged. We live in an upside down sociopathic run world.