Be well and do good
- or -
Be good and do well?

Once again I pose this question.

I do so out of an observation I've made and continue to make, and that
is, that doing good and being good are not positively correlated. The
people who press on others that they are good and others are not - the
Taliban, the Catholic ministry, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists -
have throughout history created the worst possible societies: Ones most
totalitarian, most invasive, most malicious and most hideous by any
standard.

The reason, as I've elucidated before, is that in making people believe
themselves inferior to them, these people usurped people's motivational
structure, took away from them the place on which to stand, and used
the power given to them by the people - through the mechanism of
surrender of will and mind to people they deem morally superior - to
bring about the worst totalitarian oppression known in the history of
humanity. When a man believes you are better than him morally, you got
him. You've usurped his intentionality and made it serve you. And if
you have as a result of it gained political power, you have been given
the power to reify the situation for future generations, as children of
those who have given away their power and liberty lack power and
liberty as a birthright and are caught up in the Dark Ages of one or
another kind.

Which is why it is essential for anyone who seriously takes liberty to
fight such organs of power. Whether they be the Jewish version
expressed by people like Mickey, the New Age one expressed by people
like Alex Mulligan and Michaela, the material fundamentalist one
expressed by people like Cujo, the astrological one expressed by people
like Gail, or any one of a million others ranging from Osama Bin
Laden's to Pat Robertson's to Bharatiya Janata to Confucianism to the
idiocy going on in Iran, Sudan, Burma and North Korea.

The reason, is that these people, under pretense of moral superiority,
essentially usurp people's minds and afterwards unleash oppression upon
them. The desire to be considered a good person is a powerful
motivator; which is why it is so difficult to stand up to moral
thuggery wherever and under whatever pretense it may appear. To do so
is a dirty job; one that subjects one to the worst forms of nastiness
(as indeed has been seen more than once on the Internet after I
intervened against one or another gang of digital brownshirts). And yet
it is a job that absolutely has to be done, at every level of society,
in order that meaningful liberty may exist in America and everywhere in
the world.

Bill Gates can hardly be regarded a good man. He stole technology from
someone who thought him a friend, and then he went on to bully his
competitors. However he has created one of the greatest businesses in
history, and he's put in billions into computerizing libraries and
fighting AIDS. Bill Clinton likewise can hardly be regarded a good man.
However what he did do was care about the people, and he used his
magnificent communication gift to push through the needed reforms -
even while in dealing with intricacies of his own character he was able
to develop emotional understanding that made it possible for him to
reach others at a deeper level than most presidents. Whereas Henry
Hyde, with the vapid moronic pretense of "decency" ascribed to him by
the usurped and the would-be usurpers, sought essentially to destroy
liberty in America. He was going to bring down Clinton, and then he was
going to go after everyone else.

What I find most unconscionable about the latter situation was that it
was the philanderers like Bob, the media, and indeed apparently the
appropriately named Mr. Hyde, that were in the front line of that
prosecution. Apparently they dealt with their own guilt for their own
deeds by crucifying Clinton for them. To them I say: Either make your
actions accord with your values or make your values accord with your
actions. And stop crucifying the existing people for your sins. Jesus
has already died for them.

As for myself, I've accorded values with actions and actions with
values in the way that is most right for me. I do not seek to be a good
person; I seek to be the most of myself and I seek to do the most
lasting good. Which, among other things, means standing up against
tyranny by any other name, whether it originate in Texas, in Saudi
Arabia, in Jacksonville, Antioch, Belgrade, Portland, ghetto, talk
radio, Congress, or on the Internet.

It means breaking through the groupthink and mind-strangulation and
collective arrogance of all of these groups - and in so doing defending
liberty, the truest and greatest moral good, for the existing and the
yet-to-exist, in America and everywhere else in the world.

Ilya Shambat.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Be well and do good
> - or -
> Be good and do well?
>
> Once again I pose this question.
>
> I do so out of an observation I've made and continue to make, and that
> is, that doing good and being good are not positively correlated. The
> people who press on others that they are good and others are not - the
> Taliban, the Catholic ministry, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists -
> have throughout history created the worst possible societies: Ones most
> totalitarian, most invasive, most malicious and most hideous by any
> standard.

I agree with everything you said.
The worldview of the christian fundamentalists is that they represent
the good in the world and therefore their end justifies any means
against the evil in the world. The view of the islamic fundamentalists
is exactly the same.

Nazis in Germany held the exact same view. They went out to destroy the
corrupted forces in the world, by any means necessary.

In a sense, the International treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions,
were created to control the rise of the forces that hold such a naive
worldview that they literally see the world as a battle against good and
evil. There is no good and evil, there is only different worldviews. To
think that you can walk over international treaties because your moral
values are so good is something that makes you automatically "evil" from
many points of view. And in the end there is no authority to judge whose
moral values are good and whose are evil. (Except of course in the sense
that history is written by the victors. E.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are
"the major factor leading to the surrender of the Japanese government"
instead of the largest terrorist attacks of all time)

Furthermore, the idea about spreading democracy by force is just so
self-contradicting that I get an ear bleed every time I hear about such
a thing. If you force your ideas with violence, you are not spreading
good values. Freedom dust is not spread with missiles. You are only
spreading mistrust and fear. And spreading mistrust and fear FUELS
TERRORISM. What you need to spread is trust, understanding and
tolerance, to your own people, and to the forces you think are "evil".
(You also need to stop watching Star Wars, your view of the world has
become far too black and white as it is 

Democracy is in deep marriage with the freedom of speech. Both ideas
make sure that "corrupted" forces cannot gain much power over people who
don't hold similar views. As a political idea, when democracy works
well, IT SPREADS ITSELF throughout the world as the world gets smaller
(due to technology). The only thing that can stop it, is people who
think they should spread it by force, and thus destroy the whole idea of
democracy itself.

-Anssi

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Anssi Hyytiainen" <anssih@nic.fi.ANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:zAjIe.3006$QP2.1628@reader1.news.jippii.net..
> William Blake Jr. wrote: 
>
> I agree with everything you said.
> The worldview of the christian fundamentalists is that they represent the
> good in the world and therefore their end justifies any means against the
> evil in the world. The view of the islamic fundamentalists is exactly the
> same.
>
> Nazis in Germany held the exact same view. They went out to destroy the
> corrupted forces in the world, by any means necessary.
>
> In a sense, the International treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions,
> were created to control the rise of the forces that hold such a naive
> worldview that they literally see the world as a battle against good and
> evil. There is no good and evil, there is only different worldviews. To
> think that you can walk over international treaties because your moral
> values are so good is something that makes you automatically "evil" from
> many points of view. And in the end there is no authority to judge whose
> moral values are good and whose are evil. (Except of course in the sense
> that history is written by the victors. E.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are
> "the major factor leading to the surrender of the Japanese government"
> instead of the largest terrorist attacks of all time)
>
> Furthermore, the idea about spreading democracy by force is just so
> self-contradicting that I get an ear bleed every time I hear about such a
> thing. If you force your ideas with violence, you are not spreading good
> values. Freedom dust is not spread with missiles. You are only spreading
> mistrust and fear. And spreading mistrust and fear FUELS TERRORISM. What
> you need to spread is trust, understanding and tolerance, to your own
> people, and to the forces you think are "evil". (You also need to stop
> watching Star Wars, your view of the world has become far too black and
> white as it is 
>
> Democracy is in deep marriage with the freedom of speech. Both ideas make
> sure that "corrupted" forces cannot gain much power over people who don't
> hold similar views. As a political idea, when democracy works well, IT
> SPREADS ITSELF throughout the world as the world gets smaller (due to
> technology). The only thing that can stop it, is people who think they
> should spread it by force, and thus destroy the whole idea of democracy
> itself.
>
> -Anssi

The birds on the wind fly free.
In democracy?
Are we?

Peace Love & Unity of Spirit.

P.L.U.S. +

BoD !

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]