Wednesday, June 25, 2014

I spent a great deal of time today thinking about who I was and where I was going.  And I came to the conclusion that I'm Princess Diana and I'm going to Buckingham Palace.  Medical help is being sought.

Monday, June 23, 2014

On The Employer

The Employer is an excellent film that is the closest thing to No Exit that I’ve seen.  Not only does it have a similar set-up and some of the same ideas in it, it actually is superior in plot and has more ideas and intellectual depth that No Exit lacks.  First what it has in common which is fairly obvious.  Several people stuck in a room not of their own choosing (though one knows it’s going to happen) and forced to interact with those whose psychologies and personalities conflict with theirs by design.  Also that the film contrasts acting morally or believing in a kind of right-of-action for utility, that is for the individual’s own sake; and morally “as it is” or rather ethics that is based on Consequentialism where everyone benefits rather than the rational self-interest that an Ayn Rand or a Max Stirner would preach. 
It could also be deemed a criticism of Virtue Ethics, because although the characters all have certain skills and abilities, they all but one (though a few are questionable, and I would say that actually the strong man is indeed a wholly moral and virtuous character asides from his rage and slight lack of intelligence) fail to possess a moral psychology that is necessary in many situations to produce truly right-action rather than action that is only beneficial for the party involved or his or her interests or desires.  It is true that this moral impulse is something that Aristotle, the main proponent of Virtue Ethics talks about (when he says that friendship is by definition valuing a person for who they are and not what they can do for you and the ramifications of this for example) but simply because a trait exists doesn’t mean that contradicting traits exist that could guide one’s reason.  However, a moral-act that is done outside of the consideration of conflicting biological and psychological traits, applying universal reason instead that is, would not allow these moral trespasses to take place or be excused; though of course they would not prevent moral trespasses from happening in minds where said reason did not exist.  The Virtue Ethicist could argue that a society has a certain laws or mores (e.g. Capitalism, Christianity, Totalitarianism etc.) and that for one’s own sake and perhaps for the short-term benefit of many others (making a Hobbsian argument of preserving order and not allowing the chaos and uncertainties that may arguably unfold from overthrowing a, at-least in part, unjust regime) they practice the Virtues of the given society and situation and ignore universal morality or morality “in itself.” 
This can also be used to show a potential schism between Virtue Ethics and Cynicism; the Cynics of course believe that morality comes entirely from nature and all artificial moral constructions are either detrimental (as they usually are), meaningless traditions that are harmful in the sense that they both are enforced and are treated as a moral staple forcing people to have an inaccurate view of ethics in the process, or truthful but not having anything to do with the society that constructs them and contains truth regardless of whether society acknowledges it or not – much like Plato’s wise argument that the Gods may know what the right-of-action is, but they themselves are not the arbiters of it, to make such a case would be to argue for a kind of moral relativism and Nihilism found in the Abrahamic faiths.  However, the Virtue Ethicist may argue that civil society is the constructor of arĂȘte in moral potential – being biological creatures that must be raised and instructed in a certain way rather than coming into this world with fully functional reasoning faculties and no psychological traits that dissuade or motivate one apart from reason – and therefore the social mores of civil society must be respected and utilized in order to bring about a more just society.  This is much-like a Marxist method of using the State to dismantle the state and use violence to bring an end to it.  For of course like Marx, Aristotle would not take the Hobbsian route of excusing the laws of a State just because having some order is preferable to having none at-all.  The Cynic however views all cooperation or association with moral ills, even if they are supposedly for moral ends, as corrupting and immoral regardless of justification or rationalization.  The Cynical and Anarchist view that social mores are only valid if they are moral in-themselves and cannot be used as a rationalization for allowing evils that produce good ends; Anarchists being against taxation in-principle is a prime example of this.
A major contrast ‘tween the film and No Exit is that instead of it being for eternity as punishment, it is for a relatively brief amount of time with the prospect of reward based on immoral action.  This reminds one and presents itself in sharp contrast to Plato’s Republic, where one is monitored by the Guardians and Philosopher Kings to see if one acts ignobly in a situation one thinks is happening “naturally,” that is without design or people monitoring and is rather happening by pure happenstance.  In this scenario, they are being monitored, they know it almost immediately and the rules of the game are incredibly straight-forward with only the competitors to have deception be brought into play.
My only major complaint with the film is that it’s all too neat.  Each character has only a certain amount of traits that either has us not like them or constructs the spines that will become extended to puncture the fellow “prisoner” who hits them at the exact right spot to have the quills become erect.  In No Exit it makes perfect sense because they’re designed to torture each other forever; but in this film it’s almost as if the three contestants who were first to die were just fodder destined to die and the only real unknown factor and “choice” that is an action outside of one’s nature that anyone had to make is the sole survivor killing the sociopathic bitch.  I can’t recall names so I’ll be referring to all prisoners by their identifying traits.
I will go into some detail of the plot but not much because I find much of it to be something that any commentary would be superfluous.  It becomes obvious quickly that the Catholic character plays the sociopathic role that is manipulating the strong man to both give him justification for taking down the most worthy adversary physically and to gain leverage in-terms of sympathy or trust from the other three.  However his overall mean spiritedness makes this largely transparent and ineffective even if it wasn’t.  Whether he really is a Catholic or he uses religious as an easy prop to manipulate people much-like the Con Man preacher in Night of the Hunter is something worth arguing.  We’re led to believe that all the confessions that the prisoners make to Malcolm McDowell are truthful otherwise they would be next to meaningless.  In his interview, he confesses he would do the immoral thing but rationalize it by giving half the money to the Church.  Supposedly making a black mark on his moral slate a white one by giving money to a religious organization that he identifies with moral correctness but history shows to be almost the precise opposite.  But when asked what he would do if told that the money belongs to the Church so he would only be giving back half of the money that was theirs (from manipulating stupid and desperate people, such the nature of religious profiteering is.) in entirety he says that he would do the same and that his moral actions are between him and his god. 
This to me identifies a very significant and potentially sickly element in the religious psyche.  To the believer, morality is not a code of conduct that fundamentally is deemed valid by the rightness of our intercourse with others who are “moral agents” worth considering for their own sake; but rather that their god is the primary being of consideration, and if one can someone rationalize their actions either as something that God will forgive, tolerate, condone or even be command of (the Bible and other works giving much material of validation or rather rationalization for this type of warped view) then anything is excusable.  This is one of the reasons why we see more religious people commit crimes than Atheists.  Atheists must believe in a moral theory that doesn’t contain the fluid of religions allowing misdeeds by either being forgiven by God or God condoning these things.  While the very psychology of the religious involves rationalization for what does not exist and what is not excusable (or saying something is inexcusable when it clearly is either a minor moral offense or not a slight on ethics in the slightest) the nature of the Atheist is to apprehend the “thing in itself” both in-terms of scientific study, philosophic wisdom and acceptance of life’s brutality and fundamental injustice and a code of ethics that is ethics “as it is” rather than ethics that are merely useful to one’s self or the tribe one belongs to; which we see largely in religion via spreading the love of supposed salvation through the murder and degradation of being and self in all ways possible of millions.
The strong man seems to be one who is not immoral but plagued with violent impulses which make him seem immoral to the stupid and a target of condemnation for the wicked.  And this is essentially the short role he plays throughout the film he clearly is kind-hearted and caring for others while sensitive himself completing the caricature of the “gentle giant.”  There isn’t much there is to say on this character or at-least I personally can’t find much.
The college student provides an interesting account of someone who could be killing either for moral or amoral and self-serving reasons.  In the interview she says she despises liars (at-least on the surface a moral statement considering to dislike at-least in part those who possess an immoral quality or make an immoral action seems to be rational and perhaps even consequentially necessary of both a moral psychology and even possessing an ethic in society at-all.  If we held no moral judgments towards anyone how could such a thing such as morality mean anything outside of intellectual abstraction?) but also that she would be willing to do anything necessary to further her position within the company and having researched into them possesses a relatively good idea of what that would entail.  Honestly I was somewhat under the suspicion that this character would play the idealistic college student whose idealism is crushed and would have continued believing this if it weren’t obvious that it was the “nice guy” with the glasses who clearly was the main character, would be the sole survivor and would have to make the final moral choice for his “soul” (that is for the continuation of his moral psychology and doing right-action for the sole reason that it is right) or for his life.  But she doesn’t show much contempt at-all for Malcolm McDowell or his businesses’ practices.  Though the plot is well-constructed it being predictable is another complaint I think is well founded. 
However when she kills the Catholic character she shows only the need to rationalize what she’d done to others (which is understandable considering the situation, but also shows not an urge to express moral sentiment but to be held in good favors and high regards with those who ultimately whether willingly or not will decide her fate.) though she was correct in every rationalization she made.  The sentiment of her saying she would do anything for the corporation with her rough knowledge of what that could entail is of course damning but also her damnation of liars in the precise words she gave I believe is damning to her character of a completely self-centered person as well.  For her exact words when prodded by McDowell was not “I hate liars,” but rather, “I hate being lied to,” which is a very different sentiment.  Essentially she hates someone that would attempt to con or manipulate her assumingly for their own benefit and very-likely her downfall.  It is the masquerade of moral sentiment and a desire for honesty when in-effect all the person cares about is that they are treated ideally.  We see this in millions of self-centered and apathetic individuals but particularly in authority figures.  One of the key elements of authority being the need for double-standards and the psychotic desire to not just be treated ideally but held as admirable while one is doing incredibly loathsome and ignoble things.  The religion or Government that condemns all who speak ill of it (specifically or of its nature) and expects the most proper of treatment when they themselves scourge the world with its foul doings systemized and epitomized in the use of force and the creation and sustaining of ignorance, stupidity and apathy.  She is also frankly a bitch when the strong man seemed given all the evidence presented an all-around nice guy.  This isn’t the worst of moral condemnations and it is almost considered moral in contrast to the two sociopathic characters in the story.  She may be a cunt, but at-least she’s an honest cunt.
Which of course brings me to the true sociopath in the film (asides from McDowell) which I suppose I’ll simply refer to either as the sociopathic character or the second-to-last survivor.  She is far-more cunning and enterprising throughout than the Catholic character but this could be a distinction in knowledge rather than of character or intelligence.  She after all is the only one who knows what will befall them and how these people are likely (far-too likely I’m afraid) to interact with each other.  However where she does seem radically more sociopathic than the Catholic is where when the Catholic felt the need to rationalize his sociopathy through having some type of relationship with a moral god who he was in “good faith” with, she feels no urge to rationalize or justify her immorality in any way and condemns fairness (which is a major if not the major concept in ethics) as unseen in the world (or at-least not the major motive for action in the world), not practical and as preached by the idealistic and the incompetent.  This of course largely mirrors Nietzsche’s refutation of conventional ethics as “slave morality” that is used only to curtail the strong and in doing so prevent the physical suffering of the weak in their service to the strong and their psychological suffering in their knowledge that they were born weak, stupid, ugly or otherwise “non-virtuous” in failing to have traits that are desired and therefore have lost the lottery of life while others have won it to varying degrees. 
What Nietzsche and the immoralists fail to comprehend is that ultimately the lack of moral consideration and compassion makes the entirety of the human race poorer and is an element that will lead to our inevitable destruction.  Though the weak should never be deemed equal to the strong (as some Christian and Liberal thinkers attempt to do in saying that we are all equal by some fundamental fact of humanity or being made by the same creator in supposedly his likeliness) and they should not be encouraged to procreate as Christians and other religious people often do, expressing a synthesis of compassion and contempt for weakness is the rational response to it.  For even the greatest and most accomplished of men have flaws, and we must accept the flaw as both part of the person but also as something that remains a flaw; and of course because flaws are not of one’s own choosing but something that is a result of either determined physical law or of indeterminacy.  Something that must be responded to with the attitude of healing rather than eradication but still with a sense of contempt for the fact that at the current moment the person possesses a flaw whether it be a sexual attraction to children or mental retardation.  One can easily sense a weak mind that cannot comprehend the fulcrum of rational moral judgment when they condemn someone who is sexually attracted to children but has committed no crime – someone who was condemned by nature or circumstance – but view those who show any dislike or appreciation of the fact that the mentally retarded contain a serious flaw as heartless monsters likened to Nazis – although they too are the way they are entirely based on nature and not even the illusion of choice that follows us throughout our lives. 
It is the view that morality is an illusionary or insignificant construction in everyday dealings that has allowed authority figures to condemn the human race to slavery and stupidity, and to suffering and inevitable suffocation.  For if one’s actions hinged upon moral reason rather than Ego or some self-centered sentiment we would never have allowed religions to commit the countless crimes they have on humanity, Governments to wage countless wars for idiotic reasons based on the Ego of the king or warfare of limited resources of nationalities rather than seeing nations as arbitrary and the Earth as the commonwealth of us all, and Capitalists to destroy so many lives with poverty, the necessary sociological factors to keep the Capitalists in power and the immense and largely irreversible pollution they’ve manufactured all in the pursuits of market shares over morality. 
The Nietzschean sentiment that morality is a artificial construction hinging solely on social perception – though he is right to condemn many of Man’s moralities as rationalizations of sentiments, ideologies or desires rather than a search for universal morality or morality “as it is” – is that which Capitalists have used to allow social action to be based on the market rather than reason and on the other end of the spectrum religions and Governments to insist on their indefinite existence lest we be subjected to the moral Nihilism inevitable when Man does not submit to God or is not bound to the social contract of Government that prevents wickedness to be perpetrated.  All the while all three organizations, these hucksters conning Man of his absolute sovereignty and maximal potential, perpetrate the greatest moral crimes in human history while claiming that all social expectations, perceptions and values only have legitimacy through them.  That they are the arbiters of meaning, morals and action and stave away the otherwise endless tide of meaningless when they are the perpetrators of Nihilism.
The final character clearly should have killed Malcolm McDowell and put a dent in the operation (though how large is debatable) that he runs; however this is a fable of morality not being necessary where survival and competition are involved.  It’s Anti-Capitalism of portraying free-markets as utterly nihilistic and apathetic to human suffering or any moral concerns, that the suffering and failure of some (or rather many) for the prosperity of others as a essential element of the system and the type of psychologies that flourish in such an idealization is something that allows it to surpass No Exit which remains an interesting story that portrays no “real life” consequence by depicting three people who will suffer forever alone rather than five individuals whose actions will deeply influence four other people, their relations with the world and their “soul” while in No Exit their moral psychology has already been both condemned beyond the hope of redemption and made irrelevant.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

I went to a Black Flag concert last night.  It was too loud - to the point that it was nearly impossible to appreciate the music on an aesthetic level and the people enjoying it were simply enjoying the effects that it had on their brains and that it allowed them to shove people and dance badly - but I had an alright time nonetheless.  It gave me some insight that I'll probably post later - to my two-and-a-half readers. 

I gave twenty dollars to a homeless person.  And his total lack of appreciation reminded me of South Park's Night of the Living Homeless - and yes, I correctly guessed the title of that episode which gave empowered my Ego and made me feel quite good about myself.  It's the little things you know?

I wish I talked to more people, but they play music even when bands aren't playing which is something that I'll go more into later.  Most people are just looking for a distraction.  It's sad.  But it also makes me glad to be me.  As noxiously pompous as that sounds.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Insanely rational or the Insane Rationalist

The nice men in the clean white coats are coming today.
I know it.
I skinned a girl and left her body to rot.
My neighbors surely must’ve said something by now.
But then again I lost my sense of smell.
So it’s a distinct possibility that this girl’s corpse is incapable of producing an odor.
Because the nice clean men with their clean white coats haven’t come yet.
Am I crazy?  They were supposed to be here by now.
Of course I’m crazy because I think I’m crazy but the clean white men in the nice white coats haven’t come yet.
And if I think I’m crazy but they haven’t told me I’m crazy then I’m not crazy. 
But if they haven’t told me I’m not crazy, then I’m not crazy.
But I thought I was crazy when I really wasn’t so I must be crazy to think I am.
Where are the nicely coated nice white men?
I need them to take me away to prove I’m not crazy.
Because if they take me away then I must be crazy.
But I know I’m crazy so I’m not.  Unless they don’t come which means I am.
Maybe the girl I skinned never even existed?  Maybe she only existed in my mind.
Well, then you know there’s only one solution:  I have to kill more people.  Or rather start killing people if she never was a person to be killed.
I have to kill more people to have the nice young men in the bright white coats to come get me.
I have to kill more people to prove I’m not crazy.
But in my defense I have no choice but to kill people – afterall, I’m crazy.
Where are the nice bright men in the bright fresh coats?
How do I know the men are nice, or clean, or white, or young, or bright?
Or that their coats are clean, or white, or bright, or fresh?  Or that they’re men?
People have always told me that they were.
But what if these people were lying?  Or in my head?
I am crazy after-all.
What if my mind told me to wait for nice smiling men in fresh new coats so I would always be crazy?
And why would the men be smiling and their coats be new?  Did my mind make them that way so I would want them to come so I would never meet the runner of the Asylum so I would always wait and always be crazy?
But why would my mind want me to be crazy?
Because it’s crazy?
What if the girl I skinned was the real runner of the Asylum?
It makes sense.
Because right before I cracked her skull open she yelled at me, “you’re crazy.”
The poem I pulled out of my ass

I have no idea what I’m going to write,
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’m simply filling these lines with the thoughts that stream through my mind.
And write them on this screen and post them for you to later read –
Aren’t you fucking lucky.
Is this even a poem?  It doesn’t rhyme.
How the fuck should I know.
God damn it, is this all I really have to say?
Just “hey, I’m writing a poem about how I don’t have any fucking clue what to put in this poem so I’m winging it.”  What fucking bullshit.
I feel sorry for you.  And for those who have the strength and courage to finish this thing, I commend you.
Maybe I should take pity on you and end this thing shortly or even abruptly.
And end this thing so soon?  But we’re having so much fun!
I’m guessing you’re thinking oh, quite the contrary, you think you’re oh-so clever in being meta, but you’re really saying nothing at-all.
Everyone’s a fucking critic.
And oh no, you’re not getting off that easy.
You’re going to sit in that fucking chair and read this “stream of consciousness” nonsense until I say you’ve had enough.
If I edit this is it still stream of consciousness?  And yes, I was just doing some editing – how very observant of you.
What you didn’t know is that last sentence was actually a fresh idea I just had not connected with the line “If I edit this is it still stream of consciousness?”
By the way, I still don’t have an answer to that question.
Isn’t it odd, knowing you’re reading this poem out of the order it was conceived?
You wouldn’t have any clue that I wrote these lines after I wrote the ending would you?
You stupid fucks.  I pity you.
Most of all because you’re sick enough to be reading this.
Essentially a narcissistic writer stroking his ego saying, “whoo!  Aren’t I unique?  I bet no one has ever had this idea for a poem before.  It’s so self-aware and witty.  And I’m making everyone watch me stroke my psychological genitalia to boot!”
I know I’m getting off on this but what’re you getting out of it?
God damn it.  I think I just ran out of steam.
Oh well, my Ego just came anyway.  And after that apathy sets in just like a sexual ejaculation.
That line wasn’t there before just so you know – and neither was this one.
And I was so looking forward to rambling about this poem to you.  Well what else can I write?
Fuck. (Yes, fuck is something I can write.)
Well, okay.
I’m lettin’ you go.
But don’t you ever say I never did anything for you fuckers.
The Creative Ego comes and goes.
My mother used to say the same thing about her boyfriends.
The blessings of schizophrenia and insight

I see things.
Yes I do.
Rather frightening things.
Really nothing I can do.
But you see, I’m fortunate,
At-least I can see.
Because you’re so fucking nuts;
That when I tell you the world’s full of demons you say there’s something wrong with me.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

On the Tragic and Irreversible Nature of Existence

Though one’s perception of the past, or rather one’s own past, may be favorable or “optimistic” as some would say, when one reflects on particular moments in life it is often with tinges of disappointment, shame, sadness or vindictive anger at either the injustice and unpleasant traits – or traits perceived – of one’s life.  Memory is necessary for any function of knowledge at-all, but it is a burden in the personal sense.  For even the most “enlightened” of men with a good life and wise reflections will feel petty resentments and feelings of betrayal by life when he reflects on the missteps he made, others made towards him or others (including themselves though he will interpret this as a slight against him as a foul mark of history in his life) and overall life made towards him.  The injustice and error of life is not something that can be easily rationalized and the rationalizations necessary would require serious corruptions of reason – that all suffering is part of some elaborate and immoral divine plan for example – so one is better off forgetting. 
One could claim that one could implement sound reason and a wise perspective on one’s bitterness and petty feelings of unfair treatment and resentment towards destiny’s construction of past circumstance; that all things are necessary for all other things to transpire out of them for example regarding Determinism and we must accept the bad with the good for the bad was a necessary ill for the specific parameters of one’s life.  But this does little in removing the bitterness felt of past follies.  For the passions care little if any towards sound reason as any honest person can attest to, and we humans are creatures whose sentiments are very seldom wholly rational when delved into their foundation for we are primates after-all.  One could say that everything in existence is inevitable (which could be true or false) but this will mean nothing to individuals unless they are searching for a form of solace to begin rationalizing one’s perceptions around for one’s own comfort rather than to obtain knowledge, perspective and “truth” in the broader sense which is the true aim of reason.
It is true that occasionally one will come upon a memory that brings about feelings of warmth, familial proximity or happiness but this is usually and ultimately connected with the state-of-mind one is currently in rather than the memory itself.  Much like feelings of depression often find root in diatribes and monologues of loathing and injustice but these are just the expressions rather than the root causes of sorrow.  However, if one thinks of a particularly shameful or egregious moment to one’s Ego, one will feel indignation, sadness or embarrassment.  This is because human beings do not require happiness and feelings of warmth upon the reflections of fond memories for survival; however, just as a child is less-likely to touch a hot stove once the memory of pain has entered its mind, so the memories of shame or insult to one’s well-being physical or psychological create a psychological buffer to deter us from doing what caused us harm to our bodies or worse our Egos.  The same is of course known for the distinction between bodily pleasures and pain.  Sensual pleasures leave almost the moment the stimulus has abandoned us, but pain throughout both hemispheres throbs throughout many a man, woman, child, and animal’s nerves as torture for the sin of living. 
The injustice of life is something that is so easy to comprehend that for many it happens as an occurrence of instinct rather than deliberate induction.  Therefore we see much of the human populous spending more-time evading life and trying to disassociate the mind from reality rather than to understand it or to change it, both due-to the daunting nature of the task in-terms of effort and from the barriers that are in-place by society (or rather certain elements and groups of it) for any drastic improvement in the suffering of the unfortunate politically, economically and psychologically in-terms of conditioning to be apathetic and consumeristic rather than a “do-gooder” who will be marked a Anarchist or Communist for wishing to bring about justice and universal prosperity and freedom on this Earth.  Though of course with the latter there is often the attempt to utilize the State to bring about peace and freedom when of course the State whether it acts in the interests of Christianity, Capitalism or itself is antithetically opposed to both fundamentally, or rather by its very nature.
Because of the tragic nature of existence people often try to weaken the mind rather than strengthen it which is a main reason why we see alcohol receiving the popularity it does.  It is also a reason why people develop a dislike for intellectuals who are typically brutally honest about life, do not allow people the false comforts of religion or rationalization and mention pains of experience or current events that most would rather either leave forgotten or themselves left ignorant to.  Though of course the anti-intellectual elements of society are also developed by religion, the State and Capitalism in various ways.
Because people spend more time trying to accommodate themselves to the smallest of life’s injustices and harsh conditions rather than attempt to improve conditions, alleviate ills and strengthen traits and aspects of life universally desired in humans these conditions will not only continue but prosper from the dual-conditions of authority (e.g. religions, Capitalism, Governments, families, schools etc) weakening individuality, logic and awareness as well-as the general weakness of humans allowing Governments, corporations, religions etc to strengthen themselves and in the process weakening the human capacity to resist; reducing the amount of freedom, prosperity and critical thinking and increase the scope and degree of the cycle of evil on this planet.
This world is fundamentally evil.  It is not Man who is plagued with Original Sin but this planet and in-all-likelihood this Universe.  Therefore if a God or any creator entity exists it is the source of an ultimate and absolute malevolence to a degree incapable of human comprehension.  Philosophers, those rare sparks in the dark who possess good spirits (asides from the occasional rant and scathing) and sound mind as well-as the desire to pierce through the illusions of our unfortunate phenomenal world and apprehend the truth when most wish to ignore appearance and the truth are almost universally ignored which is another reason why humanity is doomed to repeat senseless atrocity after atrocity and will one day kill itself out of its own apathy and baseness.  Though we won’t be alive to witness the mass-graves of bodies suffocated by clouds of Carbon Monoxide we should exhale a breath of compassion at the sentiment of life on this planet ending if it cannot be lived with dignity.  Perhaps if we – or rather they – are lucky machines will exist that can contemplate existence and enjoy life without the flaws inherent in the living.  This is the only realistic hope I see of anything sustainable in the long-term, or rather anything that would account for more than a few moments in astrological time, coming out of this planet.

Monday, June 9, 2014

On the Need for Community Action

Government, Capitalism and religion all play a role in facilitating and maintaining the conditions of apathy, stupidity and poverty the three of which create a trifecta cycle where each one creates and furthers and sustains the conditions and existence of the other two.  Capitalism which its deliberate exploitation of the work force as well-as facilitating apathy and obedience; religion in its anti-intellectualism and creating bland, stupid, psychologically ill people who cling to a tyrannical God that if it did exist would hate them for his own incompetence, as well-as for taking the burden from the average person to do good works and help his fellow man; but this is furthered by Government, not as evil as religion in its anti-intellectualism and dogma but also tyrannical and fascist in its perception of human rights (or the lack of rights in many cases) and that people are beings whose souls and minds must be culled and must be brought into the fold or deemed as heretical and “dealt with.”  Governments tax the individual as well and function like the Church in claiming to help the poor therefore removing the moral need from others to do anything while propping up the hierarchies of Government, religion and Capitalism who all rape the Earth, line their pockets and destroy Man’s soul as a necessity for their abhorrent existence.  Man will never be free until these scourges are spat upon, raped and then burned into the ether of non-existence.
It’s true that throughout human history Man was naturally born ignorant and remained so, but this is certainly not something that was altered from the State, Capitalism or any faith of any denomination.  All of these institutions rely on the forced stupidity, trained obedience and systematically instilled apathy that are in-part natural but cultivated and in-part created by this three-headed Leviathan of authority and mysticism. 
The Anarchist alternative is very-simple.  The institution of Direct Action, organized community and international charity and implementation of reason and freedom into human society so that prosperity and opportunity both of body and mind may follow.  We all have a moral duty that we have shirked.  And the disgusting evils of the worshippers of God and the State only make humanity less human despite all the charity they do to either proselytize, prevent people from raising up and ultimately keeping the status quo the way it is.  We have had thousands of years of chaotic markets, State domination, and “Christian love” all to little or no avail.  Anarchism is the only solution asides from a tyranny of perfect reason and order – a Government of computers or a computerized Technocracy.  And Science Fiction movies have taught me that that doesn’t end well.
Anarchism is not only the solution to the salvation of humanity in a sociological sense, but in a individual and Existential sense – and the two are connected and influence the state of the other just as Governments, Capitalism and religion all work together directly or indirectly to aid the other and damn mankind both in body, spirit and potential.  Without community action and implementing independent co-ops that can break free from this vicious cycle of corrupt charity, dependence on State in action and mysticism and ancient tribal faiths in mind we shall never see the light of universal freedom nor the end of suffering.  True egalitarianism and materialist and determinist logic (and its ramifications ) are the only solution to Man’s ills and Anarchism and Direct Action are the only true representations of people against representation and are the expressions and manifestations of this logic and just as importantly this will.
On (the) Edge of Tomorrow

This movie is a film that copies Groundhog Day, lacks its philosophical wisdom and intellect but then creates the poor substitute of having a truly perfect organism (at-least as perfect as an organism can be more-or-less without the ability to do in potential humanity can do to their sentience) asides from the fact that it lacks sentience in any meaningful sense of the word; making a mockery of the creature in Alien in its comparison to it.  Ooh, you bleed acid, this fuckers blood will make you relive the same day over-and-over until you go through an incurable existential crisis and kill yourself from either it or boredom.  Also the fact that it has two sets of teeth in its mouth always seemed a bit ludicrous to me and made frilly or “pansy-ish” in comparison to giant-fiery-burrowing-squid-creatures.
This isn’t a terrible movie, just an incredibly basic film that doesn’t do much with the concept that it utilizes.  It has a very small amount of humor but nowhere near the level of Groundhog Day.  And as I’ve already said it lacks the whimsy and intelligence of how we are all in a sense living the same day over and over again and having a certain Existential quality come out of the film because of this.  Also the ethics or rather the psychology of the motivation of ethics is radically different in the films.  Both are selfish guys but Bill Murray is always likable because of his wit and intellect.  Tom Cruise’s character (yeah, I know his name is Cage but half of the movie I was calling him Private Ryan because that’s what I call the protagonists of all war movies; also it’s a happy coincidence that the character’s name is Cage because in my Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans I refer to the character almost every single time as Nicholas Cage.) is someone who seems to be respectful to others just because it helps him get his way and also is incredibly stupid when not getting his way.  Guess what?  You don’t have to follow an order from such dillweed army Nazi.  You could just leave, go on a plane, and just hang low at your Mom’s house saying you didn’t want to give your life to a cause you didn’t consider worth, well, giving your life for.  Is that cowardice?  That’s arguable and certainly dependent largely on the context of the severity of the situation, but regardless of which no one should ever be expected to give their life to a cause they don’t find themselves willing to sacrifice themselves for.  History is wrought with millions upon millions of lost souls giving their lives needlessly to Governments and religions that were almost the very embodiment of evil while claiming to act in the name of moral good against godlessness (because not having a God is such a crime right?), Communism or the French. 
Tom Cruise ultimately becomes moral out of necessity.  He has no choice, for not only the survival of the human race but his own of course is attached to his success.  However in Groundhog Day we see a legitimate change from someone who at-first is a Hedonist, gets bored with Hedonism, tries romance just to save him from boredom, fails at romance, tries to kill himself several times, fails at suicide, and then becomes a nice guy more-or-less because he’s tried everything else.  You could argue it’s still in-part selfish but to the extent that all actions that contain some virtue are.  He does it for his psychological and moral health perhaps more-than the actual good he does, but in the end he does become a virtuous character and escapes the monotony of Hedonism or superficiality.  Only by being not only genuine, but genuinely applying the best of himself does he escape the loop.
Now to the organism; it is perhaps the most interesting alien I have ever seen.  I’m trying to go through different aliens in different series, and though Q and the Borg from Star Trek are quite interesting concepts none I think are as intelligently conceived as an organism that can rewrite time for its then inevitable success.  For this is a concept completely outside of analogy to anything experienced by people.  Analogy to the evils of religion, Capitalism, Government, and social hierarchy and conformity needs to be addressed and continuously reasserted in society; but depictions of things that are outside of daily phenomena are certainly greater in intellect at-least in some regard.  The aliens are some of the most creative in design and remind me of David Hume and his writings of how we are incapable of imagining anything totally outside of our experience.  They’re more-or-less fiery-shadow-squids, but it certainly beats Star Trek in imagination of the possibility of alien life – at-least in design.
Of course the most interesting thing about them is in combination with their phenomenogical brand of time travel (similar to that of X-men Days of Future Past) is that it is essentially a Borg or hive mind creature.  The main question is whether or not it is sentient and with it allowing humans to think they’re winning so as to wipe out humans more efficiently in-terms of time (because that is really all it would be accomplishing asides from I suppose having less battle fields where a human would be filled with one of the Alpha’s blood or whatever it would be called by the interplanetary biologist community – interplanetary in that they study alien life not that they are alien life but aliens are welcome to join; we’re not bigots.) it would seem so.  But their sentience is a rather crass and rudimentary form of sentience no matter how clever.  They seem to have no interested in art, science, philosophy or anything that makes us human – much like the average human being whose soul has been dulled or even extracted by the forces of Capitalism, religion (or belief in God in-general) and the State – and yet it possesses a bare minimum type of awareness of being necessary for the critical thinking involved in strategy – at-least we would assume.  But is awareness of self, a primary trait we make a prerequisite of sentience a trait which can only be attached or found in sentient entities?  Could a machine be capable of perfect strategy given it knows the necessary facts and be incredibly clever and capable of critical thought without the thought that we assign to a self-aware conscious being?  Very-likely.  Exploring the criteria for sentience and distinguishing conscious life from the Philosophical Zombie is a difficult task, though ultimately I would say it hinges largely on the capacity for reflection.  If this alien organism can reflect in a way of interest in mind rather than curiosity; that is not attached to its survival but rather out of the naturally occurring ponderings of an intellect, than I would say that it fits the main requirement for sentience; otherwise I would say that it is simply a clever organism, like a parrot or a dog, and only more in-regards to its incredibly trait that would be an evolutionary marvel to think upon – but so is the presence of thinking itself.
If it weren’t for the cleverness depicted in the film, one could say that any form of intellect isn’t required at-all save a memory of the future once one’s consciousness has been transported to the past.  If this ability existed in a dog for example, it would be unable to comprehend what extraordinary ability it has, and would be able to distinguish most-likely the future from its past; but that would not change its likeliness to remember or to act in-regards to that memory.  For example if I beat my dog to death and whatever limited degree of consciousness it has is transported to the past, though it might be confused that it’s not in any pain or suffering from any physical maladies, it would remember that I abused him severely and would immediately distrust me or attack me.  The same could be said of these creatures.  It could remember that a threat is coming and act on impulse rather than stratagem or intellect.  Like a predator that on impulse moves to a watering hole for prey though it hasn’t heard or seen its prey to bring him there.  Though the latter of course involves millions of years of evolution while the former involves only a few iterations of repetition from a parasitic organism – but it could still learn according to the definition of psychology (the ability to alter one’s behavior) nonetheless.  Which reminds me for whatever reason that we never do learn what the aliens feed off of, but since it came from an asteroid rather than a ship it seems that its arrival on Earth was pure happenstance (unless it can somehow alter the asteroids trajectory whenever one of its Alpha’s dies to more effectively traverse the cosmos, though how it would manage to do this I’m uncertain) rather than planned deliberation and this furthers the claim that it acts on impulse though of course its trickery would discredit that idea.
We of course moralize and depict the alien as malicious and its trickery seems to be evidence to the case; however, someone like Foucault would bring up how we see these intruders from a perspective of malevolence because of their otherness and we have always been told that aliens are harbingers of death and destruction – rather than the fact that they actually do bring death and destruction to humanity.  But if a sentient being was also parasitic in its nature – which you could argue human beings are relative to the extent they can be – what choice would it have from ending life wherever it may go, even if the planet has sentient life as-well, save from ending its own existence?  If Man was traveling in space and had to feast upon sentient entities for survival, surely it would rationalize it but would it be just?  No.  For there is nothing particular or exemplary (in-that it is an exemption from otherwise universal moral rules) from human beings save their sentience.  So, just as it is immoral to kill a man, so it would be to kill an intelligent form of alien life.  In-terms of cannibalism, asides from the expectation of killing the worst of those available for consumption, this act is overall exempt from moral judgment.
There are some things however that remain a mystery.  If he were to fall asleep and then die, would he “respawn” back at the base camp every single time or at the first point of the re-entering of consciousness?  Also the ending seems to be a cop out.  Even with the goo entering his system once again, why would time be altered in the sense of the alien(s) being destroyed?  Is it once the alien is destroyed, then its death somehow manifests throughout the timestream?  But then wouldn’t it be that it would never have existed?  When did it die in this new timeline?  Also why didn’t Tom Cruise just tell Emily Blunt that the helicopter would explode or that there is no possible scenario that he knows of where they can survive the attack from the alien?  Then tell her that they haven’t tried sleeping in the farmhouse and taking the car or simply leave her as she is sleeping.  But of course this all is effectively pointless because it turns out the visions are false and an attempt for the organism to regain its powers.  Which gives two more things to discuss.
Firstly, it’s assumed then that the organism somehow can sense Tom Cruise and that he has its blood inside of him.  But in the battle field all the aliens don’t seem to treat him any differently.  So it seems then that only the hivemind knows that Tom Cruise is, well, Tom Cruise and that is why it sets up a trap for Cruise to go to a certain location and drain him of his blood to regain its winning strategy.  Which brings me to my second point.  If when Tom or Emily is able to respawn to the start of the level, why not just stay alive and see how long humanity can last against the alien Borg entity without its ability to reshape time whenever an Alpha is killed?  It might seem selfish, but if you fought the alien and it drained your blood like it nearly did with Cruise, then you would have allowed it to regain its ability and humanity would be finished.  Instead, wait several months and see how humanity handles the Alien, and if it seems like that we’re going to be wiped out then kill yourself and restart.  Unless of course it would only bring you back to that morning.  Then it would be far-more of a gamble and you perhaps should take the route they did.  Also does the alien sleep?  It must or do something similar if it restarts because it would assumingly restart the beginning of each day for the same reason that Cruise and Strong do – it woke up. 
Asides from a few points this really is the perfect organism.  Like I said it lacks any appreciation of higher things let-alone appreciation or higher consciousness in-general – unless it does possess a higher state of mind that we cannot have any evidence of asides from its level of cleverness due-to its nature and make-up.  It also seems to be parasitic (or at-least that is what we are told, though how a parasite could exist on an asteroid without any other organisms to utilize is befuddling) in nature and will very-well destroy the life of the given planet it’s on; not only brining death to billions but ensuring its own destruction.  If it simply wanted to replace humanity as the dominant life forms on the planet that would be an entirely different scenario, perhaps of little distinction to us but they would be able to sustain themselves almost indefinitely and not be incapable of lasting for long periods on any given planet.
Its major flaw being that without sentience – or at-least the particular kind of sentience necessary to build tools and realize one’s own mortality and all the possible causes of it and solutions to prevent it – it could never create new stars to bring new life to itself which human beings could do.  It could replay the same day an innumerable amount of time but not only would it not be able to cure its death it wouldn’t be able to appreciate that day lived an infinite amount of times.  So this film is a perfect expression of – though it doesn’t state it for the common unthinking audience who don’t appreciate or comprehend the complexity of life due-to their own base nature, the ignorance of religion, other anti-intellectual forces and intelligence not being an expectation and highly deemed trait of virtue in our society – sentience being necessary not only for us to create lives worth living, but as the quintessential essence to have anything worth living or doing in the sense of a conscious being being capable of enjoyment, appreciation and value-placement and deliberation as expressed in Nietzsche.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

It's a rather rejuvenating experience to adopt a new perspective on things, or at the very-least be struck by a new perspective.  The distinction of course being something that brings to mind Aristotle's definition of wisdom, which is to explore ideas in one's mind without immediately holding them as true.  I'm going to be rather succint about this - damn, Blogger really has a small vocabulary (I actually thought that it didn't know the word "vocabulary" for a moment, but then I remembered that it's only my "Rugrats speak" that made me believe that there was a second L between the R and Y.) which is ironic considering how many people are using Google as a thesaurus, dictionary and secondary spell-check - because I don't want to ramble about my own development and changes especially while they're still taking place.  I don't feel that wave of euphoria very vividly anymore, since it's been more than a week since this change took place; but I think and at the very-least hope that this change in perspective will allow me to tackle new works more aggressively and often - as-well as of course give me a source of wisdom I was before alien to, or rather was alien to me.

I start summer school classes in a few weeks and I hope I can maintain the drive to finish these classes with adequate marks.  Motivation and effort have always been problems with me, or at-least since I started High School.
On The Principles of Radical Individualism as Opposed to Marxism, Belief in God and Ideology
Or:  Anarchist as freedom from custom – On Distinguishing Existential Anarchism from Marxism

I am radically individual.  That is to say I am Jacob Hoppman first and foremost; not a Homo Sapien, an individual being generalized by nationality, race, class, astrology sign or favorite Backstreet Boy and certainly not someone first-and-foremost made in the image of a fictitious God.  I have no urge to be insulted by saying that I’m in the image of a mad and immoral tyrant who is narcissistic or at-least displays the signs of Narcissism in the books that we are led to believe are divine and in the ways Christians, Muslims and Jews depict him as always expecting absolute and unfaltering worship by billions of people daily even though they are ignorant wretches – I use the term wretch to describe the poverty of their condition both economically and psychologically and not as an insult.  You think an infinitely loving and wise God would grow sick of such endless praise rather than have the psychological traits of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, but evidently for the faithful such is not the case.
This is not to say that scientific abstractions are not valid, useful and meaningful.  Our common humanity can be something spoken upon as a great sentiment for furthering kindness and reducing cruelty and proselityzation.  For if we are truly unified in genetics – as we are – rather than through Mohammad or Christ than it is obvious that proselytizing is unnecessary for the true unity we share is that of our makeup and of our common ancestors as well-as to varying degrees moral sentiments and basic desires for happiness, love, fulfillment and purpose.  The human condition is a real thing yes, but does not change the fact that I myself have a radically distinct and independent condition as the man I am.  And that my consciousness while being completely material in nature is something phenomenologically distinct from all reductionist arguments just as my condition is unique despite it being formed relatively speaking exactly the same way as all other individual’s distinctive character and personality. 
This in no way an argument for the ludicrous such as free will or an immaterial soul, rather it is claiming that while I am nothing but atoms, my consciousness is something that experiences itself and is in-a-sense radically distinct and yet attached to material operations of my body and the world around me.  A machine might be nothing more-than silicon boards and wires and yet a conscious thing can arise from electronics just as (or similar to) its cousin and creator’s sentience in biology.
What are the ramifications of this?  Well not only does it clearly undo religion, belief in a personal God, and Nationalism – which didn’t require much discrediting frankly – but Marxism, arguments for social curtailment of “self” and a type of Utilitarianism as-well.  Marxism is entirely correct in its Materialism and Determinism:  we are wholly material beings pre-determined by the laws of nature and how our own nature plays into these universal laws.  However Marx fails largely to understand the scope and grandeur of man’s psychology and the essence of consciousness as not only a economic and social but existential or self-reflective tool once it has grown to the extent of truly being “consciousness” in the sense of sentience or philosophical self-awareness rather than the low level of reflection and awareness allowed to the lower-rungs of beings known as non-philosophers.  Marxism fails to express the diversity of individuals and the complexities of human nature that result out of evolution or pure chance of happenstance.  I am first and foremost myself. 
Any system or ideology that imposes any attribution of self that negates the self or rules that negate the self – as-long as that self is not negating others of-course – is something that at-least to that extent is to be discredited.  Ideology and science is in this nature “collectivist” or generalizing phenomena as sub-categories of abstractions of their attempt to understand the natural order; rather than exhibiting it as a radical individual which human beings are in the Existentialist sense.  This is not to discredit science, only in those who have the obsessive compulsion to curtail all facets of all existence under a scientific framework.  There are aspects of the human condition which can be understood in one sense scientifically but deeper understanding psychologically or viscerally is yet to be made.  Just as we can in one sense understand the mechanics and motivations behind a dog, but are incapable of truly understanding what the experience of any other creature – even our fellow humans to the utmost extent – is like and may only make abstractions and comparisons from personal experience.
Where does Anarchism flow from this one might ask?  Anarchism is the logical realization and understanding of Radical Individualism.  If I own my body and mind above all other moral facts that can be uttered, than any State does nothing but betray this ultimate moral fact in the name of their morality and the moral or physical well-being of others.  Those who pose an immediate physical threat to the life and liberty of others should be prevented from harming or preventing the free-action of others and if it is likely they will attempt to do this act again be put in a separate community where he will be unlikely to do this – this is not to say he should be punished.  Punishment is the psychological malady coming from the irrational view of free will.  Instead, those who have harmed or have proven to be likely to harm others must be placed in a separate community where certainly no one is obligated to provide them the maximal leisure society can provide, but they shall not be punished or treated as slave or beast of burden.  Instead they shall be rehabilitated and more importantly treated as a free agent.  That is not ordered about as an animal.
The State is naturally something that seeks to be higher than organic human relations – but anything posing to be higher than bare human relations is something that wishes to be deified and therefore is willing to use force to garner fear and “respect” in its citizens.  Capitalism – to simplify – is the main fulcrum or motivation in most States throughout the world today, yes – the Marxist analysis – but religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism have also historically and today still use the power of the State and force in the individual homes of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. to force obedience of not only law but enforcement of ideology and frame-of-mind – the very essence of a Totalitarian State.  We also see how the State despite Marxists assumptions can take on a life of its own in Capitalist society.  Though the rich are very seldom prosecuted and legislation routinely is made to serve the interests of the Capitalists rather than the common citizenry, the State prosecute anyone who is a threat to it.  Let me clarify:  a threat to it, not the lives of its citizens.  We see this in Chelsea Bradley Manning and others being prosecuted for informing the citizens of the goings-ons of the State.  We also see a version of this in police officers being beyond reproach despite dozens of cases of them murdering the innocent – or at-least innocent to the extent they did not deserve to die – because they are agents and dispensers of the Law and therefore are not obliged to follow every dot and comma of it as the populous are expected to. 
One can argue correctly that a dictatorial nation like America does not in-its-self provide argument for Anarchism being correct over a more proper State, but this does not change the fact that the State and hierarchy is in its essence based on force and explicit control in “non-Liberal” States and propaganda, education of obedience and apathy and more implicit controls in Liberal ones.  The State is nothing but the physical construct of force in the largest way possible in a universe without a personal God.  There are of course smaller examples such as the family when one is small, but certain restraints are reasonable on a young individual due-to the nature of humans being biological and not consciousnesses that are fundamentally immaterial souls.  The parents are responsible for their upbringing, education and fine-tuning of character, and a certain degree of non-physical force and coercion is necessary when one wishes to cultivate a young man or woman just as one must use shears to finely tune shrubbery so it may take on its fullest potential at-least in the eyes of the gardener.
An adult however is assumed to have received some education – of both the kind of cultivation and of trimming to subservience in any society where the Individual is not seen as the highest end and value – and is done developing neurologically though of course his psychological development is never done with as is his existential development in potential.  Therefore they are to be deemed a “complete” and therefore wholly sovereign entity if Man is ever to be considered a sovereign entity – a moral author and force unto himself.  From this point on one can only make attempts to reason or give incentive for a redirection or reconsideration of one’s course and no other forms of unwanted coercion will be allowed – unless of course it involves those who are harming or robbing the freedom of others to state the obvious.  It is unjustifiable to force one man to sacrifice his freedom to theoretically liberate another man or one hundred men.  Freedom is that one thing which is spared entirely from utilitarianism.
And speaking of utilitarianism, a component of it must be sternly argued against.  Namely the logic that would have us curtail the individual into something not entirely free or himself for the utility of society.  I of course am talking of the “Freudian” sense of us developing psychological mechanisms to have us adopt and follow customs and act and be as we otherwise wouldn’t all for the ease of public relations.  That is not to say that there is typically a justification for rudeness, but we of course see a certain falseness and insincerity in daily reactions that is result of Man being curtailed to be a productive automaton rather than an independent freethinking agent of their own reasoning, motive and volition.  This is not to discredit Consequentialism as long as it takes into account the absolute or non-negotiable aspect of individual rights into its framework.  But Utilitarianism does seem to be the mentality of some forms of Populism and the motif of A Brave New World; that is, it does seem a tad Hedonistic and too easily appropriated into a motivation to curtail human nature into something servile to sinister interests as-long as most are contentedly ignorant that their lives are squalid and base, that others are suffering everyday and that a better life is better for both – or rather all – parties both materially and existentially speaking.  But of course Consequentialism brings individual rights into account, because what else could consequentially create the desired ends but having all members of society being respected and deemed as ends in themselves?  It is Deontology and Divine Command Theory that has us performing immoral acts out of duty that are detrimental and derisive to the common basic ethic most understand if they are honest with themselves; contorting us into unnatural beings that act in-regards to ideology, and ignore reasoning and conscience.  I now will further explore the distinctions and unity of Existentialism and Materialism and then continue from there onto a version of Virtue Ethics that incorporates Existentialism and Materialism into it – though Virtue Ethics is essentially by its nature Materialist.
A short and potentially sovereign case for Existentialism, Materialism and Perspectivism.
There is the Existentialist and the Materialist – and I am both. For both provide essential insights and factors of truly understanding and knowing the human conditionally, both scientifically and viscerally or philosophically if you like.  We are material beings, in-and-out; but the absence of a immaterial soul does not make our consciousness something that does not function as something apart from the material order in a way though it is intrinsically interwoven within it, could not exist without it and if one is a determinist – or rather if Determinism is true – then is a inevitability of physical law within it, at-least in our own Universe.
The Existentialist provides wisdom of human originality and authenticity in being, choice and ethics.  That we are in-a-sense the summation of our actions and that we become more-or-less what we choose.  For studies have chosen that volitional action and sentiment coming from an individual will be far-more effective in the make-up of a person than crass material incentives that the individual does not accept.  That is, the Spanish Inquisition was quite ineffective in purging heresy and Atheism.  It is because that those who wish to stamp out freedom of thought and the “sincere and impassioned being” and create a society of living corpses create economic incentives and indoctrinate youth into the Church, State and Capitalism before they can make a rational and informed choice as adults.  This is why Governments brainwash children as do perverse Christian parents in proselytizing their children into the faith of God or State by never giving them an alternative or never acknowledging the diversity of thought in the world by shrinking the cultural and intellectual world of the child. 
The Materialist however provides wisdom of our biological and some aspects of our psychological selves.  That is that we are pre-determined beings by our nature and that most crime is not an act of “evil” as the Christian claims or an act of “radical freedom” as many Existentialists claim.  Rather it is man as an economic and social being acting and being formed by his material circumstance, so that his Existential being will be molded but not completely “conquered” in-a-sense by his environment.
However the faults of taking a naively Existentialist route is to deny Materialism and human nature; to take a crass Materialist outlook is to deny that consciousness is radically distinct from all other features of existence in its complexity and its capacity for reflection and inwards directed change – or rather neurological Internalism in-general.  That is that we are pre-determined beings, but just because our choices are entirely chosen for us does not obliterate the significance of choice psychologically, consequentially and fundamentally, that is to say on the fundamentals of who we are and how we judge and view others.
Both the Existentialist and the Materialist have wisdom to show and advice in how we should reform society to make something resembling an ideal one.  Though they appear and if taken either to their “radical” or absolutist positions are contradictory we must accept elements of the bare essence and ramifications of both if we are to both understand what is to be and be truly human.
Religion is the ultimate form of evil and stupidity largely because it ignores both Existentialism and Materialism – the State being a secular version of religion, faith and the herd instinct.  It ignores that we are radically ourselves first-and-foremost rather than children of any god or gods, and it posits that we have some type of immaterial essence and “radical freedom” while being chained to the dictates and loyalties of a Creator that puts us in a stifling position of un-freedom.  The State also views the individual in social terms for the more scientific state and in-terms of loyalties and obedience in-regards to the more Nationalist or ideological State.  Though individual freedoms are respected to varying extents depending on the country and specific administrators of the State they are freedoms that the State views as giving or “allowing” in the individual out of leniency, tolerance or beneficence rather than freedoms that we fundamentally have in our person that the State simply acknowledges and respects and nothing more.  And of course all States to varying degree ignore material nature in the governance by focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation or mere separation of violent elements of society from the innocent – America being the prime example.  Drug laws, religious laws, laws on sexuality or discrimination of individuality of any kind, these are laws that view the citizen as a subject to Rule of Law, rather than Rule of Law being something that exists to be decided by reason, implemented justly by the people and for the benefit of the commonwealth.  The proper existence of laws is to respect individual rights and to aid the prosperity of the citizenry, not control the citizenry who are conditioned to serve corporate interests and the State as we see in much of the world.
This understanding will only be absolutely internalized and acted upon in Anarchist society; that is to say, decentralized society.  One could theoretically make somewhat sound and intelligent arguments for Capitalism and Government in abstraction.  But one will always be ignoring the effect that centralized amounts of wealth, power and decision making have on the populous at-large the most obvious of which is lack of intellectualism and apathy.  Most people will only desire to understand the world and sciences if they are expected to, and in the world of Capital and Government dominance there is no need for the average citizen to know hardly anything; quite the contrary, business tycoons and government officials spend massive amounts of time and resources to ensure the continued ignorance and docility of the global population. 
Only fools with no understanding of human nature believe that the State or even worse Capitalism or religion can be used to bring about a world of universal peace and prosperity; that the State first-and-foremost cares about its citizens.  The State fundamentally is concerned with one thing above all else and that is its power.  That is to not speak naively and say that all Governments want to take all rights away from all citizens or take over the world, such actions would be completely unnecessary and largely unproductive.  Instead the State’s main self-designated purpose derivative of its nature is the insurance of its existence from ignorance just as Capitalism ensures itself from apathy and selfishness.  Once systems and ideologies of control (the main three of course being State, religion and commerce though it can also be seen in micro social organization) have made the individual passive and dependent psychologically, then there is no need to curtail the rights of the individual for the being is question will no longer act or be in its fundamental essence an individual and will be unable to act outside of the institutions framework of morality, purpose, value-judgments or as a sovereign being at-all. 
However, if the average man and woman are expected and required to take part in their community while living their life fundamentally as a individual, they will desire to know all there is o know and explore all there is to explore in terms of tastes, temperaments and sentiments.  The human condition is vast with things to examine externally, discover internally and experience in the realms of both the public and personal worlds of reality and humanity.  It is only social conditioning and fear of pain, anxiety and failure that makes us small.
To attain both this unity and selfhood we must make what Stirner calls a unity of associations, rather than a society.  With society comes social restraints, but association is always voluntary and done for some form of rational self-interest even if it comes in the form of charity.  There is of course great reservoirs of natural flowing kindness and brotherhood and these feelings can be molded and increased to overflow and wash away most of the hardships, indignities and injustices of this earth if we as one people merely act for the interdependent safety and progress of us all.  This is a radically different notion of rational self-interest than posed by Ayn Rand for example.  This version of self-interest – which I don’t mean to argue is the form of self-interest Stirner was explicitly arguing for – is one that is more a form of Virtue Ethics in the health and well-being of the individual rather than selfishness as it’s understood as petty and apathetic to human suffering.  For as we forget the plight of others we put a plight of small mindedness and rationalization unto ourselves and in doing so denounce empathy and reason.  Also as argued on the Utilitarian point, Society conditioning you for its needs while association conditions you and frees you for the fullest and widest expression of your essence.  Free Association has no concept of moral duty or common bondage – cooperation is ideally in-regards to moral psychology done entirely out of sympathy and empathy.
Stirner’s Nihilism of course must be rebutted for Anarchism to have any legitimacy.  Stirner was a brilliant and completely original thinker and I have much more to read of his; however a unity of “ruthlessness” is in no way the grounds of anything approaching an ideal society and is Anarchy rather than Anarchism.  Anarchy is the lack of organic order and rampant Nihilism, destructive Hedonism and devastation.  Anarchism is the critique of the moral legitimacy of the State and any centralization of wealth and power as well-as the alternative of a Stateless society where Direct Democracy is practiced and laws are passed based upon reason and utility not the interests of the wealthy or the State.  So in-this-sense Stirner is an Anarchist in the derisive sense of contemporary understanding, not the philosophical sense which in no way is to discredit him as a philosopher. 
To quickly refute Nihilism:  all living things have a good and bad in-regards to its health and its traits towards its life, health and the wellbeing of the species’ community which in many examples is necessary for the life and utility of the individual as seen in Man.  That is to say, traits that when practiced increase the utility and enjoyment of its life and the lives of those around them – if the organism can experience enjoyment or appreciation of existence.  That is not to say that some conflict of interest and traits that are double-edged swords are not inevitable, but those facts alone does not discredit the notion of morality just as a three-armed infant being born that is human does not discredit the conventional notion that a human being is in its typical form a two-armed being.  The most-likely inevitability of men competing for the affections of a woman does not discredit the notion that people can work together and ultimately increase their shared utility by the understanding of Virtue Ethics which is essentially a form of Consequentialism that focuses on traits rather than actions and wisely so since the source of our actions is largely our consistent traits formed by the synthesis of genetics and upbringing.  Also the fact that a genius will not perform well doing mindless and menial tasks as Schopenhauer points out, does not mean that intelligence cannot be a virtue.  Height for example could be deemed virtuous in being a sign of health; but this is not discredited solely due-to the situations of being unable to fit in small spaces and having one’s head knocked off if one is standing up in a limousine and a overpass unexpectedly passes over (though not completely).
The main distinction between Anarchism and all other forms of Socialism is its absolute dedication to egalitarianism, freedom and radical individuality as well-as (as result of this and simply the absurdity of it) a repudiation of the Social Contract Theory.  All forms of Socialism that involve the State involve a society where one must abide by laws that curtail one’s freedom that one can only appeal via democratic sentiment and by a corrupt process of such (if it can even be called democratic) in the form of Representative Democracy.  Under the reason and ethics of Anarchism however, Man can freely disassociate with others at any moment, in any fashion or to whatever degree he chooses as long-as the individual does not choose to harm others or perform actions that directly harms the health of others.  I am an Anarchist who believes in smoking bans in public places as ridiculous as that sounds.  Though I believe that a move towards a society free from such vices is really the way to go in-regards to freedom though of course what I speak of is not prohibition.  There is a difference between making Heroin illegal, and creating a prosperous and intelligent society that would never once consider doing drugs as dangerous and awful as such substances that plague our societies and communities.  There is only a minor step in logic to go from removing the hard drugs through education, economics and overall desired variables for living to removing all vices through the same fulcrum.  If people choose to produce their own drugs on a minor scale this will always be allowed; however, regulations for them will need to be strict just as regulation for drinking and operating vehicles or potentially dangerous machinery must be strict.  Laws have their place in society, and I truly believe that if anyone understands this truth, the factuality of Rule of Law’s purpose and implementation it is the Anarchists.  For what have we seen on this planet given all other alternatives?  Only bloodshed, slavery of the body and mind; only degrees of Fascism (or rather Statism) and warped perceptions coming from the need to rationalize a State and state-of-being that should never be similar to the psychic consequences of rationalizing for the existence of a God that doesn’t exist.  Or to quote Senator Roark from Sin City, “once you have people saying what they know in their hearts ain’t true, you got them; you got them by the balls.”  There does seem to be a statistical coupling of those who are existentially genuine in who they are and those who are individualistic in their character and politics.
Hopefully we’ll see more-and-more individuals who represent Nietzsche’s Ubermensch or Stirner’s man of Ego who can’t control his appetite in-terms of constantly being a being of yearning and growth, striving and striding.  For having individuals show the path as independent-minded intellectuals have done for centuries is the best chance we have of having the road to a Stateless society of both reliable moral choice and freedom (Requiring and consequentially aligning with both Existentialism and Materialism) be lit for us, as-to not walk rudderless or on a conveyor belt, blind or backwards, in the dark.