4 votes

Bouts of Human Insanity

Ideology is insanity.

Try to follow me.

All of us have ideas. But ideas are a small part of the human soul.

Greater than ideas are people.

Those who recognize this will never do evil for ideas.

When ideas, alone, get the upper hand, you get Ideology.

The willingness to do evil, for ideas.

You may say, this is an idea. True, but it is an idea about ideas, and that idea is that people are greater than ideas.

When humanity at large gets swept up in a fervor of ideas, to the point of willingness to do evil, kill and harm innocents, then it is a bout of human insanity.

This is just a phrase, true. Insanity is a subjective word.

Perhaps humans really are just the tools of destiny, claiming their quarry for the true Master, Ideas.

Then it would be okay to do evil for ideas, if ideas alone were master.

But if ideas are not master, if we owe something to each other as humans, above and beyond the dictates of ideas, then it is high insanity when humans kill other humans merely for ideas.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I follow you

Seventh sentence equates ideology with the willingness to do evil for ideas.

How about doing good for ideas? That is ideology too.

In your last sentence you seem to equate humans killing other humans with evil. Nice try.

That needs some qualification. How about doing good? It is not insanity to do good by killing somone. It is impossible to do either good or evil without some kind of idea. Thus, your dichotomy "humans -vs- ideas" is a false one.

All human interaction involves ideas. Human interaction can be evil without one human killing another. The evil of such interaction can make one human killing another human a good thing.

Anyone who thinks for a couple minutes, can come up with examples. That, of course, would only be possible if one is willing to entertain ideas. But, as you say, all of us have ideas.

I follow you: All ideas are evil (for regular people). Only the benevolent rulers should have access to ideas (just like with guns). The rest of us subject people, should banish ideas from our minds.

This approch of "idea-control" likened to "gun-control" (though I'm sure you only advocate "reasonable" idea control) reminds me of a quote:

An idea without ambition is like a machine gun without bullets.

If you look below

you'll see where I explained my use of Ideology, capital I, in a somewhat special sense. If you read that and disagree, reply to it.


I disagree because you are not using it honestly in the sense you claim. What you are saying is that imagined catastrophic human losses due to the errors of others and their irresponsible behavior should be blamed on the people who point out the error and irresponsibility.

It's really as simple as that.

You have some psychopaths who decide that everyone should eat one particular miracle food, let's say a new kind of corn (an error). So people let the diverse seed supply of the planet die while paving every square inch of ground to grow this "corn" in a chemical soup (irresponsibility). And people become dependent on the "corn" supply (more irresponsibility). Then someone says: You know this is really a dangerous situation, I'm going to try to figure out a way to grow and eat some other kind of food. Maybe we should even try to figure out a way to grow some different kind of food in case there is some problem with this so-called miracle food. Then when a new parasite destroys 90 percent of the new corn, and people are going to have to die, it's labeled (how did you put it?) a "reasonably expected" and "predicted" result of the "alternative food" Ideology.

It's a case of horribly misplaced blame.

To continue my disagreement, let me quote you exactly:

> For example if the support system that feeds
> millions of senior citizens was immediately
> abolished.

> That would advance anarchist principles...

I disagree. This is absolute nonsense. I have not even suggested such a thing. So, what on earth are you talking about? What support system is so dear to you? So all this BS you bring is simply some convoluted defense of Social Security because that's what you live on? (Does that explain how you have so much time to sit at the keyboard?)

I mean you no offense, my friend, but that kind of thinking borders on insanity. I guess such a charge is fair at some level, since this entire original thread of yours is accusing anarchists like me of being insane.

> ...and it would accord with their principle that
> taxation and redistribution is aggressive government
> force. That's why even Ron Paul understood that
> whatever one's ideas, they have to be advanced and
> carried out morally, not to the detriment or easily
> predictable harm to other people.

Again, I disagree because you are totally wrong. Ron Paul is the very person who, probably more than any other, popularized the idea that "taxation is theft." He had a stinkin' sign on his desk that said: Don't steal, the government doesn't like competition. And people used exactly the same argument you are using against Ron Paul. That's a dangerous idea. There will be catastrophe if he is elected president. The only Republican who would be worse than Obama would be Ron Paul. They were saying exacxtly what you are saying in accusation against Ron Paul for exactly the same reason. *Imagined* catastrophe, which really means some minimal loss of their maximum benefits of exploiting others and perception of getting something for nothing.

Yes, we understand that we need to proceed morally. The question is: Why do you insist on proceeding immorally? Especially when you understand that doing so is to the detriment and easily predicted harm of other people?

My use of the term ideology, in the special sense

I described, is fully honest. It appears you don't understand it. You probably would be okay with lots of death and misery for your ideology. That's what an ideologue is, someone who puts ideas above people.

And you?

You say I am "probably" okay with lots of death and misery for my ideology---with no evidence whatsoever and no justification. On the other hand, you are clearly okay with lots of death and misery for your ideology---the ideology of getting something for nothing. Just look around you at all the death and misery caused by the idea of government.

So why do you put your idea above people?

As Ron Paul said, voluntarism is the only ideology which is compassionate. We are the compassionate ones here.

Just to make this point perfectly clear: Every time you vote, when you pay your taxes (why do I feel like I'm channeling Morpheus?), every time you expend honest labor and create wealth to support the structures of oppression in society, you are participating in violence against others and are individually responsible for the greatest source of death and misery known to the world. You can't be responsible for the actions of others. You may not be able to make a noticeable difference for good. But you are responsible for your own actions, and you will never know if you can do any good unless you try.

Ron Paul is against the welfare state in principle

but in practice does not want to see it eliminated without proper structures replacing it to avoid devastating large groups of people. You strike me more as one of the purist ideologues who doesn't care what happens to people. Besides, RP is not an anarchist anyway.

You just don't get it do you?

Ideas have all these powers and they can be immortal. Ideas have outlasted everyone before us and they will survive us as well. Ideas are evolving over time like everything else but they use us as their substrate, their canvas, their instrument of evolution. We are just elaborate support systems for their food and their procreation. Ideas breed millions of times in a signle human and in groups they have a magnifying effect, exponential growth.

Indeed it is we who are fodder for this supreme being in in truth you and I shall die a gritty, nasty death on this festered plane yet, behold, you thought you had ideas when all it time the truth is they have us.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Oh my! (Dick Enberg

Oh my! (Dick Enberg style)

Oneeyedwillie3 is body slammed by the Smudge Pot!

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I think

the jokes on you.

That is an ideology...

The point of your OP is an ideology.

The ideology is that ideas are not worth killing or harming another human being over. I agree with that ideology.

Ideology, is nothing more than a way of thinking. There can be ways of thinking that are false, and ways of thinking that are accurate.

Whether one's ideology is accurate or false is not even the issue though, but the problem is the immoral use of force.

Ideology is not something to be afraid of, or to avoid.

False ideology however, is to be avoided and legitimately feared, but even more so is the immoral use of force.
Of course, false ideologies usually lead to immorality, and that leads to aggressive use of immoral force.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I'm using the word ideology in a special sense

It's not unique to my usage, but capital I 'Ideology' to me implies a system of ideas held rigidly and with the willingness to accept human losses as collateral damage to bring about the triumph of the ideas. That doesn't just apply to violence in the positive sense, but also to actions that can be reasonably expected or predicted to result in much damage. So its possible that people will allow their commitment to an ideology they consider peaceful (for example anarchism) to lead to catastrophic human losses. For example if the support system that feeds millions of senior citizens was immediately abolished. That would advance anarchist principles and it would accord with their principle that taxation and redistribution is aggressive government force. That's why even Ron Paul understood that whatever one's ideas, they have to be advanced and carried out morally, not to the detriment or easily predictable harm to other people.

That gives me an idea.

God damn it! You're driving me insane!

Seriously I really like this piece. Ideologically, I'm an extremist of sorts, or more notably a purist as I take it one step further to declare that "thinking" itself is a form of insanity. But hey, that's what we do. Thank god we have each other to first help burn each other out and then pull each other from the rubble.

I shall embarrass myself again by posting another song. Rest assured I won't likely do it again in the near future. The last one was from the heart. This one's from the mind. Whether that mind is sane or unsane is not my call. It's a love song, sung with all the love a "mind" can muster, a song of worship, dedicated to the Master of Ideas.


You're scratching

right where I itch.

Good track, even stronger than other one. Is it a cover?

I have to cut my nails

I have to cut my nails to play guitar. I place them in a voodoo bag and chant them into the music.

It's a Rolling Stones song, "Dead Flowers".

Time for your nightly

Voodoo session.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul