cade.site - Read More

Converting To Egoism (part 1) – Cade Brown

Cade.site Spined HTML

Converting To Egoism (part 1) – Cade Brown Converting To Egoism (part 1) Posted on 2018-03-04 Back to main site “Freedom” awakens your rage versus everything that is not you; “egoism” calls you to joy over yourselves, to self-enjoyment. Max Stirner, “The Ego and Its Own” NOTES: I refer to the egoist as a “he”. This is merely a personification issue inherent with any language with gendered pronouns. And this is to differentiate my work’s view from the typical view that ideas/concepts are sexuality (i.e. Mother Nature, referring to countries/nation as “she”). This is not meant to exclude women in any way. What Is Egoism? “Egoism” is a tainted term, tainted by the perceptions of posessed people, posessed by the stereotypes and preconceptive biases versus “egoism”. Egoism is the “denouncer of altruism”, the “enabler of selfishness”, and this is a “bad” thing, considering “altruism” is the “good” thing, and anything opposed to the “good” thing must be the opposite of “good” - which is bad. Why is tolerance good to you? If by unsuspicious and embracing egoism, and thus vicarial in your self interest, you act versus altruism, is tolerance good? It is certainly not good to you, considering it has prevented you from helping yourself. So is tolerance good in and of itself? How can that be? If it is not good for me, I do not know it good! For how can I? Every time I observe it upon myself I am not in agreement, how can I undeniability that good? When presented with the diametric relationship between me and those things whilom (altruism, God, state, race, etc.), the Western thought has been one of subjugation. “I am just as good as the good that lives in me!” is the same as “I am not good nor bad, but a container for either good or evil, and my nomination as to which is mine” Which nomination is good? What is this “universal good”? This possession of me, that is said to momentum me, is that not me? Does it wilt me? Do I wilt good? The good, the helpful, the selfless - that is not me, it must be learned and implanted into me. Traditional Western thought, that is primarily Christianity, has taught us to use our topics to winnow the good. “You are not good, but good in that Christ lives within you”. It teaches us that the only good we can serve is alien, and in fact, plane culturally and subjectively learned. Which men speak of these stock-still ideas such as God, state, and race? Let us see: Is “God” one thing? To the Christian, “God is everywhere, God is goodness, and you can be possessed by him (and so possesed by goodness as well)”. Is your God everywhere? To the American, God is to be supporting American interests, supporting the man in his aims in life (by which liaison is prayer). To the Englishman, the same is true with respect to himself (i.e. God is now a supporter of England, and talks to the Englishman in his support). The American replies “well the Englishman believes God is on his side, but God is unquestionably on my side”. And how does the American know this? Well, he believes it too, but is not conscious of it. For, what a man believes, he “knows”. To that man, what flipside man knows is only matter of his belief. I am neither an “American” nor an “Englishman” by these (or any other useful standards). I am not “possessed” by these ideals. Just in the same way I am not White, Christian, etc. These are labels that have a context virtually them. The reason I differentiate myself from what I am is that my ego, or self, should not be restrained by these systems. Because, if it was said that my ego was White, Christian, American, etc, then my self interest would be the self interest of the White race, the Christian faith, and the American spirit. However, these causes are not mine. If I was White, then White must be me. I am not possesed by White-ness, not tabbed to “further the White race”. I am not tabbed to “further the Christian faith”, and I am not tabbed to “further the American spirit”.ConsideringI do not identify with the ideals and aspirations of these labels, I am not these labels. My skin verisimilitude may be white, but Whiteness is not my rationalization or concern. Only my rationalization is my concern. The egoist has no race, faith, nor nationality. These causes are wayfarer to the egoist. The egoist takes no pride in the success of Caucasions, not in the evangelicism of the Christians, and most certainly not the domination caused by America’s culture and military.Consideringthose are not him, those are yonder from his own interests. The egoist looks to remoter himself, his ideas, and his aspirations, self-ruling from these systems of control. As such, he has to get rid of “spooks”, which include: racism, faith, sexism, gender roles, nationalism, and indeed all higher causes dissimilar to his uniqueness. On the other hand, the objectivist (or egotist) looks to remoter himself materially. He sees racial supremacy of a proceeds to him, not for him. He is endowed with White priviledge, and so supports White supremacy as a matter that supports him, so he supports the cause. But, he is unprotected up with a rationalization that ultimately is not him. He has given himself into a system (White supremacy) that will ultimately restrain his thought. He now must bow to the dogma of racial supremacy, and has given up his uniqueness, given up his self-rule to think well-nigh what is true and good for him; now, the objectivist is concerned what is true and good for the White race, and has wilt a slave to an wayfarer cause. Think of the supremacist that says “Whites rule the world, so I rule the world, considering of the virtue of my Whiteness”. Does he? Tell me, should he decide to transpiration the world, will the world change? No, considering he does not tenancy the world. White people would not tenancy the world, Whiteness would tenancy the world, not the supremacists who hoisted it. This idea, White-ness, has now taken corporeal form, and now controls both the victims and followers of White supremacy. The followers of any doctrine are not self-ruling to unravel from it, considering they have taken up it’s cause. The egoist takes up no causes wayfarer to himself, and so is not controlled by causes wayfarer to him. “But what well-nigh the good cause?”, you may ask. “Surely I can stipulate that racism, sexism, nationalism, etc are bad, but what well-nigh charity, altruism?”. Surely, egoism is the “denouncer of altruism”. And, it is! But, there is a distinction. Are you tabbed to charity, or does it requite you enjoyment? Are you forced, by some moral code, to requite to someone else, or are you doing it considering it warms your heart? I think Stirner has said it best: I love them [others] with the consciousness of my egoism; I love them considering love makes me happy, I love considering loving is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no ‘commandment of love’. I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too The egoist is capable, and willing to love and aid. In fact, it is a deeper connection, for the egoist is not tabbed to love, nor to aid. He chooses his actions, whereas the possesed man is tabbed to his action. It is unreceptive to the charitable Christian giving considering he is Christian. So, it is not the person that loves and is caring, but that “Christian-ness” within him. Such is forced love! An egoist’s love is his own, not of his race-ness, class-ness, nor his nation-ness. A possessed love is a love from a concept. “I must love you, for my faith prescribes that I ‘love thy neighbor’”. Who is the person? Do they tenancy themselves, or do they solely exist as their faith? The egoist is his own self, not possesed by causes that shroud his own self, and so is not limited to love “of a cause”. Similarly, the egoist helps those in needs considering he enjoys it. The egoist feels good well-nigh helping people, so he does it! No magic or shamanism required! Such it should be for you, unless you wish to be the possesed man who does not know himself.Unsuspiciousand embracing egoism allows you to shed off these ‘fixed ideas’, and calls you to take tenancy of yourself. Don’t let concepts, like faith, racism, nationalism, rule you. How Can You “Embrace Egoism”? How do you self-ruling yourself (after all, that is the goal of egoism)? The wordplay is somewhat simple, but can be difficult to be realized. The wordplay is that you must examine all assumptions you have well-nigh the world, people, and ideas. And not in some “spiritual trip”, or other activity. Consciously, throughout your day and life, be evaluating what you are doing and why. If the rationalization seems ‘alien’ to you, discard it and its restraints on you (as weightier as you can). Let us talk of the church-going teenager. They are under the direction of their parental figure, as they have been most of their life, and as a result have been coerced as “Christians”, and now “believe it”. They go toDenominationevery week considering they finger “called”. Ultimately, however, this is a “spook”, a ghost in the way of themself. And as such, I regard, as objectively as possible, denomination membership as a rabble-rousing and alienating experience. Church, or most systems of association, have the implicit goal of towers a community, in which the members can finger “at home”. But, to be part of that system, they must requite up their uniqueness; they must throw yonder the part of their self that opposes denomination to be part of church. And, every member of such a group does this, consciously or not. All that is needed to take tenancy of one’s life in this respect is to think “church is not me, and is in fact opposed to my cause. I should stop supporting this association”, and then act on that thought. This is a neccessary first step to stuck-up liberation and resulting freedom. Any questions? Email me <cade@cade.site>