Zoot's Philosophical Musings

That was my doing. I published a new drawing online and put PoD's link in the description. It got over 85K views and almost 3.5k likes/upvotes, so that's where the guests were coming from.

Zoot was out on a field trip. Unrelated events.

As a stirnerite, I offer the following words of wisdom...

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1KR6pyiIk0y

As for those who don't have the minerals, I offer this advice...

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0zH13TZBOOh

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0H0gZi6T8oR

Few people disgust me more than this pathetic cretin that happens to be my mother. I can't smash her head into the fucking wall so I resort to my only alternative; I scream at her like a rabid animal.

fixed cross wrote:Morality is lacking most structurally in fearful species and types. It is most evident in species that are able to enjoy their lives.
Enjoyment creates the will to share. Thats a real golden rule.

where there is no struggle with one's conscience, there is no moral reality, much less moral 'problems'. those who effortlessly enjoy their lives and give freely are by no means expressing 'moral good will', because there is no struggle with something that comes so easily to them. they give because they have an abundance, and then pretend as if this is some favor that required great sacrifices to be made in order to be able to do so.

there is no greater trivilization of morality than this; to have nothing to lose by giving something, and then believe yourself to be as good willed as another man who must extend every ounce of his effort and suffer the greatest losses merely to refrain from absolute misanthropy.

you don't know what it means to be moral until you can know what it means to be so disgusted with man/men as to be two steps away from commiting mass murder.

and you can't understand any of this until you've observed the complete fraud that those 'good willed' people are. they effortlessly extend a friendly gesture or deed and then pat themselves on the back for being 'good willed'.

a question of conscience; what did it cost you?

the higher that deficit, the more moral you are. the more contempt you have had to suppress just to be able to look someone in the eye... that is your measure of good will.

fixed cross wrote:None of it is an intellectual process.

it is absolutely an intellectual process, and it involves stages... stages which rarely anyone completes.. either by lack of intelligence or lack of misfortune, bad fate, betrayal, opposition and danger.

the first stage is learning the philosophies of morality. the second stage is identifying the problems in the philosophies of morality... this leads to an inversion of values; morality becomes immorality... not because it is some violation of nature (as N saw it), but because the most moral of people trivialize the problems of morality through/with the simplicity and ease with which they believe themselves to be moral. and this is in direct proportion to the degree with which they have endured no struggle to be 'good', or, conversely, to the degree with which they 'lack the claws', as N put it, to be evil. they believe they have 'convinced' themselves to be good, when in fact they couldn't be otherwise even if they chose to. impotence is not equal to 'good', but even less is the man who pretends he can be evil if he chooses, just to pretend he is proving to himself that he's had to struggle to refrain from it, therefore giving greater value to his 'goodness'. ha! nice try, pal. try that on somebody else.

this is difficult to understand for you, yes, and such understanding belongs only to very few. but morality has only ever been a problem for those few. for those other 'philosophers' it is not even real, much less a problem.

i remember one time i was in a bar with raskolnikov, roquentin and meursault. i noticed a philosopher at the corner table engaged in a debate about 'morality' with his cohorts. i tapped my friends on the shoulder and gestured to the table; 'get a load of the philosopher bourgeoisie, perplexed by the question of morality!' we got a good chuckle at the sight of it.

oh and don't misunderstand our problem. we are by no means complaining. this is our blessing, a great opportunity, a great temptation, as it were. as i've explained before and in many different ways throughout the cryptic machinery of my writing, this problem is of the highest rank, and those who are faced with it are incommunicable (which is why i can't quite say it clearly... am not allowed to say it). the real hero cannot be the 'good' guy, i'm afraid, despite what the myths and stories tell you.

(or perhaps he always was the good guy, and the 'world' was evil?)

^^^ rhetorical question. you aren't qualified to answer it.

this ass hat quotes nietzsche at least twice. once at 5:57 and again at 7:18. some semi-literate invalid mexican white trash that's much too simple to be a nihilist, much less a psychopath. and what that dipshit anton lavey tells you is hardly reason enough to go on a killing spree, nor does one come to understand evil by listening to an iron maiden album, either.

look at how he takes a deep breath each time before responding, as if he's too 'superior' to be bothered. then what does he do? instead of offering something genuine and original, he struggles to remember some quote out of a book he shouldn't have been trying to read, and then nearly misquotes it.

see clowns like this give a bad name to sociopathology. it's a sad day when even the bad guys have no more depth than the good ones. this is why i can't be the devil's advocate. his minions are just as silly and ridiculous as god's minions are.

now of course everything he says is right... but he doesn't know how and why he's right. you don't get credit for a lucky guess, and you have no business reading nietzsche (especially) if you are a lower-class mexican american with a mullet and one of those chains that connects your wallet to your belt loop. surely he had one.

yeah i had a mullet, but it wasn't because i was listening to slayer. it was because i was fifteen and didn't know any better. this guy was in his late twenties still rocking the thing. the point is, if you haven't gotten past your mullet stage before you attempt to read nietzsche, you're in for some trouble. you won't possibly get it right. all you'll end up doing is getting bad P&R for sociopaths in general... and we don't much appreciate it.

you, richard ramirez, should be ashamed of yourself. you've abused what is supposed to be a privilege of a select few. raping and killing old ladies because you're angry you can't get more than minimum wage bagging groceries at some south side LA grocery store and consequently become a drug addict to cope with the stress. you don't fucking rape and kill old ladies dude. you rob them, at most. and why in god's name would you pick an old lady when there are countless other young hotties out there to choose from? tasteless, man. you'd do well to take a lesson from teddy but it's a little late for that, eh?

now you shoulda started reading marx and lenin instead. they woulda helped you. the thing is, your suffering was trivial, economic, not philosophical, not political. but no... you go straight for nietzsche, fumble through every bit of it, and then fuck it all up. look at yourself in that interview you fucking ass ranger. even worse... look at yourself in court. you ACTUALLY WORE the over-sized burt reynolds smokey and the bandit sunglasses. wtf were you thinking?

you're a goddamn disgrace, richy. there's a special place in heaven for you man, 'where all the interesting people are missing'. yeah i quoted nietzsche. i'm a goddamn nietzsche scholar compared to you, you trifling punk-ass ass burglar.

that's right... eternal damnation pal. you're gonna walk laps around an air conditioned mall with all the old people you murdered, for the rest of eternity.

now get the fuck outta my sight.

Oh, Brian, what solitary paths you've selected, or have been selected for you.
Like all alpha males, you make your own way.

Bating your hook, to draw others near.
Here I am, unable to resist the path laid down by the Primordial One....I am a will-less automation, like you.
You do not believe in self-deceit, so this cannot be intentional. I'll go ahead and state the contradiction you so passionately put forth...and take the bait:
What choice did Ramirez have?
No more than you did.
Why hold him accountable for what he could not have chosen to contradict.
What choice did the police have, or the State, or anyone of us?
What choice did his victims have?
Are we not all 'innocent' victims of God's will....The Primordial One...happenstance.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...on earth as it is in heaven...
Even my sinful misunderstandings are not my fault.

On ILP Nietzsche is now being used to promote miscegenation.
Why not? After death, the art created does not belong to the artist.  
I'm sure you experts in Will to Power can find an aphorism, or two, to support this claim...or any claim, for that matter.
Prose and poetics is so flexible....Oracle-like in its ambiguous proclamations. No matter what, it's been predicted.
I will seek her advice in my upcoming visit back to the homeland.....or climb Mount Tayetos, where such visions are experienced.  

All things considered you aren't an asshole, which is not what I can say for the 'friends' you keep.
I wish you well, in all things and always.
We share an antipathy for idiocy, in all its forms.  
I choose isolation, with expeditions into the wild-lands...you choose what has been determined for you to choose.
But then, you can say the same for all of us.

Don't know what my fate has in store for me, when I return.
I'll have to wait and see, like you.

i don't have any patience left for this freewill/determinism debate, but here's a couple videos for ya.

you might note the part in the first video about what you like to assume is what allows for freewill... this 'randomness' factor of indeterminancy. what you are missing (and have been missing for how many years?) is that EVEN IF this nonsense were true, you STILL wouldn't have freewill. a random or indeterminate act is not the result of the 'choice' of some agency (you), because if it was, it wouldn't be random or indeterminate.

ah damn, i just got done saying i wouldn't do this anymore. okay, take care now. bye bye, then.

the second one... in a attempt to end on a more positive, agreeable and politically correct note... suggests that it might be possible to someday develop freewill. lol. i wonder who paid them to include that part.

now i regret posting it; wouldn't want you to be deceived anymore than you already are.

He asserts that everything in the universe must obey the laws of physics, and he might be correct, but he does not explain why this is so -- he provides no arguments.

So let me ask a question: why does everything in the universe must obey the laws of physics?

what you are missing (and have been missing for how many years?) is that EVEN IF this nonsense were true, you STILL wouldn't have freewill. a random or indeterminate act is not the result of the 'choice' of some agency (you), because if it was, it wouldn't be random or indeterminate.

That's probably not correct.

Continuation of last two audios on the freewill error

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0YSrcY5GshR

Thoughts on utilitarianism and hedonic calculus

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1ER1JkMwo8R

On the nature of 'the four horsemen'; an eschatological analysis

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1mB0gTLZnFb