“He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.” - Max Stirner

“He who is infatuated with Man leaves the individual out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, neither an ideal, it is a problem to be overcomed.”- Gus Lamarch

In the latest publication of, "Immodesty of an Egoist Mind", i discoursed about the concept of "Intellectual Minority" and my views on it, but now, i think it's the time for me to start talking about "morals".


We can see in various cases in history, that different people, on different places, with different contexts, had different views on morals, but in every single case, they had especific, almost identical forms and structures. But why? The answer is simple. - Need for power to control the individual -
In the most prehistoric times of humanity,"morals" didn't existed, but as time passed, and with larger communities forming, that needed more organization for being maintained, social hierarchy became a reality, and with that, resentment of the "lower castes" began to form. With this emminent fear of overthrown of the "higher castes" by the lower ones, a need for order, a need for castration of will took place, and with that, "morals" began to took root, and what is more functional than a social structure that maintains the view of being "good" and doing "good deeds" while the individual will of power and freedom is slowly taken away. Christianity took place in west, Zoroastrianism on the Middle East, Confuscionism in China, etc. Morals are good for only one thing, taking power, and maintaining it.
You could say that i'm totally against morals? But that's not the truth, with the advent of "Doublethink", morals could be very useful, but only on the purposes stated above.

Morals are nothing more than laws of society, constructed to control how the individual - the state's property - behaves and thinks, that is an assault against the very core of human life. - Self-Freedom -

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

And for the ones that, still with the reminder above, attacks my very own property through my philosophical thought, i'll quote Max Stirner:

“You call me the unhuman," it might say to him, "and so I really am—for you; but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not—unique. But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the—unique.” - Max Stirner

A human is an freedom searcher, that only searches for itself...

What is progress? I'll let Nietzsche answer your question:

"Humanity doesn't represent in absolute an evolution in direction for the better, to the strongest, to the most elevated. Progress is just a modern idea, therefore, a false idea." Friedrich Nietzsche - The Antichrist

But who are you talking about? — boethius

The heads of states. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc... The individuals that really took power, for me, they only used Socialism as a mean to inhibit their egoism, because they didn't accepted who they really were.

If you're talking about every single person that has tried to unionize (take some degree of control over the means of production) or that has founded a cooperative for socialist beliefs or the people who overthrew the Russian Tzar (not knowing yet the Soviet Union would become a totalitarian nightmare) or the communists that resisted the Nazi's (and were tortured when found)... — boethius

I don't see how these people were integrated in my comment (at least the politically active ones), for me they were only poor, uneducated people that thought that in that moment, Socialism was the only way out.

belief that self-interest is justified, therefore reasoning backwards to what ideologies promote one's self-interest (regardless if the ideology is true or not)? — boethius

This definitely describes the kind of people that enjoy the egoism of Socialism, but my point is that they use their rethorical power over lies to govern over the masses, i'm not saying that this is wrong or otherwise, i'm just pointing out that they don't accept their own greed.

I remember a teacher of mine once saying:

-If someday you come say to me that you finished reading one of Nietzsche's works, with a big smile, i would happily say that you didn't understand a thing of the whole work, because if you understanded it, in such a young age, your mental faculties could be negatively affected.

So it's alright if you read it and got a negative opinion on him, or of the whole context, that meant that you in reality, didn't understand what brilliant Nietzsche wanted to say.

But where is the general comprehensive guide on how to live your life? — Purple Pond

This is almost an utopian kind of question. How to live your life? That's only for the individual to learn and understand as better as he can, some may understand 100% of it and live a great life, but that life could be the worse one for someone else. In conclusion, the individual has his life, and how he will live it, it's only for him to get.

God is a concept, and as a concept, is an idea, ideas are not physically existent, neither do they exist in another realm, another plane of existence, they only exist inside or own, creative, mind to suit our own needs.

...that a fetus does not assault the mother by being present because the mother's actions caused it to be formed? — Serving Zion

The female individual can very well choose to become pregnant, and through the act of "doublethink", see the fetus as an "assaulting" of her own will and as a "choice" of her own will, and in the end opt to an abort. (Remember, in this case, morals are not applied)

Humans can be "evil", that is, in the case of western morals views, or they can be "egoists" in the case of thinking in humans in their most primeval form.

If you accept that humans are not "evil" but indeed "egoists", you can notice that indeed, "good" is only a reflection of someone's egoistic nature. So in conclusion, good is unnecessary, but for it to exist as a choice in life, egoism is obliged to exist.

How did that happen? .. Did it result from the choice of the fetus, or the mother? — Serving Zion

It resulted by the individual choice of the female, and only by her choice. (The most important property that we all have is ourselves.)

Perception of ownership (by a murderer or a law maker) does not negate the validity of a moral complaint by the one who was murdered. — Serving Zion

Morals only serves to inhibit the individual freedom of expressing its own will, so in this case, as the fetus is "assaulting" the will of the female individual, abortion is justified.

I mean that all socialists (at least the politically active ones) use the method of hypocrisy to their advantage and this is the "doublethink", they know that what they say in most cases is not true, but they accept it as the only truth, because for them, that "truth" is the best one in the immediate case. What is more egoistic than consficate the property of the people for their own state-proclaimed "good"?

So in conclusion, Socialism as a mean to hold on power worked, but as a political ideology no, it failed miserably.

In the case of a female individual being pregnant, ,as her body is her property and only hers, she has the freedom to do whatever she wants with it (and as the fetus is being carried by her, it becomes her property). In this case, it's not categorized as murder.

Yes, you precisely took the point.

"The only god that exists is yourself"

Socialism could have taken power over all the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, only if they had let their tactics of "doublethink" aside and truly accepted their egoistic nature.
In reality, what most people don't understand is that Socialism truly worked (as a mean to hold on power), but Communism can never be achieved.

As an egoist, atheism is a core principle because having something or someone above yourself putting laws or tenets that could rule your most precious property - yourself - is an agression against your individual. "The only god that exists is yourself"

The most pure form of a human being is that of egoism, or how our society loves to put "evil nature". Our way of thinking comes from the basis of destructive thinking, "doublethink", we accept false statements only to acquire that who doesn't belong to us. War, misery, destruction, etc, all of this come from the egoism, but not to metion the benefits that this selfishness brings to humanity would be evil of me. Peace, Prosperity, progress, all of this comes through the "Destruction" that humanity carries with it.

Even when knowing that the universe can be explained without a "spiritual" concept, humanity (in its majority), would still cling to the doctrine of a metaphysical world, a "world beyond our own", that no one can explain and truly understand.