November 8, 2014 by Paul McKeever
To produce the values upon which ones survival and happiness depend, one must engage in rational action. Those who are more consistently rational, and those who are physically more powerful, are the strong. The irrational, and the physically less powerful, are the weak.
The weak are unwilling or unable to produce some or all of the values that can be produced by the strong. The weak can obtain those products only if the strong produce them. And, if the weak have no values to trade (material or spiritual), or if they are unwilling to give them up in exchange for the values they want to obtain from the strong, the weak can obtain values from the strong only by way of the charity of the strong, by looting the strong, or by mooching from the strong.
Looting and mooching require dishonest words or acts. Dishonest words or acts are irrational and so fall within the domain of the weak. In contrast, the receipt of charity does not require dishonest words or deeds. It requires nothing of the recipient except the producer’s voluntary good will toward innocent human beings who are in peril.
Because irrational thought and inaction leave one lacking what the strong have produced, lacking what the strong have produced implies that one is weak and irrational. Lacking what the strong have is, therefore, embarrassing. It leaves one feeling ashamed and without self-esteem. And, if one, irrationally, blames someone else for lacking what the strong have produced – god, society, etc. – one might also feel resentment toward that person.
If one is willing to delude oneself, one can pretend that lacking what the strong have produced is no indication that one is weak and irrational. One can pretend that despite the fact that one lacks what the strong have produced, one is strong, is rational, and has no reason to feel shame or embarrassment. One can inflate ones sense of self-esteem with foul gas by denying the connection between ones weakness or strength, and the fact that one does not have what the strong have produced. One can externalize the cause of ones lacking, and push out of ones mind any connection between producing values and deserving them.
Of course, that delusion cannot long withstand an empty stomach. Accordingly, if one is to remain deluded, one must cause others to engage in the same self-delusion; to eliminate the connection between not having what the strong have produced, and the assessment of one’s weakness or strength. One must lie, or make useful but arbitrary claims without caring about their truth or falsehood (i.e., bullshit).
Among the weak, the willingness so to lie is the point of departure between the innocent person in peril, and the guilty moocher or looter. Knowing this, the moocher and the looter attempt to wipe out the distinction between the innocent imperiled, and their guilty selves. Innocence and guilt are removed from the characterization, leaving only: those “in need”. In this way, the weak who cannot produce are grouped – falsely equated – with the mooching or looting weak.
In this sense, the first victims of the moochers and looters are the innocently imperiled, from whom they loot the status of “innocent”. To the extent that the looters and moochers are successful in eliminating the distinction between themselves and the innocently imperiled, in the eyes of the strong, the innocently imperiled are made to appear guilty.
Having falsely portrayed themselves as being indistinguishable from the innocent weak, the guilty weak turn to lying about the strong. They accuse the strong of being dishonest. They falsely claim that the strong only pretend to produce and that, in reality, they get what they get by stealing from and enslaving the weak. They falsely claim that, therefore, the connection between being strong and being deserving is unwarranted.
How do the weak provide the services of a slave if, by definition, they are the weak? The guilty weak explain that no answer is possible. It is all so very complex that no human mind can comprehend it. We must simply accept that that there is no connection between being strong and being deserving, because the strong are thieving slavelords.
In truth, what is sought by the guilty weak, ultimately, is the enslavement of the strong by way of the transvaluation of all values. The weak must replace the strong as the good. The strong, by implication, must be regarded as the evil. The weak must be the ones deserving of values – of reverence, admiration, love, and material reward – and the strong must be sentenced to irreverence, disdain, hatred, and material production. Here, the slavery is real: there is no mystery about how someone capable of producing manages to produce.
If, during the process of enslavement of the strong by the guilty weak, one states a fact (a true claim) that contradicts a false or ambiguous claim upon which a weak person depends to justify his or her looting or mooching, one threatens the guilty weak’s ability to get something for nothing. If one correctly condemns the truly evil or praises the truly good, one’s expression of such moral valuations implies that moral valuations of the weak person’s falsehoods or evil deeds are appropriate. That threatens the weak person’s ability to transvaluate all values, and therefore threatens the weak person’s ability to enslave the strong. The expression of facts and rational values is a weapon that threatens the weak person’s mode of survival; a weapon that might cause the moocher or looter to feel shame and embarrassment.
Knowing this, the guilty weak demand that such weapons be prohibited; that truths be outlawed, and rational valuations punished. All public discourse must be emptied of truths and rational valuations so as to create a verbal vacuum that more easily can be filled with the lies and bullshit that make the transvaluation of all values possible and, through it, the enslavement of the strong, and the acquisition of something for nothing by the looting and mooching weak.
It follows that the strong must not surrender the two weapons they have: fact and value. Censorship must not be tolerated. Truth must be expressed. Falsehoods must be proven to be such. Physical evidence must be demanded from the distributors of arbitrary claims. The evil must be condemned as such, and the good praised even more loudly. Better must be recognized explicitly as better, and worse as worse. Strength must be honoured, and weakness not.
So as best to focus their defence on their would-be slavelords, the strong must remain aware not only of what is being done to them, but also of the nature of the people who are doing it. They are not “the left” or “the right”. They are not “the communists” or “the fascists”. They are “the weak”, and they must be identified as such – and condemned as evil and undeserving – whenever they, in their envy, engage in their dishonest efforts to enslave the strong. If ever they are to become strong, and to stand with the strong against would-be slavelords, they must not be allowed to continue their self-delusion, and must be forced to confront their shame and embarrassment.