"World War Weird" is a delightful and accurate term. Others might call it "World War Woo".
Thank you for all you have done, and I am delighted to see how you view all of what has happened to you over the years, as that will continue to carry you forward.
I think we are going to see many good things soon. Let's hope they bring you relief from stress and some kind of outward reward. At least enough to get your bills paid reliably and easily! :-)
You're so on point. I've been feeling really tired and out of sorts for the past couple of weeks. I know I'm not the same person I was 6 years ago and I welcome that. I feel much more heart centred and happier, despite all the chaos. It's lovely to come on here and know we're really supported and appreciated by eachother and we have you to thank for that. Onwards and definitely upwards.
There is no third option. Weird as it all can seem, I know with certainty that the Holy Spirit within Us is our source of nervous system resilience and standing together, we co-mingle that strength, and the hope that is our faith. I feel gratitude more than I can express for watching the man You are grow with every experience and humbly come alongside You as we navigate what nothing can stop from coming!
a long-time supporter here, writing to share something that may interest you.
Your closing line today — are we ruled by a holy spirit, or by man's symbols? — is a question I recognise from an unexpected source. The novelist Yukio Mishima trained in jurisprudence at Tokyo Imperial University and spent his career's masterwork, the four-volume Sea of Fertility tetralogy, asking exactly that question. His narrator Honda is a judge who spends sixty years inside a system of hollow forms, procedure performing itself in the absence of the authority it claims, while the evidence of his own experience tells him something the ancient Laws of Manu already knew: that law requires a metaphysical ground it cannot itself supply.
I have written an essay exploring the connection between his work and yours. Here is the link in case it is of interest.
Martin, I so love your work. If there has been an absence on my part I’ll blame it on my current status of grandmother!! A hip, youthful version if you will…I feel way too young but at 63 I’m in that sweet spot of the next phase of life. It has brought me joy beyond belief and a welcome pause on all of the bs that surrounds me. You are so valuable to the movement…even the legal aspects you are in at home. Surely your words are helping many. I know your work has lifted me at times I needed lifting and that is a nod from our Creator imho. I long for a lack of lack …for you and all who are suffering needlessly. I envision the demons inhabited by humans realizing the gig is up for them. It is coming. All signs point to it but as one of my favorite musical talents Tom Petty sings the waiting is the hardest part. I don’t know you personally but I imagine we would be friends if we did know each other. I am with you in this struggle and I pray you are released from these tyrannical govt despots soon. Humanity has suffered enough. Much love from Texas❤️🕊️🙏
Well done Martin, you've been doing a great job and your reward is your self respect and the respect of others like me, which I'm sure will turn into more tangible benefits over the course of the next few years - slowly but surely. I've found that 'soul growth' is painful but amazingly important and rewarding and in this respect, you're flying high above your sleeping contemporaries with their creature comforts. Onwards and upwards!
"In essence, the fight has not changed one iota since Roman times, if not before. Are we ruled by a holy spirit, or by man’s symbols? Pick one. There is no third option."
Option 3: Rand; The Objectivist's Ethics, 1961
Excerpt:
"Since I am to speak on the Objectivist Ethics, I shall begin by quoting its best representative — John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged:
“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. . . . You went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? — by what standard?
“You wanted to know John Galt’s identity. I am the man who has asked that question.
“Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. . . . Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality . . . but to discover it.”
What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions — the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.
The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all — and why?
Is the concept of value, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality — or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence? (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles — or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims: of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations — or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury — or an objective necessity?
In the sorry record of the history of mankind’s ethics — with a few rare, and unsuccessful, exceptions — moralists have regarded ethics as the province of whims, that is: of the irrational. Some of them did so explicitly, by intention — others implicitly, by default. A “whim” is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause.
No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.
Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God.
The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable “will of God” as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with “the good of society,” thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as “the standard of the good is that which is good for society.” This meant, in logic — and, today, in worldwide practice — that “society” stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since “the good” is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that “society” may do anything it pleases, since “the good” is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And — since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men — this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang’s desires.
This could hardly be called rational, yet most philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics — in the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his life’s goals — man must be guided by something other than reason. By what? Faith — instinct — intuition — revelation — feeling — taste — urge — wish — whim. Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it “arbitrary postulate” or “subjective choice” or “emotional commitment”) — and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one’s own or society’s or the dictator’s or God’s. Whatever else they may disagree about, today’s moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason — mind — reality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics — and of all ethical history — that you must challenge.
To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”
This essay contains the source of your illusive Attribution. It gives reason for the personal and organizational predisposition to Continuity. Every human has to learn, from tabula rasa, the objective or subjective values that guide a life.
Next to operation paperclip there was operation 'Sunrise' operating via the Vatican to get NAZI members into south america, but maybe this was also connected to the Argentine ratlines.
During a period of harsh-ship, I did not pay council tax for years and got away with it, idem with court fines, credit card debt with it charges, penalty charge notices and bay-lifters. Used a system introduced by Winston Shroud now by YouandYourCash.
'World war weird' = to get us all discombobulated and submissive; apart from those who understand you; Thanks
Thank you for your honesty. I needed this today.
I heart you soooooo much......a tear or two as I stare out of my window....good to have you here brother.
"World War Weird" is a delightful and accurate term. Others might call it "World War Woo".
Thank you for all you have done, and I am delighted to see how you view all of what has happened to you over the years, as that will continue to carry you forward.
I think we are going to see many good things soon. Let's hope they bring you relief from stress and some kind of outward reward. At least enough to get your bills paid reliably and easily! :-)
You're so on point. I've been feeling really tired and out of sorts for the past couple of weeks. I know I'm not the same person I was 6 years ago and I welcome that. I feel much more heart centred and happier, despite all the chaos. It's lovely to come on here and know we're really supported and appreciated by eachother and we have you to thank for that. Onwards and definitely upwards.
“World war weird”…yup
There is no third option. Weird as it all can seem, I know with certainty that the Holy Spirit within Us is our source of nervous system resilience and standing together, we co-mingle that strength, and the hope that is our faith. I feel gratitude more than I can express for watching the man You are grow with every experience and humbly come alongside You as we navigate what nothing can stop from coming!
Hi Martin
a long-time supporter here, writing to share something that may interest you.
Your closing line today — are we ruled by a holy spirit, or by man's symbols? — is a question I recognise from an unexpected source. The novelist Yukio Mishima trained in jurisprudence at Tokyo Imperial University and spent his career's masterwork, the four-volume Sea of Fertility tetralogy, asking exactly that question. His narrator Honda is a judge who spends sixty years inside a system of hollow forms, procedure performing itself in the absence of the authority it claims, while the evidence of his own experience tells him something the ancient Laws of Manu already knew: that law requires a metaphysical ground it cannot itself supply.
I have written an essay exploring the connection between his work and yours. Here is the link in case it is of interest.
https://finnianreilly.substack.com/p/the-ghost-court-and-the-hollow-form
best regards
Finnian Reilly
Martin, I so love your work. If there has been an absence on my part I’ll blame it on my current status of grandmother!! A hip, youthful version if you will…I feel way too young but at 63 I’m in that sweet spot of the next phase of life. It has brought me joy beyond belief and a welcome pause on all of the bs that surrounds me. You are so valuable to the movement…even the legal aspects you are in at home. Surely your words are helping many. I know your work has lifted me at times I needed lifting and that is a nod from our Creator imho. I long for a lack of lack …for you and all who are suffering needlessly. I envision the demons inhabited by humans realizing the gig is up for them. It is coming. All signs point to it but as one of my favorite musical talents Tom Petty sings the waiting is the hardest part. I don’t know you personally but I imagine we would be friends if we did know each other. I am with you in this struggle and I pray you are released from these tyrannical govt despots soon. Humanity has suffered enough. Much love from Texas❤️🕊️🙏
World War Weird! Ha ha, I love it. So apt.
Well done Martin, you've been doing a great job and your reward is your self respect and the respect of others like me, which I'm sure will turn into more tangible benefits over the course of the next few years - slowly but surely. I've found that 'soul growth' is painful but amazingly important and rewarding and in this respect, you're flying high above your sleeping contemporaries with their creature comforts. Onwards and upwards!
When the going gets weird,
the weird turn pro.
HS Tompson
Kindness!
"In essence, the fight has not changed one iota since Roman times, if not before. Are we ruled by a holy spirit, or by man’s symbols? Pick one. There is no third option."
Option 3: Rand; The Objectivist's Ethics, 1961
Excerpt:
"Since I am to speak on the Objectivist Ethics, I shall begin by quoting its best representative — John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged:
“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. . . . You went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? — by what standard?
“You wanted to know John Galt’s identity. I am the man who has asked that question.
“Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. . . . Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality . . . but to discover it.”
What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions — the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.
The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all — and why?
Is the concept of value, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality — or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence? (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles — or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims: of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations — or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury — or an objective necessity?
In the sorry record of the history of mankind’s ethics — with a few rare, and unsuccessful, exceptions — moralists have regarded ethics as the province of whims, that is: of the irrational. Some of them did so explicitly, by intention — others implicitly, by default. A “whim” is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause.
No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.
Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God.
The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable “will of God” as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with “the good of society,” thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as “the standard of the good is that which is good for society.” This meant, in logic — and, today, in worldwide practice — that “society” stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since “the good” is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that “society” may do anything it pleases, since “the good” is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And — since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men — this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang’s desires.
This could hardly be called rational, yet most philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics — in the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his life’s goals — man must be guided by something other than reason. By what? Faith — instinct — intuition — revelation — feeling — taste — urge — wish — whim. Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it “arbitrary postulate” or “subjective choice” or “emotional commitment”) — and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one’s own or society’s or the dictator’s or God’s. Whatever else they may disagree about, today’s moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason — mind — reality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics — and of all ethical history — that you must challenge.
To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”
This essay contains the source of your illusive Attribution. It gives reason for the personal and organizational predisposition to Continuity. Every human has to learn, from tabula rasa, the objective or subjective values that guide a life.
Mike
Great article to which I very much relate to in all aspects ....
I agree .... It seems to have boiled down to all or nothing happening at this point.
I wonder sometimes what part we play in that decision ... Maybe more than we think ...
That thought keeps me focused, faithful and hopeful. It's part my duty / oath as a soldier in this spiritual War ...
Next to operation paperclip there was operation 'Sunrise' operating via the Vatican to get NAZI members into south america, but maybe this was also connected to the Argentine ratlines.
During a period of harsh-ship, I did not pay council tax for years and got away with it, idem with court fines, credit card debt with it charges, penalty charge notices and bay-lifters. Used a system introduced by Winston Shroud now by YouandYourCash.
'World war weird' = to get us all discombobulated and submissive; apart from those who understand you; Thanks