on individualist anarchism

through reason i have found it tempting to abandon the leadership of man in countless occasions. through experience i have found it advantageous. through intuition i have found this to be one of the more fulfilling ways to live a life. now the thing is, as good as it may be to hold this perception of reality, there exists a dilemma which troubles me from sharing this philosophy with others.

the paradox lies within the concept that each man only truly understands himself best, and so there is no greater mortal leader walking this earth other than this man himself. therefore who am i to lead anyone to what is best for him, since i myself have abandoned concept of someone else knowing what is best for me?

yet just as i have struggled and taken hold of my right to liberty, so should it be availed to all that which i have found for myself!

trust

nobody cannot be hypnotised, in a sense that they cant be made to do things against their will--people can only be unethically betrayed by someone they trust.

now when people willingly allow someone to lead the way, much like how disciples trust their rabbi, how much responsibility is weighed on the followers and how much on the leader should one day all that trust evaporates and all become suddenly aware?

once upon a time they were proud to feel like acolytes of a just cause, but now merely puppets of an insidious manipulator. how easily can the perception of someone change when respect is lost? the truth is appalling yet important to learn early: a respected image is afforded glorious amounts of good intentions and bright perceptions. a disrespected image is easy target for all that is unworthy. there is delusion in both; not everyone is truly good--not everyone truly bad.

when we respect someone, we follow them every step of the way, like a compass. we follow them on the path and off the track. we continue following them even after they lead us into the pit. we dont continue to follow them after this simply because we trust them. we do so because we respect them. time has taught us that respectable people are people of good judgment, therefore we trust in those whom we respect. somewhere along the line people muddle this up and and end up trusting in those whom others respect or in whom we are told to respect. and because this respect was demanded by herd logic, that this respect was never earned, from the get-go, the trust was invoked upon false respect. that trust is nonsense on stilts...

when push comes to shove, when the stilts fall away and trust is threatened, there is no earned respect to prop everything up. when the follower asks himself "why did i trust that man?", he does not get an answer, because that trust was based on respect that was not earned...

i often think of people who blame God when things dont pan out. they question the land, they gaze at the sky and they shout at the sea for things that neither the land nor sky nor sea had a hand in influencing...finally they blame themselves, and they do so wondering why they put so much trust in what they put their trust in: "why God? why me?" these very people, i have realised, are able to blame God because they are convinced of their own blamelessness. they are unable to be accountable for their own decisions.

they are the people who ask for legal advice but fire the lawyer when things dont work out. they are the people who pay for tuition but fire the tutor when things dont work out. they are the people who elect the president but revolt when things dont work out. they are the same people who join the cult but persecute the leader when things dont work out. they are the people who be believe in God but blame Him when things dont work out.

yes they are the very same people who continue to trust blindly for the convenience of limited accountability. who are you influenced by, and to what extent do you truly trust that person to follow even beyond your own understanding?

deserveth

goodlooking people have the fame, wealthy people have the power, and smart people have the reputation. and so it is that the handsome and the rich and the intelligent can be assholes and jerks and do however they please and be whomever they want, and the masses will take it as they come. all because fame, power and reputation are there to reward for putting up with all the crap.

now the thing is that should you have neither, or should you have little of either, then you have little justification for being yourself. putting aside the argument of whether this justification is just, lets just accept this for the fact that the world runs on what it runs, not on what is just.

now the average-looking and the working class and the fellow man have little to offer and so little to bargain with, that none of them can truly be himself, but only a fraction of it after working harder than the handsome or the rich or the intellectual man, only to fall short.

it is a tragedy: that because i am not charming enough--because i am not powerful enough--because i am not respectable enough, i cannot survive as well as the gifted to be myself enough. so that at the end of the day, who am i, so dimunitive, that i can demand the things for which i do not have the credit to compensate? who will take my shit for what little i can offer them, of which is also shit?

intj part quatre

http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Introverted_Intuition

INJs are typically concerned with finding an independent and all-encompassing perspective on whatever interests them, so they can see it without bias, without being fooled or led along by ways in which other interests have set things up, and without a merely partial understanding.

an almost obsessive trait of mine--the importance of being untainted by bias to obtain truth that cannot be shaken. any bias attached to a particular truth is a weakness to that truth. it is not obvious? i search for immovable anchors of truth because such are the only places worth the effort to find. i am motivated to do it because being wrong is a waste of time in many ways. it is also proof of poor judgment. do we not get ourselves educated to improve our judgment?

the world is filled with poor anchors such as simplistic explanations, overused arguments and positions taken for granted without proper understanding. it is easy to take sides in debates, but rarely does the participant appreciate the position he takes over the veil of weak assumptions held down tight by the rush of adrenaline from being in heated quarrels. why are you here? what is your argument? why are you arguing it? the digger you deep into yourself...

...you find yourself uncovering ever more and more hidden assumptions, and you feel the need to distance yourself from those, too, before you get your hands dirty or draw a conclusion.

this explains the perpetual fact of my argumentative nature quickly transforming into the polemic style. many times i have gone into arguments coming out realising that when people get into disagreements about something, they are actually arguing about something else more fundamental. its fun to be one of the few who realise this. its not fun to know that people are wasting their time not realising that they are fooled by the very assumptions they adopt so readily.

..you might feel very impressed upon meeting a man wearing a fancy Italian suit (signs call forth a natural response and need no interpretation); from an Ni perspective, you would consciously say to yourself that he's wearing an Italian suit and this is supposed to make you think he's wealthy or upper-class or really has his act together or something like that, and therefore is supposed to make you feel impressed (signs and what they mean are connected only arbitrarily). Whether he really does have his act together is a matter upon which you reserve judgement. Consequently you don't feel impressed.

so i am rarely impressed, and it all has to do with introverted intuition protecting me from too quickly internalising interpretations without first understanding them. this is skepticism in the purest form. this might lead me to reject many opinions especially ones that i have considered before, consequently giving the impression that i am never wrong or always right. on the other hand i already know that it is inherently fallacious to accept the popular opinion simply because it is popular. i already know the the Ni function is the least common of all the 8 jungian functions.

on one hand least deluded, on the other, most hated. such is the nature of nature.

i am become like them