Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Identity Politics Is Communism 101

All of this "Identity Politics" you've seen over the last two years is Communism 101.

The goal is to pit "oppressor" against "victim" to divide society.

Communism is a toxic ideology that leads to the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th Century. Most of those victims that were murdered for "the common good" were the very people that helped to promote Communism into power.

Communism and Socialism are the same things. They both usurp the property rights of a society for redistribution. Under these systems when workers feel that the weight of production on their shoulders is too great to support "the common good", productivity declines, leaving a vacuum of necessary goods and services that cause economic instability.

When people revolt against the government due to shortages, it requires a firm authoritarian hand to suppress the ensuing uprising. This leads to many, many deaths.

If you truly love people, you do not want to expose them to this kind of hell. As government power grows under mob rule of a pure democracy, the masses will vote themselves more and more benefits requiring taxpayers to foot the bill. Once taxpayers stop contributing to the system, the escalations I have outlined will ensue.

But don't take my word for it. Do a little bit a research. See how many deaths happened under Communism. Find out WHY these systems had unrest in their civilian populations.

See how the subversive politics of Communist actors mislead the masses of impoverished people into believing they were ushering in a better life for themselves. Then look at what really happened to their lives.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

I Deleted My Twitter Account

If you were following me on Twitter, don't be alarmed.

I did not block you.
I did not get suspended.
I did not get hacked.

I'm tired of Twitter's censorship because I believe in #FreeSpeech more than anything in the world.

So now I use Gab.ai as my primary social media presence.

Yes, you will find hate speech there.  But you can also control what content you can see and you can mute things you don't want to see.  The power lies in your hands not a corporation.

If interested, follow me on Gab:

https://gab.ai/wocassity

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Is Anti-Hate Speech a form of Anti-Intellectualism?

How is Free Speech virtuous?  Can a concept in and of itself contain virtue? No.  Ideas are concepts that have not been initiated by action.  But when we speak those concepts aloud, then yes they are virtuous, because virtue is “behavior showing high moral standards”. What is the high moral standard that Free Speech expresses? Free Speech advocates the propagation of new ideas even if that is not the intent of an individual’s motives. Speech is a vehicle in which we transfer ideas from ourselves to others so that those ideas can be evaluated for their merits or lack thereof. Even with a motive to share common knowledge as information, it has the capacity to formulate new ideas for both the speaker and the listener.  With the exchange of ideas through the unopposed transmission of free speech, we create a neverending environment of new idea production.
People make associations of concepts by deriving conclusions based on their previous experiences, the environment around them, and new information collected. This is what we refer to as the individual’s perspective. I could have an idea or concept in my mind and share it with two different individuals and these two individuals could draw two different conclusions from the new information that I present based on their previous experience and knowledge.  The more individuals I share this knowledge with, the more individual perspectives I will acquire as feedback.  When I see many individuals returning similar thought concepts I can safely conclude that most of these individuals have similar histories or life experiences with similar use of logic and knowledge.
The virtue of free speech is the courage to put forth ideas in order to challenge existing ideological structures in the hope of producing new ideas by constantly evaluating those concepts against standardized thinking in order to find an individual who holds a uniquely personal and intellectual perspective, generating a new concept.
I want to find the most unique perspectives possible in order to propagate the most unique ideas. I cannot do so if I am limiting my audience to only a select few or keeping the ideas to myself.
Intellect doesn’t always have to be the primary factor in producing a new idea. Sometimes the most simplistic approach can accomplish more than the most complex individual perspective. This is why we hear the term “From the mouth of babes.”
When you shut down free speech because you personally find ideas that do not measure up to your own as offensive, this is a willful admittance that you do not possess the courage to search for new ideas or to be challenged because your own ideas may not hold up under scrutiny.  But what’s worse is you make yourself lesser by omission because you are conceding that your own unique perspectives do not have enough value to generate new ideas within yourself or within others. Perhaps you even fear that new ideas or concepts will change you and you do not want to evolve, causing self-inflicted emotional and mentally stunted growth.
Free speech also helps us to make order out of chaos through the exercise of learning how to articulate broken or disjointed thoughts and conveying them to others. The more practice we have articulating fragmented ideas to pose for evaluation, the stronger our skillset becomes with articulating those ideas, but also our ideas are tried and tested under the scrutiny of others.  Just like when our muscles in our bodies become stronger with exercise, the stronger our arguments and our ideas become when we engage in dialogue.
When we choose to limit free speech to only non-offensive speech, what we have to understand is that any situation, any idea, any concept can be viewed from both an advantageous or disadvantageous individual’s perspective.  For example, if someone views a scene of children playing in the street on their way to work as an advantage, the scene may invoke thoughts or feelings of nostalgia reminiscing on their own time in the streets as children. But if the viewer of the children is running late for work, this may invoke feelings of anger and frustration as the little rugrats are impeding their way to work. So who gets to decide what is advantageous or disadvantageous?  The individual.  Who gets to decide what’s offensive or not offensive?
Is being anti-hate speech the same as being anti-thought and anti-intellectual? I think so.
How many conversations throughout human history did it take for us to conceptualize the ideas that we have today? These ideas did not simply spring into existence.  Many underlying ideas developed into philosophies of thought that form the structures of our modern society. How many more conversations do we need to advance to the next step of our thought evolution? By artificially reducing the number of conversations through the censoring of hate speech, we are, in effect, stunting society’s evolution of thought.
Having the courage to resist censorship of speech to express ideas through free speech is virtuous by promoting the evolution of thought through dialogue.
Let us do a thought experiment and fast forward to the end of time where we can see the entirety of all sentient thought as an overview.  Now, let us pick an idea anywhere from the timeline at random and evaluate it.  Is there anyone else anywhere on that timeline that can look at that randomly selected idea and say it is “bad” or “offensive”? Sure.  Their opinions are based on their individual perspective, whether they are logically accurate or not. Finding someone to disagree with any idea isn’t difficult.
What about more than one individual looking at the idea and finding it “bad” or “offensive”?  Does having a consensus that an idea is “bad” or “offensive” make it so, when it wasn’t otherwise considered before just by looking at one person’s perspective?  No.  So consensus that an idea is “bad” or “offensive” does not hold the burden of proof that it is.  It all goes back to the judgment of the individual on their own level.
Let’s take a look at the year 1903.  And we’ll look at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.  There we will find two brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright.  They have an idea and they designed a device that they intended to use to fly through the air.  Now at that time, there were many people who viewed this concept as a “bad” or “offensive” idea.  Some said that the sky was the realms of birds and of God.  Others said that if God had intended for man to fly, he would have given us wings! In the end, there was a consensus that building a device that could allow men to fly would be “bad” or “offensive”, some even viewed it as outright sacrilege.  In hindsight, I think that you will find very view people in the remainder of history after those events that would still believe flying was a bad idea when it brought humanity so many new advantages and enhanced our understanding of the Universe in which we lived.
So when we dismiss someone’s argument or point of view by labeling it “bad” or “offensive”, we may be tempted to use ad hominems to discredit our opponent.  This is intellectually lazy and we miss opportunities to engage and strengthen our own arguments as well as the opportunity to impart knowledge.  We may argue that it is not worth our time to deal with an imbecile.  I beg to differ.  We might just be the ones that discover the root cause of “that imbecile’s” unproductive thinking.
We object to things we find offensive when we have no arguments. We reinforce our own closed minded world views and we stunt our own personal growth. When we object to an argument by attacking the individual we disagree with, are we not reinforcing disdain against our own perspectives.  We cannot erase unproductive or negative thinking with more negative and reactionary thinking.  The only true way to uproot an illogical argument is by using logic by discovering the bad seed of the source of undesirable behavior and shedding light on it.
We grow every single day as we add new information and new experiences to our perspectives. You are not the same person you were 10 years ago and you won’t be the same person you are now 10 years from now.  Perhaps I might look back on this very argument and call myself naive as I continue to put forth my own ideas to be challenged and I refine my arguments or change my position entirely.  This is a process that I’m not afraid of because I’m intentionally seeking to change my perspective by acquiring new knowledge.
Speaking of knowledge, this brings me to another point:  I see the pursuit of knowledge as another virtue of free speech.  Even if someone is saying something to be intentionally offensive, any attempts to engage that individual’s ideas become an opportunity to learn more about yourself and to strengthen your own arguments as well as gaining insight into others that you share your society with. With the addition of social media available to us today, we have the capacity to engage in larger, focused conversations to sort out our ideas from our own unique perspectives and challenge one another to increase each other's own knowledge and understanding.  By interjecting forbidden topics or points, we are overlooking opportunities to improve our society and limiting the dissemination of new concepts that could invoke new ideas. We cannot learn from one another if we are not talking to one another.
You do not have to agree with my whole argument regarding the virtue of free speech for it to have value or meaning. Even if one phrase, one concept among the many I have shared in this conversation turns on a process of thought in your mind and you see that portion as truth, then I have successfully accomplished my goal even if you feel the rest of it is rubbish.  You can take that single notion and evolve your perspective in order to formulate ideas more unique than you could have before.
And if the entire premise I present today is complete rubbish to you, then you have proven yourself to have the capacity to examine my argument and reinforce your own understands from your individual perspective.  There is no loss here for being wrong about anything.  This is purely a win-win situation because we are free to have this discussion.
I would like to believe that the concepts I’ve outlined in this argument are a summary of other lines of thought that allowed me to produce new ideas that are uniquely my own.  I’ve never seen anyone pose some of these points on how new ideas are propagated by free speech before. These points of view were not laid out for me except in my own processes of thinking. Perhaps the argument exists in some long lost forgotten tome or perhaps it is a common discussion covered in everyday textbooks in college that I’ve never come across before. If that is the case, then you have an opportunity to impart your knowledge of such a work to me that will help me to grown from this experience. If the idea doesn’t exist in any text or lecture, it is possible that scholars or even sheepherders from a thousand years ago had this conversation but did not feel it had the merit to be heard and the information became lost.  I do not want my ideas to dissipate into nothing and that’s why I’m choosing to share my ideas, putting them out there to be challenged and having the courage to not be afraid of using my sense of personal agency to speak what I hold to be true.
With this argument, I may have inadvertently misstepped and made mistakes in my deduction of logic and that’s ok. Because I had the courage to not only articulate these ideas but to share them with others, I’m continuing to move the conversation forward, which in practice reveals another virtue of free speech by expressing the courage to speak the truth. Even if I have failed to deliver a convincing argument, pieces of its structure may help those who hear my message and this could propagate the creation of new ideas within their own conscious that have the potential to evolve the concepts of human thinking.  It would be a shame if you kept them to yourself.
Those of us who are not nihilists say that we are searching for meaning to our lives.  Well, who are you if you are not the sum of all of your ideas based on your personal experiences and interactions?  Your ideas are the greatest representation of who you are and how you will leave your mark on society.  My ideas will not die with me.  I exchanged these ideas with my children and as my children add their own perspectives to these ideas, they will impart new ideas to their children who will also formulate their own ideas.  Even if my words as they exist today fail to hold the same meaning 100 years from now, you can be certain that within my own family these ideas will be at the heart of the structure of the ideas for my family to come. In that way, the concepts of my limited imagination and perspective are immortalized and will become more than what I have achieved within my own lifetime.  Do I need to be accredited for that achievement in order to matter to posterity a thousand years from now?  No.  Because I know my words will never truly die.  They will simply evolve into new ideas and I’m grateful to have been part of the conversation.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Accursed: A Short Journey Into Darkness Issue 3

Young lovers Robbie and Taliana meet under a full moon hoping to complete the ancient mating ritual of the Salaseura Libahuntide, a society of shape-shifters living in secret among us, so close to completing their goal, they come upon the most fearsome beast to ever walk the earth: Man. Amidst the chaos, a curse unleashed threatens to expose the darkness that dwells within.

"Accursed" is the third story in the "A Short Journey Into Darkness" horror series by author W.O. Cassity. The short story series offers originally unique fiction written in vivid detail to immerse readers into the fringes of terror.
getBook.at/Accursed

Friday, September 9, 2016

Dementia Praecox Book Cover Reveal with Rafflecopter Giveaway

Available to Kindle users October 2, 2016.   Dementia Praecox will be the 2nd installment of my "A Short Journey Into Darkness" series.

Excerpt:

Skulking over the ledger’s musty-scented pages, Dr. Livingston dipped the oversized quill into the emerald-green inkwell before penning the latest entry:

11 November 1877
Bethlem Royal Hospital Bedlam
London, England


Subject 41 expired at approximately 10:22 p.m., possibly due to cardiac arrest once again. I wait for my assistant Hensley to deliver and release the corpse to the hospital morgue. My only concern is that there may perhaps be further inquiry into the claw-like contusions upon the deceased's forearms and along his facial cheeks. I still cannot fathom how the subject, who was restrained, managed to damage himself in such a way. Both Hensley and I agree that the peculiar wounds appeared to spontaneously appear across the patient’s flesh of their own accord.

Having witnessed this entire incident, I must admit that further precautions are still a necessity as I continue to push on toward a resolution to this condition. The screams of the patient still reverberate within my ears at those haunting terrors, which only existed in his tormented mind. My first assertion is that the patient’s experience became so vivid, he was somehow able to enact the subjective manifestations of his consciousness into literal lacerations upon his extremities. Perhaps Hensley and I are the first to witness the true potential of the human mind to inflict its falsely perceived stimuli upon the body during a controlled experiment. Mind over the material world indeed! This may warrant further exploration in the future after I have completed my current work toward a cure for dementia praecox.

When Hensley returns, he will prepare Subject 42 for her time in the chair. I will administer the new cocktail of ingredients according to the schedule after readjusting the chloroform and nitrous oxide levels for proper sedation during the procedure. Even though she’s much smaller than Subject 41, we still need to gauge the appropriate levels of anesthesia so Subject 42 will remain conscious yet controllable and programmable during the procedure.

As I understand it, Subject 42 has a peculiarly heightened state of hysteria, so perhaps this will allow us to mark any substantial improvements in her mental realignment using the electric resonating device with profound measure. It was difficult to identify the response from Subject 41 due to his condition’s tepid state and mannerisms.

Regardless of tonight’s setbacks, I have the utmost certainty that I can mitigate the issues Subject 41 experienced tonight. It is too soon for me to surrender now and too dangerous for me to stop. Questions are being asked already and if I do not have an answer to Annabelle’s condition soon, I may not be able to cure her ailment before they forcibly return me to New York if they discover what I have been doing. Certainly, they would shower me with accolades upon my substantial progress, but the board will need to see results and I need to save Annabelle if I am to marry her. She would definitively accept my proposal of marriage with a clear mind, for who else could liberate her from Dr. Kraepelin’s diagnosis other than the youngest fellow to be accepted by Bethlem Royal Hospital? At the age of thirty-seven, I will become renowned for such an achievement and therefore, Annabelle would accept me unconditionally.

E. L., PhD

Edgar rested his quill in the inkwell and remained still as he pondered what outcomes awaited him in the final experiment of the evening. A rapping at the heavy oak study door rescued him from his reverie.

“Yes, what is it?” he asked.

“Dr. Livingston, Subject 42 is now prepped for the resonance procedure,” Hensley responded. “Should I start charging the apparatus?”

“Indeed, Hensley. I shall be there momentarily.”

***

There is also a Rafflecopter giveaway for a $10 Amazon Gift Card to celebrate this book cover reveal. Sign up for your chance to win!

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Monday, August 29, 2016

Flash Fiction: Reflections of Persuasion

Silhouettes danced across the bedroom wall reflecting in the glass as Laura settled on her seat in front of the mirror. She glanced with curiosity at how the light assailing the room from the window danced across the smooth pane surface, cascading in an array of fractured radiance. The light poured through drawn lavender curtains that gently billowed through the crisp morning air, of which its moisture refused to caress her skin.

She gestured her hands, watching herself as she rearranged the contents of her dressing mirror in an officious fashion. These were the moments of memories which were longingly seared upon her conscience in thoughtful contemplation about her existence. Laura studied her bright pensive cerulean eyes as they gleamed of optimism blended with melancholy. If the mirror were porous, perhaps she could reach through to cradle her own dimpled chin with reassurance. Her lips quivered unintentionally around thoughts of isolation.

Her life was nothing more than reactionary at this point as she absentmindedly began the motion of brushing her shoulder-length blond hair. She stared off in the distance longing to feel the soft stroke of the brush across her numb scalp, to experience the comfort of fluid repetitive vibration emanated with each downward motion.

Laura dared to glance by way of the mirror before her at the cracks surrounding the pearlescent opal painted door with the long, curled brass handle and matching rustic style hinges across the room behind her. The unfathomable darkness of the void beyond light’s reach ebbed at the crevices, beckoning her to return to its unfeeling solace.

A gentle rapping at the door in the mirror startled her from her reverie. She spun around involuntarily to hear her voice echo behind her, “Yes?”

“Milady, your car has arrived.”

Her heart faltered feeling the front of herself fading, forced to stare at that cursed door. Fixed in place, Laura remained motionless as the response came, “Thank you, Brandon. I’ll be there shortly.”

Swinging back to face the mirror, she could see her pale cheeks were flushed as blood rushed back into them. She glanced back over her face once more, scratching numbly at the side of her sloped nose to remove a fine piece of lint. A sigh escaped her lips, the warm air collected on the mirror’s surface in a fine mist, distorting her view.

Laura rose quickly, consciously trying to resist the pull away from the mirror toward the door. She turned to see the brass handle on the foreboding door had become distorted from the mist on the mirror disrupting the flow of the light. She walked briskly across the room reaching for the askew door handle. The darkness licked at the fissures surrounding the frame.

In one fluid motion, Laura opened the door to the abyss to walk through and involuntarily slammed it closed behind her. In a fleeting moment, she blended with the darkness knowing she would vanish until the proper Laura returned to the room with the mirror to tend to her appearance.

The reflection of Laura was once again swallowed by oblivion.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Book Cover Reveal Update: Dementia Praecox

Lola Blog Tours is sponsoring the book cover reveal for my latest horror short story, "Dementia Praecox" on September 9, 2016.  This is the second story in my "Short Journey Into Darkness" series.    I will be revealing the cover here the same day.    
Dementia Praecox is available for pre-order on Amazon now and will be available through Kindle Unlimited on October 2, 2016. Patreons will have early release access on September 18, 2016. Feel free to contact me with any questions!  
~Will