AMORALLY I POST THIS TEXT CRITICIZING MORALITY. IT HAS A MAJOR FLAW THOUGH, IT DOESN’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF MORALITY, WHICH CAN’T BE ”EXORCISED” BY THINKING OR JUST CRITICIZING.Morality is the theory that every human act must be either right or wrong. The purpose of all moral systems is to fix human behavior through the imposition of absolute standards, which arc designed in such a manner as to remain beyond examination and critique. All moral systems are presented as the superior norm, the absolute law, the peremptory order that imposes on everyone, at all times, that which they must do and that which they must not do-applicable to all human beings without exception.

To fully understand how morality functions as a mechanism of Control, it’s helpful to examine the psychological functions underpinning moral codes and the justifications used for demanding universal obedience to them. Until recently one of the most common of these justifications was an appeal to god and, indeed, this has not completely disappeared. This god tells us what is right or wrong or so runs the belief. This metaphysical dream-concept issues rules for us to obey, and if we refuse to do so, this god will punish us, horribly. By threatening other people in such a manner, however, the moralist has changed the question from one of morality to one of expediency, to one of avoiding the painful results of not submitting to someone or something more powerful than ourselves.

Of course, there are those who don’t believe in a god who are nonetheless believers in morality. These humanistic moralists seek a sanction for their moral codes in some other fixed idea: the Common Good; a teleological conception of human evolution; the needs of humanity or society; natural rights, and so forth. A critical analysis of this type of moral justification shows that there is no more behind it than there is behind “the will of god”. Concepts such as the “common good” or “social welfare” are merely high-sounding pieces of rhetoric used to disguise the particular interests of those making use of them.

It is exactly this dressing up of particular interests as moral laws that lies behind the ideological masquerade of morality. Moral systems function as a concealment of real purpose and motive and are almost always a disguised “will to power”‘. Soak the luminous blueprints of the Moral Saviors of Humanity in the acid of brutal analysis and see the pattern hidden in the scroll: a desire to force a certain line of action upon everyone, a desire to rule and repress. It is only when, at certain times and places, by means of physical force or of superior cunning, some succeed in imposing their particular moral interpretation on others, that a single morality triumphs, understood and followed by all in the same fashion-as in the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church had dissolved all variety into unity. or as we see today in certain portions of the Islamic world.

One of the most popular uses of the moral myth is to add a garnish to the already unsavory dish of politics. By turning even the most trivial of political pursuits into a moral crusade one can be assured of the support of the credulous, the vindictive, and the envious, as well as giving a pseudo-strength to the weak and the wavering. While it is to be expected that those who desire to rule others will invoke moral reprimands in an attempt to convert (or purge) the ideological deviationist or critical iconoclast, it’s profoundly disheartening to observe self-professed anarchists acting out the same farce, in the form of politically-correct speech codes, dietary restrictions, consumer choices, dogmatic social ethics, and selfrighteous slave-moralities like pacifism. It’s hard to imagine anything more threadbare, more hopelessly platitudinous, to found an antiauthoritarian rebellion on than morality, yet anarchists do it all the time, to the detriment of their own struggle and credibility.

Egoism-conscious egoism-is neither moral nor immoral. It stands beyond ” good and evil”. It is amoral. An egoist may be truthful or untruthful, considerate or inconsiderate, generous or cruel, according to his nature, tastes, or circumstances, and at his own risk, but she is under no obligation to be any of these. She may behave in a way that the moral call “good” or in a way that they call “evil”, but he does so because he judges his interest to lie in one direction or the other, not because she is possessed by the spook of moralism or that of immoralism.

While the moralist tends to see conflicts between individuals (and groups and institutions) in terms of”right” and “wrong”, the egoist never considers either adversary right or wrong in any moral sense. Each is simply pursuing the fulfillment of his or her own agenda, and if the conflict cannot be resolved otherwise, it must be settled by force. For, make no mistake, in repudiating the idea of morality egoists make no exception for “violence”. Nor do they draw any pious distinction between the initiation of force or retaliatory force. Either form is used if it is an expedient way of pursuing a given end, and to the egoist there is no moral law prohibiting violence to which they must subordinate their will to personal sovereignty.

To the conscious egoist, the inexistence of morality is as certain as two and two make four, and in this respect, egoism exceeds the bounds of anarchism’s most audacious speculations regarding individual sovereignty, acting as a powerful dissolvent for an imagination clogged by theories of “right” and “wrong”‘. Only after scanning the full horizon of amorality -the nothingness left in the absence of good and evil or any other metaphysical authority- does the individual come face to face with an exhilarating and terrible freedom in which Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted.