How Democracies Inevitably Redefine Freedom to mean Slavery

It is about what a person is, not what a person feels, that fundamentally determines the collective mindset of a people. What is felt is subjective…capricious and fluid. What one is, morally defined by society—and by “society” we mean the State; for society is a function of the State, not the other way around, as we often erroneously assume—is that which is implicitly accepted as constant and objective. That is, what one is, according to the metaphysical premises of the State, ultimately determines how one shall think of himself, and thus how one shall act, and this determines the nature and morality of a society on the whole. Further, what one is, according to the metaphysical premises of the State, is often a conflation and confusion of concepts…contradiction presented to look consistent in order to convince both the ruler and the ruled of the legitimacy and morality of the system. In other words, a nation engages in mass cognitive dissonance (one might even categorize it as a form of mass psychosis) where citizens believe themselves to be free, and rulers believe themselves to be dispensers and guardians of freedom, and yet they both act and speak in ways which fundmentally contradict this belief.

I submit that we should get our emotions out of our analysis of our society; demand nothing less than rational consistency from our interpretations of what is going on around us. Ignore the vapid, gauzy distractions of patriotism and tradition and platitude and collective presumption (e.g. “One nation under God”) and judge what we hear and see by reason alone. Demand that it make sense. Don’t judge your nation and your place in it according to how you feel, but rather what you truly are in the cold, hard, logical sense, as a component of the Collective. Judge your society and your nation according to how your rulers interpret your existence metaphysically…that is, fundamentally. Only then will you truly understand your place, purpose, and future in the Collective.

The first thing you should realize is that your individuality has absolutely nothing to do with it. The State has nothing to do with You qua You. And in a nation-state, even a western representative democracy, “freedom” doesn’t mean “for the individual”; and that you must understand as a first principle of collective sociology. A collective, like the nation-state, can only ever consider freedom collectively, never individually, because the metaphysical principles of man (how man is defined as a component of reality, itself) are entirely collectivist. Man is not himself…that’s the whole point. He is utterly a product of a Collective Ideal (e.g. the “People”, as in “We the People”), or he does not and cannot exist at all. The metaphysics which underwrite the State, in other words, entirely contradict the idea that you are a singular Self. There is no You…there is only the group; only the nation on the whole, at root. The individuals who make up the group do not functionally exist except in theory. I know this is a strange thing to process and accept, but take a look around. All law is common law…which means it applies to all people at all times, equally…and this, frankly, is terrifying. The law, by definition, makes no distinctions amongst men, and in the nation-state the law is fundamental. The law considers all men criminals—it is no respecter of persons in this sense, thus. Whether you as an individual will ever rob another man is irrelevant, the law exists as a means to prevent YOU from stealing as much as it exists to prevent the thief; that is, it does not make the distinction between you and the thief in terms of whose behavior it exists to coerce and curtail. The moral man does not need the law, for he does not need to be threatened by an Authority in order for him to forsake theft. But the law is entirely ignorant of this. It doesn’t see you; it only sees humanity collectively, and humanity needs to be governed, which means it needs to be coerced, because it is metaphysically depraved, and thus ALL men are criminals by nature, in general, and thus if one man is found a thief, the other is just as likely.

“Freedom” in the context of western democracies  simply means “political representation’ for the People; and “the People” is, again, a collective Ideal. “Freedom” does not imply an existence for the individual which is empty of coercion, legal obligation, demands for obedience, punishment for rejecting the ruling class, authoritarianism, class conflict, and exploitation. It doesn’t even imply a paucity of such things; it merely implies a reinterpretation of how such things are leveled against the citizenry. And know this: the concept of freedom which follows this reinterpretation does not actually make the citizen more free, but easier for the ruling class to rule. A citizen who thinks he is free buys into a narrative which makes him more compliant. For that which he is convinced is for his own good he will do willingly; he will act as a partner, not a slave, and this makes ruling him much more efficient.

“Freedom” in the western geopolitical sense means that the government allows the citizen (and “allows” and “freedom” are mutually exclusive) to vote for those who shall rule them. And there is a certain logical flaw imbedded in that idea which is pretty obvious..anyone with even a tenuous grasp of logic can see the glaring contradiction. Notice how “representation” means that a citizen (and not even necessarily a citizen these days) may choose between candidates running for political office, but there is never a choice for “no office” and “no candidate”. One may choose between candidate A or B or C, etc. but there is no choice to have none at all. Political office is constant, and thus someone must fill it. There shall be Authority…you get no choice about that. In other words, there is no choice to not have the choice to make in the first place. If the citizens fail to make a choice, then one shall be made for them. There will be government; there will be rulers; you will be ruled. The rejection of that premise can be considered treasonous, we are told. The State itself is not up for a vote, therefore the choice you make with your vote isn’t a choice at all. It is merely a more efficient, less expensive method  of shepherding the livestock.

The reality is that via the vote a political official is being forced upon you at gunpoint, but you don’t see this because it is obscured by the bromide of “free elections”; you think this is freedom because you vote for it. You act as a partner in your own subjugation, and it’s much more fun and relaxing to be a ruler when one can rule implicitly, rather than explicitly. One is free to indulge all the opulence and trappings and fawnings of leadership without being bothered by the messy nuisance of dissent. They say it is better to be feared than respected, but it is better be be thanked and appreciated for oppressing than feared. The citizen who brcomes a partner in his own slavery will thank his master for all the master does for freedom’s sake.

Notice how in a representative democracy the government may change—and it does, and always for the worse—but it never goes away. There is always Authority; always rule; always forced compliance; it is constant. Though most assume that democracy is the essence of freedom, some assume that it is some kind of stepping stone towards true and perfect freedom, with each day bringing the nation just a little bit closer to frolicking in the verdant Eden of completely unfettered bliss. And yet with each passing day even in the “freeist” of societies the State always gets bigger, never smaller. But we accept this as a mere necessity of freedom; for with greater freedom comes greater collective responsibility (another contradiction), and because it is collective that which must be in charge of this responsibility is the State, because collective responsibility is rooted in collective metaphysics, which inexorably implies that the individual must be coerced. And legal (which is implicitly taken to mean “moral”) coercion is the purview of the State.

Collectivist metaphysics presumes that the freer an individual becomes, the less devoted he is to his collective responsibility, and this has to do with his endemic and natural rejection of the truth of collective reality. And so his increasing “freedom” within his “representative democracy” must be manifest through more and more collective obligation. Thus, ironically, with more freedom comes more regulation; and thus a “free society” becomes one where everyone has their education paid for, their healthcare, their education, their children, their housing, their food, their cars, their feelings. The “truly free” are those whose lives are entirely subsidized so that they may run off to the fields and do absolutely nothing except enjoy their freedom, just like children. For even thinking, about anything of any substance at all, is a burden they should not have to bear. And thus “freedom” and “personal responsibitly” are completely mutually exclusive inside the great playground of enlightened western democracy.

*

In a free and democratic nation you do not get to vote for no government. The very idea is a contradiction in terms. This is because “government” is a metaphysical premise. Government is not simply a tool: it is not a means to an end…it is the end. It is the apogee and incarnation of the Collective Ideal, Itself, from which all people and all reality is spawned and determined. “The People”, “The Nation”, “The Workers Utopia”, “The Race”, “The Culture”, “The Church”, “The Company”, “The King”…these are metaphysical premises from which all reality is to spring. They are immutable. They are All. The Collective is Reality, you see. The Collective is everything…the root; You, the Individual, are merely an epiphenomenon at best, your very conscious awareness of Self is purely illusory, a lie, and thus irrelevant in the grand scheme of truth and reality and existence. And this individuality thus must be expelled by State force so that you may indulge your “freedom” productively, for the good of the Collective, not yourself…the State, which exists to dictate the terms of existence which you shall obey…so that you can be free, you see.

And thus, no matter how free you may think you are or feel you are, actual freedom is nothing, obedience is everything. Rank obedience to Law, to the ruling class, is your first and only real responsibility and purpose…not choice, not ambition, not personal responsibility. (And it is hilarious that we should believe that “personal responsibility” as a citizen is something to which we should rationally aspire. The entire metaphyscial premise upon which the State is built is the premise which declares that man is entirely insufficient by nature to his own existence. Man must be governed because he cannot govern himself. For if man were to assume such personal responsibility, he must surely degenerate into a churning, blood-filled cauldron of self-destruction. The whole point of the establishment of the State is that man is existentially incapable of “personal responsibility.) So, you can vote all you want, but obedience to Authority, not freedom, is all you are ever voting for, and all you shall ever get through political representation. The only real freedom there is, when all is said and done, is ironically the only freedom you cannot vote for, and thus you shall never have, in any democracy, anywhere, ever, because it is in direct opposition to the very premise of the State, because it is not freedom by the State, but freedom from it. And this is the freedom which says that no vote, ever, anywhere, by anyone, shall be considered a legitimate moral excuse to put a gun to your head, or mine and force us to act. This freedom is the only one that matters, and it is not up for a vote. Because the State is not the vote; not the ballot; not representation. The State is a gun, period, that exists solely and exclusively to compel human action in support of a Collective Ideal that man shall obey or be punished, up to death. And there is no rational definition of “freedom” in the world which is consistent with that scenario, except in the minds of madmen. And though all the rights you may granted by your democratically elected government, you shall never be granted the right to be free of the institutions which claim the sole Authority to interpret your existence and thus define what your “rights” are in the first place.

Yes, in our western representative democracies our cage may be larger and more comfortable than those of overt autocracies, but they are cages nevertheless. So let’s at least be honest with ourselves about it, and cease all this fatuous talk of freedom. Freedom is not what’s going on here.

END

 

The Inherent Subjectivity of Games, and Why They Have Nothing to do With Winning and Losing

From the frame of reference of the game, any game, there can be no actual value distinction between winning and losing. In other words, a game is a singular set of given rules, though there may be sub-categories within the set, or allowances made for deviation and/or exception, but these also are a function of the singular set of rules. This singular set of rules direct players to a conclusion which they know as winning and losing…success or failure, or any degree therein. What this means is that the game equally implies both winning and losing. That is, both winning and losing are equal functions of the exact same set of rules. Thus, from the frame of reference of the game, there can be no value distinction between winning and losing. The rules imply both of them, equally. The value distinction of the outcome of the game, and thus the value of the game itself (for there is no game without an eventual outcome) must come from outside of it.

Do you see what this means?

The game, itself, cannot claim that winning is better than losing. The game doesn’t care…the game cannot care…because the rules mean both. A player wins or loses, the game does not. The game does neither. The game provides the conduit to winning or losing…a single hallway with two doors on either side of it.  The hallway contains both doors equally, yet the hallway is not concerned with what lay beyond them. Thus, as far as the game is concerned, winning is indistinguishable from losing…one door is the same as the other. And this means that from the frame of reference of the game, neither winning nor losing exists at all. They are merely arbitrary mathematical distinctions provided by the player, and having meaning only to him, because they have no bearing on the singular set of rules which comprise the game.

The rules that provide a conduit by which a mathematical distinction—a number—is derived do not discriminate against the data which the player inputs into the game from which that number is calculated. Again, the rules are merely a computing system which turns a players input—his skill or luck—into a mathematical sum. And it is the player—or any individual for that matter, player, spectator, or other— who thus determines any practical value/utility from that sum. That practical value/utility is ultimately subjective, however, because it is referenced to the game, and the game itself—the set of rules—is a function of man. In other words, man is why the game exists in the first place…without man, there is no game. So there can be no objective value given to man which is reference to the game…the game which would not exist without him in the first place. In short, human worth cannot be objectively calculated by processes, like games, because they could not and would not exist without him.

*

The player’s data (his skill or luck) is fed into the game, the rules process the data according to internally immutable parameters, a mathematical amount (of some form) is calculated and delivered. The game does not and cannot care what that amount is…it does not and cannot tell the difference. And this is because it does not and cannot care about the data which is inputted wholly from outside of it. The same, singular set of rules deliver all amounts; and this means that all amounts are functionally equal as far as the game is concerned. Thus, the game itself never implies value distinction of any kind—mathematical, moral, practical, theoretical, etcetera—between “winning” and “losing”. And because it recognizes no distinction between winning and losing, it doesn’t recognize them at all. The rules (the game) imply an outcome, but they do not not determine the specific value of specific outcomes. The data determines value…or rather, that from which the data is a function—the player; the individual—determines value. The individual—and not necessarily just the player, but any individual, being player or spectator, or other—determines the values of the outcomes, in whatever way “value” happens to be defined, and this is because the individual determines the value of the game itself, because games are functions of individuals, not the other way around. The individual provides the material for the game from his very existence, and thus he grants it relevance and meaning and purpose…he provides the “why” for playing the game, and for creating it at all. The value of the game and its outcomes, just like the value of playing it in the first place, is always thus going to be entirely arbitrary. Subjective. “Winning” and “losing” are fluid concepts, their value being completely subject to a given individual. “Wining” and “losing” are good or bad depending on the perspective of the individual. For example, if I have no disposable income, yet gamble at poker and lose, then losing is bad. But if it’s ten o’clock at night and I just want to go to bed and for my daughter to do the same, then me losing a game of Go Fish to her isn’t any worse than winning because my real goal is simply for the game to end as quickly as possible. Losing brings this end about as equally as winning. So I “win’ either way.

*

Problems arise when we attempt to assign objective value to winning, losing, and the playing of games. That is, we allow the game to dictate objective value to the individual rather than derive its own subjective value from him. Dong this gives the game a prerogative that it simply cannot accommodate. Games cannot dictate value to individuals because games have no inherent meaning except as a product of individuals. Another way of looking at it is that a great player is only great within the context of the game. His greatness does not follow him beyond its boundaries. Though his skills may apply to other aspects of his life, these skills are distinct from the rules of the game, thus they have nothing fundametally to do with it. As soon as these skills are removed from the context of the game, they do not necessarily imply greatness. A player’s greatness inside the game is merely a reflection of the context of the rules. It’s not a greatness of himself, but merely a subjective declaration of his value inside the game only. To determine that one has value outside of the game simply because of his value inside of it is to allow games—which could neither exist, nor have meaning, purpose, or value without the individual—to subordinate the existential worth of people to the utterly subjective, arbitrary, and facile worth of games.

It is precisely this reversal of reason which leads to cheating…along with exploitation (of players and fans and others), manipulation, and mendacity, which are all simply degrees of cheating, I submit, as they seek to coerce the value of the game to one’s own favor from beyond the rules. Players crave the (false) honor and approbation of being great as the game dictates greatness, yet they understand, perhaps instinctively, that the rules do not own them…do not replace their own volition, so they violate the rules when no one is watching (or when they think no one is watching) to achieve their desired outcome. Contrary to popular assumption, losing the game, you see, is not in fact more honorable than wining by cheating, because rule-following itself is ultimately meaningless and valueless without victory. Rule-following itself isn’t noble because it is merely obedience, and obedience means nothing but subjugation; but victory has the potential of transferring one from the position of subject to the position of ruler…because value, again, is assumed to be objectively derived from the game. But if this is the case, then no value can come from losing—for losing implies merely that one is capable of obeying to rules; but winning implies that one is capable of turning that obedience into power. And power is what separates the subjects from the rulers. In other words, to accept that there is some kind of inherent nobility and integrity to rule-following is to imply that slavery is a position to which one should aspire. But slavery, by definition, requires no will, thus making aspiration moot. Power belongs to those who accept that the game is the giver of human worth and who understand that to win the game, especially by manipulation of the rules (cheating, or a form thereof), is to become the game, and thus become the Authority who determines the worth of everyone else.

The real truth is that games, rules, laws, processes, computations, equations, strategies, directions, authority, guidelines, paradigms, constructs…all of these are of men, for men, and valued solely by men. To reverse this relationship—to make men the product of these rather than the master—is to turn man into a mindless, collective and collectivist beast, and ensures that the only score left on the board in the end is murder and destruction.

END

A Faith So Easy to Understand, Yet So Difficult: How Christianity deceptively integrates complexity and simplicity

Converting the fossilized remains of long-dead organisms into a means of mass conveyance; splitting the atom to generate near limitless amounts of energy; the formulation of equations by parsing infinity into units, then subjecting these units to a rigid abstract legal paradigm in order to organize an otherwise chaotic physical environment, enabling the creation of everything from tuffets to skyscrapers to battleships. All of these are universally efficacious, categorically productive, infinitely applicable, and are a part of the knowledge reliably categorized as capital-T Truth. None are by any means easy to do or understand, by any reasonable standard. Indeed, what watersheds of man’s existence are easy? Very few, if any. For any Truth I submit is necessarily arcane, enigmatic, and elusive, if not downright paradoxical.

Yet despite this, we are led to believe that the very epistemology by which man can know the difference between Truth and Falsehood in the first place is simple. Why, even a child can grasp it.

It’s nothing.

It’s the blowing of a dandelion.

All philosophical truths can be reduced, in all of their complexities and facets and nuances and archetypes and qualifications and distinctions, to the size of a bumper sticker. A small, sticky rectangle is all that is needed to adequately express the Truth.

In no better place is this notion exemplified than in Christianity. In the course of the past seven years of my commitment to calling out rational fallacy within the church and in human thinking in general, I have been scolded by Christians again and again, implicitly and explicitly, for my criticism and dismantling of orthodox doctrines. They tell me it constitutes an over-complication of the simple “faith” to which they ascribe; my thinking and teaching is a stumbling-block to the unsaved and seeking, and a barrier to those who proselytize them with Christ’s “simple” gospel of God’s forgiveness.

But is it really that simple, or is simplicity merely a matter of one’s point of view? Or is it something else altogether? The answer, as it may or may not surprise you, is both and neither…which is entirely consistent with the exasperatingly reasonless nature of Christian apologetics. You see, without contradiction, the church wouldn’t have any doctrine at all. The whole of Christian faith is built upon smoke…the fog of the burning bodies it leaves in its wake is so thick that it has become a facade of solid ground. Smoke so thick you believe you can actually walk upon it…yes, this is the essence of Christian thought.

Smoke. Gilded bullshit. Call it what you like, but the “faith” which is so simple yet so hard predictably falls apart when subjected to rudimentary logical examination.

Let me explain.

As I have mentioned, Christians are never slow nor reluctant to tell us how simple and universally accessible their message is. Yet on the other hand the Church has spent thousands of years weaving their orthodoxy into doctrines of incoherent paradox, contradiction, and doublespeak. And because of this we have, concordant with the notion that Christianity is intellectually accessible to the most nitwitted among us, the notion that Christian theology is an inexhaustible ocean of intellectual stimulation. Certainly, it isn’t uncommon to find Christian apologists who insist that one who dares wander along the road of the theological literati shall find that God’s revelations sufficiently challenge even the most intellectually gifted. And, in keeping with Christian manipulative tradition, where apologists engage in an intellectual war of attrition as opposed to rational discourse, qualification and equivocation are always the typical response to accusations that Christian orthodoxy isn’t complex and deep so much as it is heavily reliant upon tautology which has been sufficiently wrought enough to give the faith a relatively effective veneer of substance. But Christian metaphysics declare humans in all ways existentially depraved, including intellectually. And this is likely the greatest argumentative cop-out of all time, because it makes actual truth beyond the capacity of man by virtue of his very birth as man. And this grants Christians a convenient excuse to avoid their obligation to rationally defend their ideas, because rationality only goes as far as man’s mind, and that’s not far enough. What they believe, in other words, is so complicated that it is beyond the human capacity to know. They cannot actually explain it to you, because it’s beyond man, outside of him, literally and absolutely. Which means that they cannot actually explain it to themselves. Which means that they don’t actually believe anything at all. Therefore “Faith” and “belief” are mutually exclusive according to Christian metaphysics. Faith has nothing to do with actual belief, because belief requires a sufficiency to the Truth of God that man simply does not possess by nature. And THAT’S Christian apologetics in a nutshell.

So let’s open the nutshell a little here. I’m afraid we shall discover that the nutshell doesn’t contain any actual nut.

Saving faith, they declare, is open to all, and because “saving faith” is open to all, it is therefore so simple a child can understand. And yet, on the other hand, the faith is so complicated that man is, by nature (by being man), incapable of ever truly grasping it, and thus, man cannot actually believe on his own behalf so that he can be saved by belief…that is, by understanding. Because of this, he is really elected by God to salvation; it is a gift of God, and a product of God’s all-determining power.

Do you see what’s being done here? Faith is both simple and a matter of Divine, predetermining Will. But how can this be?  Either the faith is so simple that all can apprehend it sufficiently to be saved or belief doesn’t matter because salvation is in fact a matter of Divine determinism—that is, since God elects who shall be saved, whether one can actually understand the Gospel message or not is entirely irrelevant.

And here enter the cavalcades of Christian equivocation and objection. Because in God’s world—a world where all is possible, and where “all” includes the conflation and synthesis of complete opposites—up is simultaneously down, left is simultaneously right, wisdom is simultaneously ignorance, etc. These contradictions, when interpreted via “God’s wisdom”, are all perfectly consistent; it’s all most clearly and necessarily true. Indeed, the recognition of entirely different rational standards for religious thought and secular thought is the very basis of holy faith. Hence, why “belief” is so easy. Because, in essence, it requires absolutely no intellectual capital because by man’s nature it cannot be accessed in the first place. And yet this is also why faith is so utterly complex…it’s so complicated that man cannot ever fully understand it. It is simply beyond him.

Faith is all about trust without belief. Thus, one let’s go of their insufficient human wisdom and embraces a reality where God’s mind rules, which makes anything possible…and presto change-o…contradiction becomes completely reasonable.

You see, saving faith is intellectually simple because the intellect is irrelevant. Believing “by faith and not by sight” is to accept truth whilst acknowledging that you cannot possibly know why the truth is true. Truth and reason are split apart, and thus faith is easy, because it requires no reason for it. And this is the “faith like a child” which saves. This is why so many Christians embrace simple-mindedness as a virtue.

Now, ironically, this simple saving faith, where the corollary between belief and why one believes is torn in two, provides the framework upon which the vast“complexities” of Christian theology are built. In the theological fantasyland of Christian orthodoxy where there is belief without reason, anything can be true…or nothing. Truth has been emancipated from the confines of reason, Christians, especially divinity scholars, theologians, and the leadership, can make the particulars of the Faith as arcane and abstruse as they like, and on a whim. Where “truth” doesn’t actually mean anything, you see, it can mean everything. When A is simultaneously B, then the corridors of Divine Wisdom become an infinite maze of rational subjectivity. One enters and one leaves as one pleases. Out is in; in is out. The complex is easy; the easy, complex.

And that’s how they do it. That’s how Christianity gets away with peddling their ideology as both beautifully simple and infinitely challenging…a one-size-fits-all for any mind, of any ability, at any time.

END

You’re Not Saved by Being a Christian, You’re Saved by Being YOU: The lie of collective salvation

In the Christian Church, I don’t care which denomination—it doesnt matter, they all share the same foundational metaphysics—what does it mean to be saved?

Now, you might think that this question is a prologue to a deep and meaningful disquisition of Christian soteriology. However, I can assure you that this is quite uneccesary…for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the vast majority of Christians find such a thing completely useless (and couldn’t even begin to comprehend it even if they wanted to…which they don’t). They fancy themselves far too divinely enlightened and practical (they are in fact neither) in their theology to bother with something quite this abstract. In this case, then, I will answer the question according to the “enlightened” and “practical” faith of the Christain church:

It means to believe in Jesus.

But that seems awfully vague, and it is, so we must press a little.

What does it mean, exactly, to believe in Jesus?

It means to renounce your sins and vow to obey God’s moral commands. It is a commitment to reject your “natural” self—your “pre-salvation” you—and to be “born again”.

Now, here is where the whole thing goes off the rails, wheels flying wildly in all directions. Because here we get into the metaphysics of it…though most Christians, to their own folly, don’t even recognize the word. And this is why discussing soteriology with Christians is a complete waste of time. The whole religion dissolves into mysticism; and “faith’ becomes an antonym to “reason” and “sensibility”. Interestingly enough, and sadly, this is also where Christianity goes completely extra-biblical…or anti-bibilcal, really. In other words, there is little to nothing of Christ in any of the Christian ideas one would normally associate with salvation .

The root assumption behind salvation in Christian theology (or rather, ideology) is that the “born-again” you is both fundamentally different from and fundamentally the same as the the “natural you”. And it is this metaphysical contradiction which undermines the faith, and reduces it to either quaint novelty (as in the Amish or Mennonites), anodyne and stultifying cynicism (“middle America” mainline churches)  or mendacious, civilization-wrecking autocracy (Augustine, Luther, Calvin); and all degrees within and among these. You see, the “old you” by dint of birth is unable to please God due to the pervasive wickedness which is a function of your base existence, period. In other words, the very fact that you are is why you are evil and cannot please God naturally. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” the Chruch perversly and irrationally interprets to mean that the very birth of men condemns them to fall under God’s wrath. Man’s “original sin” is that he is born at all. You qua you—you as existant—is evil incarnate.

Of course Christians will take issue with my use of the world “interpret”, claiming that they are simply declaring what the Bible “plainly states”. But this comes from the false belief that what is written in the Bible is somehow immune from interpretation—that somehow the Bible is a closed system of meaning. That it’s a truth in and of itself and thus outside of man, and therefore it is a truth that man must be “enlightened to”, as opposed to something written specifically for him and from him and speaking to his particular existential frame of reference.

This is mystic nonsense—an iteration of Christianity’s pagan-gnostic roots. The Bible is written in language, and as such it is necessarily interpreted by those who posses the innate ability and inherent reference to give it meaning: man. Christians do not simply “declare” the Bible, despite what they may think and claim, they interpret it. And they do so badly.

So, prior to salvation you can do no good thing because of your fundamental depravity. Now, I understand Christians will object to this, arguing that, on the contrary, you can do good but that you have a “tendency” to “trend” (by which they mean inexorably) toward evil; however, this claim does not suffer rational scrutiny. You see, according to the metaphysics, man’s evil is not at root a function of what he does but what he is. And since what he is is evil, then all he does is evil by definition, no matter how “good” it may appear. Because man’s nature is utterly fallen, and “fallen” is the place from which all men are categorically spawned, there is no moral difference between the man who runs an orphanage and the man who burns one down. Both men are equally evil in root nature, both men require salvation in equal measure. and thus what they do must be morally valued equally. Ethics always follow metaphysics, and actions are valued by essence, NOT the other way around.

Man’s existential evil makes him unable to be good, which means that he cannot choose Christ…for such a choice, even if made by him, would necessarily be meaningless. Absolute Evil cannot conjoin with the perfect Good of God’s Son, no matter how much it wants or chooses to. A mystic conversion is the only “solution” to the existential conundrum in which man finds himself. Hence the get-out-of-reason-free cards of election and predestination. God arbitrarily—as far as man is concerned—chooses those who shall choose Him…and if this seems like good old fashioned contradiction, that’s because it is. So don’t waste your time trying to make sense of it. Those who are saved thus become “new creatures”, no longer defined by their collective existential depravity, but by their collective identity as “God’s chosen”. In other words, it has nothing to do with what a man chooses, individually, to do or not do, according to his own singular reference and volition of “I’ or “me”; no, his new identity in Christ is merely a function of some mystical and mysterious conversion from existential “evil” to existential “good”.

In as much as man’s “evil” has nothing to do with what he thinks about himself or does for himself from himself, but everything to do with simply what he is at root…his evil, thus, is in a sense “outside” of him. He has no choice in it…his choice is irrelevant. Everything he does is evil, no matter what it is, because he IS evil. And likewise his “new nature” in Christ—that is, it has nothing to do with him. What he chooses or thinks, in and of his own individual Self, is irrelevant to God’s determining power. Man is a bystander to both his damnation (from brith) and his salvation (from “new birth”). In this sense then, his salvation is collective, NOT individual. It is an Ideal into which he is gang-pressed, not a choice he makes for and from himself. The proof of his salvation is his membership in the Church; and the Church is the collective institution which is given the authority by God to manifest the salvation Ideal upon the earth.

So what does this mean post-salvation for the new Christian? They have been chosen…they are saved, no longer totally depraved, right? No longer victims of their natural, sinister, sinful selves. They are free…free to choose and do good, right?

Well, yes and no, and thus we have more of the same contradiction which undermines all rationality within Christianity. The same rational inconsistencies which plague pre-salvation man and his election unto and into Christ following him to salvation. Man is saved in spite of himself…he does not actually choose Christ because this requires a natural and innate ability to recognize good, to choose it, and to follow through with it, and this ability he does not have because he IS Evil. And this being the case, by what means or power can man, now saved, recognize and do any good thing? By the same power which saved him, of course—that is, God’s grace. Which of course, like salvation itself, has nothing fundamentally to do with man qua man. By ”God’s grace” Christians mean God’s absolute, all-pervasive power over all of Creation, to determine it to its inevitable divine conclusion. So the “good” that the saved man is, and the “good” he recognizes and obeys are an essence and action which are not really of him at all. In short, it’s fair to say that post-salvation man is still just as vile and wicked as he was pre-salvation. Nothing has changed but semantics. Man is not “changed”, but rather, “covered”, which is as close a euphemism as you can get I supppose.

When we are talking metaphysics…when we are talking about the very root essence of a thing, this essence is utter and absolute. It is not transmutable; it is not transient; it is fundamental. It is the infinite core of what a thing IS, by which it exists in reality in the first place. What a thing is existentially is that immutable core from which it exists, period. And thus “this” cannot become “that”. If man is evil, existentially, before salvation, then he is likewise evil, existentially, after. And there is no argument one can make to the contrary which is not ultaimtely going to be punted into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”. There is no means except the surrendering of one’s sense where one can reasonably declare that Absolute A becomes Absolute B.

And Christians know this, at least on some level, which is why they insist that even the saved can still commit sin. You get sin from where? Sin nature. Otherwise, it’s not sin, its just bad or immoral action. To describe an act of sin is to describe the act according to a nature that pervades man at his very root. Christianity recognizes that man’s immutable sin nature follows him into his salvation, which is why the church encourages the laity to “preach the Gospel to themselves every day”. Even Christians need to be reminded how they can do no good thing, and to recognize salvation as a life of “grace”, not individual and volitonal moral living, as though man is capable of such a thing. Try being a Christian and taking credit for any moral or rational choice, and proclaiming that you thus justly earn the reward of such a choice. You will be patently and shamelessly accused of rank heresy on the spot…of ignoring or being blind to God’s grace. Though, to be fair, they may say it nicely. But keep it up and see what happens. Christians have short patience for rejections of “grace”.

Christians never dawdle in reminding each other that it is foolish pride for them to consider the idea that they, at any time, pre or post-salvation, possess any inherent ability to do any good thing. Indeed, the mark of a false Christian is one who believes that he is somehow  good in himself. He is not. He is evil. His salvation was God’s mysterious grace, and likewise whatever good he does or befalls him after salvation is entirely a product of that same grace. Man’s nature never fundamentally changes. He is saved entirely in spite of himself, and likewise his salvation is “worked out” in spite of himself. In other words, there is nothing of You qua You that has anything at all to do with why God chose to save you, and how God manifests this salvation in your life. You qua You—the “I” of “My Self”—is utterly evil, and thus must be completely sidelined before, during, and after salvation.

So back to our original question: What does it mean to be saved?

Well, the real answer is that it means nothing for YOU, because YOU are nothing. You qua You—You, the Individual—are exchanged for the collective Ideal of what it means to be “Christian”. “Christian” is a collective. “You” are now an indistinguishable component of the Church, which is the physical incarnation of the Ideal. “You” have been aborted by the metaphysics. Only the Collective matters.

This is salvation.

And this is a lie.

END

 

A Return to Traditional American Values Leads Us Right Back Here

In the midst of the wailing laments over the spiraling socialism and (concordant) growing corruption of the United States government, you will hear many on the right desperately keening about the need to return to “traditional American values”. Now, I do admit that this can mean many things, and it’s not always clear what exactly—and frankly, I’m not sure those yearning for these values really know, either—but I will define them as I generally understand them; and I submit that this is as accurate a summary as one can reasonably expect.

Traditional American values are almost always a political reference to individualism (often “rugged individualism”) and small government. They are the idea that men should pretty much be left alone to work out their own existence for themselves, mostly free from coercive external governing authority, and becoming collectively involved only with the “nobler” associations of church (and this means primarily the Protestant Church) and family and local government, and these only insofar as they can be used to affirm and promote the future dissemination of  individualism and small government.

Now, apart from the uncomfortable and specific contradictions running through these ideals (e.g. Protestant orthodoxy in all its denominational iterations teaches the most anti-individual and anti-liberty doctrines in the world and in world history: Total Depravity and Original Sin). I will concede that these values are ostensibly virtuous and well-intentioned. The problem, however, is that when examined, or when the intentions and understanding of those wishing to return to them are examined, they collapse under the weight of a pervasive and intractable irrationality.

The first question begged is: How will a return to traditional American values not inevitably bring us right back to where we are now? In other words, hindsight reveals that the evolution of traditional American values has placed our nation in the here and now, where it stands as an empire and a culture in embarrassing decline, exhausting itself in an ongoing carnival sideshow of neo-Marxist ideology, ethical relativity, group-think, collectivist bigotry, newspeak, narcissistic and psychotic political officials who see the State as merely an Authoritarian Pez dispenser (which is inevitable as State Power is an absolutely irresistible carrot and stick to such personalities), political gangsterism, man-babies, female entitlement, corporate fad-ism, crony capitalism, marxist feminism, junk science (like “gender fluidity’…and pretty much all social sciences), welfare, morbid obesity, hedonism, stupidity, and cowardice.

But no, they will say.  Traditional American values are not an evolution…they are not a political doctrine. They are a way of thinking about man and his existence and the fundamental philosophical notions of freedom and political equality. These values are the philosophical foundation of our nation, they are not products of that nation.

I aggressively disagree. I do not accept that traditional American values are a-political, or a philosophy which informs government rather than a political expression of government. On the contrary, they are the very essence of politics and government. The founding of this nation is utterly and unavoidably the foundation of this nationstate. Government is the very core of America, and thus it is the very core of American identity, and thus it is the very core of traditional American values. And if government is the very core of America and American identity, then the governing of Americans is thus the very core of America and American identity. And this being the case, there are no traditional American values until an American government is established. Traditional American values are a product of how Americans are governed. The idea that traditional American values don’t have anything fundamentally to do with government and politics is a joke. They have everything to do with politics and government. They don’t exist, having no relevance nor efficacy, until after there is a government in place to manifest them collectively—because the collective practical implementation of ideals is what the government does. That’s the whole damn point. And that’s really what “traditional American values” are: collectivist ideals. And without the practical manifestation of these collective ideals there is no America, and thus there are no Americans, and thus no American values. The values remain infinitely abstract and irrelevant; pointless and meaningless. Thus they are not values at all. They are ethereal mist, doing nothing, and being nowhere.

So traditional American values are inexorably corollary to American government, and government, or governing, is objectively and empirically an evolutionary process. It starts as A and evolves to B, and this is because society changes. The young grow old; the old die; new citizens are born; technology morphs and grows; industry is moblized and changes the landscape and culture; products are created and used and disposed of; capital is made and lost; wars are fought and won or lost; and all of this changes people, changes desires and objectives and ambitions, changes the very makeup of society, racially, sexually, politically, intellectually, and economically; new politicians are elected, new laws are made and passed, national identity shifts, and thus what it means to be an “American” shifts. And what were once just “American values” one day become “traditional American values”, which are somehow and by some mysterious means utterly divorced from the the “current American values”; or as the right thinks of them, unAmerican values. But the reality is that you do not get the latter without the former. You don’t get today’s “un-American values” except by way and evolution of “traditional American values”.  Traditional American values are not a national philosophy…they are not foundational and underwriting presuppositions concerning the nature of man and reality, which are uniquely and distinctly and infinitely American, as though being “American” has some kind of fixed and absolute and fundamental meaning and essence which is completely distinct from government and governing as it is today, and as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow. Traditional American values are ideals which imply a State which implies a government which implies the evolution of that government.

Since traditional American values are at root state-affirming ideals, they collectivize individuals as an expression of national collective identity. We can speak of “rugged individualism” all we want but individualism really has nothing to do with it. And national collective identity is dictated by government to the people who are in turn obligated by threat of incarceration, sanction, theft, and death to its authority to compel them to the inexorably and unavoidably collectivist “American Ideal”…or “American values” which the government, and the government alone, has the legal and thus ethical (as legality is its own ethical premise) right to manifest upon the earth, no matter what any given individual thinks or wants, ever.

Therefore, appealing to traditional American values can be quite simply and quite rationally defined as whatever values the state happens to be implicitly and/or explicitly dictating at the moment. And currently our American values happen to be the values of violence, stupidity, irrationality, neo-Marxist authoritarianism, and cultural stultification. Our traditional American values are manifest as these things today. It could only have ever been so, and only ever shall be again if we somehow return to them.

*

Now, let’s supppose for the sake of argument that traditional American values are in fact an appeal to some kind of rugged individualism…some kind of philosophy which lauds the egalitarianism of the soul, the efficacy of the will, the right of man to life, liberty, and property; the practical utility of the mind, the ability of man to apprehend truth and good and to efficaciously act upon them of his own volition, and cooperation over coercion. Let’s suppose that they exist somewhere beyond the State, beyond government, absolute and meaningful in and of themselves, needing no authoritarian incarnation to grant them practical utility upon the earth. Yes, let’s just say that that’s all true. The question then is this: Should we ever return to these traditional American values, how can we ensure that our nation won’t end up right back here, smack in the middle of the marxist circus tent revival of violent leftist ideology?

The answer is that you can only do this one of three ways. And none of them I submit has anything to do with the America that was founded in Philadelphia in 1776, or 1787, whichever you prefer.

The first is that we use the power of the State to compel people by force to submit to traditional American values. Put simply, we give them no choice. Submit to the values or die.

However, this undermines the essence and integrity of traditional American values, which are seen as elevating and venerating individualism, self-reliance, responsibility, moral choice, and liberty. Not that hypocrisy ever strays too far from those espousing a return to traditional values. I personally know of several right-wing voters who don’t bat an eye at the idea of compelled school prayer, compelled recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (a collectivist propaganda yarn if there ever was one), compelled standing for the National Anthem, criminalizing the desecration of the American flag, public dress codes, compelled voting, compelled Christian education, compelled church membership, and significant restrictions on public expression and private businesses. So, it seems that “traditional American values”, when defined a certain way, are much more Authoritarian than is comfortable to admit. The idea of compelling people under threat of government violence isn’t as far-fetched or unthinkable with respect to “liberty” and “rugged individualism’ as we might believe.

At any rate, then, the forced submission of citizens to traditional American values is one way we could ensure a more “traditional” society, I suppose. Of course, only a fool would think that a fascist America, which is what this would be, is any better than a communist one. So I  suggest we can throw away this option, as it isn’t particularly rational nor realistic. It’s certainly a way we could look at things—legal enforcement of values is not in and of itself an arcane idea…hell, that’s the whole point of the State, and is why and how moral ethics are ultimately subordinated to legal ethics, which is a primary reason why nations inevitably collapse. But in light of the common meaning of what it means to hold to traditional American values, it’s relatively safe to call the statist enforcement thereof a bald-faced hypocrisy. To compel people by threat and force to obey, as opposed to choose, traditional American values, gives us an America that is anything but “traditional”. So…option one is out.

Option two is to go in the completely opposite direction, and that means to eschew the legal, coercive enforcement of values entirely. We don’t have the lazy option of the State bailing us out when we fail to convince our neighbors to accept our values and commit to them. All we have is reason, persuasion, empirical evidence, and leading by example. That’s it. No guns. No bombs. No gallows. No gulags. No guillotines. No firing squads. No ovens. No crosses. No chicken-shit cop-out dick-swinging threats of jack boots and jumpsuits. Just you and your powers of persuasion, alone in the arena of public discourse.

Go get ‘em, tiger.

In other words, we reject the State as having anything to do with our values. If we want rugged individualism, we cannot appeal to a giant, nuclear-armed Collective Authority, bristling with prisons and stuffed with ruling class greed and conflicts of interest. If we want to promote liberty, we cannot appeal to the Authority-Submission construct of government, which includes the comandeering and redistribution of labor and property in order—and this singularly so—to promote obedience to the State (via the artifice of Law) and the elevation of the ruling class, and to specifically suppress the exercise individual choice, which is the exact opposite of liberty. We must implore our fellow man to resist the slide into the abyss of today’s neo-Marxist hellscape by asking them to choose freedom over force; individual choice over forced compliance.

These “traditional American values” then have absolutely nothing to do with the government, and thus nothing really to do with the nation-state, and thus nothing to do with America per se. They don’t have anything to do with political representation, the law, “free and democratic” elections, or voting. They have nothing to do with asking people to vote to give the State legal Authority to force those with opposing values to comply with our own. For that is tyranny, and tyranny is not a traditional American value. These values are defined apart from the governing body that declares who and who is not a legitimate American, as a citizen.

Yet this seems to be quite anathema to what it means to hold to traditional American values, which implies a civic duty to vote for things that are considered “traditionally” American. So, all that being the case, option two really won’t get us back to traditional American either. I have never heard of “traditional American values” which did not recognize the need for the nationstate, and thus the government, of America.

Option three is to return to the original, relatively diminutive size of our government as it was first established. We shrink it back down to its minarchist roots, with just a skeleton crew and basic libertarian functions—police, military, courts.

And then what? We just hope for the best? I mean, we already had that, and look where we are now? So how do we ensure that the evolution from a government which is small, well-defined, and unobtrusive to one that is massive, elusive, subjective, militaristic, sadist, and selfish doesn’t repeat itself?

Well, we can encourage people to exercise their free and independent will, emphasizing choice over legal command, which is the only thing that will ever prevent the intrusion of State power into every facet of human existence. We can appeal to utterly anti-government and purely voluntarist ideals such as individual morality, personal responsibility, cooperation, negotiation, and a devotion to the ethics of morality rather than legality.

But…this is simply a reiteration of option two, which voids the state, and thus implies no government, not a shrinkage of it.

So what else? I guess we encourage people to vote for politicians who will use the hammer of the State to force our political enemies to comply with our values; to bend their commie knees to our will, under pain of death and prison…or worse. But this makes us no better than our commie enemies, and accelerates the rise of authoritarianism in government, getting us nowhere near our traditional American values…and is simply a reiteration of option one.

The point here I am making is that option three gets us nowhere except back to options one or two, and as I have already explained, neither of these finds us returning to traditional American values.

So let’s just be honest with ourselves; stop engaging in political and philosophical kindergarten, and bluntly confront the truth. Because the sooner we accept it, the sooner we can recognize our real options, and pull our heads out of the ether of fantasyland and look to actual solutions, instead of childishly placing our hopes in the illusory utopia of yesteryear’s bucolic America with its dewy traditions.

There is no going back!

You and I both know this, and we always have, deep down. The return to “traditional American values” is a myth, because “traditional American values are themselves a myth.

Any “return” to “traditional American values” simply brings us right back to where were are…right here, right now, as it is, as you look around and see it. Because there is no such thing as “traditional American values”…there are only rational ideas and irrational ideas. Period. There is no grand American Tradition that will come down from heaven in a fiery pillar and save us from the avarice of leftists and their godforsaken dystopia of neo-Marxist death squads and overlords. The tyranny that we fear is a tyranny which was with us when this nation was founded, because it is a tyranny which is endemic and implicit in all governments because it is the very essence of government. All governments become tyrannical because government is tyranny, because government is Authority, and Authority is force. My philosopher compadre John Immel said this—“authority is force”—and it continues to be the single greatest truth of government, ever, anywhere, of all time. It is, perhaps, and certainly as far as I am concerned, the only thing you really need to know about the subject,

As hard as it may be to admit it, tyranny is the only possible outcome of the American politcal premise. Government, no matter how small, will grow into tyranny as a child grows into a man. Because fundamentally there is no difffence. At root they are the exact same thing.

END

Why Motion is Not Actual, and the Indispensibility of the Singular Conscious Frame of Reference to Reality

As an aid to this article, here is the breakdown of the metaphysical premises of my philosophy, which I call Objective Relativism:

ABILITY (the metaphysical primary) (implies…)

ACTION (implies…)

RELATIVITY (implies…)

REFERENCE (or CONSTANT) (implies…)

SELF (or I) (implies…)

CONCEPTUALIZATION (or SELF-AWARENESS, or DISTINCTION BETWEEN SELF AND NOT-SELF) (implies…)

LANGUAGE (implies…)

COMMUNICATION (implies…)

OTHER (or OTHER SELF)

Summary: ABILITY (metaphysical primary), ACTION, RELATIVITY, REERENCE/CONSTANT, SELF, CONCEPTUALIZATION, LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION, OTHER

*

There’s a little ball…let’s say a cue ball on a pool table. It’s there, just sitting still. And I ask myself, ‘How exactly can this ball move?’ Which is an odd question. Maybe even a silly one. That is, until I clarify…because what I mean is not how does it move, but how can it. Now, I get the basics of Newton’s laws of motion…that’s not exactly what I’m asking here. My question is not a mechanical or mathematical one, but a philosophical one. I don’t care about the mechanisms behind movement so much as I care about the rational (or irrational) assumptions we must make about movement qua movement before those mechanisms can be in any way relevant or meaningful, and thus real.

What I’m asking is this: how exactly does an object, like a cue ball on a pool table, go from no movement to movement (some degree of). How are two ostensibly mutually exclusive states of being integrated in a singular reality?  How does the ball transition from NOT MOVEMENT to MOVEMENT? From an “is” to an “is not”? From a 0 to a 1?

Well, I think we need to appeal to relativity. We’ll say that movement is actually relative movement. Which means that there is no movement qua movement at all, but merely a relative existential definition given to an object by a constant…which I submit must be the Observer, because nothing else can actually provide any relevant and meaningful definition to “movement”.

But of course necessitating consciousness to reality seems extremely subjective to many, if not most, people. They are very uncomfortable with this idea because it makes consciousness (via the Consicous Observer) utterly fundamental to reality and therefore Truth, and they view consciousness as being entirely subjective (it actually isn’t, however…it’s actually the only thing which can be truly objective, but that’s another article). So they look to other explanations for the cause of movement. I believe that this is this is not actually possible, however, because unless we concede the relativity of movement, and thus the need for a consciousness reference in order that the reference not be just another relative object, then we must appeal to mathematics/science to explain movement. But math and science do not really explain how mutually exclusive absolutes, like 1 and 0, Movement and No Movement, Is and Is Not, can integrate and co-exist in the same reality so much as they simply accept and assert them as ipso facto and a priori. And by the way, this is why we need philosophy…because only metaphysics can unravel the inevitable rational paradoxes and contradictions that science and mathematics contrive as existential fundamentals.

So what we get when we try to interpret movement mathematically is the construct of movement as continuum, or s spectrum, and movement is thus said to manifest as a measure of degrees—units of movement—with zero movement being one end and infinite movement (movement beyond practical or possible measure) on the other. But the problem here is how to determine and measure the values between degrees. Presumably, and indeed mathematically, the difference between degrees is measured and manifest in more degrees, and the distinction between these degrees measured and manifest in even more degrees, and so on and so forth, until we eventually concede that the continuum is a continuum of infinite degrees, which makes any given degree of movement fundamentally infinite. And this means that the mathematical valuation of a degree of movement must be purely abstract, purely conceptual—that is, a contrivance of the observer for his own use, and not an actual iteration of some kind of “objective reality” outside of him. Not to mention that by definition zero and infinity cannot be ends of a continuum since they are absolutes, with zero being the absolute—-which means immeasurable—absence of a thing, and infinity being the absolute, immeasurable, presence of a thing. They are mutually exclusive, not “components” of a “shared singularity” called a continuum.

Thus, the whole continuum thing falls apart as a description of what is actually, objectively, being exhibited in reality when a cue ball goes from no movement to (some degree of) movement.

*

It is my assertion that the only possible explanation for how movement as an objective manifestation of reality and existence is possible is to conclude that movement doesn’t actually exist, as such. The cue ball doesn’t really move or not move, rather it simply exists relative to other things, with an observer conceptually describing its existence as (among other ways…that is, among other concepts) “moving” or “not moving” or having some “degree of movement” relative to other objects and referenced to his own constant of Self—that is, his own absolute and singular consciousness.

*

Absent an observer there is no way to claim that objects ever actually or objectively move at all, since in an infinite vacuum, like the Universe, all movement must be relative, which means subjective and nonactual. One cannot answer the question “Does object A move relative to B or is it the other way around?” in an observer-less vacuum because in such a context the only possible answer is, “Both and neither”. Which of course isn’t an answer at all. And you can speak all day of multiverses or an expanding/contracting finite universe, but these are not rational descriptions of the universe’s existence…they are attempts at integrating existence into the mathematical data, which is like attempting to integrate the real world into a computer facsimile. It’s not an answer, it’s a contrivance to get around the metaphysical Truth which science and math cannot describe.

Multiverses, if they are compatible or integrative with each other, must occupy a broader singular reality, meaning a broader singular Universe. A Universe of universes, which is itself a vacuum of purely relative objects.

Yet if they are not compatible or integrative but are mutually exclusive from each other then no one in a given univserse can possibly make any rational claims about the others, even that they exist at all. Because they wouldn’t have an existential frame of reference to make such claims. Other universes would not share reality or existence, and thus they wouldn’t be real or exist to each other in the first place. The multiverse becomes simply a mathematical theory, or a cute fantasy of scientists and mathematicians attempting to co-opt metaphysics, which is a subject, in general and in my experience, far beyond their talents and experience.

Asserting that our own universe is somehow finite begs the question: What is beyond it then?

If the answer is “nothing” then the universe can’t be finite because “nothing” is not, by definition, something which thus can serve as a demarcation between “our universe” and “outside our universe”. So if there is nothing at the edge of our universe, then our universe doesn’t have an edge. The only thing at the edge of our universe is our universe. Which means it is absolute, and singular. Which means it’s infinite.

But if the answer is “something else”  and that something else exists alongside our own universe in a shared reality then clearly our universe isn’t the Universe, but there is a greater universe which comprises both our universe and whatever is outside of it but in the same realty. But if that something is in a different reality then we couldn’t claim it’s real in the first place, because we’d have no frame of reference for a separate reality beyond our own. Which means we couldn’t make any claims about it, least of all that it exists at the edge of our own universe.

No, no matter how we try to explain away or equivocate, we are forced to admit that the universe is singular, it is infinite, it is a vacuum, and thus all which exists in it does so only relatively to each other. And thus, any movement is relative, and thus non-actual, and requires a conscious constant—a conscious reference—to conceptualize “movement”. Movement, and all of reality itself, requires an observer.

END

Why Checks and Balances Won’t Stop Government Tyranny

Government is tyrannical by nature. It doesn’t evolve to tyranny, it is tyranny from its very foundation; and this tyranny follows it to the inevitable societal collapse which is tyranny’s conclusion. Government is authority, authority is force, force means forced compliance, forced compliance nullifies choice as a fundamental means of social interaction, nullified choice means a cancellation of man’s will, a cancellation of will makes thought irrelevant, irrelevant thought nullifies human agency, nullified human agency implies metaphysical determinism, determinism nullifies morality, nullified morality as a function of metaphysical determinism implies the politics of “survival of the fittest” (where politics is taken in the philosophical sense to mean how humanity interacts with itself as a function of accepted ethics), survival of the fittest implies the perpetuation of those with superior power by which to command, control, and/or adapt to their environment, superior power always belongs to the State—that’s the whole idea. Otherwise, the government doesn’t govern…it suggests. It negotiates. But ”suggestion” isn’t “law”.

This is basically the sum and substance of it, in a nutshell.

*

Government isn’t people, government is a metaphysical principle. It is a premise of Determinism—man navigates reality not fundamentally by volition (by thought and action), but by determinative forces compelling him outside of his own conscious existence. Man’s sense of individualism is a false front; a liar. Man from birth lies to himself, according to his nature, which has corrupted him by giving him a sense of “Self”. This sense of Self compels man to always act contrary to the truth, which is that the Self is a lie, and that reality is something outside of this Self, which utterly determines all he is and does…which of course doesn’t include “him” at all. So, because man is born with the “original sin” of Self-Awareness and a natural inclination to defer to his own individual thoughts, ideas, and choices, which always and necessarily act contrary to the truth of determinist reality, he must be controlled. He must be forced. He must be governed. The idea that man could ever live a categorically voluntary existence away from and irrespective of some manifestation of supreme coercive Authority is anathema, by definition, to government, then. Freedom, which can only ever really mean freedom from a fundamentally compelled existence, is inexorably exclusive of government. It simply must be. Even at mere face value this has to be apparent to us. The exercise of individual will according soley and utterly to the volition of the individual is a complete contradiction of the very essence of the State. This is arrant; it is obvious. Any attempt to fuse freedom and force is a rejection of reason and an appeal to madness. And this is itself nothing but tyranny.

*

Again, government isn’t people. Again, government is a metaphysical principle. And again, it is determinist, which means it is collectivist (the inexorable link between collectivism and determinism is pretty obvious; and I have addressed it several times before, so I won’t do it now). Government transcends individuals at the metaphysical root, like all manifestations of collectivism (churches, tribes, gangs, appeals to “objective” class/racial/sexual distinctions, science-as-philosophy, cultural movements, fads and trends, and on and on). And this is why “checks and balances”, while ostensibly an infusion of sanity and sobriety into governmental polity, cannot serve as any kind of truly effective hinderance to the tyranny of the state. You see, whether you gather coercive power into the hands of only one man, or you spread it across a vanguard, and separate that vanguard by distinct institutions and offices, and regulate the terms by which this power may be consolidated with a complicated paradigm of rules and benchmarks, the very fact that it is coercive power we are dealing with makes all of it a mere ceremonial spectacle. Coercive power, being the fundamental and only really meaningful and efficacious aspect of government, cannot be converted into liberty by sticking it in a blender with constitutional hoops and hurdles and pressing “purée”. Freedom is freedom from coercion. Nothing more. Nothing less. Period. Yet the governmental deals exclusively in force…that is its only real currency. Anything else is window dressing; pretend play; an attempt to excuse the inevitable violence and perfidy of the ruler, and to sooth or mask the misery of the ruled. But the truth is that the square peg of  humanity will never be forced into the round hole of government without crushing them both.

*

The operative and ultimate moral issue with government is a priori coercive (violent) ruling power. It’s not about who happens to wield that power, or how many hurdles—“checks” and “balances”—are ostensibly erected in his path before he can exercise ruling power absolutely. Those hurdles are a function of the very same appeal to authority which gives him his ruling power in the first place. Ruling authority cannot be checked because it is fundamental…it is not merely a facet of government, it is government. The foundational principle of Authority establishes the government, the government doesn’t just happen to wield authority as though its power to compel behavior by violence and threats of violence is merely tangential to some greater munificent purpose. The ability to use superior violent power to compel “right” thinking and behavior isn’t a “last resort”, as though the primary purpose of governing Authority is negotiation and compromise and/or the encouragement thereof! See how foolish this is, and yet we all believe that it is indeed somehow the case, even though it defies simple, remedial logic. The necessity of power to point a government gun in someone’s face to get him to do the “right” thing specifically because he is born a rebel and a sinner to reality, itself, and is utterly insufficient to existence if left to his own mind and will, has about as much to do with compromise and negotiation as a ham sandwich has to do with Shakespeare. Getting the “right” ruler or establishing the “right” checks and balances simply cannot change the fundamental purpose and essence of government:

to govern.

And governing is forcing, and forcing is controlling, and controlling, fully and properly realized, is tyranny.

The problem is not getting the right checks and balances in place. And it’s not who rules, but it is simply the fact that they rule at all. Once it is accepted by metaphysical principle that man must be ruled, he will be sacrificed to the State. There is no way to avoid the inevitable conclusion of the premise which demands the governing of individuals in order to integrate them into the “Truth”, which is always merely some insipid and tangential collectivist Ideal (the Nation, the Tribe, the Race, the Chosen Ones, the People, the Workers, the Good, the Just…almost anything can pass for an Ideal).

*

Finally, I’d like to address the bromide—the political trope—which is the notion that the ruling class (politicians and other government officials) should somehow be expected to follow the same laws as everyone else. This…is utter and complete nonsense. It hasn’t happened and it will never, ever happen, because it has about the same practical existence as the tooth fairy and the same practical efficacy as a black highlighter. It is foolishness. It’s a contradiction. It’s a fantasy. It is a rank contradiction to government’s essence at its very heart to obligate the ruling class to the laws by which they govern everyone else. By definition if the ruling class is also ruled (and this, impossibly, of themselves) then the ruling class is not the ruling class! And if the ruling class isn’t the ruling class then who is? In other words, if the ruling authority isn’t the ruling authority then by what means can law be established as actually binding upon the men it is supposed to govern? And if it’s not binding then how is it law? Law depends on someone to force men to obey it, regardless of whether men want to obey or not, or choose to obey or not. But if law is to be chosen by men, not forced upon them, then it’s not law. It’s suggestion…negotiation, voluntarism. And this is not governing, it’s merely cooperating.

People think that somehow choosing rulers via “free elections” is the same thing as choosing to be obligated to law.

It isn’t.

The law demands that rulers rule, and that’s what they will do, regardless of who they are, how they were elected, or who voted for them and why. The law is not a function of those “freely elected”, but the “freely elected” are a function of the law, and the law is force, not choice.

Authority—the ruling class—cannot be obligated to itself . And it is foolishness to assert that the ruling class should also be ruled like the rest of us. The ruling class cannot be both and simultaneously the ruled and the ruling. Men are part of one or the other, they are never one and the same. This is merely a contradiction which obscures the truth.

END

Why Government is Infallible: The Narcissism of the State

There is no such thing as a governmental solution to the “problems” of government. This is because government, according to the philosophical premises which underwrite it, cannot possibly have any actual problems in the first place.

The State is Authority, and Authority is Force. And the underwriting philosophy tells us that this force is how and why humanity is able to exist at all. It is the cure for humanity’s natural existential inadequacy—man’s “sin nature”, if you will. Man is the problem, government is the solution. Man, if allowed to exercise his unfettered and ungoverned individual will, must inexorably, by nature, devour his neighbor and eventually destroy himself due to his endemic and insatiable appetite for selfishness. Unless his behavior is fundamentally dictated by a supremely violent coercive Authority comprised of a small number of divinely enlightened and appointed philosopher kings, humanity shall be banished from reality, itself, never to be again.

Since the clairvoyance of those charged with saving humanity from itself cannot possibly be apprehended by the barbarian masses, nor can it ever truly be understood by those who are called to rule—because it transcends man’s utterly finite intellectual and rational capacity and therefore extends immeasurably beyond the inadequate confines of human language—there are no problems with the State as far as any human being is concerned. For even if the State somehow actually had a problem, not a one of us, neither the ruler or the ruled, could ultimately understand or articulate it. The terms by which the government is established emanate from a Supreme Being—God, or some other Ideal (The People; We the People; The Worker’s Utopia; Racial or Social Justice; The Master Race, etc.)—who calls rulers and enlightens them in spite of their natural human existential insufficiency. What the ruler knows, he just knows…somehow. What government is exactly at root and how it got there is not for him to say, and he couldn’t say it anyway because this knowledge, though residing in him is infinitely distinct from him qua him. The ruler, you see, occupies a strange and pradoxical existential position, as he is both God and man. He is perfect, because he is the State, and yet he is not perfect because the State exists in spite of him. But this contradiction never actually matters because as he is called to rule by God, and his position of Authority is absolute, he can never consider himself in error about anything. He may be determined to be in error by those who for some reason have more power than himself, but in that context he is merely another barbarian like you or me; if he is disciplined for error by those who have power over him punishment will be forced upon him like it is forced upon the rest of us. And if a ruler does somehow humble himself and admit some kind of mistake, he can never concede that he failed as a function of his judgement as a ruler, only as a function of his judgement as a human.

*

As the perfect knowledge and power given to those called to rule, and which serves as the philosophical underpinnings for this rule, is a direct function of the Supreme Being which is thus and therefore perfect, the State can never, ever possibly be in error about anything at all. In other words, the State is a direct function of God, however we wish to define Him or It, therefore the State can never be the problem…whatever problem happens to be in question. The problem must always be people. Humanity, apart from the perfect, transcendent, and all powerful Creator—because humanity is “fallen” and infinitely wicked and existentially in error—is the only reason anything ever goes wrong, anywhere, all the time. Period. Full stop.

Government, being an extension of God necessitated by the infinite evil of man’s life, is always right; inerrant; infallible. It can do no wrong; it is perfection qua perfection. And even if it wasn’t, neither you nor I could ever be in a position to tell the difference. We are the barbarian masses…the ignorant unwashed. Government supersedes us in existence, and transcends us in wisdom and goodness, which is why it is in the position of Lawgiver and Enforcer. It alone has been tasked to exist as the earthly incarnation of the Supreme Being (however that is defined). It alone has the right to determine what Ethics shall be established (outside of man) and to use legalized violence to compel the rest of humanity (within its geopolitical sphere of influence, which it is always seeking to expand) into “correct” thought and behavior.

In short, government is the perfect iteration of narcissism. It is narcissism institutionalized—narcisssim established as the bedrock of civilization. If you have ever asked yourself why our culture is becoming more and more narcissistic, with a sort of pathological devotion to imperious, irrational self-indulgence on a mass scale, even arrantly and proudly hedonistic, it is because the culture reflects the mannerisms, principles, and virtues of the State, not the other way around.

Government can never and will never fundamentally accept responsibility for any failure, or admit that it is even possible for it to commit fault or error, because its root existential purpose—to remediate humanity’s “original sin”—makes doing so a completely self-nullifying proposition. Government can no more represent a fundamental failure to any endeavor than a square can also be a circle, or a baby can also be a man. It simply has no frame of reference for its own failure (though occasionally to assuage or manipulate the “barbarian masses”  it might pay some mildly-convincing lip-service to its “mistakes”), because it exists for the sole purpose of atoning for the absolute existential inadequacy of man. In other words, in the same way that man, according to the collectivist metaphysics which underwrite all governemnts, is perfectly inadequate to his own existence—metaphysically, epistemologically, and ethically —government is the perfect solution. The Divine solution. As much as man is perfectly inadequate, government is perfectly adequate to satisfy the natural failure of man. It is the perfect solution to the to the root metaphysical problems of man because it is the only solution. It is the only option man has for the survival of the species, both in body and in spirit. Government is the Authority which must force man into proper and moral and efficacious existence, and so it cannot make a mistake because a mistake necessarily represents a contradiction to its very natural essence. In other words, because government is the only possible fundamental solution to the fundamental problems of the world caused fundamentally by the failure of man’s birth to prepare him for existence, any error the government might theoretically make could only be remediated by government anyway.

Man is the problem, government is the solution. And those two states of being are absolute and immutable. This is 99% of what you need to know.

*

Government is the fundamental solution to all the errors in the world because all errors in the world are a fundamental product of man’s existence, which is a failure in and of itself.  To be more specific, the natural failure of man is precisely his individual sense of his absolute Self, which categorically infects his mind, choices, and behavior. Man is naturally given to calling himself “I”, but the collectivist metaphysics of the State demand that the only way he can survive is if he is subordinated to the metaphysical primary of “we”—“We the People”; “We the Nation”; “We the Church”, “We the Race”; “We the Chosen”; “We the Oppressed”; “We the Non-White”; “We the Workers”. And ths is precisely what government does. It transfers ethics from morality, which is fundamentally individualistic, to legality, which is fundamentally collectivistic, and the uses legally sanctioned violence to force the individual to submit to the Collective Ideal which it represents as the Ideal’s functional and practical incarnation on earth. The individual shall not consider Government as distinct from God, you could say, because there is simply no way to metaphysically make any such distinction in the first place.

In summary, we should remember that like the narcissist, any mistakes the government makes are always and entirely the fault of others…of you and of me. Which is simply another way of saying that government doesn’t make mistakes. And this is why, in spite of all the reasoned arguments and objective evidence as to its catastrophical incompetence, government inexorably grows massive, assumes ever-increasing power, becomes more reckless, less tolerant of criiticism, more resistant to real change, more violent, more corrupt, more blind, more deaf, less sympathetic, heartless, incompetent,  bloodthirsty, and beastly.

And yet, it concordantly becomes that much more adored.

END

Collectivizing Virtue: The neo-Marxist scourge of political relativism

To qualify virtue is to collectivize it. Thus, it becomes not a virtue, but a prison for the individual; an evil; a tyranny; a siren song for the immutable socialist desire for the abject destruction of the Self. Qualified virtue is only virtuous when it conforms to collectivist identity politics. It has no meaning, in other words, beyond the imperious authority of those who determine the plenary worth of human beings according to group identity, which is about as callow and subjective a marker as can be devised. But no one has or will ever accuse the socialists of being ethically or politically imaginative: “White man, bad. Brown man, good.”—which has a “Me, Tarzan. You, Jane,” sort of ring to it—is pretty much the extent of things. And this is intentional. The more remedial your ethics and your politics, the easier it is to get people to murder for them.

An example of qualifying virtue is the Western neo-Marxist political trope of “social justice”. You see, to claim distinct versions of a broad, and I would argue, a priori, virtue like Justice is of course to divide it…to make it mutually exclusive of itself. There is no such thing as justice qua justice. It ceases to be foundational to human existence, itself, but merely a cursory function of polictics. For example, in today’s neo-Marxist politics of the left, justice isn’t really justice until after its been qualified according to one’s collective identity based primarily on race. Justice is a function of politics, you see, not the other way around. Justice is soley determined by those who claim the authority to decide who is virtuous and who is not according to skin color (and to a marginally lesser extent, their sexual orientation and their religion; their IQ, gender identity, and even in some cases their weight—“fat shaming” being a modern, neo-Marxist imprecation leveled against anyone who dares assert that being overweight is in general neither healthy nor attractive…which, it isn’t).

It is completely mendacious—entirely politically self-serving—to claim that there is a meaningful distinction between justice for the individual and social (collectivized) justice. Justice is an ethical premise, and thus is rooted in the individual, not in categories of individuals, In other words, it begins and ends with the individual—with the Self—and applies thus to groups only insofar as they are groups of individuals. To collectivize justice then is to cut out the individual entirely from its scope and influence and turn it into a political weapon. Trust me, when any white, cisgendered man who doesn’t have some kind of “in” with the politcal left (as a hedge against the “original sin” of his being born white and straight) hears the words “social justice” he knows he’s in trouble. He knows that it means the opposite of justice for him. It means that justice is nothing more than a scapegoating of his race and sexuality and a call for his destruction. This makes justice, as far as it can apply to him, an existential threat and totally evil. He knows that a justice which declares him existentially unjust because he happens to have been born white and straight is an entirely subjective version of the virtue and cannot possibly, under any circumstance, be actually just. “Justice” in the contextual, collectivized, and socialist sense is nothing more than another terrible and terrorizing political irony, like “equality” or “compassion” or “gun control”.  But don’t let yourself be fooled. This impostor of justice known as “social justice” serves no one, regardless of whatever arbitrary collective identity one happens to possess. It is merely another iteration of political propaganda meant to lure humanity into the clutches of an authoritarian ruling class. No one is safe. You can tell yourself all you want that the white man is finally getting his comeuppance, but it is a very tight race between all of us. The margin is razor thin. One single documented commission of wrongthink by the black man and soon he will find himself not so black after all. In other words, anyone who dares stray from the path set for them by their neo-Marxist overlords is white.

And thus we have the dirty little secret: it isn’t white people the neo-Marxists hate, its individuals. You, no matter what your color, orientation, or creed, are a threat to the ruling class on the left (and to some extent even the right…for they are both collectivists at their philosophical root). Because you think as a single, self-aware agent—as a natural, existential “I” and not a “we’—you must be utterly subordinated to the socialists who shall govern you.

Summary and conclusion:

Contextual justice, like “social justice”, is like contextual morality—a fundamental contradiction in terms. “Contextual justice” obligates the foundational ethical premise of Justice to a subjective standard outside itself. This contradicts justice because it means that Justice is no longer the reference for what is truly just. The reference for justice becomes the capricious political category of “group identity”, which strips individuality and thus individual will and action from the virtue of Justice entirely, and makes how one is or is not declared just merely a function of whatever group into which the politcal ruling authority has placed him. Justice then no longer serves the individual but the ruling class—who in turn serve only themselves by appealing to some absolute, yet abstract, transcendent, and ethereal Collective Ideal of which they represent the earthly incarnation. The ruling authority decides who has existential value and requisitely metes out “justice” simply on the basis of what color someone happens to be, or how much money they make, or what sexual partners they prefer, or what religion they are, and so on.

To qualify virtue, like “Justice”, is to pit it against itself, and this necessarily enslaves man, the individual, to the subjective, contextual, collectivist reference by which virtue is now to be measured. Man no longer has a natural birthright to justice but instead finds himself enslaved to some fickle collectivist brand of it.

For the neo-Marxists on the left, the key it seems to delivering justice is to implicitly deny that real Justice actually exists at all.

END

A Fulcrum is Not for Balance but Imbalance: Why government implies destabilization

The seesaw…a common playground fixture; we’ve all been on one in our youth. It’s a long, often wooden, plank, with a handle on either end, resting on a fulcrum a couple of feet off the ground. Two children sit opposite each other on either end, ideally being of comparable weight, and they proceed to rock the plank up and down on the fulcrum. And this is the entire point of the thing. The fact that either end of the plank does not remain stationary is the purpose of the seesaw. The plank, you see, is not suppposed to be balanced…hence the fulcrum at the center. If the intention was to balance the plank, the fulcrum would be removed and the plank secured to a fixed point. But you cannot do this and still have a seesaw. That is, you cannot balance a plank when the very asserted and accepted fundamental nature and purpose of it is to be imbalanced.

And this contradiction—a fulcrum which is irrationally and contrarily repurposed as a balance mechanism—is a good metaphor for government. Government’s ostensible intended purpose—to bring balance to conflicting groups—is contrary to its use and observable efficacy, and this article will examine why.

The government is a fulcrum which must pivot, but is somehow—for some not too terribly rational reason which is predicated upon some not too terribly rational metaphysics—intended to bring balance (and I speak primarily of Western democracies, like the United States) to either ends of a “plank” (humanity) which is described as being in perpetual conflict (imbalance) with itself according to its nature. The point of the State then, it seems, is to balance that which cannot actually be balanced. By bringing the plank of humanity then to the fulcrum of government, we in fact focus and accentuate the conflicts endemic to humanity as a general function of humanity’s very existence, with disasterous consequences.

The overt and objective incompetency of the government to its purpose—balance—is a clear verification of this. Government fails at balance because of the metaphysics which underwrite its very existence. Man cannot be made passive, moral, or equable, because of the root insufficient nature of his existence, experienced wholly through his own singular consciousness, to apprehend reality. Man possesses an inexorable sense of individual Self which is in endless conflict with the “truth” of a collectivist reality…be this reality defined according to scientific determinism, divine/religious determinism, agnostic nihilism, or simply the depressing endless smorgasbord of politcal-economic theories which incorporate the State.

This contradiction—government which must by its own admitted purpose and presence act as a fulcrum, thus accentuating and focusing the rank vagaries of inexorable capricious and irrational human nature, but is intended as a fixed point of balance—yes, this contradiction, and the constistent stubborn attempts of man to appeal to contradiction as a means of organizing reality, is why the government fails again and again. Healthcare, welfare, education, social integrity and harnmony, equanimity, liberty, international tranquility, justice, transparency…all of the foibles of man it is intended to set right and steady it can only fuck up to the point of mass destruction. It hones and focuses the conflicts—the imbalances—of mankind by implicitly affirming them as ipso facto and then elevating them to the level of supreme ruling Authority, weilding supreme destructive violence as its method of practical implementation. You look at lady (centralized) justice and you see the blindfold and your hopes are dashed as you realized that the fact that she is blinded isn’t because she is fair but because it doesn’t matter. Her “justice” will only affirm the root and infinite injustice of man’s nature. She is blind to what he IS because the death of man—his absence from reality—is the only possible outcome of government in the end. The only way government “balances” the chaos of human existence is by elevating the chaos to the point where the species implodes in on itself and takes governemnt with it. There is great “balance” in the neverending blackness of humanity’s absence, and by extension, the absence of government. The State is the square peg to mankind’s round hole, and the government can only stubbornly force them together, persistently so, until both are ground into dust.

*

For the past…well, several millennium, humanity has decided (for reasons we shall not address here) that the State—the formal installation of a supremely violent coercive Authority—is the ideal way of bringing balance and equanimity to all manner of broadscale human conflict; and this conflict due to an inexorable, fixed, and unchangeable human insufficiency to its own existence (its degeneracy into self-annihilation absent someone or something forcing it into “right” thinking and behavior). And yet, for millennium after millennium humanity has remained blind to the slagheaps of contradiction which plague this philosophy like boils. The infinitely irreconcilable difference that men have with one another, which means the inevitable destruction of the race on the whole, are nevertheless sought to be mitigated by an Absolute Authority on High. God is not a reliable Authority because his practical manifestation on earth in realtime is too sporadic, of course, and so men establish the State to serve as God’s proxy—his incarnate Authority on earth, if you will. And we need not necessarily define God according to specifically religious terms, because what he is, really, is simply an Ideal, you see. A collective Ideal to which all men must be categorically submitted and subordinated. They cannot do it themselves, collectivist metaphysics tells us,  because of their infinitely individual perspective (their singular consciousness and volition). Thus men are forced by the violence of the State to accept the dictates of the Ideal, whether it’s “God” or the “gods”, or the “People”, or the “Workers”, or the “Race”, or the “Nation”, or “Diversity”, or whatever…it doesn’t really matter. The Collective Ideal is simply a superficial abstract placeholder for the practical Authority of the ruling class—that is, the Government.

*

The intention of the government (particularly in Western democracies) is to serve as a fixed point upon which to bring balance and stability to the inexorable social conflicts endemic to humanity according to humanity’s metaphysical identity (and this according to collectivist philosophy); but because of the inexorability of these conflicts due to the fact that they are a product of man’s absolute nature, the government in practicality becomes not a fixed point, but a fulcrum upon which to focus and acutely assert the imbalances of human existence. This magnifies and  raises the destructive consequences of the conflict by giving competing groups a position of supreme violent coercive power (the State) over which to fight and to use as a giant hammer to smash opposition. By manifesting as a fulcrum instead of the intended anchor, the government actually concedes the inexorability, inevitability, and necessity of man’s self-destructive and nihilistic nature, and wholly surrenders to the reality of it, and thus brings about the very destruction of mankind it is intended to subvert.

The rational foible of the philosophy of government is rather shocking, truth be told.

*

The governemnt becomes the hub of human conflict…an intersection where competing groups will meet and are made to to adhere to rules which dictate which side shall yield the right of way and how often and to what degree. Thus, we can already see the failure of the notion of “government-as-balance” or “government-as-anchor”. The basic practical application of the State is not to eradicate the differences between competing groups—for if that were possible according to the prevailing (collectivist) metaphysics then government would be unnecessary in the first place. On the contrary, government is declared indispensable to human kind precisely because humanity is said to be so invariably and utterly contentious according to its most fundamental essence. There is no humanity absent conflict, that is. The two are metaphysically corollary. If men were capable in and of themselves (that is, absent coercive Authority) of reconciling differences and ending conflicts, let alone eradicating them altogether, then there would be no point to installing a supreme coercive Authority to force men to get along—which of course their nature prevents them from doing anyway. (That  man’s nature categorically precludes any lasting conflict resolution is a collectivist assumption which one cannot be reminded of enough.)

*

The government is intended to reconcile differences between competing groups by acting somehow as an instrument of compromise where all groups can be heard and represented and differences resolved without having to resort to and experience the mass violence and death which must otherwise inevitably accompany such differences. Yet herein are made two critical  errors of logic which undermine the whole endeavor and validate the common proverb that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

First, we underwrite government with the metaphysics that declare man incapable of compromise and conflict resolution according to his most basic and primary nature, thus destining government to fail in its stated objective even before it begins. We can use all manner of authoritative force we want, and we do, yet man can never change his nature any more than a fish can change into a battleship. The force we bring to bear upon man can only lead inexorably to his destruction at the hands of the State, as the eradication, or the absence, of man is the only real solution to the metaphysical problem his existence presents. All governments imply a “final solution” you might say, then, and this solution is carried out to various degrees depending on the stage of evolution a given State happens to find itself in.

Second, we believe that somehow an institution of supreme Authority can have a real interest in compromise and balance; or have any real interest at all beyond that of its own Authority…Authority being, in fact, merely the practical incarnation of a monolithic collectivist Ideal (the People, the Workers, the Nation, the Tribe, the Race…etc.). The State is not an instrument of compromise, but of force. For that is what Authority is. Authority is force, and compromise is the very antithesis of force.

The governent is not a solution to human conflict, it is conflict institutionalized. It is a place where competing groups go to seize power and then use that power to crush their adversaries with the most violently efficacious means man can possibly devise. The State is not an andedote to the chaos of human nature, it is a concession of it, and the implicit acceptance of the idea that man, because his mind and will and his reason are fundamentally at odds with reality, must be annihilated in order for peace to be possible.

Not that there will be anyone around to see it and define it as such.

The nature of government is rank, crass, and uncompromising coercive force which will bring about the destruction of man according to his predestined existential failure due to his insufficient nature. Period. Man is the plank with opposing ends; government is the fulcrum upon which the opposition and imbalance is accentuated. Man’s insufficient nature and the State work together to manifest perfectly the failure of man to his own existence according to the prevailing collectivist metaphysics.

The government is the fulcrum, and remember this well: If the board ever stopped pivoting there would be no use then for governent. And thus for those of you who demand that the State bring balance to the people? Well, the government wouldn’t do it even if it could.

That’s it’s nature.

END