Monthly Archives: March 2016

Their Niavete is NOT Why the Little Children are Special to Jesus

Belief without question, slavish following, and blind obedience to an ideal without regard to rational and moral consistency is NOT a virtue.

And it never will be.

Enter the sermon on “Jesus and the Little Children” I heard yesterday at the ignominious Easter service I suffered through wherein Jesus admonishes those who would seek to prevent the children from coming to Him and seeking His comfort and countenance to let them come, and declares it theirs, these precious little ones, the Kingdom of Heaven.

And enter the obligatory explication wherein it is explained that the reason why Jesus holds children in such high esteem is the cheapness of their faith.

We are told, you see, that what makes children so righteous and so venerated by the Divine is the fact that they lack even basic rational discernment.  That it is their arrant innocence OF REASON AND OF DISCERNMENT which makes them such spiritual gems.

And enter then the glaring implication that the problem with adults is that they have the temerity to ask for proof, and to expect sensible rationales; and require time and space to ponder and vet the hundreds of ideas which come their way, seemingly on a daily basis. That it is this grown up, and so very SELFISH and ARROGANT sense of entitlement to ideological integrity and rational consistency which prevents them from having the pureness of faith God so cherishes, and the unflinching loyalty to His heavenly Command He so appreciates.

You see, the deft ability of adults to doubt is why they are on the wrong side of the bell curve when it comes to moral purity and divine favor.

So we are told.

And of course we are.

Because, you see, to a people who have become so comfortable in their doctrinal contradictions that they literally cannot expend one breath when preaching or teaching without uttering one, the adult expectation of reason and responsibility to logical consistency and evidentiary substance is a moral and epistemological violation of mortal consequence.

And this is why the church is dead. And why it is a cult of death; where denial is practiced and self-loathing is the prime moral obligation. And why it has exchanged reason for madness, and the truth for a a lie, and God for the Devil. And it has not only been banished from the Garden but has turned, and out of pure spite burned the bridge over the moat and built a wall across the path.


Children and their faith aren’t special to Jesus because they’ll believe without blush any load of crap some adult feeds them. They and their faith are special to Him because they do not doubt their individuality; and they understand inherently that they are unique, autonomous, and priceless, as a function of their very existence. They are BORN knowing the Truth of the Self. They have not yet been spiritually wrecked by the demonic lie of collectivism.

An Argument to Consider: “Punishment” Serves No Practical Purpose; it is Violence for the Sake of Violence; it is Not Justice, nor is it Habilitative or Rehabilitative or Redemptive

* [Please note that the following is NOT an argument which can, in its present form, be applied to criminal justice systems as a function of the State; nor is this my intention with this article. The following argument as is, is a philosophical one. Also please note that in this article I briefly discuss the “irrational man”; however I will not cover the particulars of “willful irrationality”. For that is a topic for another article. But I do wish it to be understood that I am not suggesting that an irrational man is somehow absolved of his responsibility to reason; that he somehow cannot help his logically flawed thinking.  Though this may be true on a psychological or neurological level in some instances, the majority of those who think and act irrationally do so, I submit, of their own unfettered will.]


Punishment serves no practical purpose.  And because it therefore serves no practical purpose it serves no rational purpose. And because it serves no rational purpose, it serves no moral purpose. In which case, punishment is merely meaningless violence.

Being violence, then, and absent any relevant efficacy, punishment is merely the infliction of injury and pain for its own sake; that is, violence for no other reason than to be violent; violence for violence’s sake, period. And in this way, punishment is more synonymous with revenge, as revenge serves no reconciliatory nor rehabilitative purpose whatsoever, by definition.

But one may object to such a description and evaluation of punishment on the basis that punishment is a necessary and logical consequence of violating a given ethical standard (upon which legal codes are based). Thus, the idea commonly assumed is that punishment is a means of redressing an act of ethical trespass.

This begs the question(s): What is the moral reference for the ethical standard? What precisely is it which the ethical standard seeks to affirm as Good and protect as Sactosanct? Certainly the ethical standard cannot be, itself, the moral reference; for this is a contradiction, and eliminates any practical value the ethical standard might hold for anything–or anyone, to be precise–outside of it.

Now, let’s take a moment to carefully discuss the idea of an ethical standard (e.g. “the law”) as its own moral reference, because understanding the logical failure of this idea is extremely important. Even today there are many people who believe that human beings follow laws, whatever and wherever they may be (religion, society, or other cooperatives) for the sake of laws, which always marginalizes humanity, eventually leading to its destruction.

For example, if an ethical standard says that thou shalt do X because X is good for the ethical standard–that is, doing X is good because the standard (the Law) is good (again, the ethical standard as its own moral reference)–we find ourselves faced with two insurmountable rational flaws (the latter proceeding from the former):

  1. Doing X is good for the ethical standard, which dictates the doing of X solely because doing X is good for the standard, which, being the moral reference, is already good, even in the absence of doing X. Put more simply, doing X is good for the standard, which as the moral reference is already good, and yet it still commands the doing of X.  Do you see the redundancy? One does X in order to affirm the command (the standard…the “law”) to do X, which is already good even absent the actual doing of X (the actual following of/obedience to the command), making the doing of X morally and practically irrelevant. Further, there is no relevant difference between the doing of X and the command to do X. It goes something like this: One is commanded to do X, which one does soley to affirm the command, because it is its own moral reference, and the command says to do X, which one does soley to affirm the command, because it is its own moral reference, and the command says to do X, which one does…and so on and so forth. Doing X then = the command to do X (the standard, the law). So X, the act = X, the command. The command, bring its own moral reference, is utterly in service to itself. There is thus no practical way to apply the ethical standard for any rational or moral purpose other than to simply repeat the command of the standard. Which is to say that there is no rational or moral purpose of the ethical standard at all.
  2. The circular nature and redundancy of such a dichotomy (the ethical standard equaling the moral reference) cancels out the standard, rendering it completely obsolete to the volitional agent (man).  Or, on the other hand, one could argue that the ethical standard, being circular whereby it infinitely folds back on itself, is absolute, and thus nullifies any awareness of one’s own individual, autonomous existence, because such an awareness of such existence contradicts the absolute (infinite) nature of the ethical standard which is also its own moral reference. Which is to say that man is rendered completely obsolete by the ethical standard. In either case, whether the ethical standard is rendered obsolete or man is, man and the ethical standard (when it is its own moral reference) are mutually exclusive.


So, it is impossible for man to appeal to the ethical standard as its own moral reference, because by becoming its own moral reference it utterly excludes itself from the frame of reference of the human individual (his Self) who thus cannot then appeal to it in any measure at all, nullifying all arguments that the ethical standard is its own moral reference. 

So then, if the ethical standard cannot be its own moral reference, what is the moral reference?

I submit that the only rational moral reference (that to which it answers and which it affirms) is the volitional agent; whose volitional and self-aware existence gives it any meaning at all. And by “volitional agent” I mean: the human individual. The affirmation of the goodness of the individual and the promotion of his right to own and pursue his singular existence is the sole purpose of any ethical standard.

Thus, the ethical standard has no actual value in and of itself.  It only has value in that it affirms and promotes people.

Okay, but what does this have to do with punishment?

Well, there is nothing of punishment then which can be rationally implied or intended by the standard. You cannot punish someone for violating an ethical, and by extension, legal, standard which has no moral value in and of itself. Because the moral reference, not the ethical standard, is what is actually violated.

Now, here’s the crux.

Therefore, the ethical standard is established not to punish the unrighteous individual, but to protect and promote the righteous one. Not to punish the guilty, but to protect and promote the innocent.

But, one may be inclined to ask, if righteous and innocent people are what is actually violated, cannot the unrighteous and guilty be punished for their violations?

The answer is no, and the problem is punishment qua punishment.

You see, individuals, being the moral reference for ethical standards, are not affirmed through punishment, but through promotion and protection (ostensibly through the establishment of the ethical standard–the law). Punishment, which is applied following a violation, does neither.  For only two things fundamentally promote and protect human individuals, the moral reference: reason and restraint. (“Restraint”, as in the neutralization of those who violate others. And by “neutralization” I don’t necessarily mean “death”, but a neutralization of their ability to threaten individuals by some manner of restraint, which can mean death, but not necessarily so.) Neither of these things has anything to do with punishment.

Let me explain.

The rational man who has by some means violated the ethical standard–which is to say, violated his fellow man–and in doing so become unjust (the “rational unjust”) can be shown by reason his error; and will, being rational, concede it, rendering punishment of no use. You see, his obedience to reason is the affirmation and refuge of the innocent, and the validation of the efficacy and truth of the ethical standard, and its moral reference, the individual. The innocent and the just are protected by reason, not punishment. To punish the man who has conceded the evil of his actions serves no purpose other than to torment him; to violate him, making hypocrites out of those who dole out punishment in service to “justice”.

Now, the irrational man who has violated the ethical standard and thus its moral reference cannot (or will not, which, practically speaking, is the same thing) be receptive to reason–to rationally consistent arguments–and thus cannot concede it, which also renders punishment moot. For the irrational man cannot apprehend the point of, or the justification for, punishment, because any such point or justification, to be moral, reasonable,  and non-hypocritical, would need to serve a purpose, and a purpose demands a rational explication which the irrational man cannot concede. Which again means that the innocent and the just are not protected by punishment. Nor are they, in this instance, protected, obviously, by reason. For the unrighteous irrational man who has acted unjustly cannot, again by definition, be reasoned with, and therefore there is no point in punishing him; for punishment can serve no rehabilitative, habilitative, or reconciliatory purpose, since the irrational man cannot apprehend the reason for the punishment in the first place. The innocent and the righteous must therefore be protected from the unrighteous irrational man via the restraining of the unrighteous irrational man’s ability to violate individuals.

And this restraining of irrational, unrighteous, immoral men who violate the ethical standard–which means to violate the moral reference, which means to violate individual human beings–is not punishment, but prevention.

Collectivism and the Corollary Between Wealth and Power

I define Collectivism this way:

Collectivism is–when we follow the breadcrumbs back to the logical premise–the collectivist metaphysic. And the collectivist metaphysic is this: that human existence and identity is not a function of one’s individual self, that is, one’s own ability to create a cognitive conceptual distinction between one’s singular conscious Self, and Other/Environment (or, That Which is Not Self); but rather, existence is function of some manner of group affiliation based upon a group Identity, and the necessarilry underlying deterministic processes which such existence and identity demands.

For example, according to what I term “racial Marxism”, one is considered first and foremost a product of his or her racial category. Like,for example, “white” or “black”. Therefore, the root of the individual Self is found in the ontological primary–or, better termed, the “collectivist Ideal”– of “Blackness” or “Whiteness”, and this Ideal is in turn practically and pragmatically defined and represented by some “Authority” who must claim themselves–or himself or herself–the incarnate representation of the Ideal.

Individual Self, then, is always subordinated to the collective of “black people”, or “white people”, as defined and exemplified by the Authority–they, or he or she, who represents the Ideal, and physically manifests it, to the group.  And since the individual is of course born into their “Whiteness” or “Blackness”, the individual himself or herself having no choice in the matter, he or she is wholly determined by the processes which have dictated his or her race; and these processes are always at least tacitly ascribed to the Ideal. For what can ultimately determine race except the Ideal which grants race its efficacy and meaning?

Thus, one’s sense of individual Self, according to the collectivist paradigm, can only be an abberation–an affront to the natural, deterministic order of things. In other words, a sense of individual, autonomous Self, is, in fact, an act of existential treason, and must therefore be destroyed by force, not by choice, since in man’s “fallen” state, which is his “natural” context of Self, he is beer we reality from this perversion of existencethis abominationthis endemic and categorical depravity.  And by “force” I mean not only violence, but intellectual larceny–artifice, propaganda, lies, appeals to emotions over reason.


I submit that in collectivism, because of its  reliance on Authority for its practical manifestation (enforcement), power must constantly be dispatched, and this always for the sole purpose of acquiring wealth–or “resources”–at the expense of others. That is, power exercised from a collectivist premise is solely a power meant to commandeer; it is never a legitimate–that is, voluntary–exchange of value, regardless of the context (the specific collectivist Ideal in question). You see, collectivist power does not earn. It takes.

Now, I should pause here, in the interest of rational consistency. Above I just referred to “collectivist power”, however, I submit that this is a redundant expression. The exercise of power over others always implies a collectivist premise; a collectivist Ideal. There is no way to compel by force the behavior of another human being if we in fact concede that each one possesses a metsphysical context of singular Self whereby they alone are in the position of ultimately determining their own desires (needs and wants) from this absolute context; that is, the context of individual Self.

Put simply, to use power to compel behavior is to assume that the individual is existentially insufficient, and therefore he or she must be compelled from “outside” themselves, by one or some who claim the authority to exist for them, according to some “transcendent” enlightenment (revelation; awakening), which is always a function of some omnipotent, ethereal  “creator” or determining force, which is collectivist Ideal–like “Blackness” or “Whiteness”, for example.

Henceforth, then, I will not speak of collectivist power, but simply “power”, since I submit that all power–the use of force to compel others–necessarily proceeds from a collectivist metaphysic.


Relationships which in incorporate exercises of power by one or some over others are never, and can never be, mutually beneficial. One is always affirmed and expanded, while the other is always sacrificed.

In other words, the exercise of power is always intended to commandeer wealth, never to earn it; and this power is always morally and intellectually underwritten by an appeal to Authority.

Now, the corollary relationship between wealth and power is built upon this Authority. For Authority is an appeal to some absolute mandate from the transcendent, cosmic Ideal to use power to compel sacrifice (of wealth, which includes Self). Authority, then, in a sense, IS power; and power is force, and force is always applied to elicit sacrifice.

So what is sacrifice, beyond the surrendering of self and wealth? Sacrific, within the collectivist framework, is the absolute moral and intellectual obligation of he or she who is to be sacrifice; which makes true then that compelling sacrifice through power is the absolute moral and intellectual obligation of he or she who is in authority.

So, what is the exercise of Authority again? The use of power, which is force. And why power? To commandeer wealth (resources); which is the practical, visceral, and inexorable consequence of increasing the scope of Authority as a function of the transcendent, collectivist Ideal’s absolute mandate to compel absolute sacrifice to that Ideal.


Authority is the use of power according to an Ideal’s mandate to compel sacrifice; but it is also an epistemology and an ethic–that is, it is an intellectual and moral appeal to the “truth” of the collectivist Ideal.

The Ideal itself must be rooted in Authority, you see, because it cannot be described by rational explication since it is by definition beyond the epistemological and ethical frame of reference of individuals. And this is why ideological “truth” is always a function of ” revelation”, where revelation is defined as the transcendent (or “supernatural”) dispensing of unknowable knowledge.

Since authority, then, is the moral and intellectual appeal to the “truth” of the collectivist Ideal for the exercise of power in order to commandeer wealth, we are relationally–or “politically”, in philosophical parlance–going to observe what I call an “authority/submission dynamic”.

The authority/submission dynamic in turn implies the following practical politic also dynamic with respect to wealth (resources):

Absolute gain/Absolute loss

The salient term is, of course, “absolute”; for once we concede Authority as the intellectual and moral political premise, power must be absolutely applied in order to compel people and wealth absolutely into the collectivist Ideal. The Ideal of which is, again, incarnate in the Authority, which has been specially (transcendently) “called” to compel sacrifice.

The Authority has a divine mandate to use power to compel individual sacrifice because it is necessary to compel behavior, since human beings from their “natural”, and “fallen” or “insufficient” individual frame of reference cannot choose to obey, being wholly outside the collectivist metaphysic, as specified by the particular Ideal in question. In other words, since the human being is cognitively/consciously an individual (all of us naturally employ the pronoun “I”), he or she cannot obey on his or her own. He or she cannot, by “nature”, see beyond the absolute frame of reference of his or her individual awareness/consciousness. Thus, he or cannot choose to obey; he or she must ultimately be forced.

So, when we speak of collectivism, Authority is necessary to force the surrendering of individual wealth. If Authority is not necessary, then there is no rational argument for any kind or measure of authority in the first place. To say Authority is optional is to metaphysically concede that the individual possesses the innate ability to apprehend truth from the frame reference of individual Self, and thus can independently choose to act in a manner consistent with truth, and truth’s corollary, morality. In which case, compelling behavior by force must then violate truth and morality at the most fundamental level–the metaphysical. And this completely repudiates the collectivist Metaphysic and Ideal, full stop.

Therefore, authority conceded in any measure, I submit, must inevitably be applied absolutely. And absolute authority applied is the application of absolute power. And absolute power seeks to acquire absolute wearth.

So, authority/submission = absolute gain (for the authority)/absolute loss (for those under authority). In ratio form, this relationship looks like this:


The ratio represents the notion that the collectivist Ideal, which is absolute, and established by its Authority, is the only legitimate thing which has a right to exist. Since it alone possesses “truth” (being “truth” itself), and is the absolute source then of the truth–the “real” reality– of all things, anything which assumes, or appears to possess, an independent existence must be sacrificed. And nowhere is such an independent existence more apparent than in the individual human being–he and she who has the evil temerity to use the pronoun “I”.

Think of this like “God” in the erroneous orthodox Christian sense, where God is the direct and utterly controlling, determining and determinist source of all things–all which exists and acts. If God is and acts for everything, then what does that make everything?

It makes everything God.

God is all, and thus all is not actually all at all, but all is nothing. And hence the ratio: 1:0.

But here’s the thing, and you probably see where this is going. Since God = the essence, will, and action of all things and all persons, what we really have is not that God = everything, but that God = God. Or:


Which is really:


Therefore any individual who claims a distinct existence, and by that distinct existence a distinct identity, and by that distinct identity a distinct volition, must be forcefully sacrificed, and abeolute my so. They must be compelled into oblivion by the absolute seizure of their wealth (which includes their very selves— the source of all their labor) so that that which is the 1 is truly and pragmatically and effectively the only ONE.


Authority as a function of the collectivist Ideal demands absolute sacrifice, and it compels this sacrifice by exercising absolute power, and this in order to subordinate all things and all persons to itself; the practical manifestation of this being the commandeering of resources to the point where no one else– no individual–has the means to pursue or manifest or display their own unique existence in any relevant or substantive measure whatsoever.

Authority, to put it directly, is the violent seizure and consumption of resources to an absolute degree in service to a given collectivist Ideal. Nothing outside of this Ideal–or, functionally speaking, the Authority which enforces it upon individuals–is considered to possess a legitimate existence. Thus, anything– or, more importantly, anyone–outside of the collectivist Ideal, which by definition includes all individuals, will be sacrificed. It (anything) and they (anyone) will be rendered the ZERO so that the Ideal can be the ONE.

And thus we are brought back to the claim which is the title of this  article:

Wealth and power are necessary corollaries when a function of a collectivist metaphysic; specifically defined as a given collectivist Ideal. An increase in one necessitates an increase in the other, and this by subordinating all wealth–all life, property, labor, currency, and capital–to an established Authority, which creates thus the authority/submission political dynamic, which in turn renders the existential ratio of the Authority to its subordinates (as the authority is the practical incarnation of the Ideal) as 1:0; which functionally equals 1, where 1 is the Authority, which claims to act in service to the Ideal– this Ideal being the infinite, transcendent, cosmic Cause and Inexorable Determining Will of all things, and on the behalf of which all things are sacrificed by Authoritative power.

In short, Collectivism will inevitably and necessarily manifest the exercise of absolute power in order to acquire absolute wealth; one necessarily amounting to the other.


Within the framework of collectivism, an increase in power necessarily results in a commensurate increase in wealth, and vice versa; for wealth and power are corollaries because the collective Ideal necessarily assumes them both, and, ultimately, absolutely.  The point then, or the unavoidable consequence, you could say, of wealth is power; and the point, or unavoidable consequence, of power is wealth.

Both find their intellectual and moral foundation in Authority, which in turn creates the requisite political dynamic of authority/submission. And what the Authority demands, both intellectually and morally, is that all things, including and especially individual human beings, must be forcibly (violently, or through manipulation, which is a form of violence) compelled into absolute sacrifice, and this because human beings naturally and endemically observe existence from the frame of reference of a distinct, autonomous, and singular Self, which is by definition an intellectual anathema and a moral offense to the collectivist Ideal.

The collective, or group, Identity is rooted in the collectivist Ideal, which is the transcendent Cause and Essence and Will of all things which divinely mandates the Authority–a human being or group of human beings who serve as the incarnate (i.e. material/practical) manifestation of the Ideal–to assume and use absolute power to acquire absolute wealth (persons, property, labor, currency, etc.) in order to functionally establish the assumption that the Ideal is the only thing which may exist; because it alone, not the individual nor any other thing in creation, is absolute.

A specific collectivist Ideal can be almost anything. A few examples are:

•A deity or deities

•A religious denomination, or sect, or the “Church”

•Culturally or socially-based collectives like the Tribe, the Family, the the Nation, or Tradition

•Sub cultural or political groups like the Gang, the Club, the Party, the Association, the Team, the Brotherhood, the Union, the Workers

•Natural “law”, like the Laws of Physics, genetic or biological determinative attributes like race, gender, and even IQ depending on who you ask, evolutionary “forces”, and other physical, biological, and/or physiological processes.