Have you ever seen any of those “law enforcement auditing” videos on social media sites like YouTube? Sometimes they’re referred to as “First Amendment auditing” videos. It’s where guys go around filming law enforcement personnel in public—out in the street, during traffic stops (their own or others’), in and around government buildings like police stations, military bases, municipal offices, etc.

In the more general auditing videos these guys can be seen filming almost anywhere in public…not only government establishments, but outside stores, on streets, in parks, around public transportation, etc. If you haven’t seen any of these videos, I recommend checking them out. They are kind of fun to watch. Some of the protagonists are more provocative, some more chill, but one thing is for sure—they all have guts.

Before I go any further, I should preface this article by saying that it is not my intention to criticize the intelligence or motivation of these “auditors”. I actually quite admire them on some level. This this article should in no way be taken as an expression of derision against them, no matter how caustic my tone may get.

You see, my ire is not directed at them, but at the fundamental metaphysical assumptions—and the ideologies these assumptions underwrite—which make what First Amendment auditors do such a colossal waste of time (with perhaps the exception of whatever revenue they are able to collect from the views.)

Skeptical?

Hold on now. Here come the facts:

*

We love these auditing videos—those of us with hearts brimming with a sense of justice—those of us who “get it” with respect to what the First Amendment auditors are trying to accomplish with all the spectacle. We love to see the ignorant and power-hungry authorities get owned—beaten at their own game—played better and understood more thoroughly by the random Joe Blow on the street. We love to see the “little guy” speaking truth to power. We stand up and cheer for the common man who looks into the face of open tyranny and says, “Yeah, I don’t think so. I call bullshit on this whole circus, bro.” The common man is the hero of the West, and what is better than to see him out on the crooked American streets educating those power-tripping cops with egos as big as their utility belts?…(Except some of the cops are cool, of course.)

Hmm…well…I sense a “but” coming on. 

And it’s a biiiiiig but…

Using history as our guide, merely perusing the last hundred years or so—nothing too critical, just a casual flipping through the pages—who always has the last laugh?

The citizen or the State? 

The common man, or the Aristocracy? 

Those waiting for the bus or those in government limousines? 

The law-keepers or the law-makers? 

The plowman or the plantation owner? 

The master or the slave? 

Do rights ever really trump power? 

Of course not.

I know what you’re thinking. I’m poisoning the well. I’m unfairly setting the tone. I’m basing this on assumption, not fact.

Not so fast. 

And, well…yeah, the well is poisoned. But not by me. It was already poisoned when I got here; I’m just pointing it out. Hard to hear, I know, especially when it’s the only thing to drink from.

Again, take a cursory glance through history. When do the “YouTube auditors” of world history ever really win?

They don’t. 

Now, if you’re American I know what you are thinking. You’re thinking the American Revolution, the Civil War, the 13th Amendment, and/or the Civil Rights movement, aren’t you? You’re thinking that surely these are examples of “wins” for the common man, right?

Let me ask my fellow Joe Blow Americans a question: 

As of today, right now, do you think you have moreor less in common with your political leadership than Americans did two hundred years ago?

Don’t bother answering. The answer is so obvious that it makes the question almost insulting.

Power always wins, and you know it; and if you don’t know it you should, because you have only onejob to do as a citizen, and one rule to follow…both installed at birth, and both are the same thing:

Obey.

Now you can “church it up” all you want with the garlands and ribbons of “individual rights”, and “democracy”, and “liberty”, and “free elections”, and “Constitutional Amendments”, and whatever else helps you sleep at night.

“Authority-and-Submission” is the inexorable and fundamental sociopolitical arrangement that defines your relationship with the State, period; and that means that when push comes to shove you will obey. You shall be compelled…both by your government and even most probably your own brainwashed subconscious.

Whatever “rights” and “amendments” and “liberties” you think give you protection against the excess of Political Authority…think again. There is no such thing as “excess Political Authority”. If you believe there is, you might as well believe in Santa Claus.

I know you think I’m crazy; but I assure I’m speaking only from object logic, so hang in there.

Here is an axiom that we all would do well to remember: Those things (rights etc.) exist only for you, not for your government.

Do you understand what this means? I mean reallyunderstand?

“Rights” and “freedoms” and “amendments” and “liberties” are the corners of the political pen you are kept in like livestock. That is, they exist to define your position within the geopolitical boundaries, not the position of the ruling class. They have nothing to do with the ruling class at all. 

Think about it.

…

Okay…let me back up. 

Let’s start here…with a simple question;

Who are political rights are liberties for, and what is their purpose?

It’s easy…

They are for you—the member of the citizen masses—to protect you from your Political Authority.

What then does this then imply about their nature?

Well, it means that rights etc. represent, in nature and purpose, an implicit demarcation. That is, they represent a distinction between you and the ruling class. They are an implicit government declaration that you are not one with your political leadership; a declaration that this is not actually a nation of and for and by the People, but rather a nation of the leaders and the led; the rulers and the ruled. Youand them.

But okay, fine…still it sounds good, right? “Rights”, “liberties”, etc…they are good for us, right? They help, not hurt.

Not so fast. Let me ask another question:

Rights and liberties etc. exist in order to prevent the political leadership—or, more precisely, the Political Authority—from doing what, exactly?

From using power against you. Meaning, from using power to compel you.

And what does this mean, exactly? 

It means that “rights” etc exist to prevent the Political Authority from exercising…

…now, wait for it…

From exercising Political Authority.

Do you not see the intrinsic contradiction?

…

You think I’m full of shit right about now. This is because you think that Political Authority exists as a matter of degrees. When someone mentions government Authority you think it’s rational to ask “how much?”. 

That is a foolish question. 

You don’t cooperate with Political Authority…because you don’t share power. See, if you could trulyself-govern you wouldn’t need the institutionalized, centralized Authority known as government in the first place. And if “self-government” was anything more than a bromide used to pacify the masses, you wouldn’t be forced by this institutionalized, centralized Authority to obey a collectivist ethic known as the Law—forced, regardless of your will.

The belief in the lie that somehow government can avoid its intrinsic natural totalitarianism by somehow “cooperating” with the masses it specificallyexists to rule by the mere declaration of “rights” is why the masses continue to be utterly blind to their own enslavement; and why they call people like me full of shit.

“Cooperative government”.

Yeah, have fun squaring that circle. Good luck with that. 

…

At any rate, continuing on.

This madness is revealed in the following massive contradiction:

That “rights” granted by the Political Authority shall protect us—the citizen masses—from the very thing that the Political Authority exists do in the first place: Exercise Authority over us!

And what is this Authority?

It is the power to dictate and coerce mass behavior in accordance with the Law.

And what is the Law?

The Law is a collectivist ethic which establishes a set of dictated collective behaviors that the masses, as an expression of their collective identity as citizens, must and shall be compelled into by the coercive (i.e. violent) power of the Political Authority.

If Law is thus necessarily dictated to the compelledmasses, and can only be dictated and compelled bythe Political Authority, then the fundamental relevancy and meaning of the Law comes from where?

From the Political Authority.

And thus, the Law exists, fundamentally, as a directfunction what?

As a direct function of the Political Authority…also known as the State. 

Therefore the purpose of the law can ultimately only be what?

To uphold and affirm the State.

Which implies what kind of relationship between the State and the Masses?

Authority-and-submission.

Which means what?

Which means that the Law—and the “Rights’ and “liberties” written therein—exists ultimately to perpetuate the Authority of the State to exercise coercive power over the citizen masses. Which means, as far as your government is concerned, your “rights” and “liberties” and “freedoms”, are simply reminders to you from them that the point of your very existence is toobey your Political Authority, period. (And by the way, for all the First Amendment auditors, the coercive arm of this Authority is, of course, Law Enforcement.)

…

Now, are you for bucket of real irony to be face?

Here it comes…

There is no difference between the guy auditing on the street for his first amendment rights and the ignorant, abusive cop taking him to jail for it. Because both are acting in service to the exact same idea…because both affirm the ultimate Authority of the State to compel the masses into obedience to the Ruling Class. 

Think of it this way:

Why does the First Amendment exist?

In part, to prevent the State from dictating what you can and can’t say.

And why does the State exist?

To act as the centralized Political Authority.

To do what?

To collectivize and compel the masses into a collective ethic…this ethic is called the Law.

And why must the masses be compelled into Law?

Well, if you study the metaphysics which inform government, you understand that it is because the they cannot be trusted outside of it.

What does this mean, exactly?

That the masses cannot be trusted to behave ethically on their own.

Which means that the masses cannot be trusted with what, ultimately?

With freedom.

Freedom from?

From the Authority of the State.

And by “freedom” we mean the freedom to do what?

Well…ultimately to do anything. Meaning to exist beyond the Authority of the State.

And by one’s existence he does what?

Well…everything, of course. 

Including?

Speaking. 

Or?

Speech. 

Exactly.

So, the very fact that the First Amendment exists is the implicit metaphysical acknowledgement that you, the citizen, cannot be allowed to posses it 

As hard as it is to hear, it would do us well to remember that “rights”, “liberty”, “freedoms”…these things are for the masses, only. They mean nothing to the ruling class…the ruling class has no use for them. They are, in fact, nothing more than an abject political boundary between you, the citizen slave, and your ruling class masters. They establish the authority of the State to compel you. They establish the object power of the State to own you. They establishthe Authority-and-Submission political hierarchy which precludes individual freedom. They establishthe right of the State to restrict your speech—they don’t abolish it. 

In other words…

The First Amendment exists precisely because you cannot be allowed posses it.

Told you it was gonna get all ironic up in here.

…

Think of it this way:

If there was no government—no ruling Political Authority—there would be no need for a First Amendment. So why do we have it?

Because the State exists. 

Why?

The State exists to exercise Power over the masses. 

So what is the point of the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is meant to restrict State Power. This makes Power more palatable to the masses. 

But if there is no State then there is no First Amendment. “Freedom of Speech” is a meaningless concept outside the Power of the State. This means that the First Amendment must be a product of what, then?

Of the State. 

This means what?

That the First Amendment is an expression of State Power, not a limitation of it.

Further…what declares and dictates the First Amendment?

The State. 

In other words if we do the “math”, we get this little gem of irony: It is only by its power that the State restricts its power. That is, the restriction of State Power is actually an expression of it. 

The First Amendment, then, is just an illusion. The fact that Freedom of Speech exists means you don’t actually have it.

…

Finally, I leave you with this:

Good philosophy is like math in that it deals in a form of objective of root logic—and this is simply Conceptual Consistency. It operates from the Law of Non-Contradiction. This means that a real philosophical Truth is as objective as 2+2=4. Good philosophy possesses a root logic that simply cannot be rejected except by appealing to rank mysticism; ideology; cognitive dissonance.

With that in mind, I will lay a Truth on you:

You simply cannot achieve individual freedom via an Institution, meaning here the State, which exists specifically to compel—to force—humanity into a collective identity which shall require, under threat of rank violence, a corollary set of collective obligations (i.e. the Law)—obligations which fundamentally exist to affirm the Authority and Power of the Ruling Class; and to promote the outright metaphysical supremacy of the Collectivist State over the individuals of the masses. 

In other words, you can’t get individual liberty from an institution which exists to destroy it. This is as simple and objective as 2+2=4.