All posts by Argo

Lockdown Hell: Altruism Instantiated (Part ONE)

One of the many interesting aspects of the unprecedented and disturbingly open, unabashed, and undisguised unconstitutionality being foisted upon the American public during the fabricated coronavirus crisis, is the novel iteration of the western sociopolitical zeitgeist, altruism. Altruism, in a nutshell, in its sociopolitical context, is the State-forced sacrifice of those deemed “privileged” to those who are deemed “under…or un-privileged”. This of course contradicts the very notion of “privilege” in that it by definition makes the “unprivileged” the greatest beneficiaries of the State’s coercive power, and the “privileged” the greatest victims…which renders the categories quite ironic, in that they are, in actuality, opposite. The ‘unprivileged” are significantly luckier than their privileged counterparts. But don’t strain your mind or credulity by attempting to square that circle. It cannot be done. The ethics of altruism are based on collectivist and determinist metaphysics which are by nature utterly irrational, and therefore in actuality inscrutable, which is why under the authority of the government agents of altruism you are not called to understand anything they say, but to simply obey. They are the enlightened philosopher kings, you are the unwashed barbarian masses. Comply or die. That’s the sum and substance of your usefulness to them and the total value of your existence, period.

When interpreting the categories of “privileged” and “unprivileged” according to our State overlords, we must understand that these, again, are ideas which are rooted in the inscrutable metaphysics of determinist collectivism, and consequently are interpreted according to mystical and thus fundamentally obscure notions, yet paradoxically they are quite  hyper-specific when physically dictated. At any rate, the general description is that being “privileged” or “underprivileged” has absolutely nothing to do with the “why” but only the “what” of human existence. In other words, WHY someone is categorized as “privileged” or “unprivileged” is simply “because they are”.  And by this I mean that it has nothing at all to do with the volitional choices and subsequent actions of the individuals so classified, or those related to the individuals so classified, such as parents or friends, with whom the “privileged” or “unprivileged” individuals may have been in some manner meaningfully related and thus so influenced. It has everything to do with one’s root existential state. That is, if you are “unprivileged” it is because you were born that way, and vice versa. “Privileged” and “unprivileged” is a product of your nature. That’s it. Thus, there isn’t anything you can do to manifest or could have done to prevent or ensure this natural condition. This is precisely why the State must implement equality and equity by force (legalized violence), and cannot rely upon citizens to work out their differences by their own choices and actions. No action or choice can change one’s very nature, for all actions and choices are a product of that nature, and thus all actions necessarily affirm and reinforce one’s “privileged” or “unprivileged” status. At the same time, ironically, or perhaps contradictorily, there is a sense of absolutist ethics which are secondary to the ethical primary of altruism, and these ethics are known as “social justice”, which is imbued and implied by one’s existential status as either “privileged” or “unprivileged”. The “unprivileged” are victims of some great and terrible injustice which though could not have been avoided as it is a function of their nature and not of any volitional action or consequence on the part of themselves or others nevertheless entitles them to ALL the legal benefits the State has the violent power to grant them in the interest of “social justice”, which again is the notion of existential and universal equality, which of course can never be achieved because the distinction between “privileged” and “unprivileged” is ALREADY, a-priori, itself existential and universal. Now, concordantly, the “privileged” are the evil perpetrators of all the injustice to which the “unprivileged” are so tragically subjected, and thus must be “held-accountable” and forced at State-gunpoint to “pay their fair share” in the interests of universal equality, despite the fact that there is no choice nor action which could have prevented the “privileged” from exploiting those who are “unprivileged”, or which could have prevented the “unprivileged” from actually becoming “unprivileged”, or themselves from becoming “privileged” in the first place…because, again, both groups are simply born that way.

And here again we see the inscrutable nature of collectivist metaphysics roaring to the forefront today with predictably disastrous consequences…those disastrous consequences being the complete undermining of the American Republic and the plenary and indefinite suspension of constitutional law, not to mention the irreversible and alarmingly substantial diminishing of the economy and faith in the nation on the whole in service to the “protection” of the public from the latest contrived boogeyman, but this one a phantom, which is supposed to be even more scary, called coronavirus. Once again do not try to apprehend the reasons, do not try to interpret or discern the meaning behind the actions of your government overlords, for it is not yours to know, because it is not you who has been given the “grace to perceive”. For that is reserved for those who have been called to rule. For you, on the other hand, it is forever a cloud of steam in your fist. The metaphysics of collectivism and the concordant ethics of altruism require only your submission. The “unprivileged” are required only to receive, the “privileged”, to sacrifice.

But which one are you?

Now that is a very interesting question. And the answer is predictably enigmatic, as I’m sure you understand: it depends. In the meta, you are both and neither…it is subjective, it is fluid. In context however it is terrifyingly empirical, objective, and corporeal.  And as we are talking about the manufactured coronavirus crisis, here I can provide a much more specific answer. Which I will do in part two.

END part ONE

The Trinity of Viruses: The State, the Citizen, the Coronavirus

Let’s say we give a pass to the blatantly tyrannical approach the United States government and state governments have taken in dealing with the coronavirus “crisis” in the early stages. Not that I would, personally, give any such pass. As far as I understand it, there is no asterisk at the bottom of the Constitution which allows for the wanton disregard of foundational liberties in response to a misunderstood and misrepresented respiratory ailment. But I suppose I understand the panic. After all, we in the United States are a narcissistic society of navel gazing cowards and altruistic fantasy-dwellers who are politically represented  by septuagenarian baby boomers who think they are entitled to eternal politcal power and eternal life, and who, like most baby boomers, are terrified of their own mortality, and who have become so drunk on the ever more potent twin fixes of coercive authority and unfathomable wealth that they are almost entirely unqualified for…well, anything.

So, we drink the elixir of mass panic and ignorance, rush from our homes screaming that the sky is falling, run back inside to our beds and pull up our blankies  and whimper and simper like children in a thunderstorm, and wait for the government to do what it does best—tyranny—to save us from the Chinese sniffles. Of course, there was much we could have done on our own without any of this overt government intrusion in our lives and businesses and families, but the only thing Americans are more afraid of than the coronavirus is personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Anyway, we might forgive the State for its rash, uninformed action seven weeks ago. There was only preliminary information about this virus, some very bad numbers and very inept and silly predictions from the Imperial College in London, along with the natural inclination of the State to shoot first an and ask questions later. But now we have the science…it has spoken. We have the testing, we have the data, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the coronaviru simply does NOT represent any credible mass medical threat to the United States, and that the vast majority of people in our nation will experience symptoms so mild that they will never, and have never, sought any formal medical treatment for them. In other words, anyone not over the age of 65 or with some immunocompromising chronic health condition(s) has about as much chance of dying from SARS COV-2 as they do in a car accident on their way to a jelly bean factory. OBJECTIVELY there is NO MEDICAL reason for the ongoing social and economic lockdown in our nation. None. Medically speaking, the lockdown should end immediately.

In case you don’t want to take my word for it, here is a list of some of the experts I have researched in drawing my conclusions on this matter. I suggest you do a simple YouTube search and see for yourself. Each of of these men is literally among the most awarded, experienced, and successful in their field. There are no ringers here:

Dr. Michael Levitt, Professor of Computer Science and Structural Biology, Stanford University Medical School; 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for designing a computer model for complex chemical interactions

Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University

Dr. John Giesecke, former State Epidemiologist for Sweden; Chief Scientist for the European Center for Disease Control; currently advising Swedish Agency for Public Health; currently advising Director General of the World Health Organization

Dr. Knut Wittkowski, former Head of the Department of Biolstatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, Rockefeller University

Dr. David Katz, Founder and Director of Yale University’s Yale Group and Prevention Research Center

All of these experts agree on four basic premises, I have found. 1. That the widescale and indiscrimate lockdown measures were neither particularly effective nor reasonable  2. That these measures will most likely do much more harm in the long run than the virus ever will or can. 3. The lockdown will ultimately not have contributed much if anything at all to stopping the spread and evolution of the virus, and will almost certainly prolong the inevitable infection numbers and postpone herd immunity. 4. That the lockdown should be eased immediately because it represents an ACTUAL existential threat to public health

So, when I say that the lockdown measures are NOT medically necessary and that the coronavirus is not a credible threat to public health and that all politcal and media assertions that the lockdown measures are in the best interest of the citizen are complete lies, this is not my opinion. This is objective fact as stated by unrivaled experts in virology, epidemiology, mathematics, and chemistry, who have examined this virus from the point of view of years and years of experience and knowledges in dealing with just this kind of thing. In other words, it is settled science. You no longer have to convince anyone that the lockdown measures are a waste of time, are much more dangerous than the virus itself, and that it is little more than irrational paranoia and/or gullibility at this point which drives citizens to accept this tyranny and economic looting masquerading as public health policy.

So why are the lockdown measures still happening? Why are they not lifted now that we know that the reasons for them are no longer valid?

The answer is that the reason for thei lockdown was NEVER the virus, and so whatever science is saying about he virus has nothing at all to do with how the State is going to deal with it. At least, not THAT virus. You see, every law, act, regulaion, or decree which precedes from the State is NEVER ultimately designed to protect you from some danger or threat, be it a foreign enemy, or a neighborhood criminal, or a virus. Rather, these things are designed to protect the State from YOU. YOU are the disease it does not want ot contract. The lockdown is the mask IT dons to shield itself from the contagion known as the indivdivual citizen.

The virus arrived and It was advertised as an existential threat, based upon completely erroneous numbers along with general, plenary ignorance. The government, not an institution of reasoned action but of disproportionate overreaction, predictably burned the Constitution and then urinated on the fire, took out a sledgehammer and proceed to pound indiscriminately away at the econmomy and our civil rights. And we were okay with this because we were convinced that we would die…or, at least, would run out of toilet paper. Which, granted, is almost as bad. You see, people who are in fear for their lives will do things and allow things to be done to them which otherwise they would never fathom and never tolerate. Our politicians didn’t want us getting angry at their lack of action with respect this fake towering colossus of ravenous disease. You see, the rancher doesn’t try to speak rationally to the cattle when they become startled and threaten to stampede. Harvesting the brutes for meat and milk and leather is what keeps him rich and comfortable, and he does whatever it takes, sans actually speaking to the herd with words and ideas. Ideas and reason and recommendation are beyond the ability of dumb animals, but they do understand electric fences, and barbed wire, barking and snarling dogs, and gunshots. And ultimately the cattle are settled down…made passive. They are no longer a threat, and somehow, they feel more secure. In this way, with respect to the coronavirus and the unsettled simpering masses of human cattle, liberty was summarily sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. And the nation thanked them for it.

But now that thanks is wearing off, and the cattle are getting restless again. The lockdown measures continue, the almost overnight the collapse of the economy and the summary denial of basic rights of freedom of movement, association, and private property has led to skyrocking unemployment, business closures, a deluge of welfare applicants, drug overdose, sucide, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, panic disorders, heart disease, cancer, child abuse, healthcare industry collapse, restaurant industry collapse, travel and tourism industry collapse, arrant cessation of life saving check-ups and medical procedures, criminality, and educational implosion, to name but a few. Allowing this to continue threatens the power and position of countless politicians. No one in government is safe. Trump’s reelection chances diminish with every passing day, lawsuits are being threatened and filed against government for civil liberty violations, and so to protect their status, politicians are being forced to make overtures towards ending the lockdown.

On the other hand, every epidemiologist and virologist worth a damn is predicting an increase in coronavirus cases and more deaths once people are allowed to reintegrate back into society. This has to do with the nature of such a virus, which must acquire a certain number of hosts before it tapers off and blends into the background haze of common viruses with which man must coexist during the winter months. The lockdown, instead of halting the virus, has simply postponed the inevitable. Politicians are hoping and praying for the miracle of a quick vaccine, and we should all be extremely wary of any vaccine which is rushed into service before the requisite time of 18 months to two years, which is the usual amount of time it takes to produce and research a vaccine for his kind of illness. Any vaccine which appears sooner is almost certainly spurious at best, and possibly dangerous, and is the result of nothing more than profit mongering and political expediency.

So the gonverment has a conundrum on their hands. How do you reintegrate society whilst keeping a virus which MUST inexorably spread from spreading.

The answer is: you don’t.

But if you are the government the answer is to walk the line of contradiction and hope that the American public is too stupid or too scared or too propaganzized (preferably all three) to notice that they are being played for fools. This nonsense about opening the economy “slowly” and “in stages” and “seeing what happens” and maybe “pulling back if we have to” and “opening business only if they comply with CDC regulations” and by color coding counties like they are doing here in Pennsylvania is NOT a medical strategy. I repeat, it is NOT A MEDICAL strategy. It is a political one. And moreover, it is a continuation of the unconstitutional revocation of basic American freedoms that has been occurring for the past seven weeks. The State wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want you breathing a sigh of relief with the idea of “returning to normal”, whilst NOT actually returning to normal becasue “normal” will be, in the words of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, the “new normal”. Which means that the economy and society will reopen but not ACTUALLY reopen. These “strategies” are politcal theater; an illusion, designed to keep you both calm and in a state of fear…to create a dissonance in your emotions and psyche. The State does not care about you, only about itself. And this psy-ops game they are playing now with “reopening the economy” in baby steps is an indulgent massaging of their vanity. They are hoping against all reality that they can open the economy whilst keeping coronavirus cases on the decline. But this cannot be done, and so they must hope that somehow you will belive that that which cannot be done is nevertheless being done by your government. The govenrment for its own sake must open the economy, but for its own sake it ALSO must not. So this is what we get. An opening of the economy which is not really an opening.

Let us open our eyes and see clearly the trinity of viruses at play here: the virus of the State to you and me, the virus of me and you to the State, and the coronavirus to all of us. And let us understand that only one of these viruses is truly a threat to humanity.

END

Coronavirus Conundrum: The futility of ethics by means of mathematics

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a scene where Spock tells Kirk, who is struggling with an ethical dilemma, that “Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”.

For many years this never sat well with me, for reasons that I could not quite articulate. I was unsettled. I had a suspicion that the claim was not logical at all. I mean, I suppose it was logical mathematically, but still something seemed off.

Years later I realized the specific problem. Spock is confusing ethical consistency with mathematical logic. Ethics are not mathematics, and the logic which governs the premises and conclusions of the two isn’t necessarily interchangeable. Philosophical logic, or what is better termed “rational consistency”, or “reason”, does not assert mathematical logic as axiomatic. This is because mathematics is wholly abstract, where philosophy is meta, incorporating both the abstract and the concrete. Philosophy, of which ethics is a major category, concerns the nature of existence, itself, not merely the abstract measurement and categorization of it.

Since the dilemma facing Kirk is an ethical one, and ethics are not mathematics, Spock’s claim that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one” is entirely meaningless with respect to the problem at hand. It was a pointless and decidedly ILLOGICAL waste of time and breath. Ethically, the needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This is because there is no rational ethical comparison between “many” and “one” when considering individual human beings. Each person is an utterly singular observer. There is no such thing as deriving an objective “us” or “we” or “many” from an absolutely singular conscious agent. There is SELF, and there is OTHER, where both are singular agents, fundamentally, but the combination of SElf and OTHER into “we” or “us” or “many” is an entirely abstract notion. “We” does not exist, fundamentally, at all. “We” is an abstract concept which combines individuals for purely practical, mutable purposes, never for root ETHICAL ones. Therefore, it is a failure of reason to claim that it is somehow better for, say, one to die than one million. The individual, at the level of SELF, is absolute…he or she IS THE OBSERVER, and he or she is CONSTANT. This is why the individual is so ineluctably necessary to existence and reality. Axiomatically, absent the frame of reference of one’s singular and constant absolute SELF, no claim can be made about anything…nothing known, nothing claimed, nothing verified, and thus nothing can exist, because an existence which cannot be known and thus cannot be valued and thus serve no purpose is a categorically IRRELEVANT existence. And irrelevant existence cannot actually exist, because it can never meaningfully DO anything, including EXIST.

So, that in mind, Spock is really attempting to assert that the needs of the many ABSOLUTES outweigh the needs of a few or one ABSOLUTE. Do you see the paucity of logic here? Spock implies that the death of one person is better than the death of a million, but there is no such thing as a comparison between a single Absolute, and a million Absolutes. “A million absolutes” is no more a quantity of absolutes than a single absolute. There is no AMOUNT of absolute SELF. There is ONLY SELF. Any quantification of individuals then is purely abstract. It is of practical use, but NOT of ethical use. When God says “thou shalt not kill” he doesn’t qualify that command by quantifying it. One death is as equally tragic as a million.

Moving on to the cornonvirus. Today I saw a Vox headline from April 1 which read “The Coronavirus is NOT the FLu. It’s Worse.” I didn’t read the article, because I didn’t have to. The title alone told me that reading the article would be a waste of time, because as far as I was concerned, this isn’t and never has been the issue. Comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu are not the fundamental point anyone should be making.

First of all, the title itself is massively subjective, as “worse” can be defined in multiple ways, and easily manipulated to bolster one’s own personal opinion, no matter what that opinion is. And even if we go with the ostensible meaning of the word—that by “worse” we mean “more dangerous, and with a higher mortality rate”—a month later from when the article was written, incidence testing around the world has proved that the coronavirus is NOT worse than the flu, and may in fact be LESS dangerous.

But who cares about this…this is incidental to anything involving the coronavirus insofar as society and public health is concerned. It’s not about how dangerous the coronavirus is or is not relative to the flu, or any other virus. We live in a context where, under the auspices of State Authority, we exist first and foremost as members of a collective. This makes any crisis, even a pandemic, not an ethical problem, but an examination of probability, and this implies the enumeration of the people. The people become numbers, and these numbers are then plugged into a much larger and more fundamental equation, which is this: What course of action best promotes and preserves the position and power of the State? And this is why government can react so differently to similar crises (eg swine flu vs coronavirus), and why its methods and actions are often so incongruent with emprical data (eg the ongoing lockdown despite evidence that the coronavirus is not a significant threat to the nation). The crises are similar, but the policies which best promote State power can widely vary from situation to situation.

And it is here were we get to the root of it all.

The biggest mistake we who are suspicious and critical of government interference make with respect to interpreting government response to crisis is that we confuse government, which is an institution of object violence, with an ethical entity…and more precisely, a MORALLY ethical entity. It is not. Its only purpose is to compel the collective masses into a particular abstract ideological standard that it alone legitimizes, no matter what appeals are made to individual rights or freedom, etc. Government, itself, not you or me or our neighbors, our businesses, our money, our health, our jobs…nothing matters besides that which affirms the State, and promotes the collective Ideal which legitimizes it (in the case of the US, where I am, this Ideal is the very nebulous “the People”). The government IS the nation…to save the government IS to save YOU and ME, so the “logic” goes. We are the State, the State is us. There is no individual to consider in the equation, and THIS is why the coronavirus is not a true ethical dilemma.

Those who are decrying the government’s draconian measures to control the virus are citing the numbers in an attempt to win the ethical debate. They are claiming that many, many more people will die in the long run from the severe economic catastrophe that the unconstitutional lockdown orders are inflicting. I, myself, have asserted this, and will continue to do so. After all the truth is the truth—if you look at the data gathered by highly competent and established epidemiologists and virologists there is simply no way a rational person can conclude that this virus is paticularly dangerous for the VAST majority of human beings, And if you look at the economic data, there is no way a rational person can deny that the measures taken to control the pandemic will kill many more people than the virus ever will. However, as this is not a specifically ethical argument, it will fail thus when employed as one. ETHICALLY, those who would rather doom a billion people via the government’s orders to lockdown society in order to save a few thousand people who might otherwise die from the virus are NOT wrong. It is NOT ETHICALLY (specifically, it is not not morally) wrong to suggest that the smaller number of lives saved by government are EQUALLY and possibly MORE important than the billions who will be destroyed by the ongoing lockdown. Why? Because, as I said, this is NOT an ethical dillema. You cannot make an ethical comparison of the importance of one life over another, so to persist in the fallacious idea that you can possess moral and rational superiority by simply appealing to the math is ludicrous. IF the government wants to kill a billion in order to save a few thousand, an ethical argument about the value of this many lives versus that many is NOT an effective argument because the situational context has nothing to do with the value of individual life.

But, you might say, why not then simply appeal to the mathematical logic? You might say that it doesn’t make sense, numerically, for the governemnt to doom a billion to save a few thousand. Surely it is in the best interest of the State to rule over many than a few, right?

The answer, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, is: not necessarily. It might, but it might not. The bottom line is that IF the State feels that it is in its best interest to destroy the many in order to save the few then this is the course of action it WILL pursue. If you think that the power and position of those in goverment are not the supreme consideration in dealing with any and all issues related to a nation, be it a pandemic or any other thing, then you simply do not understand the true and root nature of the State and the nature of your position under its authority. And there is no ethical argument you can bring to bear which will alter the course of government action. You can quote numbers all day long, and conflate mathematics with ethics all day long, but it will do you no good. It is an exercise in futility and will only serve to exasperate, frustrate, and disappoint you. The only way you will ever get the State to change its course is to somehow convince it, or hope that it will at some point be convinced, that it is in ITS, not YOUR, best interest to choose a different direction.

And here we DO actually get a glimps of the ethics of government. What is “good” for the State is technically an ethical question. Yet we must make a distinction between MORAL ethics and LEGAL ethics. In this article, for semantic’s sake, I used “ethical” as a synonym for “moral”, which I’m sure you understood. After all, any discussion of ethics as it involves human beings may typically be seen as a discussion of morality. But moral ethics are not the same as legal ethics, and I have several articles on this blog where I deal specifically with the difference, so I will not do that here. The point I want to make is that in order to convince the government to change its course, one must convince it that such a change is first and foremost GOOD for the STATE. What is good for the person, for you and me, for the individual, for the human being, is entirely irrelevant, and will never prove efficacious in persuading the government to do anything.

END

Coronavirus Hysteria 2: We were promised an apocalypse, and the State will deliver what nature has not

So here we are, in the sixth or seventh week of “quarantine”—which, what a lovely little euphemism for “house arrest”—and damn it, the numbers are just not what we were promised. And at the rate things are going, they never will be. We were promised millions dead, and dozens of virus mutations, each more deadly than the last, and instead we got a virus that doesn’t really mutate much at all. We have our mask-wearing laws, our “shelter in place” laws, our stockpiles of toilet paper…so just where in the hell is the insatiable and genocidal mass murdering little packet of RNA called Coronavirus that we were promised?

Now, thanks to prevalence testing (finally…better late than never; well, actually not better late than never, but whatever) we know that the mortality rate of this virus is in the vicinity of the common seasonal flu, maybe even less, and that those most at risk of death are those anyone with an IQ over 90 could have guessed—the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions, mostly lung, heart, and other cardiovascular related issues. In States and Nations which did not threaten state violence to compel economic shut downs and massive unemployment, large scale house-arrest, small business collapse, and the atomization of society through “social distancing” laws, which here in the US are just about the most unconstitutional thing one can imagine short of a rank despot seizing control of the nation and summarily burning the original copy of the Constitution to char right on the Capitol steps…yes, nations which did not decide to rule by throwing all reason and sanity into an infinite abyss and replacing them with psychopathic political expediency—like Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea—have experienced none of the disasters foretold, and have far fewer cases and deaths than many other countries. This of course is objective, emprical, and verifiable evidence…it is evidence that all of the “public health” measures forced upon a compliant and complacent citizenry in other countries has done nothing to save lives, stem the infection rates, or bring greater security and well-being to the people. On the contrary, it has done the exact opposite. Not only has it prolonged the virus pandemic via hindering the ability of the masses to acquire the herd immunity necessary to build long-term protection against the coronavirus, like it protects us against many other viruses, it has doomed them, and particularly here in the United States, to economic insecurity, psychological chaos, bankruptcy, drug addiction, alchoholism, suicide, unemployment, domestic violence, welfare dependency, stress-related health problems such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, and general ruin…along with prolonging their risk of infection, almost certainly increasing propagation of the virus, which means more death from the virus itself and from complications related to comorbidity.

In addition, we are seeing this disturbing push-pull of manipulative reporting from the mainstream media, which is merely the propaganda wing of the government, and primarily for the Left (today’s neo-Marxist sychophants). We are given reason to panic, then reason to hope a little, then more reason to panic, and on and on. It’s what they call in the military “psy-ops”…never let your enemy establish a sense of certainty about the situation and reality in general. Keep them confused and blind to reason and the truth at all times. This virus is hella-dangerous we are told, but we will be just fine if we comply with our quarantine; wear our masks and wash our hands; collect our welfare checks, and stand on those little markers on the floor at the grocery store. But then, you never know…the second wave might be even worse, and we aren’t sure the economy will ever fully return to normal, because there’s no telling what this virus might do; only a few have died relative to the numbers of infected, but watch out! The mass graves of billions is a reality which is just around the corner!

We are psy-op-ed into docility. We are to be controlled through confusion; managed through uncertainty…caged metaphorically, but not physically. The former is much cheaper, and much more effective, and much more profitable.

*

You see, the root of what is going on here is that we were promised an apocalyptic hellscape of dead bodies and ruined lives by the millions and even billions, but here it is six months into this thing and it has fizzled like a match in a hurricane. The virus isn’t doing its job…it got lazy and took an early retirement. The mortality rates are falling fast in most places, and at present the coronavirus isn’t any more deadly than the common seasonal flu. Infections are still going on, but this virus has such a lengthy incubation period and the country initiated the collective house-arrest orders so late, and the “public health” measures of blindfolds and handcuf…er, I mean masks and gloves, and the unconstitutional restrictions on freedom  of associa…er, I mean “social distancing”, are so haphazard, ill-informed, and ineffective, even according to medical experts in the World Health Organization and National Academy of Sciences, that infection rates have only been slowed only insofar as people aren’t moving around as much. The curve isn’t being flattened because we are beating the virus, it’s simply because the government put a moratorium on living life in this country…in an effort to save it. Well…no one does irony like the State. But infections are still happening, and will continue to happen as long as people are alive and breathing. I wonder what government orders are being cooked up as I write this to deal with THAT little problem? (Of course I’m being sarcastic here…for now).

And this is the corner into which our incompetent politicians and policy-makers have painted themselves. By overreacting to this relatively harmless virus, and giving into the conspiracy theory panic-mongers on social media, YouTube, in the mainstream media, and even in medical institutions which exist to advise the State on public health issues, all of whom were telling us such fantasies as billions could die, and that this is a Chinese bioweapon, and that it is mutating into an unstoppable perfect viral storm of certain death, and plastering dozens of contextless videos of people in Asia being thrown into quarantine camps, barricaded in their homes and apartment buildings, and crematoriums with bodies lined up like a street parade to be disintegrated into a black-smoke oblivion as though Auschwitz had been rebooted…yes, by overreacting to this deluge of rank spectacle with almost zero actual information about the virus and then summarily assuming almost plenary control of every aspect of the life of the citizen, the government doomed the nation to the apocalypse which the virus was never, ever going to actually deliver by itself.

Like I said, no one does irony quite like the State.

In other words, here is the corner which at this point pretty much guarantees that this “lockdown”…this suspension of basic life and freedom in this nation will go on pretty much indefinitely at this point. At least, this is the rational perspective…thankfully the State has a habit of acting irrationally, so there might be hope. Anyway, the government, by allowing this lockdown to continue, creates an economic, social, psychological, medical, and political disaster which rapidly approaches the point of irreversibility with every passing second, and in addition to this doesn’t actually do anything  to halt the threat of the virus but merely prolongs the existence of it as a threat by hindering any chances for herd immunity to develeope and deal with it. And this could threaten the positions of those in power in the long run.

But if they lift the lockdown the coronovirus will ineluctably spread and the numbers will climb…this is the dreaded “second wave” they are talking about on the news now. Of course, there is nothing to fear from a second wave, because the mortality rates will not change…it will not make the virus any more deadly and will in fact, create mass immunity rather quickly as people get it and recover, so there is nothing to be afraid of. But the State knows how ignorant and short-witted and reactionary and fickle the public is and when the people see the number of infections rise again they will of course completely lose their collective shit and blame the State for opening the country up too soon. And this will turn out very bad for politicians and policy makers in the short run.

So…understand this: this forced house arrest and economic cratering we as citizens are being forced to endure at this moment has absolutely nothing directly to do with cornonavirus, and all attempts to present this virus as some kind of actual, visceral, clear and present threat to life and limb is pure fear-baiting and propaganda for power and profit. There is nothing about the virus itself for the overwhelming majority of people to be afraid of. This has everything to do with the ruling class biding their time until they can create an artifice of plausible deniability. In other words, they are opting to go with the long-term disaster approach of holding fast the nationwide lockdown in the hopes that this buys them enough time to come up with a plan to save their reputations, and with it their positions and power. Of course, the longer they let it go, the more short term the long term disaster gets. Now, I’m sure that there are some in power who are looking to the Golden Knight of the Glorious Vaccine to come and rescue them out of their self-sabotage, but that necessitates that this lockdown proceed for at least another eighteen months if not two years. This scenario leaves them with no country left to rule at the end of it all, of course, but if you think for a second that the government isn’t seriously considering a lockdown which extends until a vaccine arrives (and that a vaccination can even be created is no certainty), then you don’t know how insatiable the State actually is, and how ferociously self-interested it can be when faced with what it believes is a true existential threat. Not only are they considering a two-year lockdown, but right now this IS the ACTUAL plan which is being implemented. It IS the reality at present. The government has not equivocated in the least about their power and intention to extend the lockdown for as long as it is “necessary”.  Where “necessary” means “serves its own interest, period”.

*

So, the virus isn’t doing what the government told us it would do. The “public health” measures are not and will not have the effect on the virus that we are told they will. But see, this is not the fault of government, lest anyone get the wrong idea about the point of this article. I am by no means criticizing the State. I am merely pointing out the perfunctory and necessary failure of it when it assumes responsibilities that are not inclusive of its nature, purpose, and abilities. I would no more accuse the lion of failing to build a canoe than I would accuse the government of failing to handle a crisis, or promote the health and well-being of humanity.

Well, I suppose that’s not completely true…the government could be blamed for making the attempt to go beyond its endemic and singular purpose; but I’m not sure that’s even what it is doing. I believe all of these attempts to address real problems in a productive and satisfying way are merely a facade for rank power grabbing. I believe the State knows exactly its purpose and its skill set, and relentlessly pursues these to the exclusion of all else. Perhaps I’m simply being too cynical, but really…eventually the lion, no matter how naive and ambitious it may be, WILL realize that it’s really only good at being a lion.

Here’s what I mean: the government’s only real purpose and talent is to annihilate. It’s like Ivan Drago from Rocky IV that way—whatever it hits, it destroys. Government is force. Government is an instrument of destruction…it is the centralization and monopoly of overwhelming compelling violence. It’s only job and only talent is to destroy the individual in sacrifice to a collectivist Ideal that it represents incarnate. in the US the Ideal is “the People”, but it can be anything—the Church, the Nation, the Race, the Worker’s Utopia…etc. It may try, and even in good faith, and in earnest altruistic intention, to correct social injustice, or to ensure economic stability, or to protect the health of the public, or the educate the masses, or to feed the them, or house or clothe them. But it fails, always, and at all times. Whatever problem it tackles, it makes worse, sooner or later, because it MUST. Because in all cases except destruction, the government is the lion which is trying to build a canoe. No matter what it does, or how hard it tries, or how good things may look for a while, the canoe must inevitably sink. It won’t work, becasue it simply can’t EVER be an ACTUAL canoe. Because lions do not build canoes.

What goverment does do… what it is so very good at that it does it perfectly even when trying to do the exact opposite, is wreck peoples’ lives. At the end of the day it murders, hinders, starves, threatens, imprisons, abuses, corrupts, and buries any and all expressions of individual autonomy, freedom, free will, and personal responsibility. Fiat currency, unrestrained debt and money printing destroy the econonmy; govenrment schools become institutions of collectivist and moral nihilism indoctrination; government wars begot from emprical meddling annihilate entire generations of men; social justice programs alienate and oppress the majority in the name of “equality”; tax collection takes the competent and productive and feeds them into farms and charnel houses where they are fleeced and butchered to buy the votes of the incompetent and unproductive, and on and on. And that is why, even though the virus disappointed in its foretold disaster, the apocolypse we were promised shall come to pass. Because where nature fails to heel and hobble mankind via its pestilence, meteorological disaster, or disease, the State takes up the slack. The virus failed to annihilate us, but don’t you worry, there will be destruction and death, in the millions and billions, just as we were promised. The virus won’t get you, but here’s what will: depression, anxiety, heart disease, cancer, unemployment, indigence, bankrupsy, alcoholism, drug addiction, desperation, loneliness, domestics abuse, crime, uneducated youth, economic depression, inflation, debt, anger, frustration, mistrust, indolence, early death, loss of friendship, loss of avocation, chronic sickness, failure to obtain preventative healthcare intervention and regular check ups, and on and on…all brought to you courtesy of your “public health” officials who are so desperately trying to save you from that which you will in all probability never see, hear, feel, or even notice should it by happenstance come upon you. Indeed, you may never personally know anyone who has truly suffered from the coronavirus, but you will certainly know personally one, and likely many, who has and have suffered from the State’s policies to protect you from it.

Yep.

No one does irony quite like the State.

END

 

Coronavirus Hysteria: Mask Panic, Mask Confusion, and Why One Law is Infinte Laws

Go look at the literature concerning the effectiveness of masks in slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus. What you will find is this: that masks both do and do not work.

Now, we know that something cannot both be “is” and “is not” because that’s a contradiction, and contradictions are null. Meaning they invalidate both premise and conclusion and thus result in a net 0…they are valueless and non-existent, and thus should be entirely rejected out of hand.

But the contradiction here is merely figurative…we can safely assume that the scientists and medical professionals who lead the discourse on mask-wearing in the midst of this virus kerfuffle do not mean to give a non-answer, and do not mean to confuse or mislead the public. So what it means is that there is benefit to mask-wearing, but with that benefit is a corresponding risk.

Now, I am not going to ramble on about the why’s and wherefore’s of masks and mask-wearing…about their usefulness after moisture saturation, effective resistance, virus transmission routes, moisture droplets, and all of that kind of thing. All that can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of articles online. But distilling down the literature, there is a consistent conclusion that can be inferred from all of it, and that is this: That for every benefit to mask wearing there is an equal and opposite risk. For example, a mask may be effective in stopping large droplets of water from spreading to surfaces and other people, whilst at the same time they are not effective in halting the virus on smaller air droplets which can permeate the mask. Masks can give wearers a false sense of security causing them to become careless in social distancing, or deciding that it is safe to be around someone who is symptomatic, or that it is safe to go out when they are sick. Masks can reduce the risk of face-touching, which is likely a much more prevalent route of virus transmission than airborn inhalation. Yet they may also significantly increase the amount of face touching due to people having to readjust their masks, or taking them on and off, or pulling them down and then back up again for whatever reason. If you are a glasses wearer like me, you find yourself constantly having to readjust a face mask due to fogging. It is such a problem for me that I am not actually comfortable wearing a mask out of fear of catching the virus via face-touching. Masks may present as a comforting psychological bromide, yet this may backfire due to overconfidence. Masks are effective to some extent in preventing the inhalation and exhalation of the virus, but only for about twenty minutes, after which they become too moisture saturated to serve as any kind of preventative measure. In order for masks to reduce the risk of spreading coronavirus and not actually promote an even greater risk, the paper-based surgical masks must be discarded after a single use, and never worn for more than twenty minutes; the cloth masks, the makeshift homemade masks, the bandanas, must be washed after every use, and never worn for longer than twenty minutes. Hands should always be clean when affixing or removing the mask, and once on, should not be touched, ever. Failure to do these things not only voids the usefulness of the mask in preventing virus transmission, but can actually increase the risk of someone getting sick and spreading the virus to others.

Now, you may think the point of this article is to assert that mask-wearing is a zero-sum activity. And a very compelling argument can be made for that, and is what I happen to believe. I believe that mask-wearing is nothing more than a public spectacle, and does little more than promote a panic and hysteria with respect to a relatively harmless virus, which does nothing in the end but to prolong the economic, psychological, and even physical destruction of our nation, not to mention the already-irreversible and massive demolition of our Constitutional rights and freedoms, which we will never see returned.

But that’s not really what I am interested in here. The point I want ot make is much more academic, much less idealistically charged…perfunctory. After all, rational consistency is the only real discourse of substance. Everything else is just barking.

Let’s talk law. Let’s talk the idea of mandatory mask-wearing. Which is not such a far-fetched notion, and in some places in this country is already a reality. A law, or requirement, which demands that people wears masks in public or else suffer punishment is ostensibly designed to save lives, right? To protect people from this rogue virus that is ravaging the nation and the world (well, okay, 2.2 million out of a world population of 8,000 million is hardly “ravaging”, but let’s just assume the media’s self-serving perspective on this). And certainly there is some evidence that wearing a mask may save lives by halting or slowing virus infections. But—and here’s the rub—there are a lot of ifs which must be given asterisks…a lot of caveates. Masks may be effective in doing what the law ostensibly intends them to do IF masks are worn no more than twenty-minutes; IF we do not allow them to be moisture saturated; IF they are not handled once they are placed on our faces; IF the paper ones are disposed of after each and every use, and IF the cloth ones are washed after every use and never worn more than once UNLESS washed; IF we only put them on and take them off with clean hands; and IF we don’t allow them to give us a false sense of security and thus IF they do not tempt us to violate other preventative protocols.

What all of these IF’s mean is that simply applying a law which requires citizens to wear masks in public will not actually DO that which the law is intended to do, because for every increased benefit there is an increased risk. Failure to wash masks or discard them, to wash hands before and after touching masks, to not wear them longer than twenty minutes, to not allow them to become moisture saturated, to not wear them more than once, to not allow them to become an excuse to forgo much more important preventative measures, to NOT allow them to become a false sense of security is to INCREASE the risk of spreading the virus. Masks are a razor’s edge of risk…fall off that edge, and you make the problem worse than if you’d never worn a mask at all.

It is clear from this then that one law is not going to do the trick. We will need dozens and dozens of related laws in order for that one law—mandatory mask-wearing—to actually do what we are told it will do: keep us safe. Otherwise it is merely a law for law’s sake; the exercise of authority for authority’s sake. The law which says you shall wear a mask must also say you shall not touch your mask with unclean hands; you shall discard your paper mask after a single use; you shall wash your cloth mask after a single use; etc. etc. You get the idea. And this is the problem. Tyranny is a destination born of ostensibly benevolent intention. Once you allow one law to pass, you imply that ALL others must necessarily follow, and that you shall allow those, too. And before you know it, you are told where and when you  can and cannot open your business that YOU built with YOUR own time and money and resources; what you can and cannot sell; what you can and cannot spend your money on; where you can and cananot go, and with whom you can and cannot associate, and what the nature of that association shall look like; where you can and cannot work, and for how long, and so on and so forth.

Oh, wait a minute. We are there already. My bad.

So it has always been with law and government, and always will be. At the end of it all, the only real State solution to public health situations like we are seeing now is to save lives by disallowing people to live them. At the end of the day, mask-wearing is just another part of the hammer used to bash the virus into oblivion and you and me along with it. For the law cannot recognize the difference.

END

 

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part Three)

“…how can one be born if one does not exist in the first place? How can you experience birth if birth is the fundamental beginning? There is no YOU to be born prior to your birth, and so the consequence is birth but there is no action which involves you at all. The action which is entirely mutually exclusive of you somehow concludes with you.”

I understand how abstruse and arcane this quote is, taken from part two of this series, so I decided to dedicated part three to clarifying the point made, and also insofar as this point necessarily relates to death. Also, in reading back this quote I was able to anticipate possible objections and concerns as a function of the overt complexity of the argument; those will likewise be addressed.

To begin with, let’s look at this analogy. The car you drive (if you have a car, that is…if not, well, you’ll still follow) did not always exist as the car, per se. Prior to being your car it was merely a collection of parts, and before that, piles of metal and glass and plastic and paint; and before that, raw minerals which were mined from the ground, or chemicals mixed and refined in some industrial laboratory. After a few years, the car is disposed of, and will then decompose and break down, back into its multiple parts. But these parts, prior to and after the existence of the car, per se, continue to exist. They do not return to oblivion in the same way that they do not spring from it. After all, we know that according to the law of conservation of mass that matter cannot be created and destroyed; and philosophically this is form of the logic of non-contradiction. Meaning that the reason matter cannot be fundamentally created or destroyed is because a thing which exists cannot spring from non-existence, and it cannot become non-existent. Its existence IS; it is axiomatic, it is a-priori; it is de facto.

Likewise, one might say that while a human being did not exist as such prior to birth, there did exist a collection of parts—hormones and fertilizer and eggs and sperm cells and enzymes and proteins, DNA…you get the idea—which eventually came together to form the human being—let’s say you, in the interest  of casualness—that we recognize as a specific individual person. Following death, you shall desololve and decompose back into the many parts which formed you. All of these parts existed prior to you, and they all will exist after you. You are the parts, and the parts are you, and the parts remain in some for as a-priori existing; they are absolute; eternal.

Here is the problem with this explanation, and I’m sure you’ve probably already discerned it. The car, coming from a collection of parts, does not have a sense of Self. It possesses no singular consciousness…it does not recognized, or rather, it does not observe and interpret its environment, and all of reality itself, from a singular, specific, constant frame of reference. The car, in other words, does not know it’s a car. The collection of parts which make up the car do not suddenly, once in “true” car form, begin to associate as a single entity, able to conceptualize itself as a single object, and likewise its environment and all things in it. The parts of the car do not suddenly reject instinctually and naturally their distinct existence and begin to call themselves “I”, “Myself”, “Me”.

Do you see what I am getting at here? The difference between a car and a human being is that human beings DO possess a singular consciousness; a single observational and conceptulaizing frame of reference which demands and necessitates that the parts are not in fact fundamental, but merely form one’s body. Yet one’s SELF—that by which those parts paradoxically utter the words “I”, “Myself”, “Me”, and “Mine”—is the true nature and essence of human existence. To deny this is to relegate consciousness to some inexplicable epiphenomenon, or infinite mystery, or an illusion, or some random blip of mathematical uncertainty…and yet none of these claims can possibly be true because Truth itself necessitates that they be entirely false.

And it is this Self—this singularity—which I mean when I say that the human being is said to begin at birth and end at death. Of course the parts of “you” live on…and of course “you” were born of parts. I am not obtuse or blind to this obvious and pedestrian fact. But the real YOU, your SELF…your agency, awareness, will, consciousness…is NOT of parts, because there is no One from many parts; no I from Not I; no Self Awareness from infinite unconsciousness. And absolute consciousness does not “return” or dissolve into absolute unconsciousness; what IS does not become object oblivion. The law of the conservation of matter must also infer a law of conservation of consciousness (Self Awareness; which is the ability to conceptualize Self and Other) unless we are prepared to claim that consciousness is a lie or an illusion…a claim is very easily debunked and dismissed as the very mysticism and irrationality that those who peddle it claim to oppose.

And this is why I utterly reject the notions of birth and death. Not because they serve as anthropological and biological concepts to describe the cosmically and mathematically prescribed evolution of a human bing, but because they are a deception, and their fundamental meanings are completely spurious at best. Birth and death can only apply to he who is conscious, and yet they utterly contradict consciousness because they render it transitory, coming from oblivion and returning to oblivion, and thus render consciousness a moot and worthless concept. Which renders birth and death themselves moot and worthless. And yet if consciousness IS, and is ACTUAL, it must be absolute and constant, and thus likewise birth and death are rendered moot and worthless. In either and all cases, birth and death are fundamentally meaningless. They may serve as convenient contextual and subjective descriptions of a person’s existence, but they are not absolute, and are not objective, and have no actual bearing on the root nature of human existence. Birth and death are irrelevant with respect to parts. The parts, being absolute and perpetual, according to the law of conservation of matter, are not ultimately born, and do not die, and thus if man is like a car, made up of perpetually existing parts in some form or another, then he does not die and he is not born any more than a car is born or dies, except in the purely figurative sense.

But man is said to be born and then to die; and any way you try to rationalize this claim, it fails. And it fails for one simple reason. Man, unlike his car, knows himself.

END

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part Two)

Death is an action without a consequence; birth is a consequence without an action. What I mean by this is that in both cases, birth and death, the relationship between cause and effect is irrationally severed. It is said that you are born, but if we define the birth of you as your “coming into being”, then the question is how can one be born if one does not exist in the first place? How can you experience birth if birth is the fundamental beginning? There is no YOU to be born prior to your birth, and so the consequence is birth but there is no action which involves you at all. The action which is entirely mutually exclusive of you somehow concludes with you. Frankly, this makes no sense at all. I don’t care how you twist it or what mathematical, evolutionary, determinist magic you try to invoke to square the infinite circle.

And death is like birth except that in this case, the action is of you but the conclusion is entirely absent you. You die, but since death represents the oblivion of you—the complete absence of you—then the consequence of dying has absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You could not have experienced your death, since to experience something you must exist—existence is a prerequisite to experience. This is axiomatic. Further, how do we make any claims about you once you have died? If we define death as the categorical absence of you, or the non-existence of you, then who exactly are we talking about when we speak the life one lived prior to death? If death represents the utter non-existence of one who once lived, then there is no longer any ONE upon which to hang the life which is said to have been lived. We cannot speak of so and so doing this, or so and so doing that if, so and so is entirely nonexistent. But if we insist that so and so did actually do this or that even though so and so doesn’t exist, then we concede implicitly that existence itself is transitory. Existence is not fundamental, but is itself, merely a mist which fades. Existence then cannot be trusted to be objective, and thus any arguments to the objective and empirical nature of reality and truth collapse.

There are a few ways that reconciliation of these contradictions is attempted, and all of them fail the test of rational consistency. One is to deny the existence of YOU qua YOU entirely…to insist that the Conscious Self is purely illusory; a hiccup of the otherwise perfect and perfectly determined mathematical, perpetual cosmic evolution. This rank nonsense was debunked in part one of this article series.

Another explanation is that death is in fact an illusion; that you transition to an after life, as the Christians or Jews or Muslims claim. The problem here is that Christianity makes no such claim about birth, and as far as I know neither does Judaism or Islam. Yet we cannot claim that death is merely a transition but birth is absolute, for both are the exact same relationship between being and non-being. You see, if death is merely a transition into an alternate state of existence, then so must be birth. For going from nothing to something is no more rational than going from something to nothing. In other words, if man does not go from absolute being (life) to absolute non-being (death) then he likewise does not go from absolute non-being to absolute being. If there is a life after death then there must concordantly be a life before birth.

The reality is that only when we accept that the Conscious Self is a constant—that the position of the Observer is to be the reference for an otherwise infinitely relative reality—does one’s existence as a conscious being begin to make sense. It is a hard truth to swallow, for it runs contrary to all popular religion and philosophy, which accept either death, or both death and life, as infinite and absolute bookends to a purely transitory existence as One who is utterly aware of himself, his environment, and possesses the capacity to conceptualize both, as well as the relationship between them, and from that prescribe definitions, and from these meaning, and from meaning, truth, and from truth, morality. But One who is so absolute as this cannot also be rendered subjective and finite via birth and death as they are commonly understood.

END Part TWO

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part One)

The idea of death is something I have rejected from a philosophical perspective…that is, from a perspective of capital-T Truth. I am okay with death form the purely emprical side of things…that eventually our bodies give out for whatever reason and we are returned to the dust from whence we sprung. But from a rational position, one where fundamental epistemological conceptual consistency is the only real basis for knowing anything at all (which is true), nothing about death makes sense. And birth, being death’s corollary in this regard, is in the same position. You see, if we only accept truth based upon empirical “evidence” then we can never arrive at a rational, relevant, and meaningful answer to the question “what is man?”. For man is more than his senses; more than just his body. If he were not, then consciousness would be impossible. The Singularity of the Self…that is, the constancy which is necessary for consciousness, and from consciousness, observation, and from observation, conceptualization, and from conceptualization, meaning, and from meaning Truth, is utterly denied when we accept that man is merely a transient phenomenon; that there is nothing constant and absolute about his Self; that consciousness is entirely finite; it begins with blankness, and returns to blankness, which fundamentally nullifies all which it had learned and spoken in the meantime.

Consciousness is where the empiricists and determinists and objectivists completely fail in their philosophy, which is why they relegate it to mere epiphenomenon—an illusion, with a purely subjective ontology. Consciousness, by their standards, remains “inside”, whilst “objective truth” is that which is found on the “outside”. That this renders consciousness mutually exclusive from objective existence, and thus makes conscious understanding impossible, and thus any claims about what constitutes objective existence and truth likewise impossible, which voids their entire philosophy…well, that never seems to come up much. But we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). The 1 of consciousness cannot be born from and then die to the 0 of oblivion. Consciousness, whether we want to accept it or not, is a Singularity; it is Absolute. The existence of You is predicated on You being a constant. If there is no constant/absolute frame of reference for You, then You is impossible.

You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You. And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define “You” in the first place. And You, and by that I mean Your Self, and by that I mean your Conscious Awareness of Self, cannot merely be some (perhaps complicated or mysterious) kind of cosmic or evolutionary illusion because that begs the question: “An illusion of what?” And that question has no answer because the “what” is that which the proposition (that consciousness is purely an illusion) denies can even exist in the first place. And consciousness cannot likewise be a non-illusory product of some unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative process because that creates the self-defeating assertion that consciousness is direct function of unconsciousness….that somehow consciousness can step out of the absolutely unconscious processes from which it directly springs, observe these processes from a specific and distinct frame of reference, and proceed to make claims about the “objectivity” of the utterly unconscious determinative nature of consciousness.

The only options we have are: 1. That Consciousness IS, and is Singluar, and thus does not come from the Nothing which precedes birth and return to the Nothing which follows death; or 2. That it is a function of either a purely relative existence, unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative processes, or is an illusion. In other words, that consciousness is in fact entirely unconscious.

And only one of thes two options makes consciousness actually possible.

You ARE; and You are Constant. I don’t really care what objectivists, empiricists, scientific pseudo-philosophers, or other nihilistic determinists think—I have listened to their positions on this for years and years and it never changes and never manages to wiggle its way out from under the rock of self-defeating contradiction which crushes it to dust. I have heard everything, from appeals to quantum physics to cosmic evolution to taxicab geometry (where apparently squares are also circles…which, no; this is verifiably false all day long). Any and all attempts to negate consciousness as being what it self-evidently IS fail, always fail, and will fail forever.

So…with that being said, how now can we proceed to understand birth and death from a rationally consistent point of view? Do they even exist at all. Well, subjectively, perhaps. But objectively, no. More in part two.

END PART ONE

The Coronavirus Test, Our Failure, Plausible Deniability, and the Quarantine to Nowhere

Coronavirus was a test…figuratively or literally, it doesn’t matter. How far will the people go to protect their economic and civil liberties; their “guaranteed” Constitutional rights? Covid-19 taught the ruling classes that the people won’t go far at all. In fact, they will scarcely leave their homes. At the slightest whiff of a disruption to their mundane and predictable status quo existence, and under the influence of the rank panic merchants in the media, a relatively harmless virus, with fatality numbers utterly dwarfed by the common flu after five/six months, can cow the people into surrendering their financial future, mortgage the lives of their children, shutter their businesses which they have spent untold amounts of time and energy building, hoard food and toilet paper even absent any kind of supply shortage, accept summary termination of employment, accept trillions of government pork spending, slavishly suffer legal limitations to their freedom of movement and association (a woman in York, PA was recently fined for simply going for a drive) and accept the precedent which says that the government can define a crises and then immediately seize complete control of the economy and society almost literally overnight.

Like with the Patriot Act after 911, the powers and rights we have surrendered to the state—for this—are gone for good.

But at least you feel safe behind your mask and gloves.

Right now we are in the holding pattern of plausible deniability. What I mean is that the Covid-19 scare is not the apocalypse we were told (and are being told even now) it was, but the government and its healthcare advisor yes-men have painted themselves into a corner, and we will be stuck in the “quarantine to nowhere” until they can figure a way out. You see, the powers-that-be, based on a virus of which they knew little to nothing about, and acting out of political expediency and under pressure from media and social media panic merchants and conspiracy theorists (I do NOT blame the government solely for this mess), have damaged this nation in ways that are so unfathomably destructive to the very core of our republic and all upon which it is founded, to the point that it shall never recover, and the death and misery reaped will outweigh anything the coronavirus could do in a million years, that they cannot simply admit they were wrong and throw open society and the economy with a shrug and a “oops, sorry about that”. They fear that, should they do this, in a week once the exuberance wears off, they will face many uncomfortable questions and someone will be on the hook for explaining just how the people tasked with competently and intelligently governing the world’s only remaining superpower could manage to so royally fuck it up almost literally overnight.

What this means is that will will all toil in our locked-down glove, mask, and toilet paper fortresses until they can figure out a way to give themselves an out—a way that can make it look like what is happening now, despite all rational evidence to the contrary, was exactly the right move. They need a plausible way to disguise their catastrophic failure. My guess is that in the next week or so we will hear about some promising new drug which is knocking out the virus left and right, and THAT is why we can now safely reopen the nation, and not because the virus isn’t actually that dangerous after all. It may be some spin about how the quarantine efforts really stemmed the flow of infection and got the numbers down to manageable levels, or a combination of these two “explanations”. But plausible deniability, not a cure, or more ventilators, or more healthcare workers, or more data, is the hold up now.

Oh, and by the way, once this is all over, you can expect terms like “lockdown” and “stay-at-home orders” and “enforced quarantine” to completely disappear from all national media conversation about the coronavirus. That little bit of overt despotism speak is not going to be good for public relations.

And public relations is what it’s all about, after all.

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part Two, Conclusion)

Taking a cue from quantum physics itself—and it is important to understand this, for I am basing my arguments not upon mererly my own conjecture, but on conclusions physics itself ineluctably makes about the nature of reality—beyond a certain point the reduction of the physical literally stops being emprical. Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be sensed, because it has simply been reduced too far (it is too small). Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be said to possess mass, which means it does not, in the emprical sense, occupy space—it is volume-less; it no longer exists dimensionally, and thus it also posssesses no temporal value. In other words, empirically speaking, it exists no where and at no time. Physical reality at this point cannot be verified empirically, but is only rationally inferred.

The evidence for the rational assumption of reality’s existence beyond the place of physicality—beyond the senses—is the mathematics, which are a purely abstract cognitive contrivance…that’s the whole point of math. Math, like music notes on paper, implies the existence of physical reality, but it is not physical reality itself. For if it was, then it would no longer be math, it’s as simple as that.

The effects of these non-emprical yet existent objects, which are referred to as quanta, are said to possess rational existence because they mathematically correlate. In other words, the effects on the physical universe of the quanta are predicted by the math. When atoms are smashed and certain effects recorded, the effects occur in ways that the mathematical rendering of quanta predict, with sufficient repeatability, and this is how, not via direct empirical observation, the quanta (massless, timeless, spaceless particles of reality) are said to objectively exist.

And here we see that empiricism and objectivity are completely distinct. Quantum physics, if we accept its validity, proves that reality does not need to by physical to be be utterly objective, actual, existent, and real.

I have no reason to believe that the mathematics are spurious, (though I understand that by the nature of quantum physics there is always some endemic degree of uncertainty, and this is likely because mathematics is essentially the breaking up of infinity into units, which makes absolute claims ultimately impossible, but science nevertheless is able to get close enough). I’m sure the math is perfectly functional; I have no doubt that it works, and I have no problem assuming that quanta exist and act the way science describes and accepting the mathematical context.

That isn’t my point.

I have no problem with science when it functions as science, and not as philosophy; I do not doubt the mathematical data…believe me, I haven’t the abstract skills to know the difference between good or bad calculus—that’s well beyond my skill set. I’d no sooner argue with Stephen Hawking about the veracity of mathematics than I would a pilot about the veracity of flight. My problem here is the abject conflation of that which is rationally inferred with that which is empirically validated.  Quantum physics is simply not empirical science, even by science’s own definitions (though utterly absent science’s admission, which is hypocritical). The fact that quantum particles must be rationally inferred through the abstracton of mathematics doesn’t necessarily negate the validity of the claims that they nevertheless objectively exist.

My goal here is to show that at some point we must admit that existence—that that which can be said to objectively be—is not strictly a matter of physical, empirical proof, but also, if not ultimately, a matter of reason, and reason is cognitive, and cognition is consciousness. In other words, at some point we must admit that it is the observer, the Conscious Ones, who must declare what is real and what is not; what exists and what doesn’t; what is true and what is lie. Quantum physics is evidence that objective realty does not exist outside of man—or specifically, his consciousness; his ability to conceptualize himself, his environment, and their relative relationships, but wholly includes him, affirms him, necessitates him, relies upon him, and heeds him. This is not sollipsism, but it is, at root, an acknowledgement that reason—rational consistency—can be a plumb-line for truth and realtiy, not only empiricism. Existence and truth do not end at the limit of observation or sensory experience. Quantum physics shows us that just because you cannot observe that something is there, you can still reason that it is there, and that that reason suffices as objective evidence that it is indeed there. One does not, and cannot, sense it is there—for it is utterly beyond observation—yet one may still objectively know that it is actually there; actually true. And this is, again, because of reason. Reason, which is cognitive, which is conscious, is a means, and I would even argue is the fundamental means, of accessing objective realtiy and objective truth.

END