All posts by Argo

Tyranny Does Not Thwart the Constitution, It Perfects It: A controversial look at the philosophical roots of our government (PART TWO)

In the last article we left off by discussing how Authority (Force) and Freedom are two completely distinct, antithetical ethical and political premises. We continue now with the breakdown and examination of my response.

”[Government] implies that human interaction must ultimately occur only via dictated terms from an Authority placed over him…”

Government exists to enforce Law, which is an ethic that requires man to OBEY a DICTATED social contract. The more man obeys the Law then, the more he affirms government as a legitimate and necessary institution. Law is a tool of government used to promote ITSELF, not the individual. In other words, obedience does NOT affirm CHOICE, it by definition affirms AUTHORITY. The whole point of law is to elevate and promote obedience over choice; authority over will; compliance over freedom; Government over the Individual. The Law, and thus the goverenment, because one cannot exist without the other, cannot promote a MORAL society but merely an OBEDIENT one, because there is no such thing as morality absent volition…that is, absent choice. And at root the Law does not care what you WANT or what you might CHOOSE, it only cares what you FEAR, and from that, the degree to which you OBEY. It uses fear of punishment and condemnation (from government…or from Authority, that is) as THE means by which it establishes the supremacy of its ethics. The one who at root has no use for his own self-will, in the face of overwhelming violent coercive power, understands, even if only subconsciously, that he has no fundamental use for his own self-IDENTITY. And thus he becomes existentially fused with the collective (in our case, the “People”) and the obedient hive-mind of the masses. And every time he votes, it doesn’t matter for whom—the victor is ALWAYS the antithesis of freedom. A vote for Authority is a vote for the nullification of one’s self.

“The problem is that since all men are human, and humans are said to be fundamentally flawed, morally (meaning they are insufficient to their own existence absent an external power which dictates their behavior by force), who shall be put in charge? There can be no rational answer to this question.”

I think this is pretty self-explanatory, but I hope that its significance makes a deep impression on the reader. The universal, ceaselessly repeated trope that “we can’t just let everyone do whatever they want” SPECIFICALLY, inexorably, unquestionably, and unavoidably proclaims a fundamental, metaphysical, and thus absolute depravity of mankind. It is a declaration that man has NO endemic, natural capacity to act in service to what is good, and thus necessarily implies that his WILL is corrupt to the point where it cannot legitimately be called WILLFUL at all. And if man cannot really ever choose good of and by himself according to his nature, then what use has man for knowledge? And this rhetorical question means that knowledge itself is, for all practical purposes, entirely wasted on man. This arrantly evil metaphysic condemns ALL men to “spiritual” or “moral” and epistemological (man cannot know truth, because he cannot discern between good and evil) death as a corollary function of their very birth. According to this metaphysic then, the birth of man is utterly impossible—THE contradiction of all contradictions. That God or Nature gives life to Death. That birth is the Affliction of Afflictions which is that one can only ever be conscious of his own fundamental unconsciousness.

“…what happens is that man is collectivized into an Ideal…and THAT, not the individual, is what shall be served. That Ideal then implies rulers…those who are seen as mirroring its virtues most closely. So [because of this fact], even if we are “freely electing” our leaders [the ruling class] we are…doing so not based upon what is best for Man the Individua, but Man the Ideal.”

To establish government is to metaphysically presuppose that man must be ruled, full stop. Anyone who thinks that government is merely an OPTION for mankind as a means of social organization has not thoroughly thought through that assumption, or is intellectually incapable of it. “Government” and ‘absolute control of reality, itself” are synonymous, philosophically speaking; and at any rate, regardless what you or I may think, government NEVER considers the possibility that its power is transient, and that its institutions are purely emphemeral. Government by its nature IS, and what it is is authority; and that Authority is necessary for the perpetuation of reality, ITSELF. It CANNOT imagine itself as a memory because it cannot, by NATURE, fathom ANYTHING outside of itself. It thus cannot get smaller, only bigger. For even reductions of government control are only forthcoming by ACTS of the governemnt (e.g.tax cuts), making these reductions simply manifestations of government power. Which is why I chuckle at people who run for office as Libertarians. Their basic philosophy is: they will reduce the power of government by acting in the capacity OF government; they will restrict its authority BY its authority. Sorry, but it doesnt work that way. That’s like saying you can wish away gravity. Gravity is not subject to your feelings, hopes, dreams, or ignorance. It IS, and will do what it does to its greatest and absolute possible extent, ALL the time. And any action you might take to reduce the power of gravity MUST concede it as a constant. Gravity is FORCE, PERIOD. It’s never less than that; it’s never more. And it is always itself to the maximum degree. So it is with government.

And yet, amazingly, Americans, who consider themselves THE very perfect progeny of the Enlightenment, persistently speak of the Constitution as THE guardian of Inidivdual Freedom. As if Freedom can be a function of rules, enforced by the the State through violence. They seem shocked at the rank and shameless expansion of their government, and the utterly non-subtle erosion of their rights and property, and speak of such things as a corruption of the Constitution. But these things, my friend, you must understand, are not a corruption of the Constitution, but a PERFECTING of it. The government, regardless of how it is organized, is never a stepping-stone to freedom, but is in fact the very antithesis of it. The conclusion of the premise which declares “controlled and compelled” behavior as THE means by which man’s existence is enabled, ensured, and perpetuated is: ABOLUTE CONTROL. And this should be obvious to us, if not by reason then by the empirical evidence of thousands and thousands of years of human history. When has the government ever been a stepping-stone to LESS of itself? When has the State ever conceded, via its own volition and based upon its own underwriting philosophical premise, that it is merely one option of several for man to select as a means of social organization?

It has never happened because it CANNOT happen.

The fundamental, metaphysical premise of government is that man must be ruled in order to ensure his very existence; that is, man, born an Individual, is not by nature nor root identity sufficient to LIFE. In other words, for man to be himself, and not the Collective Ideal of the State, is for man not to BE at all. The destruction of Individual will then is an existential necessity, and is THE fundamental purpose the State serves, by nature and implication; the Indivudal must die to SELF, in order that he may live to the State. And to live for the State—to live for the Authority which compells him to the Collective Ideal (e.g. The People)—is the only way he can live at all.

And it is here where we can begin to see just how even a Representative Republic with free elections is no hedge against the inevitable absolutism of government power. Once man has accepted the metaphysics of Collectivism implied by the State, then he simply CANNOT act politically in a way that affirms the Individual. And once this premise has been conceded by a society, and set in stone, literally, by the establishment of government, there is no going back. The establishment of Institutional Authority  is a bell that cannot be un-rung. You cannot reject a master…even one you have “elected” and “freely chosen”, because it is of course no longer up to you. Humanity in a “free republic” has declared its need for a master by appealing to its existential insufficiency, which means that the master cannot EVER be in a position to entertain any cries for freedom because he exists precisely because humanity, by its OWN admission, is incapable of ever knowing just what it needs in the first place. For the government, even in a “free republic”. to think that it shall become LESS controlling rather than more is a rejection of its mandate to SERVE humanity. To give you freedom is tantamount to allowing a child to run headlong into traffic. It is FOR YOU that you are made servile, don’t you see?

The autocracy rules the masses for its own sake, but the democracy rules them for THEIR sake. Which, of course, in practicality becomes likewise ITS sake, but the intentions are thought more benevolent. The autocracy travels as the crow flies, you could say, whilst the democracy takes the (ostensible) scenic route.

”The American Ideal is “the People”, which is as close to Individualism as you might get from government, but it is still a collectivist Ideal and thus the road map take us to Tyranny, even though we are sure we intended to go to Freedom”

Just like every rock of any size will sink to the bottom of the ocean, every government will descend into the nightmare of authoritarianism.

END.

 

Tyranny Does Not Thwart the Constitution, It Perfects It: A controversial look at the philosophical roots of our government (PART ONE)

This is controversial…I’m just going to say it. I know it, and yet the facts are still the facts. I cannot pretend that a square is also a circle, and so I cannot pretend that Authority is also Freedom.  Authority is force, and force is the antithesis of freedom. The Constitution canonizes government rule…government authority. And though it decrees “limited authority” I submit that this is a rational contradiction in terms. Government authority cannot be limited because it is the root IDENTITY of Government. It IS the irreducible core of the State. Everything the State does flows from its Authority to compel individuals by force against their will (force necessarily making “will” fundamentally irrelevant).

When we speak of limiting the government we are talking about limiting its Authority; which means we are talking about limiting its identity. But how do you limit the identity of a thing? It cannot be done. How do you limit the identity of a bird, for example? How do you make a bird less of itself? A bird is a bird is a bird. BEING a bird is absolute. There is no such thing as a bird which we know is a bird being somehow not as much of a bird as another bird. Somehow bird A is a full bird but bird B is a “limited bird”. It’s BIRDNESS is somehow truncated. This is complete nonsenses. To claim we can limit the Authority of the government is to say we can limit the GOVERNMENTNESS of government. This is also complete nonsense.  So the Constitution, necessarily and by definition affirming the State and thereby its Authority, affirms State Authority ABSOLUTELY. It concedes the full “governmentness” of government…and yet attempts to limit that identity. It declares the bird a bird, and then goes on to describe how this particular bird will somehow be less of a bird than all the other birds which came before it.  This bird, being birthed from other birds, will somehow have a root identity of BOTH birdness and not-birdness. It will be both a bird and the opposite of bird.

Madness. Beautiful and perhaps well-intentioned madness, but madness nevertheless.

Look, the only way the Constitution could ever limit government power is if it were claim that there is no government at all. Which, if the Constitution did that, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

*

The other day I was debating a fellow commentor on a blog I occasionally visit. We were at odds over the feasibility of the American Republic; the Constitution, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to establishing a truly free and just society. If you have read much of my blog, you already know which side of the fence I sit on. I am a voluntarist, categorically, and this means that I accept as rational and efficacious only the utter ABSENCE of Ruling Authority when it comes to politics. The State, being FORCE, necessarily rejects individual will and choice as necessary or even fundamentally possible to the establishment of a truly ethical and efficacious society. And this is the very antithesis of humanity, period. Government undermines the identity of man and replaces it with the identity of the State, and substitutes choice with force, value exchange with violence, and morality with legality.

My fellow commentor is of the small-government, libertarian persuasion, through I’m not sure she identifies hereself as officially a Libertarian party member. At any rate, during the course of our discussion she said the following (edited for clarity and brevity):

”…our Constitution…was supposed to be our road map…We were supposed to have a very limited government. I’ve read enough of the founders to know that most of them thought of government as being evil but necessary.”

And I replied:

”…I understand your points. I agree with you on the Founders’ intentions. The Constitution being a road map implies a journey. Unfortunately it cannot be to capital “F” Freedom because it implies government, which implies Authority, which implies a metaphysic that declares man, at the level of his natural identity, incapable of establishing a just society absent violent coercive force. It implies that human interaction must ultimately occur only via dictated terms from an Authority placed over him. The problem is that since all men are human, and are said to be morally flawed creatures at root which is why government is necessary (meaning that man’s nature makes him insufficient to his own existence absent an external power which compels him into “right” behavior by threat and force), then the question is: who shall be put in charge?

And of course by the very metaphysical premise—the inherent depravity of man—there can be no rational answer to this question.

So what happens is that man is collectivized into an Ideal…and this Ideal he understands is what shall be served. That Ideal then implies rulers…those who are seen as mirroring its virtues most closely.So…even if we are “freely electing” our leaders, we are doing so not based upon what is best for Man the Individual, but Man the Ideal. The American Ideal is “the People”, which granted is as close to Individualism as you will ever get from government, but it’s still a collectivist Ideal. And thus the road map takes us to Tyranny, even though we are sure we intended to go to Freedom.

And, not being snarky here, honestly, but if an evil is NECESSARY wouldn’t that actually make it good?”

*

After reading my comment a couple of times, I realized that I only superficially touched upon what are pretty complex issues with respect to government and the philosophical principles which underwrite it, and in so doing I did not do justice to them, nor to my fellow commentor. But in the interest of not wanting to post a comment under a blog article which was longer than the article itself, I kept my points as brief as I felt reasonable. Unfortunately I believe I might have merely sewn confusion rather than clarity. Thus this article here on my own blog, where space is unlimited, if not my readers’ patience, so allow me to fill in the gaps. I will do this by breaking down my comment into sections and explicating accordingly.

*

”[The Constitition] cannot [take us] to ‘capital F’ Freedom because it implies government, which implies Authority…”

Governemnt by nature is FORCE. The ROOT and FUNDAMENTAL and ABSOLUTE purpose is to exercise coercive (violent) power to compel specific behavior, which by implicit and rational logical extension means that it controls ALL behavior. This is because the Individual—he who is the SINGULAR source and author of the behavior to be compelled—cannot be metaphysically parsed. In other words. man is by natural identity a creature of will; this is what separates him from the animals. The very cornerstone of man’s Identity is his Will. He is a VOLITIONAL agent, not an instinctual one. Which is why man can be held morally culpable for his actions where an animal cannot. If man cannot by will CHOOSE to act, then his behavior cannot be categorized as moral or immoral. In which case, by what basis can it be argued that man should be governed? The claim is that man is morally insufficient, which is why he must be compelled by force into right behavior. The ability of man to CHOOSE is implicit in the argument of the necessity of government. The fact that man is a moral agent is WHY there is government. Of course by subordinating individual will to State power man’s morality becomes moot. By claiming that man will inevitably CHOOSE wrong on the whole when left to himself becomes the reason why choice must be nullified by Authority. But if man no longer can choose then man is no longer a willful agent. And without will man has no identity; so what govement implies is the destruction of man in order that man can live a successful existence and not destroy himself.

That’s…a lot of contradictions and other logical fallacies. But that’s govement.

Anyway…

Man’s will is singular…that is, ALL his actions proceed from ONE will…His Own. To claim the right to force man to do this or that (as government does), or not do this or that, by threat of punishment (unto death) is NOT merely a limiting of the will but a rank commandeering of it. Will is absolute. It cannot be limited; it is indivisible. To force a man to act or not act one way necessarily subordinates ALL of man’s subsequent actions to force. All subsequent actions occur within the context not of freedom but of coercion. In other words, if govement forces you to act one way, it doesn’t mean that you are free to act in other ways, it only means that you are ALLOWED to act in those other ways (and temporarily at that, if history is our guide). And being allowed to do something is NOT the same thing as being FREE do it.

END PART ONE

Memory Implants: Another impossible sci-fi trope

Implanting memories on some unsuspecting, or suspecting, victim or person…make them believe that they have done or said this or that by giving them a memory, from OUTSIDE of them. They thus accept it was derived FROM (or within) them. We’ve seen it more than once in fiction…and fiction is where it shall remain, I’m afraid.

Think about it…think about how this idea contradicts all rational consistency, and thus must contradict all practical utility. Before a memory implant could actually induce a memory one would need to implant, as a necessary corollary to the memory, a sense of SELF…an “I” to serve as the constant…that is, the existential frame of reference for the memory. For without this reference, there can be no memory. There may be an image—like a mental picture—but not a memory, which is a very, very different thing. A memory is a personal experience; and an experience, to be personal, needs one’s singular existential frame of reference. The memory is ACTIVELY manifest by the personal and singular experience of the ACTOR, not DICTATED to him by another…this is why it’s a memory and not merely a mental image. I can think of a green car, but the memory of the green car I saw parked at the store yesterday is a memory because it is in my mind not as an abstraction, but as an OBJECT which I physically ACTED upon to and of and from my SELF…I SAW it. The memory requires me to be an active participant/observer; the mere mental image does not. And for one to be an active (conscious) observer requires an “I”—a Self—and that can only come from within, not from without. MY singular sense of MY SELF, which is the crux of memory, cannot be implanted into me from outside of me. It is not dictated TO me, it IS me, and “me” (me qua me) is absolute, and absolutely necessary to make a memory a memory. The metaphysical ME is the foundation of all memory.  Memory is grounded in the ontological singular frame of reference, which acts upon the physical (through the senses) to create one’s wholly unique existential experience.

So, no, memories cannot be implanted from one to another. One, from THEIR singular ontological frame of reference, cannot experience FOR another, and thus cannot GIVE them a memory. There is no way to do this since by definition one cannot BE another FOR them. The idea of a “memory implant” is a fundamental violation of rational human identity, in which case, there is no “one” to whom a memory can be given. The idea of a memory implant collapses upon the very logical fallacy, making the whole endeavor a categorical waste of time. We can psychologically manipulate another person, control them by deception and suggestion, but we cannot BE them FOR them. An implant may one day control the mind of another through manipulation of the brain, but this is only euphemistically called a “memory implant”. You may be convinced that you experienced something you did not actually experience, but you cannot ACTUALLY experience what you did NOT ACTUALLY experience.  And this is the subtle, but profound, difference. One is psychological manipulation, the other is memory.

And this topic relates to why I have asserted, and continue to assert, that it is impossible for consciousness to be created OUTSIDE of itself…this is one of the great rational and philosophical paradoxes.  Consciousness, for a human, for a computer, for an android, artificial or organic (not that I accept that consciousness has been achieved “artificially”, or that it will or can be achieved) may involve the actions of humanity or nature or God, but it will never be CAUSED or CREATED by them, fundamentally. Consciousness represents a wholly singular ontological perspective…it is absolute, period, and thus is only and can only be a product of Itself. The root of man is his identity of SELF, and this is utter—absolute. There is no before it which can be claimed by it except FROM it; there is likewise no after. In order to speak of “before I was”, I must BE; in order to speak of “after I am”, I must BE. The ontological constant is the Self…and the Self is, was, and shall ever be.  It is infinite. And this is the mark of God upon man.

“I” cannot be function of “NOT I”; consciousness has no frame of reference for a cause outside of Itself. If it could be created or caused from outside itself it could not exist. To say “my memories were given to me”, or “my Self came from another”, is like saying “there is no such thing as absolute truth” or “it is impossible to know ultimate truth”. The claim completely nullifies its assertion. It’s rational madness; dead on arrival. Mouth noise.

For the same reason that “you” cannot also be “me”, and “me” cannot also be “you”, “I” cannot cause “you”, and “you” cannot cause “I”. This metaphysic may be paradoxical, yet it IS rationally consistent and, I would submit, even consistent with empirical reality. The very reason why man is able to exist and thrive is because the natural root of his powers of conceptualization and language is that meaning NEEDS a reference, and that MUST then imply “I”. “I am” must be BEFORE meaning can be determined.  “I” is not dictated, IT does the dictating. “I” is not created, IT is the creator.

END

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (PART 2)

The first problem with time travel theory is one which I have already obliquely addressed: the fact that time does not exist except as an abstract, mathematical construct. In other words, time is not a medium; it’s not a thing we exist in; we cannot travel through time because it isn’t there. Further, the admitted relativity of time according to General Relativity should make this clear to us. If time is relative to the observer, then it is utterly dependent upon the position of the observer AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. That is, the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference is “the moment”, or we might say the “perpetual present”—the constancy or perpetuity of his position. This “moment” or “perpetual present” is given temporal meaning by the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference (and this is the Self-Aware Self…that is, it’s a metaphysical, not physical, reference) RELATIVE to other objects. If the observer and other objects share the same moment—the same “present”—then the relativity of time is purely theoretical. If the moment between the observer and other objects is different due to differences in acceleration, then the relativity of time becomes PRACTICAL..that is, the “time change” can be observed.

Of course the changes have nothing to do with time—time qua time—but I submit are a function of the relative difference in what I call the “direction of existence” (DOE) due to the acceleration of objects relative each other. And to briefly explicate my theory, it works something like this:

Existence is active, and therefore all objects move, or travel, in a root, “baseline”, or constant DOE. This is the source of gravity, I hypothesize, and is why objects with more mass have more gravity…they travel upon a larger or “wider” pathway of existence (POE) relative to less massive objects (this is also why light appears to bend around massive objects…light is moving past the POE, which looks like bending to an observer). When one object, A, accelerates (linearly, for example) relative to another, B, its “existence”, through an alteration along its DOE relative to B, “decrease”, which manifest measurably as “slowing” along the temporal continuum. In other words. because of the change in DOE as a function of acceleration in a new direction relative to B, A’s “time” when compared to B, using B’s time as reference, appears to decrease.

I understand that this is a very arcane and complex physical/philosophical theory, and the provided explication is by no means comprehensive nor is it intended to be. But I included it because I feel obligated to do so. It resolves all of the rational inconsistencies of time travel theory whilst remaining consistent with the scientifically verified empirical data. It shows how the “temporal” descrepancies in objects in different states of acceleration can exist without having to concede the causal, practical, physical existence of time.

*

The next problem with the time travel theory is that time always sums to ONE when measured against itself in comparisons of relative temporal frames of reference. Now, I know that this may seem obvious, as time, being a continuum, is, of itself, in possession of no temporal value (that is, time is, itself, necessarily TIMELESS), and therefore is, of itself, infinite. And of course when you divide time’s infinity into RELATIVE values, these values must always sum (return) to the infinite ONE of time’s own “temporal” value. So relative comparisons of temporal frames of reference between objects don’t actually imply ANY changes to time, itself. And if time itself doesn’t change with changes in temporal frames of reference between objects accelerating at different rates, because these changes are relative, then the temporal differences measured between them don’t actually have ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME. Traveling through time doesn’t produce any changes in the timeline, itself. So how do we assert that time has changed for each object relative to one another if time hasn’t actually changed at all? As soon as we attempt to measure temporal changes utterly independent of the timeline we have contradicted ourselves. Time is exactly the same for all objects ALL the time, because time cannot change. All temporal “changes” are, by the theory’s OWN ADMISSION, a function NOT of time but of the relative position of the reference. There are only “temporal” changes when we make time RELATIVE TO AN OBJECT said to be “in time”. Thus, time travel has nothing to do with time and everything to do with how we humans ABSTRACTLY define a relative difference between objects. That ABSTRACTION is called “time”; time is not a thing, itself. Like “speed”, or “direction”, or “weight”, etc. etc. it’s a concept humans use to cognitively organize their environment.

*

Person A travels away at light speed from planet X on which remains person B. He returns after five years to discover that person B has aged 20 years.  But let’s not focus on person A. Let’s shift our attention to B. Is it possible that he, like A, can be said to have “time traveled”? Why yes it is. With respect to the relativity of time, the temporal comparison between A and B is likewise relative. Which means that to the same degree A has “time traveled” to the past with respect to B, B has “time traveled” to the FUTURE with respect to A. If time is our plumbline, and time is relative, then this must be the case. It cannot be any other way.

Let’s speak non-relatively for a second. From the point of view of A and B independent of each other, time has passed equally. That is, from their own independent frame of reference nothing has changed…time has passed the same as it always has. They are comfortably ensconced in their “perpetual present”. It is only when the relative comparison is made are there any temporal differences noted. So, this being the case…that is, the fact that time is only RELATIVELY different and not FUNDAMENTALLY different means that if person A has traveled to the future, and the change in time is INEXORABLY attached to the position of B, then person B must have traveled to the past in equal measure. The temporal relationship is proportionally inverse and fundamentally related. As one travels to the future the other travels equally to the past. Person A has gained time relative to person B, and B has lost time relative to A. Thus, despite the fact that A is the one who traveled at the speed of light, BOTH A and B have “time traveled”.

So the only way to “prove” time travel is to make a relative comparison, but as soon as we do that we must accept that both A and B have traveled in equal but inverse degrees, which means that time, on the whole, itself, hasn’t changed at all. Time is absolute. It, of itself, just IS. IT is constant; the change is purely the observer’s perception. Like an hour glass, the sand can shift from one side to the other, but the amount of sand remains constant. Any “change” is purely an abstraction. There is no OBJECTIVE change in how much sand is in the hour glass at any given moment. The sand itself just IS.

Time travel theory doesn’t prove the existence of time, time’s existence being implicit in the assertion that time can be traveled. Time is simply an abstract, mathematical construct spawned from man’s mind, as a function of the mind’s unique and extraordinary powers of conceptualization.

END

 

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (Part ONE)

Undoubtedly, we all have heard of Einstein’s time travel thought experiment, which is made according to his principles of General Relativity. Without going into the small details, we understand that this theory is predicated upon the idea that movement through space-time is relative between observers. Now, if you are familiar with my blog you likely have been exposed to the rational inconsistencies which undermine the assertion that space and time (space-time) are existent. That is, that they are things which have existence in “objective, ontic reality” rather than abstract cognitive constructs; that they are THINGS, not simply ideas, as it were. I will briefly summarize these inconsistencies now:

First, space.

Space, being a vacuum, is by very definition the ABSENCE of things; it is not a thing itself—for this would invalidate its very purpose, that is, to serve as the CONTEXT for physical distinction, precisely because it is, itself, NOT physical. As soon as it becomes “objectively existent”, then it is no longer the distinction between things but a thing itself, which therefore leaves the distinction between objects in space, physically and empirically, undefined. In other words, if space is a thing. then what is the space between space and the things which are said to exist in it?

And time.

Time is similar to space in its rational inconsistency (as an object, existent) in that if we attempt to give it some kind of implied or explicit physical boundaries, then its meaning and efficacy collapse into the circular logic. Often we here the phrase “the beginning, or the end, of time”. But time can have no beginning nor end because by definition it IS the beginning and the end. Further, if we give time some kind of implied spatial boundary by appealing to objects as being “in time” or passing “through time”, then we admit that objects in themselves are fundametally timeless. This presents us with an unfortunate contradiction in that what is timeless at root cannot also be utterly obliged to time. And as far as I can deduce, once time becomes part of “objective reality” there can be no possible frame of reference for anyone or anything being OUTSIDE of it, so, as with space, attempting to make a distinction between time and that which exists “in it” becomes a fruitless pursuit.

Also, past, present, and future are mutually exclusive temporal contexts; from the observer’s frame of reference, the present is INFINITELY the present. He exists in the perpetual NOW of his SINGULAR conscious perspective (the “I” of human existence). And this infinite position of the Present is bookended, INFINITELY (absolutely), by the future and the past. People will counter my criticism by declaring time a continuum. And indeed it is. It is a continuum with no beginning and no end and thus it is infinite, and thus any values derive from it (e.g. past, present, future, specified in numerical/mathematical degrees, like minutes, hours, years, etc.) are degrees of infinity, which must necessarily be purely abstract. For there is no such existent THING as a “portion of infinity”. In other words, past, present, and future are components of that which has no beginning nor end, which makes them components of the infinite. Which of course is a meaningless contradiction in terms, practically/ontologically speaking.

*

The root of the problem with assuming that space-time is anything other than a convenient, entirely abstract, mathematical concept and context (called a “coordinate system” in physics, I think) is that it invariably descends into an abyss of infinity, and this makes it ontically irrelevant. In other words, without the objects said to exist in space-time, space-time has no relevance, meaning, or efficacy to physical reality.

Space-time can only exist as a function of the objects in it. Which is to say it then must be purely a function of man’s powers of abstract conceptualization. Man makes purely cognitive, conceptual distinctions between the objects which he observes, including himself (his body)…and one of these distinctions is “space-time”.

Scientists should be extremely wary of straying too far from the mathematics which are the bedrock of their school of thought. Their intellectual milieu is not the philosophical, as much as they seem to insist that it is. But philosophy does not deal in the abstract…at all. It does not deal in “degrees of infinity” as I like to refer to mathematics. It deals with rational consistency…it has corners, boundaries of conceptual compatibility and congruency (or it should, anyway, if it is proper and not madness). In philosophy, an Is Not (e.g. space) cannot also be an Is (e.g. that which physically interacts with the physical). In philosophy, the divine cannot be rationalized away by simply labeling  it “Laws of Nature”. In philosophy, there must be a well-defined distinction between the Observer and the Observed. In philosophy, human consciousness plays a key role in the explication of truth, it is not punted into the cosmic abyss of “epiphenomenon”.

I suck at physics and math…always have, so I don’t pretend to be an expert in the fields, even to the point of calling THEIR scholars fatuous or pseudo-intellectuals, as is often the reverse case. In my experience, the better one is at science/mathematics the worse he is at philosophy, though I do admit that this observation is mostly anecdotal. But as a general rule I don’t need my theoretical physicist to be my philosopher any more than I need my accountant to be my plumber.

*

So, you are familiar with the time travel theory, and it goes something like this: Persons A and B are on planet X. Person A travels away from planet X at the speed of light and then returns after five years from his observational frame of reference, which turns out to be 20 years from the frame of reference of person B. Now, as I said, math is not my strong suit, so I’m adlibbing the numbers here, but you get the idea. Time passes much more slowly for person A relative to person B.

It is important to mention that this theory is supported by a sufficient amount of empirical evidence, particularly those experiments, done in various contexts, which employ atomic clocks as temporal gauges. The “temporal distinction”—which is the alteration in the relative function of atoms in test subjects measured against a temporal reference, with acceleration/speed being the only functional difference—is measurable and repeatable. And so it is clear that there ARE indeed what I would call ACTUAL existential differences based upon relative distinctions in acceleration and speed. This is not hypothetical. It is real. Existence is indeed different, and fundamentally so, between objects that that travel at different speeds.

So what’s the problem then with the time travel theory? Experiments seem to show that it checks out. Well, it is not so much that it’s wrong but that it’s misleading. Now, I’m not suggesting that Einstein himself  intended the theory to mean anything beyond its mathematical parameters and implications (I’m not actually sure), but I do believe that since Einstein the time travel theory has implied some philosophically profound ideas that are now erroneously throught proven true. Like “time is real”, and that we all “exist in it”, and thus we do and can “travel through it”. ALL of these assertion are utterly false, and THIS is what the time travel experiments ACTUALLY prove.

END PART ONE

 

Divine Creation and Evolutionary Process are Philosophically Identical and Therefore are Identical in Their Philosophical Insufficiency

Not being designed by God or evolution for flying, man flies highest; not being designed for digging, man digs deepest; not being designed with thick fur, man is warmest; not being designed with fangs or claws or camouflage, man is the deadliest and best defended.

This is because man has not been designed, you see, it is that he is the designer. And this is the Divine Image in him.

*

It is an impossible task to rationalize the claim that man is designed by God or Nature to observe or conceptualize himself as specifically and absolutely DISTINCT from these things. Because by “design”, the root assertion is that man is NOT in fact, himself at all, but is a DIRECT function of the powers which have designed him. In other words, “designed by” really means “entirely created by”, which really means “absolutely a function of”, which means that all that man, and his reality, is and does is utterly DETERMINED by the Creative Force.

And just like that science and religion utterly unite in metaphysics.

How can God or Nature determine that man should observe God or Nature, and all of that which is a function of Him/It—that is, Reality, Itself—from OUTSIDE of Him/It? For he who is absolutely determined by divine or evolutionary Force can by no rational means observe and conceptualize a distinction between himself and that which determines him.

Determinism, you see, is not a physical phenomenon or an adjunct religious doctrine, but a METAPHYSICAL premise. It asserts that whatever IS, does not, in itself, exist, but is merely an expression of the Determining Force, either God or Nature. It is scientifically “proven” by appealing to empirical “cause and effect”, but the the presupposition which makes determinism in fact deterministic, and thus “cause and effect” a thing which is said to be efficacious and practical in reality, is that there is no ACTUAL distinction between the two. The cause utterly creates the effect; which means, at root, that the cause IS the effect. For if the two are separated, intrinsically, then they cannot exist.

Determinism as a metaphysic, whether ceded to be a function of God or Nature, despite what you might hear, allows for NO distinction of any kind between the Determining Force and the determined thing. To make a distinction is to concede that the thing which is being determined possesses a root essence, or really, an existence, which is of ITSELF, and not of that which determines it. In this case, the thing which exists of itself is caused upon by the Determining Force fundametally because IT is ABLE, intrinsically of ITSELF, to be caused upon. Without the inherent, endemic ability of the “determined” object to be acted upon by the “Determining Force”, there is no determining action, and thus there is NO Determining Force. Meaning that the Determining Force is entirely subordinated to the inherent and endemic ability of the object to be acted upon.

So here is the root, self-nullifying contradiction of Determinism, whether divine or evolutionary:

Without a distinction between the Determining Force and that which is determined, there can be no determinism because there is NOTHING (no thing OF ITSELF which is being caused upon) to determine, and thus by definition no Determining Force. Yet if there IS a distinction then there can likewise be no determinism, and thus no Determining Force, because what actually—that is, fundamentally—causes the object to “react” to the force which compels it is not the Determining Force but rather the root ABILITY of the object to be caused upon by the Force in the first place. It is this ability, and not the Determining Force, which is the source of ALL of its behavior, including EXISTING, which makes its very existence a thing of itself, and to itself, and nothing else, at root. Which means that the Determing Force is not actually determining anything at all, which means it, unlike the thing it is said to determine, does not actually exist.

Due to its inexorable, intrinsic, self-nullifying rational contradiction, the Determining Force, be it God (as religion currently and for the most part defines Him…which is wholly irrational and therefore a lie) OR Nature, is relegated to the category of pure abstraction; utterly useless with respect to any philosophy of virtue and integrity and intellectual honesty/consistency. As a determining force, God or Nature is not REAL in the ontological, empirical, physical sense, and therefore is irrelevant in the metaphysical sense (the metaphysical being the substrata of the physical). All that is said to be determined actually determines itself, we might say (and human consciousness (will and choice) is THE practical manifestation of this, I submit).

And thus is the irreconcilable schism, at the most fundamental level, within the ideal of a divine or evolutionary creative force. Because of the contradiction inherent in the proposition (that that which exists is intrinsically a function of an all-determining Force), the proposition, though it may have some practical utility (e.g. science as a means of technological progress), this utility is  limited, and substantially so, I aver. Man may progress only so far as his metaphysical premises will take him, and the overwhelming and prevailing determinist metaphysics underwriting virtually all of science and religion/spirituality can and will NEVER rationally nor efficaciously describe reality qua reality. And if man doesn’t truly understand reality he doesn’t truly understand himself. Which ultimately makes ALL of his ideas fundametally destructive, because they necessarily affirm the notion of the insufficiency, irrelevance, and incongruency of man as a CONSCIOUS being. And this means that the only rational purpose of man qua man (man AS HIMSELF) is to die.

END

He Who Builds the Wall Controls the Gate: Why I oppose Trump’s border wall and you should, too

The United States is a gravity well for illegal immigration, predominantly through her southern border. The sheer NUMBER of illegal aliens pouring—no, FLOODING—into the country is something in the tens of millions. It’s so high and growing so fast that I doubt even Einstein could keep count. And there’s no significant disagreement about this. The disagreement is whether or not it’s a problem, and if it is, what should be done about it. For the sake of this article, we will deem it a problem.  Because, well, it is…unless you welcome the speedy and particularly pernicious, hypocritical, and utterly integrity-free decline of the United States as we know it. I mean, if you have no problem with the ruling class selling out their own citizens for yet even more wealth and power (what else is fucking new?), then by all means, smile and click your heals…for you ‘tis a happy day, indeed.

For the rest of us, relentless illegal immigration is not only a problem but an existential one, like a cancer, and it needs to be stopped.

But how?

In this article, however, I won’t be discussing how it SHOULD be stopped, but how it SHOULDN’T.  How it SHOULD be stopped is the log in the eye of everyone not a child, intellectually diminished, or insane…and it won’t happen, because that’s the nature of government, and as goes government so goes the prevailing social zeitgeist (not the other way around). Which is why everyone with a serious interest in stemmming illegal immigration is clamoring for a wall, which will also (likely) not happen, because as far as I can tell the State doesn’t consider millions of new customers (welfare dependents and low-wage workers) a problem, but a blessing. What a shock.

And by way, I refuse to mention the real solution to illegal immigration because, frankly, it’s beneath me to do so. The fact that it’s so obvious and rational and yet will NEVER, EVER be taken seriously makes spending any of my intellectual capital on it a motherfucking waste of time, not to mention an insult. And also I don’t follow people up their own assholes. Please understand that a society’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality and instead live in the fantasy land of its own collective asshole is NOT a virtue.

*

A wall will work.  A physical barrier poses a hinderance to the physical, by definition.  But just because a solution works doesn’t make it the right solution. Suicide will cure cancer; genocide brings peace to a nation…but there are better ways to go about fixing stuff.

I submit that from the point of view of the State,  the wall is the most obvious and attractive solution to the problem of illegal immigration. And by “most attractive and obvious” I mean the “most despotic and authoritarian”…within the context of the particular iteration of government in question, of course. Because the United States is not an autocracy, it’s not like her politicians will be setting up firing squads to quash dissent and get things done. But they will set up the federal reserve, establish the income tax, revoke the gold standard and print money to pay for war and welfare…welfare being little more than democrat party vote manufacturing, pass conscription laws, wage long and expensive wars with shameless regularity, subsidize a permanent global military presence, meddle in foreign elections and economies, heavily tax consumer goods like alcohol and cigarettes for strictly political reasons, heavily regulate the “free” market, force people to buy health insurance so the ruling class can buy votes from the permanent government-subsidized underclass, pass unconstitutional gun control laws, and…build walls. None of these things are the BEST solution if you are an individual who likes his freedom. But they are the best if you are the government.

Now, I understand that by and large the democrats oppose a wall, and that is because for them illegal immigration is not a problem; and to be fair this is also true for many, if not most, republicans, given that the cheap labor is a boon to their corporate donors. What I mean to say is that IF a politician accepts that illegal immigration is a problem, then the solution WILL NECESSARILY BE the one which is the MOST despotic and authoritarian within the context of the given iteration of government…because that is the nature of government. And even the most virtuous of politicians, due to their acceptance of the legitimacy and efficacy of government, will always opt for the solution that most completely expresses government, and THAT solution will be the one which is the most despotic and authoritarian. And thus, in this case, we have the wall.

And so here we have a bifurcation of the notion of “best solution”. The wall, being the most obviously despotic and authoritarian solution to the problem of illegal immigration within the context of the AMERICAN system, is the BEST solution…for the State. It is not the best for you or me. And so the only way it WON’T happen is if the majority of politicians do not accept that illegal immigration is a problem—which it IS by LEGAL definition, but as the ruling class IS the law, despite whatever the Constitution may or may not say, it’s not a legal problem FOR THEM. In other words, illegal immigration, like any illegal activity, is only considered by the State to be ACTUALLY illegal if it threatens the power of the ruling class. In the case of illegal immigration, it seems that currently it’s not a threat to their power, but more of a boon, and so I submit it’s unlikely a wall will happen anytime soon. But if and when it does I promise you it will NOT be good for you or me.

*

A wall is an effective way of keeping people out of a given area…this I do not dispute. But of course, a wall is also an effective way of keeping peole IN. Indeed, this is the whole point of some walls, like prisons, or nursery schools, walls that run along the edges of cliffs or mountainous roads, and so on. And I submit that from the perspective of the State (the ruling class), the fundamental reason for a physical barrier along the perimeter of a nation is the same—to keep people in, even if the ruling class may not necessarily be consciously aware of this. Because of the philosophical rationale of government, it is NECESSARY to exercise ownership over the souls within its sphere of coercive, political influence. A wall is one VERY effective way of accomplishing this.

With respect to geographical boundaries, nation-states have such demarcations as a means of (abstractly) creating a distinction between those the government controls (compels via supreme violent power) and those it doesn’t (but aspires to). A nation’s boundaries create a geopolitical identity for a certain group of people over which the government claims ownership. Now, whether you want to call it “ownership” or not is up to you, but the very existential foundation of government is its explicit  “right” to compel human beings by force. And upon this it declares itself the ONLY entity which thus may wield the land’s supreme means and methodologies of violence. If that isn’t claiming ownership, I don’t know what is. I pay taxes to support a public education system I don’t use. I didn’t ask for this, or agree to it. It’s not a cooperative relationship. I didn’t vote for it…not that voting is an expression of one’s  freedom and thus freedom of choice; on the contrary, it’s an affirmation that one has NO choice…you get politician A or B (or however many). Option C, which is “no politician at all” doesn’t exist. I am not free if I MUST have either vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream; if I cannot choose to have NO ice cream at all then I’m not free. And if I don’t pay my taxes guess what? I get a date with guys in uniforms with guns. I have to pay because that’s what the “people” have voted for. I am at the mercy of a Collectivist Ideal known as “the People”, and that means, in all practical effect, that I do what I am told by the State or I forfeit my right to exist. Oh sure, I can vote against property taxes if I want, but it won’t make any difference unless I organize a majority of the voting population to vote with me, and that means convincing them to agree with me. And quite frankly, I don’t feel like doing that because I just don’t give a fuck what they think, or whether they agree with me or not; I am not morally nor rationally obligated to convince ANYONE that my private property isn’t booty for public pillaging.  And if I’m told that that’s what I have to do—make a case to “the People”—well fuck that…because it’s already too late. Go ahead and see what happens to a society that uses violence to compel “charity” and “justice” and “equality” and “diversity” or whatever other totalitarian trope or combination thereof happens to be the flavor of the month. Hell…I can already see the socialist dump of neo-Marxist America on the horizon as I sit typing. So, yeah…church it up in all the patriotic ramblings, Constitutional apologetics, and flag-worshipping bromide you want. It’s despotism. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

*

The source and foundation of a people’s geo-political identity is the possession and propriety of the government’s superior coercive power. In other words, the border is an expression of the State’s collectivization of individuals; and the collectivization of individuals, which implies State ownership of them, is THE philosophical foundation of the ruling class. In other words, boundaries affirm the STATE, not the people.

The government, by metaphysical principle, uses its Authority to exploit the individual in service to its own interests. The more free the people are or become, the less government is necessary…and the weaker its philosophical rationale becomes when held up to the light of objective reality.  Ultimate freedom then means the end of the State, and the obsolescence of the ruling class.

Whereas supreme control is the perfection of the State’s purpose, the government, being force (Authority), exists to compel man into “right thinking and behavior”. The metaphysical implication is that man does not possess the inherent natural ability to exist on his own, for himself, of his own volition. For government to surrender its Authority over man then is to reject its very root METAPHYSICAL purpose: to exist FOR man, AS Man. And for government, this means a rejection of REALITY, ITSELF. In other words, the whole of human life depends on the continued dissemination of State power. Government IS Reality…it IS Existence; thus it has no frame of reference for its own absence.

The point of all of this is that we must understand that everything the government does is first and foremost in the interest of its own inexorable, inevitable, root METAPHYSICAL objective: absolute control; to BE reality QUA reality within the confines of its geo-political sphere of influence (which it implicitly (or explicitly) desires to be the whole world, and beyond). For the government to build a physical barrier then around its subjects is one of the most obvious, tangible, and effective expressions of this objective. So, we may think we want a wall, but what happens when the border is that towards which WE, not foreigners, are rushing? What happens come the day WE desire to get out as much as those to the south of us today desire to get in? And don’t think that can’t happen. It’s happened…you and I both know it. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany; North Korea; Cuba; Venezuela…world history is LITTERED with dystopian cesspools that people DIE trying to get the fuck out of. How foolish it is then for a State NOT to build a wall if it has the rescources and ability to do so? The Soviet Union couldn’t build a wall around its entire country, but it could build one in Berlin, and it did. And it worked like a motherfucking charm.

What happens the day you wake up and discover that you are a full-on slave to your government papers? What happens when you realize that you have become a permanent NPC in the State’s Matrix? You go not where you please, but only where you’re allowed. And you are allowed to go to the wall, and no further.

The government can recognize the border solely as an expression of its power; and so should you. Even your own home becomes a prison once you are no longer free to leave it. How ironic it is that in America today a wall has become the symbol of a our nation’s desire to be free! Crazy times we live in.

A wall is a tool, nothing more. It can keep people out and it can keep people in. He who decides is the one who owns it; and a border wall is the People’s Wall, and the People’s wall is the STATE’S wall. And the State’s wall is always, and fundamentally, a prison wall. And neither you nor I, my friend, are the warden. That should give us pause. No matter what you think, the coming and going of a government’s “People” across the border is the prerogative and responsibility of State, period. Dare to reject your existential definition, given to you by the ruling class, of “citizen” (subject), however they wish to define it, and you will see just how quickly your “freedom” to venture to and fro across the border is abolished; and on that day you will know that you come and go across your precious wall ONLY as an expression of State power.

Mark my words, the moment your “inalienable” right to freely associate with whomever you choose and to express this right via traversing the geo-political boundary of the nation is perceived to be a threat to government power, it will no longer exist. And at that moment, it is YOU, not the immigrant, who will  be on the other side of the wall.

END

Leftist Witchcraft: The Collectivist Metaphysics (and Hypocrisy) of “White Privilege”

The power of “white privilege:

In two words, one phrase, the sum and substance of a white person’s achievements are deemed unearned and undeserved; simultaneously these achievements are rendered morally depraved…as failures, not successes, and thus not achievements at all, but the expression of a rapacious hedonism which is characteristic of his nature; and simultaneously still, the white person is accused of the very Sin (racism) from which “white privilege”, itself, is so utterly hatched.

*

If possessing the proper collective identity is the means by which members of a group (a Collective) are valued, then the group’s only real function—meaning the only behavior ultimately relevant—is the exploitation and destruction of outsiders…that is, members of other groups.

Now…

If all of the members of a given group by nature and definition possess the requisite collective identity, then achieving individual merit within (with respect to) the group is impossible; and even if it were possible, it would be irrelevant. The expression of the group—its collective identity—within the group is a redundancy. In order, then, for collective identity to matter it must be projected and inflicted BEYOND the group (which is why collectivist societies are always so enthusiastically antagonistic). Individuals (such as they are…meaningless beyond their collective identity) within the group are valued ONLY according to how their actions spread the Collective Ideal—which is collective identity, like “Race”, IDEALIZED— beyond the group, making those in the group by nature exploitative and destructive towards outsiders.

The individual within the group, you see, is merely an expression of the group…being in (metaphysical) essence, one and the same. The group, being the only LEGITIMATE sum and substance of all of reality (reality being merely an expression of the Collecfive Ideal) cannot abide the existence of outsiders…which it necessarily collectivizes as Outside GROUPS. The destruction of these outside groups in the interest of spreading the Collective Ideal is the only meaningful ethical obligation for those in the group, and the only real measure of achievement and value.

So a group is either devoted to the Collectivist Ideal which is expressed in the collective identity (like race), which means that the exploitation and destruction of outsiders is the primary ethic and means of attaining value, or there is no collective identity, and thus no Collective Ideal, and thus the group is merely a byproduct of individuals happening to gather together in a given context/location for the purpose of individual self-expression, which in THAT context is the primary ethic and means of attaining value. The former is rooted in a completely abstract, subjective concept, like “Race”, where the individual is a function of his race rather than the other way around; and the latter is rooted in the empirical reality of individual persons working out their existence by conforming their ideas to what is objectively observed, and to that which can be rationally and objectively KNOWN to be the case…i.e. that we all observe reality via a singular existential frame of reference: One’s Self, and thus we get “we” from “I”—the group from the individual—not the other way around. The former is mystical, the latter is rational.

So, understand what I am driving at here. By accusing white people of promoting and assuming “privilege” the neo-Marxist racists and racial opportunists of the left are accusing whites of having endemic, intrinsic, in-group bias, and this as an essential function of their very nature AS “White”. One’s “Whiteness” (the presumed and presumptuous Collective Ideal of white people)…that is, their existential identity of “Whiteness” demands pervasive, absolute, and institutional racism against the opposing Collective Ideal of “Non-Whiteness”. In other words, if you are white then you are the very INCARNATION of racism. Racism is “personified” in the EXISTENCE of the white person, so to speak.

The spectacular hypocrisy of the neo-Marxist racists and racial opportunists of the left is this: In order to accuse white people of natural collective-identity bias based upon race, they must ALREADY presume as de facto Reality as a manifestation of Collectivist Metaphysics implying the Universal-to-Humanity Collective Ideal of “Race”. In less abstruse terms, if white people have a natural in-group preference and thus are naturally racist, then so are ALL races. They admit that race IS the Universal Collective Ideal which is an expression of the collectivist metaphysics to which they appeal in order to claim that the white race is naturally racist. One cannot claim that ALL whites are racist BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE unless one admits that race is indeed THE universal Collective Ideal of which humanity is AN EXPRESSION. All whites are racist BECAUSE all whites are an expression of their race; and if whites are an expression of their race then all others are necessarily an expression of THEIR race. And therefore to assert that whites as a group experience “white privilege” is to assert that blacks as a group experience “black privilege”, and the same is true of brown, yellow, and red people, etcetera. And this is why the racist and racial opportunists of the left who level the accusation of “privilege” at white people are either useful idiots or shepherds of idiots. To assert race as THE Ideal of Collective Reality means that the evil of racial in-group preference doesn’t magically become good if the group is non-white. Collective identity as the standard of value is naturally exploitative and exclusive no matter what the group is.

We might also look at it like this: If it is evil for whites to have an in-group preference based on race, then it is evil for ALL races to have an in-group preference based on race. Conversely, if it is good for other races to have in-group preference based on race then it must also be good for whites to have an in-group preference based on race.

The point is that once individuals are collectivized into abstract Ideals, then attempting to value one Ideal over another becomes nothing more than an exercise in the arbitrary and subjective. That whites are bad and other races are good, and thus white in-group preference  is oppressive “privilege” whilst the in-group preference of other races doesn’t exist or is somehow non-oppressive is an IMPOSSIBLE argument to make because its METAPHYISCAL prerequisite is utter hypocrisy. Which makes the argument entirely self-nullifying.

Thus, the accusation of “white privilge” is clearly nothing more than leftist projection. The political left openly advocates collectivist metaphysics, which necessarily makes collective identity THE ONLY relevant means of determining a person’s basic existential worth, purpose, and function; and in America at least, the left has shamelessly selected race as THE Collective Ideal to which all individuals shall be subordinated. We can be sure then that it is the socialist and the communist, not the voluntarist, libertarian, or capitalist, who are ACTUALLY guilty of racism. The left ALWAYS collectivizes and arbitrarily values individuals according to some spurious group identity in service to the acquisition of political power. THEY are the ones who employ in-group preference—privilege—as a means of repressing competition, criminalizing dissent, and exploiting those of “inferior groups” based upon race, religion, class, politics, or whatever happens to be the Collective Ideal du jour.

As usual, if you want to know what manner of evil the left is suckling at any given moment, look no further than that of which they accuse their political enemies.

END

 

“White Privilege”: A Racial Epithet Meant to Destroy the Joy of White People, and Then Destroy Them, Period

The ideology of “white privilege” is an arrantly racist pejorative rooted in the deep and fetid bowels of collectivist metaphysics. It’s not a casual accusation; it’s not merely an empirical social observation; it’s not simply a commentary on Western Democratic sociopolitical hierarchy.  It is a product of despotic ideology which concludes with genocide. Racists who appeal to it should be called out as racists. Those who pretend to denounce bigotry by using it as a political cudgel should be called out as hypocrites and drummed out of power, no matter what color they are.

“White privilege” means, among other wicked things, that whatever joy a white person happens to experience, however he wants to define “joy”, is to be considered an abomination against nature and morality. Any pleasure a white person derives from his existence is a categorical perversion of justice and truth. Concordantly, whatever misery a white person happens to experience, howerever he wants to define “misery”, is a natural virtue and an affirmation of truth. A white person’s misery thus is infinitely, naturally, and necessarily deserved, by the mere fact that the white person exists at all. In other words, the exercise and expression of a white person’s existence, meaning his will, is anathema to nature, and an offense to reality. You may think I’m exaggerating, but I assure you I will barely be scratching the surface of this pernicious political weapon. To value whiteness as “privilege”, and then associate “privilege”, implicitly or explicitly, with the exploitation and destruction of all other races, and then judge all white individuals as being at root an existential function of Whiteness, is NECESSARILY to devalue their individuality, which reduces their existence to that of “Evil Whiteness”, which makes the categorical destruction of white individuals an object moral imperative. And if you think this isn’t true, or couldn’t really happen, or both, take a cursory look at history. EVERY political mass murder in history is rooted in the same metaphysical paradigm. The only difference is found in the semantics. Group labels may change, but the practical application is identical. Take “white” and replace it with “Jew” or “Capitalist” or “Infidel” or “Wog” and you will find the EXACT same philosophy at work. The “progressive left” never, ever seems to progress beyond the guilotine, killing field, or gas chamber.

Following the false and evil metaphysical premise of “white privilege” down its twisted trail of perverted logic, we find, as I mentioned, that any exercise and expression of a white person’s will in ANY capacity—that is, any white person exercising ANY degree of will in serivice to ANY form of self-interest—is considered an object moral atrocity. His own personal benefit and blessing, however he wants to define it, in any measure, is only possible via a perversion of nature and its concomitant moral truth; and this perversion then fundamentally and ultimately proceeds…from what, exactly? From the fact that the white person possesses individual will at all. You see, the very fact that the white person has a root sense of individuality makes him existentially incapable of perceiving and thus experiencing—in and of himself—his COLLECTIVE guilt as a manifestation of his “Evil Whiteness”; he cannot ever truly understand the guilt of his REAL COLLECTIVE identity…that of Whiteness the Enemy of Reality.

This in turn makes it impossible to reason with the white person. Having a sense of Individual Self apart from his collective Whiteness makes him say “irrational” things like “Well, I never owned slaves”; or “I’m not responsible for what white people did in the past”; or “My ancestors died fighting slavery”; or “Blacks are as culpable for slavery as any white person; for every black slave sent to the New World from Sub-Saharan Aftrica was captured by other blacks”; or “the word ‘slave’ is a derivation of the word ‘Slav’, and the Slavs were white’”; or “Muslim nations promoted slavery to an exponentially greater degree than the Christian nations of Europe, and the Muslim version was exponentially more brutal, so why doesn’t the progressive left ever mention that?” Yes, the white person cannot understand his true collective evil because of his sense of individuality, which forms his frame of reference for reality, thereby making his personal reality as through a lens of Perpetual Lying. And this being the case, ALL of his protestations at being judged by his skin color, his cries of injustice and his pleadings for mercy, his supplications for personal exception (“But I have black friends; my WIFE is black”) should be summarily ignored, and consistently so, and he should be compelled by force and feint into his collective white guilt, and his collective racial identity, and just deserts heaped upon him via the power of the State (mass censorship, exploitation, castigation, enslavement, flagellation, and eradication) as an expression of the Truth and Justice of Collectivized Reality.

Of course, this is all just Collectivist Ethics 101; all collectivist ideologies by their endemic philosophical premises necessarily scapegoat the “Other” based upon some group identity that happens to serve the power interests of the Authoritarian regime de jure. Jew, Christian, Black, White. Capitalist, Majority, Infidel, Privileged…sometime it’s a buffet of identities:  White-Christian-Cisgendered, Male-Capitalist-Conservative, Black-Post-Reconstruction-Freeman…whatever bullshit collectivist label appeals to the snarling, snapping, frothing maws of the Collectivist Ideology power movement shills at the moment.

Today, the demon spawn of American neo-Marxism have simply, and simplistically, borrowed from our nation’s historical playbook of exploitative racial politics and swapped the moral categories. Now, it’s no longer “bad” to be black (or, more loosely, a “person of color”), instead it’s “bad” to be white.

Yes…drink deep of this unmitigated, unveiled, object horseshit, my friends…for this is how the grand, virtuous, progressive brain-children of the American political left have chosen to address four hundred years of New World racism: They hand it back to us in full, with merely a different colored bow adoring it.

Yes, my white, Generation X comrades—we of the “Free to Be You and Me” and “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” era of American history—the “racially enlightened” purveyors of socialist progress of our Baby Boomer elders never intended ACTUAL equality, as we were so often assured. For they understand, like all those who lust for power, that “equality under the Law” is a death knell for the ruling class. A population of Individuals does not need to be controlled by government violence…for they are a population that perfects cooperation. And thus Collectivism, being the utter antithesis of the Individual, will ALWAYS be divisive, and will exploit those divisions for power and wealth. No, our elders, as a political constituency, intended and intend to fleece us…to harvest us for wool and mutton, and send objectors and critics off to prisons (or worse) built with our own money. The “equality” schtick was mere folderol…a siren song to lure you into complaisance and complacency; to the oven and under the cloche.

And here finally we have arrived at the inevitable contradiction which invalidates the idea.

”White privilege” reduces the white individual to an existential state of that of mere animal…or perhaps more accurately described, a destructive force of nature. A force driven and determined by the intrinsic and utter malevolence of his (entirely abstract) “Whiteness”….a demonic force. This fatuous reduction of the white person’s nature completely deprives him of volition…of moral agency, and this necessarily makes it impossible for him to be morally culpable for the evils of which he is accused. A person with no real, no natural sense of Self cannot posses Self-agency. And possessing no sense of Self he cannot possess a will, since volition and agency and Self are inexorably corollary. In other words, a force of nature—“Whiteness”—has no Self, and thus is incapable of choice, and choice is a prerequisite for violations of morality. You do not accuse a tornado of evil when it flattens your barn or throws a tree into your chimney. You do not accuse a mountain lion of evil when it mauls a passing jogger.

If the white person MUST do evil because he IS evil, then he CANNOT CHOOSE good. And this abolition of choice makes describing his actions as “evil” a failure of logic. “Evil” as an adjective of morality cannot be applied to that which is conceded to lack will and thus choice as a function of its natural identity. The collectivist metaphysics of anti-white racists preclude the white person from culpability for “sin”. So speaking of things like “Social Justice” and “Reparations” and “Fairness” and “Responsibility” with respect to the manner in which whites are obligated to defer to “people of color” is a lie according to the VERY RATIONALE used by “progressives” to collectivize whites and thus inculcate their guilt as a group.

And by the by “people of color” is another racist label meant to denegrate the value of whites. Whites lack “color” you see, verve and spark and life and vibrancy…they are colorless, soulless, bleak, pedantic, inanimate. They can’t dance, are robotically cerebreal, and seek to anhillate the beauty of colorful peoples in order to reduce existence to a blank canvas. White people are the opposite of art, art being nature’s greatest gift.

Absent any root volition, then, we can safely exonerate the white person of his Universal Guilt and Collective Crime Against Humanity. For such accusations require moral agency, and by the intrinsic fatal error of racist leftist ideology this becomes quite impossible.

Not that the metaphysical deprivation of choice for the white person, according to leftist hypocrisy and ignorance, should provide him any sense of security. Individuals who have been stripped of their human identity are much easier to annihilate should enough power make its way into the hands of the anti-white racists to do so. After all, one feels little guilt over delivering a bullet to the brain of a rabid feral dog, or burning a field of devouring locusts. However, the white person can take some comfort in knowing that the anti-white racist gun barrel targeting him will inevitably be turned upon he who holds it, and this by the gun-holder’s very own kind and motivated by his very own ideology. Collectivist metaphyics, you see, are unavoidably self-destructive. And this because they are Destruction, Itself. Collectivist metaphysics hates ALL of humanity, not just white people. The deeply buried and ignored little truth is that just as the infinite benevolence of Individualism is no respecter of persons, neither is the infinite perniciousness of Collectivism. Collectivism survives by cordining off humanity into units of “collectively innocent” (“perpetual victim”), and “collectively guilty” (“perpetual criminal”), and uses the power of the State to direct and manage the conflict. Once one group of “guilty” is sufficiently exploited and annihilated, then another is needed to take its place, and thus a new group of “criminals” is culled from what was once the group of pure “victims”. And so on and so forth until there are no longer enough “criminals” and “victims” left for the power structure of the State to thrive; and without the monopolistic violent power of the State, collectivist ideology cannot thrive. Whereupon it collapses back into Hell’s maw where it lays dormant until resurrected by another bunch of leftist, power-hungry psychopaths, towing their seemingly interminable string of useful idiots along behind them.

Remeber this well, my friend:

It is NEVER a privilege for the Individual to be collectivized.

No matter what color he is.

 

Why “Jesus Loves You” Might be the Most Offensive Statement of All Time: The rational failure of unconditional love

It happens every so often.  You’re driving or walking along and you spy a bumper sticker, or a shirt, or a lapel pin sporting the (ostensibly) encouraging words “Jesus Loves You”.  Sometimes this proclamation is prefaced by “Smile!”, or punctuated with an actual smiley face.  My father in law had one of those stickers on his mini van for years.  He replaced it with a “Jesus is the answer” sticker.  That one was swapped out for a “Trump” sticker.  That one didn’t last on account of him discovering Trump’s affinity for whores and “pussy-grabbing” braggadocio.  Now I think he just sports the slightly jaded yet never truly out of style “Jesus saves”.  Yes, even my father-in-law finally came to see that for all of Trump’s virtues, avoiding fleshy hedonism isn’t one of them.  Of course if you think this means that he won’t be voting for the Donald again in 2020, you’ve got another thing coming.  Yet before we cry hypocrite, let’s remember that the left side of the political spectrum, which declares itself the true home of feminism, has never sufficiently condemned Bill Clinton for using the power of the Presidency to secure oral sex from a White House intern.  Clearly on both sides of the aisle there is a certain subjectivity we accept with respect to the moral character of our politicians.  I actually think it’s rather hypocritical to call Christians hypocrites for supporting Trump.  For Christians to shelve virtue in the interest of seeing their particular political aspirations realized in government doesn’t make them any more inconsistent than other constituency.  Christians, like everyone else, realize that you can’t always have your morality cake and eat it, too, when it comes to the fetid witches brew that is American politics.  All of us understand on some level (unless we are insane or idiotic) that government IS vice, pretty much by necessity, and this axiom isn’t lost on Christians, and rightly so.

So no, my devout orthodox Christian father-in-law sporting a Trump sticker on his mini van does not offend me.  The mini van might, but not the sticker.

*

“Jesus loves you” is a statement I will not accept from a stranger on the street.  In that context, I find such a claim fatuous, vapid, and presumptuous…at best.

First of all, how do you know Jesus loves me?  You don’t even know me.  I mean, the presumption and fake sentimentality is so odious and so gushing that one almost chokes on it.  You don’t know anything about me.  Maybe I’m lovable.  But maybe I’m intolerable.  Maybe I’m a miserable prick (true); a misanthrope who would push you into the Grand Canyon just to see the face you’d make as you went over.  Maybe I cheat on my wife or girlfriend, or steal from work, or lie to get my way.  Without knowing anything about me or the company I keep or if I even believe in God at all, you claim that I provide value to the Almighty as a function of literally nothing more than the fact that I exist, because that is ALL you actually know about me.  Further, you insinuate me into a relationship that I might not want and might not have asked for, and even more egregiously you do the same thing to Christ.

I already know how you will defend your position.  And I know you think it is rational and encouraging, but it is truly not these things at all, and is likely even worse than you can imagine.  The fact that “Jesus loves you” is purely meaningless bromide when absent any frame of reference is the least of its problems.

You’re going to say that Jesus loves all of his children, both his loyal followers and his wandering strays alike, and that there is nothing about me, my life, my choices, or my actions that his love does not (as opposed to “cannot”…and this is very important) overlook.  “Jesus LOVES you” you say.  It is not that he will or would love me IF if I happened to repent of my wicked ways and embrace a new moral compass, with a commitment to his specific brand of religious ethics.  It’s that it DOESN’T MATTER, you see.  He loves me…now.  Right now.  He loves me not IF I repent of my evil and rebellious ways and embrace his version of righteous living, but IN SPITE of those evil and rebellious ways…meaning his love utterly ignores them.

Um…what?

Jesus might like to see me repent, in the interest of a broader morality and a desire for peace and harmony amongst humanity, as an expression of his recognition of the general value of humanity at large, but this is not the same thing as loving me, specifically, for nothing.  In other words, Jesus may want the asshole to repent in order to make life for the non-assholes better.  But this does not imply love for the asshole. It implies mercy on him, perhaps, from a general recognition of the worth of human life, but not love.

+

The context-less claim that “Jesus loves you” implies that there is no cost to love…no value which must be provided in exchange for it.  Love is free; it costs one nothing at all; comes with no expectations of any kind; asks no committement to change, not even an attempt.  It implies that the love of God, and thus by extension love in general, is VALUELESS; and being valueless, is IRRELEVANT.  And being irrelevant, isn’t love, or anything else for that matter.

Unconditional love is unconditional precisely because it is completely meaningless.  It can afford to be unconditional because there is no practical difference between being granted it and NOT being granted it.  The outcome is the same.  That which requires NOTHING of me does not and cannot affect me.  It is categorically pointless.  Christians think that love is a cause, rather than an effect.  That is, once granted, it generates a character worthy of it.  They never seem to realize that if it is given away for free then there is no reason for the recipient to bother altering his character in the first place.  You don’t give money to someone out of the blue and then wait around for him to come back later, having conjured up something you want.  Why would he?  You’ve asked zero responsibility of him.

It doesn’t work that way.  You find the value you want FIRST, or you ask someone to manufacture it, or retrieve it, and THEN you give them your resources.  Love is not a magic potion…it is a currency that is given for something you want that the other party ALREADY POSSESSES and is a position to trade.  It is not unconditional.  Like any currency it is UTTERLY conditional upon the person with whom you are exchanging goods ALREADY POSSESSING or BEING ABLE TO POSSESS that which you find valuable.

Do you have any idea how evil and destructive this notion of unconditional love is?  Do you not understand the implied DEATH which haunts it?  To give love to those who need not earn it is a recipe for human annihilation.  If it is implied that love must be given unconditionally then what is to prevent it from being DEMANDED by the selfish and violent and manipulative among us?  And what is to prevent them from defining it in whatever way they choose?  Unconditional love is love that is at root valueless, and thus it is in essence meaningless, which means it can be defined in whatever way the oppressor decides is most efficacious to his wicked scheme…your money, time, property, or your life.  To consider it a moral imperative (because “GOD does it”) to give love to he who need not earn it is to concede that he thus has a right to demand your plenary sacrifice.  Mark my words, this philosophy enslaves humanity, and underwrites the logical defense of ALL manner of carnality, calumny, oppression, exploitation, and murder.

I submit that in addition to my father-in-law and other well-meaning Christians, there is someone else who desires that the random stranger on the street know “Jesus loves him”.

The Devil.

END