The commission of a free, unfettered, utterly voluntary choice of, to, and by the Self, categorically for the Self, in the service of It’s Will, in order to manifest any measure of existence in any form It alone craves and holds dear, and which neither accepts nor concedes any manner of external determinism, be it natural or supernatural, nor respects nor considers any external authority, nor seeks to oblige or obey any external law or standard, or any other invisible or ethereal or transcendent notion or ideal or master, and concomitant with a categorical belief in the totality and perpetuity and invincible and indivisible truth of Self ownership, and which neither harms nor defrauds, neither kills nor supplants, any other individual, is the most beautiful thing in the world.
All posts by Argo
Aphorism of the Day: Untruth is the Vanguard of State Violence
You do not sway public opinion by threats, lies, manipulation, or appeals to abstract standards of morality like “common good” or “the unprivileged”, you merely acclimate people to the reality of their imminent sacrifice to State power.
Aphorism of the Day: Why You Were Born
You don’t exist to please others; you don’t exist to obey “authority” just because it claims “authority”, or to receive your goodness from some abstract standard outside of yourself. You exist to be happy, fulfilled, and promoted according to your own tastes and goals, without stealing from, lying, killing, threatening, hurting, or deceiving others. End of story.
The Governing of Man Says Everything About His Nature
Ask yourself why we assume government is the superior social system. Of course, we already know the answer: because left on its own, mankind dissolves into an orgy of sin.
This is not some trite or casual observation. This admission is a PROFOUND metaphysical statement, with ramifications affecting every ounce of human existence. So, before we make such a claim, wisdom demands that we fully examine and fully understand what it is we are declaring.
The root of the issue is this:
Does man need governing?
To argue that the efficacy of human existence is only truly realized–or maximally realized–when man is forced by government into morality is to argue that man is, on his own, by the choice and free will endemic to him, inadequate to existence.
Once this is accepted, tyranny and death must inevitably follow. Because if man is Able, then governing him is a contradiction to his existence, and this will be manifest by his sacrifice to the State. If he is Unable, then his existence is an oxymoron and we must concede that he should be sacrificed to the State.
One small problem:
The government is run by man. So now what?
The only resolution to the contradiction is to reject the underlying metaphysical assumption. Man is not Unable; He is Able. Man then does not need governing; he needs NOT to be governed. Man’s Will and Choice and Self-awareness are not an abberation or a distortion of nature, they are the means by which he truly LIVES.
Perception is Not Reality; Experience is Not an Argument…Not Even for a Holocaust Survivor
Experience is Not an Argument
Today on Facebook, Breitbart News posted the following quote from Holocaust Survivor Martin Greenfield:
“The United States is the best damn country the world has ever known. Anyone who disagrees with that hasn’t been where I’ve been, hasn’t seen what I’ve seen.”
As lovely as that sentiment might seem, and though I respect Holocaust survivors immensely, the assertion is really nothing more than a non sequitur. In a couple of ways.
First, it is a categorical fact that no one has been where anyone else has been nor has seen what anyone else has seen. This is because any given person, by definition, cannot be anyone else. Everyone, simply by virtue of their being born, has their own absolute frame of reference by which they experience life. The very fact that I am not you means that I cannot and will not experience existence as you do. I will never be where you are or see what you see, because we are infinitely different. And because this is a simple ontological axiom, and therefore is universal to human experience, one cannot base an assertion upon it. Because the presupposition of such an assertion is that if you had seen what Mr. Greenfield had seen, and had been where Mr. Greenfield had been, you would, in fact, agree that the United States is the best damn country the world has ever known. But the infinite distinction of individual experience makes this an impossible scenario. And because it is an impossible scenario, precluded by the facts of rank existence, it is an illegitimate argument. It is irrelevant.
Next, we should remember that experience is not the equivalent of reason. What you have seen or where you have been is not a legitimate substitute for what you think about what you have seen and where you have been. You simply cannot base an argument upon perception alone; you must base it upon a rationale. That is, a philosophical interpretation of reality (how you define what is true), which is rooted in your belief system.
So, when Mr. Greenfield says “America is the best damn country the world has ever known”, he is not, in fact, arguing from experience…because this is impossible. Why? Again, because observation is not reason. He may think his experience as a Holocaust survivor suffices as an argument, but reason demands that this cannot be so.
If Mr. Greenfield wants to argue that the U.S. Is the world’s greatest country he must provide an actual reason, not merely a perception. And if his reason, rooted in his fundamental beliefs, is not rationally consistent, then it is false. Period. Full stop. And no amount of experience, no matter how profound, can make it true.
Individualism vs Collectivism: Why Groups Must Hate Each Other
Reason Demands that Truth is Relative
Absolute truth, or Truth qua Truth, is a tautology (and this is true of all abstract concepts when they are said to be a function of themselves), which makes it a contradiction, which means that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which means that all truth then is subject to a reference; and this fact makes truth subjective.
Which means that truth then, and obviously, cannot be objective. On the other hand, the thing which IS objective is truth’s reference.
So…what is the reference?
Well, truth’s reference is he who is asking the question–what, how, why, which, where, etc.. Put another way, it is the Oberver; or, he who is perceiving and then conceptualizing the distinction between himself and NOT himself–or I vs. Environment. This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Percieves from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.
Without this primary, you simply cannot have truth. But it’s more than simply having it, the epistemological primary must be defined reasonably. That is, he who claims to apprehend, to have or know truth, must be defined without contradiction; without indecision; without subjective or rationally unverifiable claims. Without this epistemological primary, defined according to unyielding rational consistency, there can be nothing which is True.
And, naturally, nothing which is false.
In other words, when you have properly, reasonably, answered the question “What is man and how does he know what he knows?”, then, and only then, will you have Truth.
Aphorism of the Day: When Science Distances Itself from Philosophy
The scientist’s rejection of philosophy, specifically metaphysics, means that he believes that science, not the human being, discovers truth.
And the irony is entirely lost on him.
What is Hell?; What is Death?; What is the Worm?
Hell is being Me and not knowing why I am Me in a way which does not make Me an absolute function of that which is outside of Me, and therefore must utterly determine Me, and thus contradict Me. Death is the absence of reason by which I can explain not how I am an effect but why I am the Cause. The insatiable worm is being “I” and yet having no real definition of “I” qua “I”.
