Category Archives: Authority

The Gross Hypocrisy of the Dissident Right (Part Three)

Authority, collectivism, Metaphysics, , ,

As I said, the Dissident Right are pro-government. but anti-democratic. They believe in the State, and they believe in a big one. No surprise there…they are bog-standard statists; this is just par for the course for disaffected midwitttery. The issue here is that they are already living in a big State, so they’ve already won. What’s the fuss about, then?

Oh. Now I remember. It’s a leftist State, and they are on the right. The Dissident Right wishes to trade an authoritarianism they don’t like for one they do.

Um…okay. Now, think about the profundity of cognitive dissonance it takes to think like that. The point of authoritarianism is that those under it don’t get to choose; and the Dissident Right concedes this very point and thus their very obligation to the current Authority by being themselves authoritarians (National Socialists, to be exact). That any rank statist believes they are entitled to choose which authoritarian master they shall serve is clearly ludicrous and speaks volumes as to what the 90’s generation behind this ideology really is—impetuous, vapid, intellectually lazy, entitled. arrogant, collectivist to the core, and morally adrift. They are they obvious progeny of those already in power. Ironic.

The Dissident Right desires a government that will exercise its monopolistic coercive power in service to their ideology instead of against it. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. It’s the tired political strategy of “let us oppress our oppressors”; “let us be the master and they be the slave”; “to be oppressed is evil but to be the oppressor is good”…that sort of twaddle. It’s rationally incoherent and of course intellectually dishonest, and worst, it simply affirms the very oppression under which the Dissident Right currently finds itself…as do we all. I mean, if the formula is sound—that is, if authoritarian government is good and effective—then who is in charge at any given moment is arbitrary, fundamentally. The only political differences which could arguably matter can only occur within the ruling class, and the dissident right are not in the ruling class, by definition. Thus, they speak from a place of being entirely ruled, which is, according to their own political ideology, right where they should be. Which means, again according to their own ideology, they don’t get to choose who’s in charge. “The masses must be ruled, not empowered” is the cornerstone of the very authoritarian-type government the Dissident Right espouses; and they are among the masses. And here’s the biggest irony: the only thing to which they can appeal for political legitimacy to question their leftist masters is the enlightenment-driven, classically liberal ideals in which they were reared as citizens of the anglo-sphere…and they violently reject these ideals as fraudulent. Classical liberalism is the root of their woes, is how they look at it. Yet, they implicitly appeal to it in everything they do. It is the only basis by which they feel justified in complaining about their current situation.

Midwittery and mysticism. It’s the type of magical thinking that typifies millennials. The 90s are coming home to roost. But we knew that bill was coming due, didn’t we? And by the by, the Dissident Right is the mirror image of today’s left, and believe me it’s not an accident.

Now, sure, the right amount of rhetoric and sophistry and the lie of “our Authority will be in service to our people” no doubt will sway some to the D-right cause, but ultimately it’s just an admission that “their people” must be ruled, and ruled they shall be, and thus the best “their people” can hope for under their Dissident masters is some superficial relief for a time…maybe a generation or two…and then, when their masters’ appetite for power turns insatiable, as it ineluctably shall, they will find themselves right back where they are now, and very likely even worse.

I could end the article series right here, but it would lack satisfaction to do so because simply pointing out political hypocrisy is perhaps the least effective way to actually end hypocrisy. After all, it takes an all-pervasive and almost instinctual level of cognitive dissonance to accept and defend the concept of government writ-large, so hypocrisy is merely a root characteristic of the nature of most everyone living under it. Thus, people scarcely notice ideological and political hypocrisy when it is dangled in front of their face, let alone woven into a relatively complex philosophical and political essay.

So, more than the hypocrisy is this: the authoritarian state simply does’t work the way the dissident right intends it, no matter the lip service they pay to truth. morality. and order. There is no “they” on whose behalf the D-Right’s National Socialist state will or can act. As I have explained in some depth in my series on “Why All Governments Become Tyrannical”, government, of any type, always represents the incarnation of a Collective Ideal—wholly abstract, mystical, divine, and ontologically transcendent. It is a metaphysical, not merely descriptive, Group Identity which commands all individuals to conform themselves—their minds and bodies—to its Essential Truth. (Not their souls, because collectivist metaphysics does not consider the Individual—that is, the singular, conscious Self—to be a legitimate expression of Reality…it does not recognize the root Self, and thus, does not recognize the soul.)

An example of a general Collective Ideal is “The People”, or “We the People”; a more specific example is “The Working Class”, or “The Proletariate”…I give many other examples of common Collective Ideals in previous articles; the point is that the Collective Ideal can be almost anything; this is fundamentally because it is entirely mystical, and thus completely unreasonable (i.e. not conforming to that by which consciousness actually arrives at truth, meaning, and value).

All individuals—the “masses”—writ-large must become One with the Group…the Collective. This metaphysical premise thus persists until all of those under the Authority of the ruling class, the State, which exists both as an incarnation of the Collective Ideal and the means by which the masses are enslaved to it, are either entirely subsumed or destroyed. That is, the masses become members/expressions of the ruling class, or they are murdered (or imprisoned and left for dead, which is in essence the same thing). In which case there is no one left for the Authority to hold Authority over, so the ruling class eats itself and then collapses, whereupon some new Collective Ideal and new ruling class rises from the ashes and rivers of blood to replace the fallen one, and the whole kerfuffle starts all over again. On occasion, a revolution or other circumstance preempts the collapse of society writ-large and the incumbent ruing class is replaced within the infrastructure of the current system. This is simply a different manifestation of the same process. In either case, this is precisely how the “Matrix”, so to speak—the general collectivist metaphysical premise—perpetuates itself. Necessarily and unavoidably built into the equation is the destruction of the collectivist system, but what remains in tact, planted in the rubble, is the seed…the heart…the premise…that is, Collectivism, Itself. The metaphysics survive, and so they give rise to essential clones of previous Collective Ideals. New ruling classes emerge and coalesce, and thus the Matrix is able to continue…forever enslaving, exploiting and murdering, over and over again, on and on .

This is the Dissident Right…the new, same-old Destroyer in the guise of a Savior. They fancy themselves revolutionaries of a “special kind”, and the guardians of reason, truth, and sanity in this chaotic leftist world. All they really are is its natural evolution. A forgone conclusion.

The only real change to be made is is to stab the heart. Kill the premise and you will kill the Matrix. Reject the foundational Collectivist Metaphysics of the State and the ruling class and you will preempt all of the evil incarnations which otherwise necessarily follow, time after time, and again and again. You will break the cycle. The Dissident Right cannot do this, and thus they offer the only thing a false prophet and false savior can: more of the same. Same lies, same misery, same death. In other words, they offer nothing at all. Their grievances against the left may all be correct, but they are empty because their “solution” is entirely redundant.

What is the point of Dissident Rightism then? To reap a few generations of relief, at best? But at what cost…and how many innocents from the “other side” will die and suffer as a result of the rise of the “New Justice”? Is this what we really want? To concede the perfidy and lies of the left by conceding the very same metaphysical premises which have doomed us in our current communism because it might makes us and our children feel better for a little while? And further, if we concede the left’s premises why should we not also concede their authority?

There is no rational answer to this question. The only answer is a purely mystical one; it will all get fixed by hope over reason. By the power of millennial magical thinking.

In actuality there is only a shrug at the end of Dissident apologetics. A Dissident Right thought-leader, Dave the Distributist, has openly admitted to being a mystic; thus his most fundamental epistemological and ethical Standard is ultimately beyond his ability to comprehend and articulate because it is a function of a God which exists outside his conscious and conceptual frame of reference …again, by his own self-admitted mysticism. Yet he fancies himself an evangelist for New Right Truth.

You can’t make this up. It’s a Monty Python sketch…except its not funny. It’s risible on some level, yes, but not because it’s silly, but because it’s so very sad.

Rhetoric. Tautology. Cognitive Dissonance. Madness. In the end, the only argument the Dissident Right has for why it should be in charge and the left should not is simply…well…just because.

That’s not a recipe for anything good. Mark my words.

END

The Gross Hypocrisy of the Dissident Right (Part Two)

Authority, collectivism, government, Metaphysics, ,

It is curious to me, when confronted with the problems unique to government in form and scale, that the source of these problems is never identified as government, itself. In other words, the problem is never the existence of government.

Human thinking at its core seems to contain the false notion that man must be ruled in order to survive. It seems as necessary to man’s survival as breathing. It is an unconscious, even subconscious, instinctual assumption that makes hypocrites of everyone who decides that government X is bad and should be replaced with government Y, These people don’t realize that if man was capable of coming to that conclusion on his own, he wouldn’t need government in the first place. If man could figure how he should be properly ruled, he wouldn’t need to be ruled.

The hypocrisy here is several-fold, but the crux of it is this: the specious metaphysical premises (concerning the nature of man and reality) which assert why government must exist is entirely identical between governments X and Y. This means that at the most fundamental level, there is literally zero difference between them; and they both look at their constituency writ large in exactly the same way—as existentially flawed and needing to be first controlled, then subsumed.

What is this existential flaw? 

It is the flaw of individuality. Each human being possesses an intrinsic, indelible, singular conscious frame of reference…the “I”, or “Self” of individual existence. This is the Original Sin of man’s birth. He is born utterly un-collectivized. And as the government, the State, is an institution entirely rooted in collectivist metaphysics, this makes human beings writ large its enemy.

Man by nature thinks as “Self”; he wills and chooses as Self; he acts as Self…and that is why he is born in sin and suffers root existential insufficiency the moment he is born. And this is why government is necessary, you see. Reality, according to the metaphysics which inform government, is not individual, but collective. Your individual consciousness is a lie. There is no you qua you. There is no “your Self” in an epistemological and ethical corollary relationship with “Other” (other Selves). There is only the Collective Self, and One Collective Truth which is the Collective Ideal, which is The Divine Sovereign on whose behalf the government—meaning the “enlightened” ruling class—rules. Common examples of these Collective Ideals are: The Nation, The Empire, The Race, The Culture, The Workers, The Greater/Common Good, Social Justice, Climate Justice, The Church, and The People, to name just a few. That is reality; and you, with your Individual Conscious Self, are naturally opposed to this reality, and therefore, you must be governed…and “governed ” means “ruled”, and “ruled” means “controlled”, and “controlled” means owned, You qua you cannot be allowed to be. The True Consciousness—the Collective Consciousness—must be dictated to you from outside your Self. And you must be compelled into compliance with the will of the Collective Ideal, which really means the will of the ruling class.

You must be compelled out of Your Self and into The Group. Your singular, conscious Will must be replaced by an obligation to Law (moral ethics swapped for legal ethics) which is a set of Collective behaviors to which the individual shall be compelled by force, propaganda, spurious philosophies, and meaningless traditions by the ruling class. The military and the police, being the bedrock of coercive power, shall be subsidized by the masses. Individuality is not an affliction from which the ruling class suffers, of course, and this is because of…well…magic…divine intervention…special knowledge (gnosis). They don’t need the law, after all, so why should they pay for it?

They won’t. You will. Whether you like it or not. 

Of course in the United States the common trope is that no one is above the law, and we all must “pay our fair share”. Absolute bunk. This yarn of fantasy has been spun and consumed by Americans since the before the Constitution’s ink was dry. Yet a sleepy glance at the law applied to the masses versus the ruling class reveals a discrepancy large enough to shame the Grand Canyon, whilst the preponderance of millionaires and billionaires in positions of political power reveals an even starker discrepancy relative to the tax burden. So much for “all men are created equal”. That anyone fell (or falls) for this rank political absurdity is shameful; that any soldier died for it is an abomination. Look…that the US government was ever going to be compromised of a benevolent collection of humble citizen-servants is perhaps the oldest and clumsiest lie this country has ever told itself. My own cynicism tells me that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have believed such obvious nonsense when crafting the Constitution, which makes me think the whole Convention was little more than a political feint…but who knows? Maybe they were just arrogant and delusional enough to think that they could somehow perform the alchemy necessary to synthesize the State’s coercive nature with individual freedom. In reality, however, it was complete rubbish.

*

The ruling classes are absolved of their own Original Sin of Individual Consciousness by appealing explicitly or implicitly to some divine, transcendent appointment…they rule not as mere humans, you see, but as ambassadors—which really means “incarnation”—of the transcendent Collective Ideal—which really means “God”. Hence why the ruling class claims the Authority to enforce the law whilst they, themselves, are never actually subject to it. They are the law, you see, as far as you and I and the rest of the unwashed are concerned, which means that they are the Authority of the Law, which means that they are that which gives the Law its efficacy and meaning. Which in effect and in practicality means that, again, they are God to us. In the case of a theocracy, the ruling class is quite literally God; in case of a representative democracy like the United States, they are The People, which is, once you cut through the rhetoric, just a euphemism for God. They are the Collective Ideal—that transcendent, utterly abstract, unseeable, ultimately unknowable, infinite and infinitely perfect All in All from which all things are made and that which the individual, with his wicked and preternatural Conscious Sense of Individual Self, is in perpetual rebellion as a function of his being born at all. 

Therefore the ruling class hates you…the government hates you…because it must hate you, otherwise there is fundamentally no reason for it to be the ruling class in the first place. This hatred—and hate’s political corollary, fear—is the immutable nature of every State from the beginning to eternity. There is no government that can ever truly serve humanity because it is contrary to its nature to serve. It is not designed to serve, it is designed to rule. That’s what it does. That’s all it does. It is force at the metaphysical level…its essence is violence. It is the Destroyer, not the Creator. The government is chaos…it exists to eradicate the individual, to eradicate the Conscious Self, the I. It is UnTruth; it is UnGood. It pretends to be the incarnation of God, but in reality it nullifies God by destroying the one thing in Creation which is capable of recognizing Him as God—the Individual. It destroys consciousness and thus the very frame of reference for reality, itself.

And that’s why humanity keeps winding up victims of ruling class mendacity trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. And, alas, right on cue here come the dissident right midwits to the rescue with a proposition for a “new” ruling class that will do power “right” this time. 

Sure they will.

Chattel slavery and the Battle of the Somme were both government programs; the atomic bomb was a government program; Auschwitz and the Rape of Nanking were government programs; Cortes’s rampage across the Aztec Empire was a government program; the Aztec’s practiced human sacrifice, a practice of the State religion, and thus was also enforced by the State, which makes it in essence also a government program. Yet by some deeply impressive cognitive dissonance, the moral atrocities which inexorably follow government in all its forms—democratic, capitalist, communist, monarchist, tribal, dictatorship—are always somehow in spite of it, not a product of it.

Astonishing. 

Thus the solution to the problems which are naturally a function of government never include the simple act of merely questioning the efficacy of government, let alone its existence, let alone suggesting the dismantling of its institutions and a categorical repudiation of the philosophies which inform it. At best we might get a superficial change in leadership, or a change in the “ism”, which of course never actually fixes anything. At best it postpones some inevitable disaster for a while, but in the meantime introduces a host of new ones.

It is curious how an institution which solely exists to coerce by violence and threats of violence is never considered the problem when people in a “free democracy” like the United States begin to feel as though their current political and economic situation isn’t quite as “free” or “democratic” as they thought. Such is the epidemic of cognitive dissonance. A long time ago God warned world vis-a-vis the Israelites not to demand a King, and we still haven’t learned. We pray for a benevolent State and benevolent leadership and from them, peace. We might as well pray for square circles. 

To keep beating this dead horse, the purpose of government is to coerce human behavior through explicit and implicit violence, and thus to control the will and the mind of the individual, and there is nothing benevolent about this. How could there be? Government represents the eradication of consciousness, and thus the eradication of reason and its progeny, Morality and Truth. This is why government always becomes tyrannical, even if benevolence is intended…something “of and by the People” as it were. The reality is that the ruling class, according to its nature, destroys the individual, and subordinates him to an entirely spurious “Collective Responsibly”, in service to the Collective Ideal. From this, individuality is supposed to magically morph into a supreme “Collective Consciousness”, which of course is impossible. Nevertheless the ruling class is ideologically compelled to force-collectivize the masses, which leads to society-wide chaos through ever increasing degrees of public control as the State removes all manner of individuality from the individual. The violence inevitably becomes overt, leading to mass death and systemic collapse.

The collectivist metaphysics at the root of Government are a lie. They are irrational, they are anti-reason, anti-language, anti -consciousness, and anti-life. . The Truth is individualism, period. Government’s entire purpose thus is to take man’s nature and by some alchemy change it into that which it is NOT. In short, government is in the business of making square circles. Government doesn’t then simply fail then, you see, but it is failure, institutionalized.

So, with regards to society under government, what is it, stripped down of all the fake philosophizing and pretense? 

It is the ruling class and the ruled; the master and the slave; the owners of men and the men who are owned. Everything else is fantasy. To think that replacing government X or politician A with government Y or politician B is going to do anything other than rotate the circle of history is complete delusion. 

Hence then the hypocrisy of those who belong to dissident right. The dissident right, being understandably disaffected by the globalist cult of neo-Marxism which passes for political leadership in the west, has fallen for the oldest trick in the book, and allowed themselves to be distracted by the shine of power rather than to do what is wise and truly revolutionary, which is to not immediately desire and seek power, but to examine the metaphysics of power, and go from there. To accept power as a-prior is foolish. 

The shine of power makes us believe that power is both the root of all social, political, and cultural ills and simultaneously the primary solution. This is a lie. It cannot be both. It cannot simultaneously be cause and effect, good and evil, truth and lie. If state power is the source of woes, it cannot also be the solution. One cannot fight cancer with cancer, or Marxist ideology with fascist ideology, and one cannot replace government X with government Y and expect any rationally or morally significant outcome.

Predictably and perfunctorily, the desire of the dissident right is to wrestle power from the left. Not that they have any coherent plan for this…they are revolutionary dilettantes at this stage. Nevertheless, implicitly or explicitly, they all assert that authoritarianism will be necessary to “right the ship”, as it were, at least in the short term. After that…well, if they can finally achieve a society comprised of the “right kind of people”, perhaps a more representative sort of arrangement can be considered. 

Right. 

In short, the dissident right is obviously a national socialist movement…I don’t even think they deny this anymore. Seems cliche to go there, but the truth is the truth. 

This appeal to authoritarianism as some kind of real solution is of course hilarious in its absurdity, and is insulting to the intelligence of even your average midwit. Apart from the obvious fact that authoritarian states never give up power willingly, for obvious reasons, it reveals just how ignorant the dissident right is when it comes to understanding the real nature of power, and of government. Like I said in part one of this series, the dissident right is highly educated but spectacularly lacking in wisdom. They have read many books, memorized many political theories and sociological and cultural philosophies, yet the depth of their actual understanding can be breached with a fingernail.

[End part two]

The Gross Hypocrisy of the Dissident Right (Part One)

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, General Philosophy, government, government violence, individualism vs collectivism, Uncategorized, ,

Put as clearly as I can, the “dissident right”—also known as the “reactionary right”—are an offshoot of the political right in the West, which eschews the conservatism which typically characterizes right-wing politics. Instead, they embrace a more centralized, implicitly or explicitly (depending on the dissident rightist in question) authoritarian, nationalistic version of government. In any given article or podcast, the central theme of dissident rightism may be race (specifically provisions for the protection and nationalization of white people), religion (specifically Christianity…they hint at a theocratic model of government, or at the very least a government which names and codifies its ethics as specifically Christian), the preservation/establishment/re-establishment of the White, Western nation-state (England for the English, Ireland for the Irish, America for the Americans, by which they mean the “founding stock”, by which they mean northern-European white people, Australia for the Australians, by which they mean the “founding stock”, by which they mean northern European white people, Germany for the Germans, etcetera, etcetera), or a combination of these things. Other tertiary issues may arise, like the economy, the history of their movement, the philosophy of their ideology, which is little more than mystical appeals to racial solidarity, racial-identity-as-national-identity, and even the deification of the nation state (a recent video by the Distributist saw him in a conversation with Sargon of Akkad where the later spoke of the erstwhile British Empire in openly religious terms, with openly religious reverence, which was curious coming from a well-known atheist like Sargon, but whatever…hypocrisy, thou art man). There is also the steady and annoying drip of Christian dogma which hits you on the forehead like Chinese water torture…and look, I’m a believer myself, but the “Christianity” found in the dissident right is an unsavory mash of dogmatic ethics and trans-denominational doctrinal gobbledygook…and they are appealing to a truth and cause which is “higher than themselves”, you see, where of course that which is “higher than themselves” bears a striking resemblance to precisely themselves. What else is new?

Politically, as I said, the dissident right is essentially an autocratic movement…and these people are not secessionists, they are fully committed the idea of their side consolidating existing state power absolutely. They are vigorously anti-democratic, and some are openly authoritarian. At the very least there is always an implicit presumption that some form of authoritarianism will be necessary to “right the ship’ as it were, at least in the short term. Which always becomes permanent, of course, but somehow, like the tyrants before them, they are fully convinced that they will be able to do authoritarianism right this time. If they can get enough people on board, and even though it may take a long time (they understand the “long march”), once they finally get their hands on the power of the State they will wield its hammer in service to a blemish-free ideology and summon forth the One Truth and the One Good and a thousand years of of peace and prosperity…and…yawn…shrug. The timeline of political history is just a boring ride on a slow, rusty carousel. Only the bloodstains make it somewhat interesting.

So…you get the idea. It’s the new boss, same as the old boss. They want to exchange the old Authority for a new Authority that is the same as the old one, except they’ve simply reversed the moral categories. What’s good is now bad; what’s bad is now good. Punish the bad and promote the good with all the power of the State, and the sad thing is that they, like all other communists and fascists before them, think that this is actually revolutionary thinking.

It isn’t.

What you have here is a sequel, same as the original…it’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which makes it even worse than the original because it’s hypocritical. It’s is a bunch of rank reactionaries who want a new ruling class that will simply use its violence in service to their particular brand of macaroni and cheese. It’s literally no deeper than that. They speak only superficially about the metaphysics of their movement because why wouldn’t they? Truly analyzing the metaphysical roots would only confuse themselves and their followers and they’d end up sounding like the “woke” left that they think they hate but actually admire. It’s never good to appeal to a metaphysical premise that you will ultimately punt into the cosmic abyss of esoteric mystery, just like all collectivists do. It’s easier to focus on how wrong the assumptions of your political enemy are rather than making an open, honest, and public exegesis of your own. Finger-wagging is where you make a show of standing up for something new. That’s bog-standard politics.

The long and short of the dissident right is the same as it is on the “woke” left: absolute power in service to a Collectivist Ideal, rooted in collectivist metaphysics, which is mysticism, which is gnosticism, which is a death cult which hates the individual and sees individualism, which they politically confuse and conflate with “liberal democracy” or “classical liberalism”, as the root of all evil. The “woke” left has allowed too many people too much individual freedom, you see, and that’s why we are where we are in the West…so they imply. Too many people doing whatever they want, egged on by surreptitious Jewish influencers, and the outcome is today’s leftist, neo-commie totalitarian hedonism, and what we need is a new sheriff in town to start kicking some ass in the name of Christ, and Race Realism, and the White Nation State, and get tossing the rabble into the pit for a change. Which, by the by, I have never heard a group of ruling class wannabes complain more about something that they are desperately trying to convince everyone else and themselves that they actually are. What they truly are, are aspiring tyrants, but they want the masses to think they are liberators. In other words, they hate libertarianism with a red-hot passion, but they complain about economic oppression, the tyranny of the “managerial class”, by which they mean Jews, the perfidy of the Global American Empire, the mendacity of the ruling elite and so on to the point of almost sounding like anarcho-capitalists, The hypocrisy is off the scale…but they’ve mitigated this, you see, by giving their brand of authoritarianism a facelift. They are like the left, but they are the “new” right, so they are better, you see; and once they are in charge, believe me, you’ll totally notice a difference. Totally. You can take that to the bank.

Make no mistake, the dissident right wants power; they believe that the truth is manifest in power, and rank coercive power that is what you will get when they are in charge. You will get the same tyranny you already have…which begs the question, why then should you care, other than that you might get a few generations of relief for the straight, white, Christian man? In then end, you will only get what you already have—a ruling class that hates you and wants you dead, even if you are a straight, white, Christian man. Which makes the whole exercise pointless, and worse, selfish.

*

Now..look, I get it on some level. Meaning I understand why the “reactionary right” is reacting. The United States of American in particular and the West in general is an object embarrassment to itself at this point. Naturally a reaction to the wholesale selling out of the West and its people to a collection of satan-worshiping, child-sacrificing, neo-Marxists with the lust and means for world domination and who toss out blood libel against their paler brethren like a clown tosses out candy at a circus would be warranted. I get it. But the answer is not to replace satan-worshiping, globalist, neo-Marxist blood-libel with your own version of the very same thing. This is not not freedom; it’s not truth or morality or justice…it’s revenge. It’s pretending that offering people a devil they don’t know instead of the devil they do is actual change. To replace one lie with another is evil, and stupid, and at most it’ll buy a generation or two of respite if successful, and that’s a big if. In the end history will toss the dissident right onto the charnel heap with the rest of the rotting tyrants, and there it will remain as a cautionary tale, nothing more: Look at what man becomes when he conflates reaction with solution—he is a blind bully, wildly throwing haymakers, destroying both friend and foe alike, and not actually caring or even knowing the difference.

Reaction is easy, you see; solutions are hard; and the Millennials and late-Zoomers who comprise the bulk of this movement’s leadership and talking-heads have been fed the sugary morsels of easy more than any other generation before them or after, and believe me it shows. They are blasé and dismissive; arrogant and self-righteous; entitled, dogmatic, and narcissistic; over-educated yet spectacularly lacking in wisdom. They are, much like their formative years, the nineties and early oughts, almost entirely form over function; propaganda over art. So naturally and predictably they are reaction over solution. The politics are thus entirely perfunctory; the purveyors predictably self-aggrandizing, overly sure of their ideas, and deluded.

In the next article, I will get into the nuts and bolts of why the dissident right is actually wrong. This was screed…but in the next article you will see why it was, well…necessary. Or at the very least deserved.

END

America: The Perfect Tyranny

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, government, government violence, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

On its current course, this grand “American Experiment” which is inflicted upon all Americans, willing and unwilling, can only end one way. You see, the purpose of the western Liberal State, the United States being prime example number one—a purpose of which most of us are only obtusely aware, or not at all, because it is only implicit in the premise upon which this nation was built, yet is nevertheless supremely fundamental—is to manifest Chaos…Chaos as an Ideal. It does this, and has done this, by first first blurring, then destroying the line between fantasy and reality, between the empirical and the abstract, until all meaning is erased, and existence is nothing more than a hedonistic wet dream for the ruling class, and a perpetual existential nightmare for the rest of us. The masses will have no means nor impetus to resist or reject this, because all meaning shall be expurgated, then obliterated. Even today, observe the contradiction and cognitive dissonance: There are no sexes, and no genders, but there are races…capitalism is evil, but billionaires own the law and use their wealth to casually assume great swaths of power…words are violence, but wars are justice…lives are sacred in a pandemic, but political and disposable in pregnancy…gas pipelines are oppressive; lithium mines are green. Welcome to the American Ideal of Chaos.

You see what I mean. Chaos. Meaninglessness. Contradiction. Systemic cognitive dissonance, all leading to obedience without thought…meaning that the masses obey without ever realizing that they are obeying because they are no longer capable of knowing the difference between obedience and liberty.

How did we get here? This is not an accident, not a political or societal wrong turn, not the concerted and subversive efforts of non-natives, at least not these things fundamentally. No, this is Constitutional. Meaning, if you read the United State’s Constitution, the zenith of Enlightened liberalism, or rather, read between the lines, you understand that it was always going to go this way. It’s in the premise, and the premise always finds its conclusion.

What do I mean?

The unique point of the American political system was to treat the individual as his own root political entity…as a single, or singular, political unit. Now, indeed this is what he is, but this can only be rationally manifest in a purely voluntary society, where cooperation, not coercion (coercion being the cornerstone of all States and Governments…meaning that without violence, there is no Authority, and thus no government) is the means of all social and political interaction. But the United Sates is not a cooperative society, it is not voluntarist…it is a State. That is, its citizens are governed, meaning that they are ruled. Being ruled means to be under the Authority of the Law…and Government is Law; Law and is Authority; and Authority is Force. That’s the political equation of every Nation and every State and every Tribe on earth since the dawn of humanity. So what do we get when we have a citizen who is his own individual political entity yet who is governed by the State? (By “State” we mean is the ruling class, and by “ruling class” we mean the small group of people who presume the natural right to coerce others into obedience to the law, which finds its purpose and efficacy and meaning entirely in the State. Convenient for the ruling class, isn’t it?)

What we have is an attempt to collectively legislate individuality. In other words, to collectively govern millions of politically distinct individual entities. To centralize individuality. In short, to integrate collectivist metaphysics and individualist metaphysics, which are, of course, mutually exclusive in nature.

Without going into too much tedious detail regarding metaphysics, which I do in many other posts on this blog, by the way, the only possible outcome is the chaos of which I previously spoke. The purely individual man is governed only by himself…and with respect to other men, he cooperates; with respect to men who have rejected his individuality by being murderers, thieves, fraudsters, etcetera, and thus have rejected their own, he defends himself and destroys them when he is morally obliged to do so; and he may and likely will cooperate with other individuals in this endeavor. There is no ruling class who has Authority over him…such things as ruling classes and governments and law and authority are purely functions of collectivist metaphysics, which are entirely antithetical to his individual and individualist nature.

So when we attempt to legislate the politically autonomous individual from a collectivist authority outside of him…that is, we attempt to thrust individuality upon him by the coercive power of the State, we destroy meaning at its root on a holistically societal scale. When we attempt to thrust individuality upon the individual citizen…when we attempt to force his root nature upon him from outside of him, we are attempting to manifest a contradiction….to make a square circle, as the old, but apt, cliche goes. The outcome will be chaos, which at first will look like hedonism for the masses, then it will become the enslavement of the masses to feed the hedonism of the ruling class. The final stage of course is the obvious and inevitable collapse of the State, with the ruling class bitterly fighting amongst and devouring itself before finally sinking into its self-inflicted black hole of contradiction.

Now, about hedonism here.

Hedonism, which is simply is the practical application of moral relativism, will be the only thing that the government, from its purely collectivist roots, can recognize as being that which is actually individualistic. In other words, when the government thinks “individuality”, or in political parlance, “individual rights”, it thinks hedonism. And from its inexorable collectivist metaphysical roots, it can only think hedonism. And by hedonism, I mean “people doing whatever they want without moral consequence”.

“Individuality” according to the collectivist metaphysical assumptions upon which the State is founded, again means “people doing whatever they want without moral consequence”…indeed, this is always the single most oft-cited argument in favor of the establishment of States. Without the government, we are told, people will do whatever they want without consequence, and this inevitably implies a grand orgy of self-indulgent atrocity, and the necessary extinction of the human race. Government, you see, according to its collectivist metaphysics, exists precisely because humanity is by nature, in the iteration of self-aware individuals, insufficient to its own very existence. Government IS humanity, then. Government is you, effectively, for you—it is your ability to be—and therefore it owns you, and this is why all governments, no matter how enlightened they may be, all become tyrannical unless they are conquered or collapse somehow before. Government is not for the people, it owns them, and dispenses with the notion of individuality, because to the collectivist roots of government, individuality is object lie, and individual consciousness is an fraud…an imposter to reality. Without the ruling class making rules and enforcing them by violence and threats of violence, the individual will destroy himself. His existence, on its own, is implied non-existence. The individual then, if ungoverned, is a walking, talking contradiction.

Now, in light of this, consider the utterly ironic and counterintuitive notion of a government “by the people and for the people” where the people are, in the Locke-ian sense, self-contained individual political units. What if we have a government that attempts to deny its own metaphysical roots, and instead of rejecting individuality, like all governments prior, attempts to legislate it…to make individuality a matter of law…of force…of coercion. This government, ironically, attempts to force the individual into freedom. What if there are enough enlightenment philosophers around doing enough work and being persuasive enough to convince a set of wealthy would-be ruling class land-owners to establish a nation based upon the principle that the government’s responsibility is to make individuality the fundamental objective of the collective LAW.

The result would be a disaster of epic proportions. It would be…the perfect tyranny.

The government is going to force you by law to accept the right of people to do whatever they want, where “whatever they want” is, and can only ever be, according to the immutable and inexorable collectivist metaphysics upon which all governments, including this American government, are founded, defined as the right of people to indulge their rank hedonistic desires. Not that it’s sold to the masses that way. It’s sold as freedom, life, liberty, property, natural rights, “all men are created equal”, and other such things. Hell, even the ruling class used to buy it.

What kind of society do you think you’d see as this political ideology evolves? Chaos? Contraction? Doublespeak? Moral relativism? The death of meaning and the death of objectivity?

Naturally.

And what is the inevitable outcome of all of this?

Mass psychosis? A society-wide death cult? Destruction and collapse?

Certainly.

The scary thing is that you will likely never even notice the perfect tyranny because it is the tyranny that tells you that you get to do whatever you want, and that feels so damn good and so damn free and so damn right. And if they can keep you fat and lazy and stupid enough for long enough, then you won’t realize until it’s too late that when people are governed in order that they may “do whatever they want” in the hedonistic sense, someone is going to want to commit murder, and therefore someone is going to be the victim…and the State, being obligated to do so, will start to look around for a politically convenient someone to be that victim, and eventually, somewhere after the babies and the school children and the elderly are throw upon Moloch’s alter, that someone will be you, and worse, that someone will be someone you love.

END

The Metaphysics of the State: Why Biden’s Supreme Court pick, based primarily on race and sex, was completely rational

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, government, individualism vs collectivism, Uncategorized, , ,

I have heard heard conservative and libertarian media pundits, academics, journalists, and intellectuals complain about Joe Biden’s recent U.S. Supreme Court pick of Ketanji Brown Jackson. Biden’s criteria was simple and straightforward—his nominee was to be, first and foremost, a black female. This was in keeping with his campaign promise to nominate a justice upon such criteria should he get the chance. He did, and here we are.

The problem, were are told, is that we should not be choosing those who shall serve on the highest legal court in the land, for life, according to immutable characteristics such as race and sex, but rather on “individual merit”.

I just have to laugh, here. I mean no disrespect, but seriously, the government wouldn’t exist if it acknowledged that individual merit was actually a thing. My goodness…I’m incredulous every time I think about just how unaware conservative and libertarian thinkers really are.

Anyway…

This assertion that Supreme Court nominees should be assessed on “individual merit” is of course rooted in what is ultimately a metaphysical premise regarding the nature of human beings. To declare that people must not be judged as members of a collective, exhibiting the proper, yet spurious, group-identity marker, or markers, such as race and sex, is to declare that what really makes a human being a human being is their individuality.

Well, what does that mean?

One’s singular, conscious frame of reference—that’s what it means to be an individual. What makes you uniquely YOU, is that you observe, interpret, and manifest your existence from a single existential frame of reference. This frame of reference is, functionally, the distinction between YOU and OTHER, where OTHER is other persons (other individuals), and the environment (the material context for the practical manifestation of Self-ness).

The distinction between Self and Other is the inexorable distinction between all human beings, and is why every one of us is morally equal to everyone else. No one person is any better than any other person, because “better” would mean possessing greater existential value. This of course is impossible since each individual is a function of an absolute and singular conscious frame of reference. In other words, each one of us is, at root, absolutely ourselves, and thus each one of us equally exists as Self. No one person has more or less existence than any other—to assert otherwise is obviously ludicrous. Thus, one cannot make an existential value distinction between individuals. Everyone, by dint existing as a singular Self, is morally equal. They have equal value and relevance to Reality,

The argument which naturally follows is this: Does this mean that the murderer and the thief, for example, are as “good” as anyone else? If all of us are morally equal at root because we all equally exist, what difference then does it make what a person does with his existence? How can we judge the murderer and the thief as evil if the plumb line for moral value is simply existing.

Here is the answer: The murderer and the thief have, by their choices and actions, utterly rejected themselves…that is, they have rejected their own existence as Self. In doing this, they no longer have meaning nor purpose, and thus can have no value.

Let me try to explain.

By violating the life and property of their fellow human beings they have forfeited all of their existential value by declaring, implicitly or explicitly, that such value is a lie. In other words, he who commits murder and theft rejects, first and foremost, their own individuality, and by this, their own fundamental worth. Having utterly devalued themselves, and so stripped themselves of any rational meaning and purpose to anyone or anything else, the criminal forces others to deal with him as a rank existential aberration—an object threat to individuality, not an expression of it. In other words, once the criminal rejects his own existence by engaging in theft or murder, he can be of no meaning, purpose, or value to others, and thus others have a moral right (and a moral obligation) to restrain him, and if needs must, eliminate him. To boil it down to a simplistic metaphor: If the glass refuses to hold water, then it has become nothing to me, an I shall throw it away.

There is much more to be said about this, but I will move on to the main point of this article.

The argument is that we should be selecting Supreme Court candidates based on their individual characteristics—how they think, how they interpret the law, their personal philosophies and morals, their individual experience in this or that school, this or that post, etcetera, etcetera—and not on collective, superficial, identity markers such as race and sex.

The problem, however, and one which our conservative and libertarian friends never seem to quite grasp for reasons that escape me, is that government is a collectivist institution, not an individualist one. In other words, the State simply cannot judge anyone according to their individual merit because the State does not and cannot recognize that individuality actually exists.

When I say that government is a collectivist institution, I mean that its very establishment is rooted in collectivist metaphysics, not individualist metaphysics, and these are mutually exclusive. The government exists to govern, and to govern means, fundamentally, to coerce behavior by violence and threats of violence. There is no such thing as government outside of this. None. There is no other real purpose for government besides coercing human behavior in order to serve the interest of a given Collective ideal.

In the case of the United States, the government claims in its founding documents to act on behalf of what it calls “The People”. However, one should not take this to mean “the persons”…even if the Founding Fathers intended it to mean this, because, given the nature of government, it can’t. No, no…these are completely different categories, rooted in completely different metaphysics. “Persons” are a group of individuals. “People” are a a sociopolitical entity to which individuals are inexorability fused. Put simply, the individual is a function of the People, not the other way around.

Government is Authority and Authority is Force. The government cannot consider one’s individual merit because as far as government is concerned, there is no such thing as the individual. It cannot consider one’s individual experience, because individual experience is by definition a function of one’s individual existence, which the collectivist metaphysics of government do not recognize.

Government does not and cannot and never will act in the interest of the individual, but only in the interest of the Collective Ideal it represents. This makes sense even on a the most rudimentary of logical basis. I mean, think about it. Think about the nature of your individual existence—what makes you YOU—and the complexity of it, and then see how stupid and ludicrous is the idea that somehow all which makes you individually you can be compelled/coerced by some third party Authority outside of you, which you most likely have never met and will never meet, and which knows nothing about you as a person. Think about the thousands of choices you make per day; your fleeting whims; your changing opinions; your capricious tastes; the fundamentally unpredictable nature of your environment from moment to moment; your fluid schedule, daily, weekly, monthly, or at the very least yearly. Even the most organized and regimented among us is faced with a thousand options per day and a mind that is constantly analyzing and assessing, evaluating and critiquing; and though it may seem like many of us simply operate on rote in some meta existential context, I can assure that this is not the case. Existence is contextualized to the individual…you observe and manifest your life from a singular conscious frame of reference. You are, at root, an “I”, not a “We”, and you know this in your heart. There can be no such thing as a fundamentally plural existential frame of reference. The relative relationship between environment and observer, which is a necessary prerequisite for Reality, Itself, can only work if the observer is singular. A “plurality of root observation”, or, simplified, a “plural observer”,” is a contradiction in terms. Sometimes you hear it called a “collective consciousness”. It’s complete nonsense.

For the government to presume that it can control the individual without denying individuality is a lie; and until we all understand this, government will continue to reduce humanity to corpses and chaos, just as it has always done and will always do, because that is all its nature can allow.

All this being said, it is a farce to think that the government can ever fundamentally judge a person based on their “individual merit”, as though the State is able to acknowledge that such a thing exists, let alone care about it. For the government to acknowledge individual merit—to acknowledge that the indiviudal is capable of any meaningful manifestation of his or her existence without the presumption and intrusion of the State—is for the government to deny its own legitimacy and thus its own existence.

The government will always and forever collectivize humanity…and, again, this is entirely unavoidable because it is a function of government’s nature at root. If the government is not collectivizing humanity, then it is not the government. The government will never consider one’s “individual merit”, for the simple reason that it doesn’t accept “the individual” as a legitimate existential concept. The government will judge, vet, review, examine, and consider every single of one us, be it a Supreme Court nominee or the guy selling oranges on the street near the quarry, only according to whatever Collective Ideal it decides it is manifesting and expressing at any given moment—in modern U.S. terms, Social Justice, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The government will value each and every one of us based upon the degree to which we serve and affirm this Collective Ideal, and this means that it will not judge us according to the complexity of individual characteristics, but the superficiality of group identity—that is, whether we are black or not. and female or not, with respect to the case of Biden’s Supreme Court nomination.

The government will never consider a Supreme Court nominee, nor anyone else, for a position on the basis of “individual merit”, and it has never really done so. Just because the Collective Ideal which makes one valuable to the State happens to be more ham-fisted, less nuanced, today (i.e. skin color and genitalia) than perhaps in the past doesn’t mean that the government is any more tolerant of the individual.

Biden simply did what was, in fact, the most rational thing he could do in picking a Supreme Court nominee: Promote the interests of the State over those of human beings.

What else is new?

END

Authoritarians are as Suicidal as They are Homicidal

Authority, collectivist metaphysics, government, individualism vs collectivism, Uncategorized,

The tyrants cannot win for the simple reason that the goal they set for themselves does not exist.

Imagine you are on a road to Reno, and you are well aware that it only goes to Reno, yet you simultaneously expect that it shall also take you to Las Vegas and not to Reno. When it doesn’t take you to Vegas, but to Reno, you check your map and see that, indeed, the road you are on only goes to Reno.

Well, obviously the map is lying, you decide. You insist that the map should somehow show that the road leads to Reno and also leads to Vegas, not Reno. So you throw it away and buy a new map. But that map also says that the road you are on only leads to Reno, so of course that map must be lying, too. In fact, all the maps must be lying, so you attempt draw your own map where the road both leads to Reno and not to Reno, but to Vegas. This proves impossible so you blame it on faulty pen and paper. You try different pen and different paper, but you still can’t manage to draw the map, so you decide that all pens and all paper are bad. You try again to go to Reno and not Reno at the same time, but fail. You think that maybe your car is the problem, so you sell it and get a new car. But that car also takes you only to Reno. You take a bus, but again you end up in Reno. You walk, but you end up in Reno. At this point your money runs out so you beg and then steal and yet nothing works. Over and over again you wind up in Reno. Finally, starving, exhausted, hopeless, penniless, and crippled, you are left with only one conclusion: Reality, itself, is the problem. Reality is a fraud. Only by finding a “new Reality”, a “true Reality”, will you find Las Vegas on the road which only takes you to Reno. The solution to your problem is thus what it always was: death. You must evacuate existence to find your way. You can’t find Vegas by way of the road you are on in this life, but perhaps you can in the next.

What do you think happens in the next life?

Nothing. That’s what. No satisfaction. Because in the next life Vegas still isn’t where it is supposed to be because the problem still hasn’t been addressed…and the problem is of course your assumption that a road which cannot take you to place where it does not go simultaneously can take you to a place where it does not go. The real problem is that you cannot functionally apply your contradiction to any reality, and have any reality actually affirm it by manifesting an actual thing. And in the process of attempting to tangibly create the square circle, so to speak, you destroy yourself. You trade the truth for a lie…a lie which makes your very conscious frame of reference impossible. It is the lie which says that what IS simultaneously IS NOT; that A is also NOT A; that the presence of A implies the absence of A. You will pursue this lie for all eternity, because that’s the only possible way to properly manifest your “existence”, you have decided. In other words, by your existence, you will relentlessly pursue the absence of your existence. What will follow is eternal death—a painful damnation where you pursue a goal for all eternity which does not exist. Endless misery without relief, because the relief that would have come is a function of a rational premise that you rejected long ago. This rational premise is thus: that what is true must be conceptually consistent; that A is not simultaneously NOT A; that the road which only leads to Reno cannot simultaneously lead to Vegas (or to NOT Reno).

You might be tempted to be unconcerned, or only mildly concerned, at this kind of damnation. For, after all, you say to yourself, you have free will, right? You have choice. At any moment you can simply decide that your premise is incorrect—that you can and likely will, eventually, wake up and realize that the way out of hell is to accept the simple truth that the road which only leads to Reno cannot also lead to Vegas.

But will you?

Of course you won’t. If you could, you would have done it already, If there was nothing in the first life which could change your mind, then there will be nothing in the second, or the third, or the fourth…and so on. You have sent yourself to hell, and it is you who will keep you there. You sent yourself to hell by murdering your own consciousness at the alter of Contradiction.

Don’t pretend that there is hope in hell. Hell, by its very nature, is hopelessness. You have chosen a “reality” where you clearly observe that the road you are on cannot take you to Vegas yet you insist that it also must take you to Vegas. You are willing to die (and thus kill) for the contradiction, and you do. In that “reality” what choice do you really have? In what sense are you not eternally trapped? Reason is dead to you and you are dead to it. You wanted an existence where contradiction is reality, and you got it.

*

Authoritarians are collectivists; collectivists are ideologues; ideologues are merely peddlers of Contradiction-as-Truth. Authoritarians presume that they are the incarnation of a Divine, Determinist Force—that to which I refer as the Collective Ideal. As I have explained many times on this blog, the Ideal can be virtually anything—-the Workers, Diversity, Social Justice, Climate Justice, god or the gods, the Nation, the Church, the Tribe, the Race, We the People, the Culture, Evolution, Natural Law, Mathematical Processes, etcetera, etcetera. It can even simply be the Authoritarian, himself…any old widget can be the One from which springs All That Is.

The metaphysical crux of collectivism is the fundamental denial of the Individual. Consciousness of one’s Self is ultimately an illusion; Truth and Reality are fundamentally exclusive of individual consciousness. Truth and Reality are (somehow) dictated to the Individual from the “objective reality outside” himself. To assert that one’s own Self—one’s own conscious frame of reference—is actually that by which reality is given meaning and thus defined in the first place is considered merely an exercise in pure solipsism and moral relativism.

This is a lie for reasons which I will not go into here, but suffice to say, the rejection of individual consciousness is at the heart of all collectivist ideologies, and thus is at the heart of all governments, because government is utterly a product of collectivist metaphysics. Thus the rejection of individual consciousness is at the heart of all authoritarians; authoritarianism is the logical conclusion of government, period. There is no such thing as a tyrant who is not also an explicit or implicit expression of government.

The authoritarian contradiction then is the idea that man must be systematically forced, tyrannized, out of Himself, his absolute existential frame of reference, into truth and reality, because his consciousness—the very fact that he observes reality from a frame of reference of his own Self—is his Original Sin; it is the lie which is his root nature. Authoritarians then proceed to mold man’s “false” reality into the “truth” of the Collective Ideal. They force individuals into the Collective by violence, threats of violence, propaganda, and outright fraud, because this is the individual’s “proper place” so the ideology tells them.

Naturally this never works, because collectivist metaphysics are utterly contradictory, and so Authoritarians, never ones to forsake their stupidity and madness, merely dig deeper into the ideology and forge ahead, the bodies piling ever higher and higher until their own is eventually thrown upon the heap.

*

At first it’s relatively easy. A convenient and perhaps even somewhat (ostensibly) plausible “other” is identified, targeted, scapegoated, exploited, rounded up and, at first, deported (if possible or plausible), then imprisoned, and eventually murdered, which was the plan all along. (This move is easier if the masses are intellectually somnolent and emotionally stunted, which, welcome to Anywhere, U.S.A., 2022.)

When this doesn’t “fix” things and usher in the Collectivist Utopia—which it can’t because there is no such thing, because it is rooted in a metaphysical contradiction, and one cannot actually build and apply a “square circle”, so to speak—then what happens? Do we think that the Authoritarians take a long look in the mirror, thoughtfully ponder the situation, and begin to reevaluate their ideas, daring to consider that the problem may actually lie with them?

Sorry. Didn’t mean to make you laugh. What can I say? I’m a funny guy.

No, of course they don’t do any of that…these people are political ideologues, and it is not in their interest or nature to presume anything other than that the Collective Ideal is perfect, and therefore they, being the practical incarnation of the Ideal on earth, are likewise perfect, and therefore the fault must necessarily be with someone else. Once the convenient “others” have been eliminated—the (ostensibly) obvious “outsiders”—then the Authoritarians turn their bloody gaze closer to home. There must be other others lurking around somewhere, most certainly within in their own ranks, they decide. Naturally they find these traitors, fill up the mass graves yet again, and sit back and wait for utopia to materialize.

This of course doesn’t happen, because again it can’t—the square is as far from also being a circle as it always was, so what happens?

You see where this is going.

The Authority simply cannibalizes itself. With each purge it finds itself as far away from Perfect Utopia as ever—utopia always just around the corner from the next genocide. More and more are purged, sacrificed for the great Ideal, but the reward never comes. There is always one more rebel or traitor to gas or shoot, one more expression of individualism to crush, one more industry to smash, one more war to wage, one more book to burn, one more government program to inflict, one more day to hope and change, until finally all that is left is for the Authoritarians to realize that, just like the one who cannot get to Las Vegas by the road which only leads to Reno, the problem must be Reality itself. If Reality is going to be this damn stubborn, then so be it. Reality must be a fraud. With nothing left to do, the Authoritarians “escape” to death, find themselves in hell, and live out their irreconcilable madness, and the consequent torment which it breeds, for all eternity.

END

Questions Which Can Have No Answer…:Why benevolent government is impossible (part three)

Authority, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, Uncategorized, , ,

Question two is thus:

How shall we rob them to protect their private property?

I know it’s a a bit cliche, but that doesn’t make it untrue:

Taxation is theft.

Most of us reject this assertion as merely the screed of crazy anarchists. It’s just them barking. Everyone knows that we must have taxes…even the most hardened libertarians, and certainly conservatives, have zero problem with taxation in principle. Heck, we are reminded that even Jesus didn’t outright condemn Caesar’s tax (however, he did not pay it out of his labor, but out of a fish…who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?). If God doesn’t have a problem with taxation, then surely it must be reasonable, and more than that, entirely moral.

Well, I’m not convinced that God ever actually affirms taxation anymore than he ever actually affirms slavery, or war, or a host of other various state institutions in the Old and/or New Testaments, but that’s a different discussion.

At any rate, here is why taxation is theft…and it is the thing which is most downplayed by defenders and apologists:

When it coms to paying your taxes, you have no choice.

This alone is proof of theft. If someone claims a right to your property whether you want to give it to them or not, then this person is a thief, period. Give it any euphemistic title you want; couch it within the auspices of as many grand and ancient institutions as you like; puff it up with non sequiturs like “representation” and “constitutional rights” and “free elections” until the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact that taking your property regardless of your will is theft.

*

Unfortunately, Volunteerism/Anarchism is simply a non-starter when it comes to the vast majority of political options. The fetishization of natural (metaphysical) human insufficiency has become, over millennia, a casual acceptance of some mystical yet axiomatic existential need of the masses to be enslaved and controlled by other, much smaller numbers of human beings. This means that government is axiomatic, even a-priori, to human existence; and this, of course, means taxation. In other words, the reason taxation is given a moral pass where other flavors of theft are not is because taxation is inexorably connected to the perceived basic existential need of man to be governed. That is, without the ruling class, humanity must necessarily go extinct, because the nature of man is such that he is fundamentally incapable of governing himself as an individual.

The very insufficient nature of man to execute and promote his own existence means that he must be governed—that is, coerced, fundamentally, by a governing Authority. How it is that man, being insufficient to his own existence, can decide which other existentially insufficient men shall rule over him…well, all such rulers are always in some sense “divinely” appointed, hence the completely mystical roots of all governments. At any rate, as far as the metaphysics go then, we must have some version of the State, and therefore we must have some version of taxation, because there must be some way for the state to acquire the funds with which to execute its duties, and therefore we are told that taxation simply cannot be theft because without the state to rule over men, men wouldn’t, or couldn’t, exist in the first place. However, the claim that the government is needed so that man can exist in the first place is really to claim the that the government must be man for man. Or rather more precisely put, the state doesn’t affirm man, it seeks to possess him and thus it nullifies him. Man must inevitably function as a direct and absolute extension of the state…and this ends up making the government-citizen relationship merely that of slave-master.

From these metaphysical roots of government we can see that though one may claim theft is immoral, the argument against this will take some form of: morality only exists in the first place because the government makes human life possible. The government cannot be acting against that which is, in short, a direct function of itself. In other words, your very life is a direct function of the state…without the state, you cannot exist. Ergo, the state is you, for you. Taxation cannot be theft because the state cannot steal from itself.

Sound crazy? It should, because it is…nevertheless these ideas are at the root of government, and therefore taxation. You are merely an extension of the state. The government utterly owns you, because your existence at root is in actuality its existence; and again, the government cannot steal from what it already owns. Alakazaam, poof! as my friend John Immel says, taxation is moral.

Now, you’d think that with all of the copious amounts of evidence of the object failure of governments—the wars, famines, exploitations, holocausts, slavery, mass murder, pervasive corruption—it would be a bit easier to convince people that this “logic” to which they have been subjected for thousands and thousands of years is a lie, but alas, it is near impossible. People are committed almost immovably to the idea that government is inexorability and inalienably tied to their own life in sum and substance. It is a hill they will die on…and millions, if not billions, have.

So, yes, because we simply must have the state, we must have taxation, so we believe.

Now, many times people are not without conceding to some extent that taxation is not particularly pleasant, nor convenient, and that taxes are too high and could and should be lower. They might even concede that the proclivity of taxation to rapidly become overbearing, inefficient, and outright wasteful might make it in some sense evil. However, they would prefer to call it a “necessary evil”.

Yeah, about that.

The difference,between too much tax and just the right about amount of tax…the difference between the morality of taxation and the immortality of taxation…the difference between the “necessary evil” of taxation and the actually evil evil of taxation is simply the irrational and meaningless question of “how much?” But this is not how morality works, of course. Morality is not a sliding scale. Something is either evil or it is not. Something is either up or down, left or right, this or that, yes or no…to make opposites a function of some sliding scale means that at the point along the continuum where they meet they become “both” and “neither”. In other words, where good and evil meet they contradict each other, which actually nullifies the entire scale. So, no, taxation, like anything else labeled as such, is not a “necessary evil”. It is either evil or it is good.

If it’s good, then so must any government commandeering of any or all your private property, because what you own, you own. You do not own some of your property and not own the rest of it…this is a contradiction. So if the state can claim a right to own any and all of what you earned, this of course means that there is no such thing as private property at all. The government owns everything, and thus the government owns you. If you do not own the product of your own labor then that which you use to do that labor, your body and your mind, is likewise by logical extension not your own. Again, the metaphysics of government mean that you don’t really exist. Which is why you have no property, not even yourself. The government owns everything; and it is thus the only thing that owns anything. Ironically this means that the government doesn’t actually tax anyone since there is no one else as far as it is concerned, and therefore there is no private property, but that’s by the by.

If taxation is evil then the state is not legitimate and thus, for all efficacious and practical purposes, it does not exist. The purpose of the state is to own everything and therefore to become everyone and everything. Which means that there can be no real distinction between that which the state is and that which it is not, in which case it cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be said to be anything at all.

Either way, taxation is an utterly irrational, impossible, futile ideal and institution. It can neither promote nor affirm the individual and can achieve no outcome except that of chaos and destruction. Taxation is a square circle…try as we might, no such thing can really be produced. The codification and institution of “legalized theft” is a meaningless endeavor which can never achieve anything except the obliteration of anyone or anything which attempts to implement it.

Taxation is a blank check the ruling class writes to itself. Taking a cursory look back at the history of mankind, does that seem like a recipe for success?

Still, there are many, many true believers out there, left, right, and center of the political continuum. Taxation can work, they insist,…we just need to find the right amount. If we can just answer the question of how much theft is “good” theft and how much is bad, then we could have an effective and moral tax system. How much theft is not really theft, and how much is actually theft…answering that is the key. The fact that such a stupid and illogical question can have no answer because it’s not a real question seems to be beside the pint.

Yes, this IS literally the question with which they wrestle, though they may not, or may not be able, to put it in so many words.

Let me ask: At what point do we decide that one owns his property but also does not own it?

This is a question that cannot be answered, because it is absurd. It is either your property or it is not, period. To put taxation on a sliding moral scale is nonsensical, because it is to claim that there is some point where your property can be considered also not your property., and thus subject to government commandeering, To put taxation in the category of “necessary evil”, is to claim that at some point taxation becomes theft where it wasn’t before. But how do you divide that baby, so to speak? At what point can your private property that you earned become to some degree or percentage that which you did not in fact earn…and further, who gets to decide?

You?

That’s funny, because if you could decide for yourself how much it should reasonably and morally cost for you to be controlled then you wouldn’t need to be controlled and thus there would be no need for government in the first place; and therefore you wouldn’t need taxing and thus the question is entirely moot.

Allow me to beat the dead horse of “necessary evil” a bit longer. As one who despises logical fallacy and therefore despises contradiction (I submit that all logical fallacies are simply contradictions at root) I feel I must exhaustively emphasize the logical failure of this aphorism.

I’ve heard, as I’m sure you have, “necessary evil” a million times to excuse all manner of moral atrocity, from war to taxation to public school, to government itself, and I am positively apoplectic at how such a nonsensical assertion passes for reason so often with so many people. It is an indication of how far humanity has lost itself to the lie that up can also be down, one can be zero, the square can be the circle.

Look, you simply cannot practically or meaningfully apply contradiction. That which is contradictory to reality is impossible. You cannot have a “necessary evil” because all this is is the assertion that what is evil is simultaneously what is good.

This is a lie. If it’s good, then by definition it’s not evil, and vice versa. If it’s necessary to a good end, then it is a good thing, not an evil thing. It cannot be both. Period. You cannot have a square circle, an up which is down, a black which is white, a yes which is no, a trinity which is a singularity (a three which is one)…and you cannot have a good which is evil…and do you know what else you cannot have? Cooperative theft, which is what we are claiming when we say that taxation is simply the necessary action of a benevolent state working for the good of the individual. Once the state decides that it has a right to your property, then it becomes a thief, period. If the government possesses the authority to take your property against your will, which is precisely what taxation is, then it is not a benevolent state simply cooperating with the people to achieve a free society, it is a rapacious ruling class expanding its own power and wealth at the expense of the masses.

*

A contradiction is the fundamental assertion, in its most basic form, that what IS also and simultaneously IS NOT. Whenever I mention contradiction as something like saying that up cannot be down, or left cannot be right, I know that someone is thinking ‘left can be right or up can be down depending on the frame of reference, so, yes, in fact left can also be right and up can also be down. A left turn to me will look like a right turn for someone looking from the opposite frame of reference.’

This is not what I’m talking about; this is not contradiction. What a contradiction is is the assertion that something IS and also IS NOT simultaneously. That is, from all conceptual (abstract), and/or observational frames of reference, at all times. In other words, it is the idea that you can observe, from your singular conscious frame of reference, at all times, that X is also Y; A is also B. Of course, no such thing is possible…if I gave you a thousand years you could not possibly, in picture or word, imagine such a thing. It is utterly impossible for you to imagine that something both is and is not, simultaneously, from the singular frame of reference of your mind’s eye.

Do you know why this is…why no one, anywhere, of any intelligence, can do such a thing? It is because contradiction is the antithesis of consciousness. The ability to conceptualize, simultaneously, IS and IS NOT contradicts conceptualization…which is the root of consciousness. The ability to conceptualize perception into language demands that concepts are not mutually exclusive. Rather, conceptual consistency is that which must necessarily flow from conceptualization. Conceptual consistency is how ideas are formed and successfully communicated. Should concepts contradict, ideas are utterly impossible. Without conceptual consistency, there can be no ideas, and thus no meaning and thus no truth. Which makes consciousness—the being aware of you and that which is around you, and thus the distinction between what is you and what is your environment, and conceptually what is you and what is NOT you, and thus how to manifest yourself within that environment by naming and valuing You and NOT You, such as “you” as opposed to your “environment”—fundamentally irrelevant. If consciousness exists, and conceptualization is real, then contradiction must be purely ideological at best. It’s never a real thing, so to speak..

In short, if contradiction is real then your consciousness is nullified, in which case, you simply wouldn’t exist to notice that contradiction is real.

I know this is all quite long-winded, but it is important that we tease these things out so that we can understand why something like “necessary evil” is not merely a cute little saying but rather a philosophical rationale which leads to all kinds of moral and practical horrors like the ability of the state to take money from its citizens by what is, at root, fraud and violence, and to at least implicitly, but often explicitly, claim that it has some divine, transcendent authority to do so—and this is because the state is a contradiction, and only by appealing to the “divine” can the cognitive dissonance pass for “truth”, even if the divine Ideal is simply “the People”, or “We the people”.

*

Taxation is the state taking your property from you without your consent. That’s what it is; and taking your property without your consent is theft.

“But, Argo”, you might protest. “I don’t mind the government taxing me. I am happy to do my part and pay my taxes…since I willingly pay, it cannot be theft, right?”

If you don’t mind, then you are right, it is not theft…but it’s also not taxation. It’s cooperation. Cooperation and government are by definition mutually exclusive. People who cooperate are not governed. Cooperation is exclusive of force, and therefore exclusive of authority, and therefore exclusive of government, and therefore exclusive of taxation. To attempt to square the circle by claiming that taxation is not theft because you don’t mind, or even enjoy, paying your taxes doesn’t really work. Because it’s not up to you anyway. That is, your statement that you don’t mind being taxed is a complete non-sequitur. The state doesn’t care whether you mind or not…that’s the point. Because to the state, what is the difference? Whether you care or not, what you want or not, what you think or don’t think about taxation is completely irrelevant. They are going to take your property. The thief doesn’t spend any amount of time giving a shit whether or not you care if they take your stuff, and neither, ultimately, does the state. The ruling class may sedate you with the bromide of “representative government’ or “free elections” or “constitutional rights”, but this isn’t because they care what you think, it’s all about making it easier for themselves. Sorry if that sounds so awfully cynical…it’s not actually cynicism, it’s realism. Because it doesn’t matter how kind or noble or altruistic or benevolent any given politician might be, the fundamental nature of the state is utterly antagonistic to individual life, liberty, and property. It is entirely metaphysical. No politician thus has any choice in the matter…that is, ultimately they shall treat you like a slave to be exploited…a means to their own end. The government can only, by its very root nature, work in service its own limitless self-expansion and insatiable appetite for power at the expense of everything and everyone else, period. No master, no matter how benevolent and kind, can truly cooperate with his slaves, because that is simply not the nature of the institution.

On that note, let’s talk about “free elections” for a moment, as often you will hear people say something like, “we can always change the system (including taxation) by voting for different people.”

To say that in a benevolent governmental system you “freely elect” the your leaders is, again, the smuggling of contradiction into the argument. You cannot freely elect one who is to be in authority over you, in the same way a slave cannot freely elect his master…and even if he could, he’d still be a slave. The idea that having a different master makes you less of a slave is laughably ridiculous.

This relates to taxation this way…that is, the minarchist argument is something like: if we only have to pay X amount of tax if we elect authority A, then taxation is fine. We will pay only a small amount, covering just the basic government functions.

LOL…as if you get to decide what your authority’s functions are. As if the slave dictates terms to his master. Moreover, this is like stating that if a thief only takes your lawn mower but not your car then he is not really a thief. I submit that the thief who realizes he can take your lawnmower without any repercussions will soon realize that he can also take your car…and where will you draw the line? By what logic? You own both of them, but to say that to take the lawn mower against your will is fine but not the car is is to split the idea of “ownership”. You own the car, but the lawnmower you only sort of own….you own it but you don’t. X is also Y. IS is also IS NOT. Nonsense.

The truth is that you either own both or you own neither. If the thief can take one by some “rationale” that he has concocted in his little criminal mind then he can also take the other, and he will.

If you say you don’t mind if the thief takes the lawn mower and/or the car, and you strike some kind of accord with him, well then, he’s not actually a thief. He’s not taking anything by force…you are volunteering to give it to him…you are cooperating. He is no longer presuming some ineffable, inexplicable, mystical, divine “right” to take your mower whether you like it or not. He doesn’t pretend to be in some kind ot authority . This is voluntary value exchange, not some kind of fantastical admixture of theft and cooperation.

We play these games with taxation. We say we don’t mind, but if we don’t mind then its not taxation. There need to be no tax laws. It’s just good old fashioned cooepration. The very fact that there are tax laws and that if you don’t pay your taxes you get punished should be all the evidence you need to see that there is nothing moral nor rational about taxation. It’s theft. Period. Full stop. Cliche or not.

The benevolent government steals from us in order to protect, promote, perpetuate, and preserve our right to private property.

How’s that been working out for us?

END

Questions Which Can Have No Answer are Not Actually Questions: Why benevolent government is impossible (and the lie of “free democratic elections”, and touching upon Is-Ought), part 1

Authority, government, individualism vs collectivism, tyranny, Uncategorized, ,

The ruling, or political class, in order to establish and preside over a benevolent State must answer some questions first. As you will readily deduce, these are questions for which answers are impossible, because the nature of the questions precludes them. Thus, they are not real questions. And yet, they must be answered in order for the government to be benevolent…hence the unsolvable problem, as it were.

Here we shall define “benevolent” as that which promotes, nurtures, and defends individual life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, the codification of which can be most readily seen in the United States Bill of Rights, I submit. However, if you don’t accept this definition of “benevolent”, then I presume you have another frame of reference for moral value other than that of the individual. That would be a hard thing to justify as you’d necessarily be advocating for a collective moral frame of reference (i.e the Greater, or Common, Good), as opposed to an individual one, because if not an individual moral frame of reference then your only alternative is a collective one. Yet you’d necessarily be advocating this collective moral frame of reference from your individual existential frame of reference.

See the contradiction?

The problem is that you’d be splitting up knowledge and value into two completely different, and further, mutually exclusive, frames of reference. The individual has knowledge, as evidenced by the fact that you are, as an individual, making a truth claim (i.e. collective moral value), but only the collective is able to make value judgements.

Here is the error: Without value judgements, the individual cannot actually apply his knowledge…but un-applicable knowledge is not knowledge. For example, you cannot know that an apple is different from a rock unless you, as an individual, which is what you are, know what you shall (not can, nor must, nor may, nor should) do with them. To know that if you are hungry you shall eat the apple and not the rock is a value judgment. Meaning that if you only know the definition of “apple” and “rock” but have no purpose for apple and rock at any given moment as it applies to you (i.e. from your own individual existential frame of reference), then the definition becomes irrelevant. An irrelevant definition is a meaningless definition; a meaningless definition is a contradiction in terms. To say that you know something (e.g. that morality is collective, not individual) but not how to value it (e.g. that we shall thus organize a government which serves the Common Good) means that you cannot actually know it. To know something but not what to do with the knowledge means that you don’t actually know it. Knowledge without value is knowledge without purpose is knowledge without relevance is knowledge without meaning is meaningless knowledge…which is a contradiction in term.

Those of you familiar with the Is-Ought problem of morality, as expressed by David Hume, I think it was, will see how the inexorable relationship between knowledge and value makes this quite a problem for the Is-Ought problem. In other words, there is no real Is-Ought problem unless you presume that one can posses knowledge but not value…or, as it is often put, real knowledge is always objective but value is always subjective. This just a fancy way of saying that only knowledge actually exists. You know that the apple is an apple and a rock is a rock, but not how to apply that knowledge in a way that validates it as being actually knowledge (i.e. Truth). Or, in other words, in a way that validates that the knowledge is actually relevant, and thus meaningful, and thus actually knowledge, as “meaningless knowledge” is again a contradiction in terms. “Meaningless knowledge” is the same as “meaningless definitions”, and that? Doesn’t’ make sense. In other words, the Is-Ought problem isn’t a problem unless you A.) confuse “shall” with “should” or “ought”, and B.) erroneously presume that knowledge (or Truth) and value (or Ethic) are mutually exclusive. As they are not, but are in fact corollary, there is no problem.

The Is-Ought dilemma is just a proxy for the determinist assertion that consciousness doesn’t exist. That the willful application of truth is utterly subjective, because it’s rooted in value judgements—in “shoulds”, or “oughts”—which are mutually exclusive of objective Truth—the “is”…that, say, the rock is a rock—and therefore individual consciousness, which is the root of utterly subjective value judgements, is a lie. In other words, there is perception without real awareness…we are but biological computers mathematically programmed by evolution, natural law, etc. etc….but more on that peculiar brand of mysticism at a later date.

By the by, I plan on doing a post on dismantling the imaginary Is-Ought dilemma in an upcoming post…I did a few posts on the subject a while back, but they were clumsy and confusing, so I deleted them. I have since come up with what I think are much better arguments and much clearer ways of presenting those arguments.

At any rate, if. you define “benevolence” with respect to government as something other than that which promotes, nurtures, and protects the life, liberty, property, and happiness of the individual, you’re quite mistaken.

So here are the questions the ruling class, or would-be ruling class, must answer in order to to establish a benevolent State (NOTE: “Them” refers to the citizens.)

1. How shall we enslave them to set them free?

2. How shall we rob them to protect their private property?

3. How shall we torment them to comfort them?

4. How shall we make them sick in order to keep them well?

5. How shall we coerce them to cooperate with them?

6. How shall we hate them to love them?

7. How shall we deny them to affirm them?

8. How shall we murder them to save them?

These questions are the impossible burden of the “benevolent” State. As they cannot be answered, because they are meaningless due to their inherent contradiction, any attempt to implement such a State inevitably dissolves into rank tyranny, despite any benign intentions. We are of course, in the West, witnessing this in stark, shocking real time reality. The “freest” nation in history, the U.S., has dissolved into an object, mostly Huxlian, totalitarian financial/techno-oligarchy in less than two years. It has never been more clear nor obvious in any part of our history than now that our “leaders” are not in fact the organ grinders; and never before have so many of us had the truth of our enslavement projected into our faces with barely a cursory nod to propagandistic deception whilst so few of us seem to feel that we are either capable of doing or should do anything about it. However, I will not spend time on this point. This is a blog not so much about praxis, but theory. Until we can to some significant degree understand the nature and failures of our theological, philosophical, and political environments, our praxis is limited. And, somewhat ironically, given this point, I believe that we will come to realize that speaking, reasoning, preaching, conversing, and writing, is and has always been the best offense and defense with respect to tyranny. So, yes, maybe this blog is about praxis after all.

It’s Not About Obedience Alone, it’s About Discipleship: The ruling class demands body, mind, and soul

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, government, , ,

Recently a deranged totalitarian thug over in Australia, where they have been popping up like mushrooms lately, declared that you are an anti-vaxxer, and an enemy of public health, if you oppose the government’s injection mandate, even if you have yourself received an injection. Now, this is obvious doublespeak and completely insane by even the most rudimentary of rational standards, but nevertheless it can be explained by briefly examining the nature of the State as a function of the collectivist metaphysics upon which it is established.

Collectivist metaphysics makes it clear that the State owns you, yes, but it’s rather more profound and fundamental than that. The more precise way of putting it is that the State IS you, or that it SHALL BE you.

The State—the government; the ruling class—being the incarnation of the Collective Ideal is, again, a collective metaphysical premise. This means that “you as you”, as an individual, is a completely incongruous and invalid concept with respect to the nature of Reality. The State, on principle, rejects “you”, or “you-ness”, as a categorical lie. Thus, when it comes to what and who you are under the authority of the State, there should ideally be no distinction whatsoever. The State is you; you are the State. Your true sanctification is therefore the complete possession of you—all you have, do, think, and say—by the ruling class.

You see, your Original Sin is your innate sense of autonomous Self; your exercise of will in service to that Self is your damnable rebellion. Obedience then, by itself, is simply an act of your own will—obedience is often done merely out of self-interest, which makes it, again by itself, just another act of rebellion. To merely obey and get the injection is not real compliance. It’s not really any better than not getting the injection at all. You must agree with your heart and mind that the injection mandate is good. You must submit your will to your rulers. You must agree and promote. You must evangelize. You must take active steps to condemn, ridicule, incarcerate, and destroy those who oppose the will of the State. The State is you, and you are it.

Body, mind, and soul…anything less makes you a criminal.