Category Archives: collectivism

The Dissident Right Doesn’t Understand Individualism: Exposing the ignorance of Auron MacIntyre

collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, dissident right, Uncategorized, , , , ,

Auron MacIntyre is a dissident right (DR) thought leader and political commentator…one of the few that has gone “mainstream” as it were, in that he works for The Blaze, which is a Glenn Beck rag…I mean, if that’s your idea of mainstream. The Blaze may be as mainstream as it gets for the DR, I predict, unless they decide to tamp down on the national socialism, which is unlikely unless they plan on doing the old political “bait and switch” to rope in enough suckers to put them into power. I mean, the only place to go besides national socialism is libertarianism, communism, or classical conservatism (or some variant of these), and none of them particularly scream “dissident”, today. So national socialism it is, I guess. At least Auron MacIntyre is unassuming and milquetoast enough to make it seem less threatening. Dave the Distributist is probably better in this regard, but he can’t pronounce words. Ergo, Auron is the dissident “celebrity”.

Er…congrats?

Whatever.

Auron is your typical middle-class, lily-white millennial intellectual—midwit idealism, facile, erudite, and possessing some skill at making the obvious (that which is clear to any run-of-the-mill conservative) seem more profound. In other words, a penchant for bullshit which is unique to his generation of political thinkers.

He has a gentle, non-threatening demeanor and his content is easily digestible, making for one who can smoothly and comfortably disseminate and reflect the DR’s utterly predictable ideology. He burdens neither himself nor his audience with any pesky bugaboos such as complex ideas, illustrations, or explication. How nice of him.

About a year ago, I was listening to one of Auron’s videos—I cannot remember which—wherein he blamed the current rise of Western communism and the consequent moral chaos and social misery on “individualism”.

Which, no, wasn’t a joke. You might think so, but he actually believes it. He actually thinks that today’s global communist hellscape is a product of the categorical antithesis of the collectivism which utterly informs this hellscape.

And then I started thinking…and after only a few moments, not to brag or anything, I realized the problem: Auron MacIntyre doesn’t know what individualism is. I mean really…as in, he doesn’t get that philosophies are formed from primaries and premises that concern the nature of man and reality and that these are what’s known as “metaphysics” and that to truly understand what you are talking about politically you must understand the metaphysics, especially if you fancy yourself a public intellectual tasked with effectively guiding a dissenting political movement, because if you don’t you’ll wind up making an embarrassment of yourself on YouTube by saying something foolish like “individualism is responsible for New World communism” and prove to everyone that your time would be better spent mowing lawns or doing some other less intellectually-demanding task…that is putting it mildly.

By “individualism”, you see, Auron means “solipsism”…which isn’t individualism at all. This solipsism he blames on enlightenment-based classical Western liberalism which informs Western so-called “representative” democracies. You know, John Locke’s whole “the individual is the smallest political unit and the State should consider him thus and govern in the interest of his inalienable right to life, liberty, and property and blah, blah, blah…” or something to that effect.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with Auron that this kind of thinking is indeed the root of the West’s current political trauma, but it is not because “representative democracies” are rooted in individualist philosophy, but because the enlightenment philosophy which spawned classical liberalism which in turn spawned the Western “representative” democracies which are now morphing into a global communist tyranny is not in fact individualist, but an inevitability failed attempt to synthesize individualist ethics with collectivist metaphysics. Western democracies thus are not a manifestations of individualism, or individualist metaphysics, but of collectivist metaphysics which attempt to make the individual the Collective Ideal to which the State will compel the masses. In other words, today’s Western “representative” democracies are nothing more than collectivism in individualist clothing.

Now, because they are manifestations of collectivism in disguise you might be tempted to excuse Auron’s ignorance. I assert that he is nevertheless culpable because the collectivism, while disguised, it is only very, very thinly disguised. Anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear can perceive the lie from a mile away. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing…if the “sheep’s clothing” consisted of a ten-cent plastic sheep mask affixed with a rubber band, and nothing else. So Auron isn’t understandably mistaken, he is willfully ignorant…and there is simply no excuse. Anyone who asserts himself, implicitly or explicitly, as a political thought leader speaking on individualism is obligated to discern the actual metaphysical differences between individualism and collectivism…and should be able to do this in their sleep. Auron, on the other hand, cannot seem to do it in a video that he produced, reviewed, and edited. Scary.

If Auron truly understood the difference between individualism and collectivism he would understand that individualism could never give rise to a communism government, or any government of any kind, for many reasons, the most obvious one being that individualist metaphysics do not, by definition, imply the group. Thus, one is left wondering how he concludes that you get centralized political hegemony and rank sociopolitical unity from a philosophy which rejects group-identity as having any legitimate metaphysical value whatsoever. In other words, individualism asserts that the group can never truly, properly, or legitimately represent or express the natural, existential interests of the individual; only the individual is a legitimate expression of the individual. The group—the collective—is a mere subjective, contextual, and tertiary function of the individual; the individual is never a function of the group. The “group” in the individualist sense is simply any number of individuals cooperating in service to a given subjective interest, period. There is nothing of law or obligation or duty or reward or punishment or collective identity or collective value or collective responsibility anywhere to be found in any real and rational definition of individualism. These are entirely collectivist premises…and they are premises in which today’s Western communism is obviously and ineluctably rooted. Auron’s assertion that this communism is a function of individualism is laughable…and worse, it is an intellectual abomination. He should be embarrassed.

Back to his conflation of solipsism with individualism…which is, metaphysically, the impossible and contradictory idea of the Self as the Collective Ideal. This lie—this convenient lie—is a bit of insipid collectivist propaganda—a straw man fallacy—to convince people that individualism is a great bringer of human calamity against which only a strong Socialist or National Socialist State can be erected as an effective hedge. It’s a lie as old as Genesis.

The idea that you will get communist political tyranny by appealing to individualism, properly defined, is rank foolishness. Individualism, properly and rationally understood and established, means that the individual qua the individual is the only thing capable of truly and legitimately representing his own objective political interests. This rationale drawn out means that individualist politics must be entirely cooperative, never coercive. The individual shall not be compelled by violence, threats of violence, fraud, legal obligation, collective obligation, or punishment into any collective political identity…he has no metaphysical, rational, ethical, or political obligation to the group whatsoever. No Global Community, no National Identity, no Class, no Race, no Tribe, no Club, etcetera has any legitimate, rational, or moral claim of any kind whatsoever upon his mind, body, or spirit, period, full stop, ever. There is no legitimate ruler, king, queen, or ruling class ever, anywhere. There is no Authority; there is no submission. Ethics are moral, not legal. Politics are categorically voluntary. Ethical violation bring moral consequence (for violating one’s neighbor), not legal punishment (for violating the Legal Authority).

To assert that the rise of Western communism is to be blamed on this philosophy is risible and intellectually criminal. In doing this, Auron MacIntyre has shown that he is completely unfit for his chosen profession…unless we consider his profession to be “propagandist”…then give that man a raise.

*

Individualism, again by definition, precludes any root metaphysical value or legitimacy to any group. Thus, it is completely impossible for individualism to produce communism, which, as a collectivist philosophy, necessitates group identity as a person’s root metaphysical expression, and the Collective Ideal as the foundation of the sociopolitical apparatus. This being so, it begs the question: How in the hell did Auron MacIntyre allow himself to get so confused? That is, assuming he actually believes the nonsense he peddles.

Again, it all goes back to the confusion and conflation of solipsism with individualism. He thinks that anyone claiming to be an individualist is asserting that he, the individualist, is the only thing that actually exists. In other words, all things, and especially all other people, are illegitimate expressions of reality unless and until they are made to serve, or become an extension, better said, of one’s Self. Auron’s “individualism” is really just narcissism, philosophized. One’s Self is the metaphysical root, and all “else” is simply a direct function, and direct expression, of “Self”. And what has happened, Auron thinks, is that classical liberalism—rooted in enlightenment philosophy, materializing in a government that exists to promote the individual—has created a generation of narcissistic citizens living in a solipsistic society, creating a culture of moral relativism producing rank degeneracy, thus producing the fertile soil in which to grow leftist political opportunists who exploit the social instability and manipulate the people into atomized, deracinated masses existing purely to serve the hedonistic whims of the ruling communist class.

You see, to Auron, individualism = classical liberalism (libertarianism) = moral relativism (hedonism, degeneracy, irreligion) = national and social disintegration = communism. That’s his equation, and it’s the philosophical equivalent of 2+2=5. It’s complete nonsense from top to bottom…because Auron doesn’t see what should be obvious to any political philosopher asserting himself as among the intellectual class: that his definition of individualism isn’t actually individualism at all, but is, in fact, collectivism. And while this may not be entirely clear to the random layperson, Auron is a professional thinker who has risen to the status of Dissident Right celebrity…and he doesn’t know elementary metaphysics. He is unable to discern the basic real difference between individualism and collectivism, which are the only two metaphysical categories that matter with respect to human existence. This is profoundly problematic, and it reduces his philosophy to Sesame Street levels of seriousness. Be a collectivist…be a National Socialist if that scratches your weird and creepy itch—it’s your right to think and speak what you want, but at the very least you should be able to define what you believe, what you don’t, and know the difference.

Now, if you have read any of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of my articles on this blog you will know that I have explained what collectivism is many, many times, but here it is again in a nutshell…and I don’t really tire of writing it because it is so important: Collectivism is the philosophy informing every single government which exists or has ever existed, anywhere, at any time. It establishes a Collective Ideal as the metaphysical primary from which, by which, and of which all of reality, especially and including mankind, has its direct essence and existence. In other words, all things and all men are, in their proper place, expressions of the Collective Ideal, in totality. There is to be no relevant nor practical distinction…no relationship, no corollary. All is the Collective Ideal.

The Collective Ideal, being utterly abstract—transcendent, divine, and beyond the frame of reference of human consciousness—is a mystical archetype, thus it can be almost anything. The most common broad, or general, Collective Ideal is “The People”; a more specific example is “The Working Class”. The individual, possessing a singular conscious frame of reference, is, in his root nature, a natural born enemy of the Collective Ideal. His sense of Self is his Original Sin. His individuality is a rank offense to the Collective Ideal, which does not see individuality as a legitimate expression of Reality. His Consciousness and its corollaries, will and choice, must be nullified and destroyed, then he must be absorbed into the Collective…he must become an extension of the Collective Ideal, and this is realized by his categorical obligation and obedience to the One Group, enforced and coerced by the Ruling Class—the State—which exists as the incarnation of the Collective Ideal to the masses. Men must all belong to and become a function of the One Group—the Group must have no parts, so to speak. The Collective is not an “us” but an “IS”.

As I said, this is accomplished by the State. A ruler, or a ruling class, is established (assumes power) to enforce Collectivist Ethics, known as the Law (Legality…as opposed to Morality), to which the the masses (the “unwashed” individuals) shall be obligated by violence, threats of violence, and punishment. The State—government of the ruling class—represents the materialization of the Collective Ideal into tangible reality. As far as the masses are and are to be concerned, there is simply no practical distinction, period. The ruling class is the Collective Ideal; the Collective Ideal is the ruling class. The ruling class thus becomes, for all practical purposes, The People, The Working Class, The Nation. the Race, Climate Justice, Social Justice, The Church, etcetera. The ruling class, in other words, is God to the masses, and the masses exist solely at the , whim and pleasure of its divine Authority. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is thus: if the Collective Ideal is God, the ruling class is Christ.

This is Collectivism; and the description herein is Collectivist metaphysics…in brief summary, of course. So from this, let us remember Auron MacIntyre’s interpretation of Individualism and then ask ourselves just what exactly the difference is between that and collectivism.

The answer is: there isn’t any. Auron’s definition of individualism is simply collectivism, where the Collective Ideal is the Self. One’s Self, being solipsistic in its metaphysics, and not individualist, represents that from which all others are a direct function and expression, and to which they shall be obliged whether they like it or not. This “individual” thus believes that he may commit any number of moral crimes against his fellow man, because his ”fellow man” is a lie. Only “I” exists…the “individuality” of others is an existential fraud and must be subsumed into “Self”.

As I said, this is merely collectivist metaphysics in individualist clothing. It is a complete lie to say that this solipsistic “individualism” has anything whatsoever to do with actual individualism. Like a tin wagon has anything to do with a battleship. Bollocks.

Yet there is no surprise here…Auron would define individualism this way. His ignorance is a function of his collectivist ideology. In other words, an ideologue always defines other ideas from the “immutable” frame of reference of his own (false) assumptions, which, being fundamentally a function of mysticism with a gnostic epistemology, do not possess any “null hypothesis”…which is just a fancy way of saying that the ideologue will never accept any reasonable criticism of his mystic beliefs precisely because those beliefs are not a function of reason in the first place. “An insane person cannot be reasoned out of his insanity” you might say. Thus, Auron, being a collectivist—which means an ideologue, because collectivist metaphysics are not rational, ever, in any iteration, and thus are mystical, and thus all collectivists are ideologues, not reason-ists—not only would, but only ever could define individualism from a collectivist frame of reference. That is, he would and only could define what an individual is according to a collectivist metaphysical interpretation. Which, being mutually exclusive of individualism at the root metaphysical level, must necessarily define it incorrectly, because it doesn’t understand it, because it can’t, which means Auron can’t. Collectivist metaphysics consider the individual—the Self of human singular consciousness…one’s singular conscious frame of reference—an illegitimate expression of reality…a lie and a fraud and a threat to “truth”. And in Auron’s case, a threat to the American Nation

And it is from this irrational, ideological, and mystical metaphysical frame of reference that most people approach reality, humanity having lived under the auspices of government and ruling classes for nearly the whole of human existence, and thus not really knowing anything different, and Auron is no exception. Which is precisely why, when confronted with the evil that is today’s leftist communism, his solution is simply to lie to himself and become an obverse version of the opposition. He fights collectivist ideology with more collectivist ideology. His solution isn’t freedom…though he thinks it is—he is lying to himself. His solution is to reframe and rebrand his overtly collectivist enemy as a manifestation of individualism, and then declare, implicitly or explicitly, that we need a strong, collectivist response to the evil of global, communist “individualism”. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Well…Auron doesn’t…because he is an ideologue, and rational consistency is simply not the means by which ideologues discern between what is true and what isn’t. He addresses his hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance not by seeing his rational error and correcting it, but by appealing to the mysticism of his metaphysics, which instead of seeing the rival Collective Ideal (e.g. the Communist World as opposed to the Nation State) as mere an iteration of his own collectivist metaphysics and then dealing with the hypocrisy accordingly, he simply rebrands it an invasion of “individualism” and condemns it. In other words, he takes the lazy way out. This is not a philosopher or thought leader, its a propagandist. And it is so very violent.

*

When you ask anyone, “Why does man need government?”, the answer is almost always some version of, “Well, we can’t just let people do whatever they want”. In other words, if we let human beings do “whatever they want” we will get rank psychopathy; and, if left to itself, outside the Authority of the Collective Ideal and its ruling class, humanity writ large will collapse and disintegrate under the weight of its own natural-born intellectual and moral perversion. In other words, man’s individuality—his Self, his frame of reference of singular consciousness—is insufficient to his own existence.

America, and the West in general, if we are to believe in the best of intentions—which, frankly, is a big “if”—have attempted to buck the idea of the “insufficient individual” and establish “representative” democracies to form governments that promote the “enlightened” version of individuality, and legislate the “People” in the interest of “inalienable individual rights”.

This…er…hasn’t worked, to say the least.

The United States, for example, once the smallest, most minarchist government in the world is now by far the largest, and rivaled in history perhaps only by the British Empire, which at least had the corresponding flashy pomp and ceremony. I mean, seriously, leave it to the Americans to create the only boring empire in history. And a stupid one.

At any rate, the Founding Fathers would certainly blush in embarrassment (or envy) at the hulking, monolithic, centralized abomination that their “enlightened” experiment has become. The experiment was a giant fail, to say the least.

Now, people think that the American socialist juggernaut is a deviation from its philosophical roots, but this is a lie. On the contrary, what we have today is a direct function of them, and can be traced via a direct line right back to the Constitution. That’s an easy bull’s eye, quite frankly. The socialist nightmare with which Auron now has to content on his home turf is not in spite of foundational American political principles, but a product of them.

The reason why is multi-faceted, but it it includes a rather simple and intuitive explanation…one which can be inferred from the information already written in this essay. At the heart of the United States of America is, like all nations, its government. The United States was always going to have a government, and thus the United States was always going to be rooted in collectivist metaphysics, regardless of how vociferously and genuinely its founders and political leaders espoused the virtues of individualism. Because government is always and only a manifestation of collectivist metaphysics. Always and only. Period. Full stop. Individualism simply does not recognize coercion as a legitimate means by which anything is achieved in the interest of the individual, ever, under any circumstance, and government is by nature and purpose coercive, Ever. Thus, governments and ruling classes are simply out of the question. Period. Full stop.

This being the case, the United States government, and the “enlightened” West in general, was only ever going to define and promote the “individual” according to collectivist terms. Whether they knew it or not.

And what are these collectivist terms?

They are the terms which say that individuals are insufficient to their own existence because they are, in their natural state, violent, self-serving, rapacious, pernicious, licentious, arrogant, narcissistic, solipsistic, psychopathic, thoughtless, mindless, morally degenerate, and hedonistic.

So…a society ruled by a government which exists to promote the “individual” is going to look like what, do you think? And what kind of people are going to rise to positions of prominence and authority in such a society?

Go to your television, computer, phone, newspaper, window…favorite social media site, Netflix. Spend a few moments looking around.

Exactly.

Welcome to the nightmare. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Auron is right to be concerned; and he’s not wrong in his description of the problem. I have called America the “perfect tyranny”—meaning that it is collectivist metaphysics taken to their purest, most rarified conclusion: absolute epistemological and ethical chaos. America is the object legal declaration of rank hedonism. For a government to exist to promote the “collectivist individual” means to legislate—to enforce and promote by State violence—pure evil. It is the state-sponsored utter rejection of Truth, God, and Reality writ large. It is legally enforced insanity. If you thought mid-20th century Germany or Russian was bad? Just wait.

So, yes…it is not Auron’s description that is the problem. As I said, he is right to be concerned. It’s his metaphysical analysis and solution which are the problem, because they are entirely hypocritical. What the West is doing and becoming today isn’t individualism, it is collectivism, and always has been. It’s the “Self” as the Collective Ideal…which isn’t the Self at all.

Individualist metaphysics are not solipsistic at all. Without getting into the details, because this is already getting too long, individualist metaphysics do not consider other people—other persons…other Selves—as existentially and morally inferior to one’s Self, and illegitimate, but instead corollary. In other words, to deny Others—to deny the sanctity and validity of the person, mind, spirit, and property of Others—is to deny one’s Self. Thus, it goes without saying that individualist metaphysics necessarily preclude the establishment of a State, which exists to co-opt these things in service to the Collective Ideal (meaning the ruling class) by violence…and it masks this moral affront by calling it “enforcing the Law”, and the law is purely the collectivist Ethic.

In true individualism there is no government, no ruling class, no aristocracy, no king…because there is no Collective Ideal to be made incarnate in order to compel mankind out of its “false Self” and into its proper “Collective Identity” in order to “save” “them”. In other words, human beings are born entirely sufficient to their own existence, with a conscious frame of reference which is by nature capable of apprehending Truth and Value and willfully acting in service to them according to itself. Man is able in his natural Self, not evil, and therefore does not need to be forced and coerced by some gnostic Authority into “right thinking and behavior”.

Governments, always a function of collectivism, not individualism, are utterly antagonistic to humanity, not its protector and provider; and represent its enslavement, not its freedom; and its destruction, not its salvation. In a truly individualist society where “people can do whatever they want” moral degeneracy—rape, theft, fraud, murder, etcetera—are anathema, and bring swift moral consequence, and are categorically incompatible because they represent a rejection of the rational definition of “they”. Meaning that if I do whatever I want, but what I want and what I do is the violation of my neighbor (my fellow man), then I have in fact rejected myself, and thus there is no longer a legitimate moral “I” or “Self” anywhere in the equation. I have ceased to be a man and have become death to my neighbor, and he is not obligated to suffer me. He is morally justified, and even morally obliged to protect himself and his fellow man, even if it means destroying me. Incarceration, banishment, death—these are moral consequences in an individualist society, not punishment, and I have earned them by willfully committing the crime of violating my neighbor and thus denying my Self in the process, becoming no longer a man, but an evil presence, which must rationally and morally be resisted. Thus, there is no useful nor justifiable hedonism or moral relativism in an individualist society, nor any government to inflict these by law. There are only persons, not “the People”, who together cooperate for their own good, and thus by natural, corollary extension the good of others.

Auron MacIntyre doesn’t understand individualism. Individualism could never give rise to a communist State; it couldn’t give rise to any State. Auron thinks his enemy is the left and the left’s “individualism”—its “individualist ethos”—but in reality it is himself…in the form of his foundational collectivist metaphysics. And thus, if he and his ideological comrades on the dissident right get their way, they shall inevitably become a manifestation of that which they hate.

Or at least pretend to hate.

END

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

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.

Why the State Cannot Fix Anything (On the Aggregate): The reason behind the chaotic and destructive consequences of government

collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, , ,

“Anything” is a function of “everything”, therefore whatever problems or challenges happen to arise, crime or climate or education or pandemics or whatever, they are a product of reality…a product of that which IS.

I know this seems pretty meta, but stay with me.

The State is always the incarnation of a Collective Ideal, which is an abstract, transcendent, divine-like progenitor of all that IS as we know, experience, and sense it, including, naturally, ourselves…think the People, the Race, the Tribe, the Church, the Marxist Utopia, the Climate, Social Justice, Diversity…anything, really, from the hyper-abstract (e.g. the Divine Will) to the more pedestrian (e.g. the Common Good). This being the case, the State, in essence, as far as we shall be concerned, and certainly and most of all as far as the ruling class is concerned, is, itself, all that IS. The State exists to compel all of humanity and by extension humanity’s environment (the world and Universe) into itself. The State exists to bring everything into itself; to possess all that IS; to becomes ALL. The great Sin of man is that he possesses an awareness of Self distinct from the Collective Ideal, which is Divine, and the great Sin of the world and the Universe is that it gives man a place to manifest his Self. The purpose of the State is to sanctify man and his environment, and it does this by deconstructing both, by violence and deception, and then consuming them.

Now, lest you think that this insanity is simply a function of particularly evil, deranged, or ignorant rulers, know that it is in fact a function of the very nature of the State. The State is a necessary consequence of collectivist metaphysics, and the necessary consequence of collectivist metaphysics is destruction and death. No matter who is in charge, or noble the intention, the nature of the State is rigidly fixed to the philosophical premises from which it springs.

The nature of the State makes it entirely incapable of correctly defining anything at all, because what IS is always filtered through then lens of collectivist philosophical madness. The true nature of what IS is, as I said, rejected and replace with that of some kind of “original sin” of rebellion from the Collective Ideal; and “fixing” things only ever means forcing them into absolute and categorical subordination. Which is of course impossible because the terms by which the State defines reality and everything in it are complete lies. The State cannot correctly define reality and therefore it cannot correctly define what constitutes a problem and therefore it cannot correctly define what constitutes a solution.

The consequences of any State action to address problems in the world and society and man are only, inevitably, chaos, torment, misery, and death, because these are the only consequences its nature can allow.

Humanity’s Hierarchy, Essentially Unchanged From the Beginning to Now

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics

Prophets:

Describe and dictate the Will and the Law (Dictated Truth; Dictated Ethic) of the Transcendent Collective Ideal—That from which all Men and Reality are directly sprung, and That to which all Men and Reality shall be subordinated and sacrificed. (E.g. The People, The Proletariat, the Church, the Tribe, The Race, The Nation, Diversity and Equity, Social Justice, The Environment, even “God” or The Gods, The Common Good.)

Priests:

Generally the ruling class; the Government; the State. Organizes (centralize, manage, regulate) society in accordance with the Dictated Truth and Ethic of the prophets. Becomes the Incarnation of the Transcendent Collective Ideal to humanity under its influence (which is ideally to be all of humanity).

Soldiers:

Military, police, paramilitary, mob, “deputized” criminal, imported foreign hoard, mercenary, etc. Enforce the Dictated Truth and Ethic laid down by the Prophets and organized by the Priests; use violence and threats of violence, which are legalized and legitimized by the Authority of the Prophets and Priests, to compel behavior in service to the Ideal.

Disciples:

The “law-abiding” citizen; the “accepted servant” of the Prophets and Priests; the Obedient Masses. These are perpetually and pervasively depraved, yet are given periodic conditional absolution through their performance of ritual and sacrifice, as well as regular expressions of servility and subservience.

Unwashed:

Those deemed by the Prophets and Priests as outside of salvation and as-of-yet eschewed by the Transcendent Collective Ideal. Treated as criminals and summarily punished and tortured if possible (if within the practical scope of the prophets and priests), either to be destroyed or eventually habilitated or rehabilitated into the disciple class. Law-breakers, critics, resistant ones, skeptics, or those simply outside of the practical authority of the prophets and priests. These are unredeemed, not necessarily irredeemable

Apostates:

The excommunicated. This group is usually comprised of those who were once respected members of the other classes (minus the unwashed) but for some reason have been declared irredeemable and forever condemned by the Transcendent Collective Ideal. The hopeless, the miserable, the hell-bound.