Category Archives: Identity

Collectivizing Virtue: The neo-Marxist scourge of political relativism

To qualify virtue is to collectivize it. Thus, it becomes not a virtue, but a prison for the individual; an evil; a tyranny; a siren song for the immutable socialist desire for the abject destruction of the Self. Qualified virtue is only virtuous when it conforms to collectivist identity politics. It has no meaning, in other words, beyond the imperious authority of those who determine the plenary worth of human beings according to group identity, which is about as callow and subjective a marker as can be devised. But no one has or will ever accuse the socialists of being ethically or politically imaginative: “White man, bad. Brown man, good.”—which has a “Me, Tarzan. You, Jane,” sort of ring to it—is pretty much the extent of things. And this is intentional. The more remedial your ethics and your politics, the easier it is to get people to murder for them.

An example of qualifying virtue is the Western neo-Marxist political trope of “social justice”. You see, to claim distinct versions of a broad, and I would argue, a priori, virtue like Justice is of course to divide it…to make it mutually exclusive of itself. There is no such thing as justice qua justice. It ceases to be foundational to human existence, itself, but merely a cursory function of polictics. For example, in today’s neo-Marxist politics of the left, justice isn’t really justice until after its been qualified according to one’s collective identity based primarily on race. Justice is a function of politics, you see, not the other way around. Justice is soley determined by those who claim the authority to decide who is virtuous and who is not according to skin color (and to a marginally lesser extent, their sexual orientation and their religion; their IQ, gender identity, and even in some cases their weight—“fat shaming” being a modern, neo-Marxist imprecation leveled against anyone who dares assert that being overweight is in general neither healthy nor attractive…which, it isn’t).

It is completely mendacious—entirely politically self-serving—to claim that there is a meaningful distinction between justice for the individual and social (collectivized) justice. Justice is an ethical premise, and thus is rooted in the individual, not in categories of individuals, In other words, it begins and ends with the individual—with the Self—and applies thus to groups only insofar as they are groups of individuals. To collectivize justice then is to cut out the individual entirely from its scope and influence and turn it into a political weapon. Trust me, when any white, cisgendered man who doesn’t have some kind of “in” with the politcal left (as a hedge against the “original sin” of his being born white and straight) hears the words “social justice” he knows he’s in trouble. He knows that it means the opposite of justice for him. It means that justice is nothing more than a scapegoating of his race and sexuality and a call for his destruction. This makes justice, as far as it can apply to him, an existential threat and totally evil. He knows that a justice which declares him existentially unjust because he happens to have been born white and straight is an entirely subjective version of the virtue and cannot possibly, under any circumstance, be actually just. “Justice” in the contextual, collectivized, and socialist sense is nothing more than another terrible and terrorizing political irony, like “equality” or “compassion” or “gun control”.  But don’t let yourself be fooled. This impostor of justice known as “social justice” serves no one, regardless of whatever arbitrary collective identity one happens to possess. It is merely another iteration of political propaganda meant to lure humanity into the clutches of an authoritarian ruling class. No one is safe. You can tell yourself all you want that the white man is finally getting his comeuppance, but it is a very tight race between all of us. The margin is razor thin. One single documented commission of wrongthink by the black man and soon he will find himself not so black after all. In other words, anyone who dares stray from the path set for them by their neo-Marxist overlords is white.

And thus we have the dirty little secret: it isn’t white people the neo-Marxists hate, its individuals. You, no matter what your color, orientation, or creed, are a threat to the ruling class on the left (and to some extent even the right…for they are both collectivists at their philosophical root). Because you think as a single, self-aware agent—as a natural, existential “I” and not a “we’—you must be utterly subordinated to the socialists who shall govern you.

Summary and conclusion:

Contextual justice, like “social justice”, is like contextual morality—a fundamental contradiction in terms. “Contextual justice” obligates the foundational ethical premise of Justice to a subjective standard outside itself. This contradicts justice because it means that Justice is no longer the reference for what is truly just. The reference for justice becomes the capricious political category of “group identity”, which strips individuality and thus individual will and action from the virtue of Justice entirely, and makes how one is or is not declared just merely a function of whatever group into which the politcal ruling authority has placed him. Justice then no longer serves the individual but the ruling class—who in turn serve only themselves by appealing to some absolute, yet abstract, transcendent, and ethereal Collective Ideal of which they represent the earthly incarnation. The ruling authority decides who has existential value and requisitely metes out “justice” simply on the basis of what color someone happens to be, or how much money they make, or what sexual partners they prefer, or what religion they are, and so on.

To qualify virtue, like “Justice”, is to pit it against itself, and this necessarily enslaves man, the individual, to the subjective, contextual, collectivist reference by which virtue is now to be measured. Man no longer has a natural birthright to justice but instead finds himself enslaved to some fickle collectivist brand of it.

For the neo-Marxists on the left, the key it seems to delivering justice is to implicitly deny that real Justice actually exists at all.

END

A Fulcrum is Not for Balance but Imbalance: Why government implies destabilization

The seesaw…a common playground fixture; we’ve all been on one in our youth. It’s a long, often wooden, plank, with a handle on either end, resting on a fulcrum a couple of feet off the ground. Two children sit opposite each other on either end, ideally being of comparable weight, and they proceed to rock the plank up and down on the fulcrum. And this is the entire point of the thing. The fact that either end of the plank does not remain stationary is the purpose of the seesaw. The plank, you see, is not suppposed to be balanced…hence the fulcrum at the center. If the intention was to balance the plank, the fulcrum would be removed and the plank secured to a fixed point. But you cannot do this and still have a seesaw. That is, you cannot balance a plank when the very asserted and accepted fundamental nature and purpose of it is to be imbalanced.

And this contradiction—a fulcrum which is irrationally and contrarily repurposed as a balance mechanism—is a good metaphor for government. Government’s ostensible intended purpose—to bring balance to conflicting groups—is contrary to its use and observable efficacy, and this article will examine why.

The government is a fulcrum which must pivot, but is somehow—for some not too terribly rational reason which is predicated upon some not too terribly rational metaphysics—intended to bring balance (and I speak primarily of Western democracies, like the United States) to either ends of a “plank” (humanity) which is described as being in perpetual conflict (imbalance) with itself according to its nature. The point of the State then, it seems, is to balance that which cannot actually be balanced. By bringing the plank of humanity then to the fulcrum of government, we in fact focus and accentuate the conflicts endemic to humanity as a general function of humanity’s very existence, with disasterous consequences.

The overt and objective incompetency of the government to its purpose—balance—is a clear verification of this. Government fails at balance because of the metaphysics which underwrite its very existence. Man cannot be made passive, moral, or equable, because of the root insufficient nature of his existence, experienced wholly through his own singular consciousness, to apprehend reality. Man possesses an inexorable sense of individual Self which is in endless conflict with the “truth” of a collectivist reality…be this reality defined according to scientific determinism, divine/religious determinism, agnostic nihilism, or simply the depressing endless smorgasbord of politcal-economic theories which incorporate the State.

This contradiction—government which must by its own admitted purpose and presence act as a fulcrum, thus accentuating and focusing the rank vagaries of inexorable capricious and irrational human nature, but is intended as a fixed point of balance—yes, this contradiction, and the constistent stubborn attempts of man to appeal to contradiction as a means of organizing reality, is why the government fails again and again. Healthcare, welfare, education, social integrity and harnmony, equanimity, liberty, international tranquility, justice, transparency…all of the foibles of man it is intended to set right and steady it can only fuck up to the point of mass destruction. It hones and focuses the conflicts—the imbalances—of mankind by implicitly affirming them as ipso facto and then elevating them to the level of supreme ruling Authority, weilding supreme destructive violence as its method of practical implementation. You look at lady (centralized) justice and you see the blindfold and your hopes are dashed as you realized that the fact that she is blinded isn’t because she is fair but because it doesn’t matter. Her “justice” will only affirm the root and infinite injustice of man’s nature. She is blind to what he IS because the death of man—his absence from reality—is the only possible outcome of government in the end. The only way government “balances” the chaos of human existence is by elevating the chaos to the point where the species implodes in on itself and takes governemnt with it. There is great “balance” in the neverending blackness of humanity’s absence, and by extension, the absence of government. The State is the square peg to mankind’s round hole, and the government can only stubbornly force them together, persistently so, until both are ground into dust.

*

For the past…well, several millennium, humanity has decided (for reasons we shall not address here) that the State—the formal installation of a supremely violent coercive Authority—is the ideal way of bringing balance and equanimity to all manner of broadscale human conflict; and this conflict due to an inexorable, fixed, and unchangeable human insufficiency to its own existence (its degeneracy into self-annihilation absent someone or something forcing it into “right” thinking and behavior). And yet, for millennium after millennium humanity has remained blind to the slagheaps of contradiction which plague this philosophy like boils. The infinitely irreconcilable difference that men have with one another, which means the inevitable destruction of the race on the whole, are nevertheless sought to be mitigated by an Absolute Authority on High. God is not a reliable Authority because his practical manifestation on earth in realtime is too sporadic, of course, and so men establish the State to serve as God’s proxy—his incarnate Authority on earth, if you will. And we need not necessarily define God according to specifically religious terms, because what he is, really, is simply an Ideal, you see. A collective Ideal to which all men must be categorically submitted and subordinated. They cannot do it themselves, collectivist metaphysics tells us,  because of their infinitely individual perspective (their singular consciousness and volition). Thus men are forced by the violence of the State to accept the dictates of the Ideal, whether it’s “God” or the “gods”, or the “People”, or the “Workers”, or the “Race”, or the “Nation”, or “Diversity”, or whatever…it doesn’t really matter. The Collective Ideal is simply a superficial abstract placeholder for the practical Authority of the ruling class—that is, the Government.

*

The intention of the government (particularly in Western democracies) is to serve as a fixed point upon which to bring balance and stability to the inexorable social conflicts endemic to humanity according to humanity’s metaphysical identity (and this according to collectivist philosophy); but because of the inexorability of these conflicts due to the fact that they are a product of man’s absolute nature, the government in practicality becomes not a fixed point, but a fulcrum upon which to focus and acutely assert the imbalances of human existence. This magnifies and  raises the destructive consequences of the conflict by giving competing groups a position of supreme violent coercive power (the State) over which to fight and to use as a giant hammer to smash opposition. By manifesting as a fulcrum instead of the intended anchor, the government actually concedes the inexorability, inevitability, and necessity of man’s self-destructive and nihilistic nature, and wholly surrenders to the reality of it, and thus brings about the very destruction of mankind it is intended to subvert.

The rational foible of the philosophy of government is rather shocking, truth be told.

*

The governemnt becomes the hub of human conflict…an intersection where competing groups will meet and are made to to adhere to rules which dictate which side shall yield the right of way and how often and to what degree. Thus, we can already see the failure of the notion of “government-as-balance” or “government-as-anchor”. The basic practical application of the State is not to eradicate the differences between competing groups—for if that were possible according to the prevailing (collectivist) metaphysics then government would be unnecessary in the first place. On the contrary, government is declared indispensable to human kind precisely because humanity is said to be so invariably and utterly contentious according to its most fundamental essence. There is no humanity absent conflict, that is. The two are metaphysically corollary. If men were capable in and of themselves (that is, absent coercive Authority) of reconciling differences and ending conflicts, let alone eradicating them altogether, then there would be no point to installing a supreme coercive Authority to force men to get along—which of course their nature prevents them from doing anyway. (That  man’s nature categorically precludes any lasting conflict resolution is a collectivist assumption which one cannot be reminded of enough.)

*

The government is intended to reconcile differences between competing groups by acting somehow as an instrument of compromise where all groups can be heard and represented and differences resolved without having to resort to and experience the mass violence and death which must otherwise inevitably accompany such differences. Yet herein are made two critical  errors of logic which undermine the whole endeavor and validate the common proverb that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

First, we underwrite government with the metaphysics that declare man incapable of compromise and conflict resolution according to his most basic and primary nature, thus destining government to fail in its stated objective even before it begins. We can use all manner of authoritative force we want, and we do, yet man can never change his nature any more than a fish can change into a battleship. The force we bring to bear upon man can only lead inexorably to his destruction at the hands of the State, as the eradication, or the absence, of man is the only real solution to the metaphysical problem his existence presents. All governments imply a “final solution” you might say, then, and this solution is carried out to various degrees depending on the stage of evolution a given State happens to find itself in.

Second, we believe that somehow an institution of supreme Authority can have a real interest in compromise and balance; or have any real interest at all beyond that of its own Authority…Authority being, in fact, merely the practical incarnation of a monolithic collectivist Ideal (the People, the Workers, the Nation, the Tribe, the Race…etc.). The State is not an instrument of compromise, but of force. For that is what Authority is. Authority is force, and compromise is the very antithesis of force.

The governent is not a solution to human conflict, it is conflict institutionalized. It is a place where competing groups go to seize power and then use that power to crush their adversaries with the most violently efficacious means man can possibly devise. The State is not an andedote to the chaos of human nature, it is a concession of it, and the implicit acceptance of the idea that man, because his mind and will and his reason are fundamentally at odds with reality, must be annihilated in order for peace to be possible.

Not that there will be anyone around to see it and define it as such.

The nature of government is rank, crass, and uncompromising coercive force which will bring about the destruction of man according to his predestined existential failure due to his insufficient nature. Period. Man is the plank with opposing ends; government is the fulcrum upon which the opposition and imbalance is accentuated. Man’s insufficient nature and the State work together to manifest perfectly the failure of man to his own existence according to the prevailing collectivist metaphysics.

The government is the fulcrum, and remember this well: If the board ever stopped pivoting there would be no use then for governent. And thus for those of you who demand that the State bring balance to the people? Well, the government wouldn’t do it even if it could.

That’s it’s nature.

END

How Christians and Secularists Both Define You as Nothing (Part ONE)

The other day my daughters received a thank-you note from a sweet little old lady to whom they had given a small homemade gift on Easter Sunday. The valediction read “May you continue to use the gifts that God has given you.”

And within those sweet little words we find the devil. And thus began quite a long lecture—given to my girls on the spot—on the dangers of ideologies which reduce existence to an idea which enslaves them to authoritarianism for the rest of their lives. That idea is that life and existence are UNEARNED. And though Christians are more ostensibly to be blamed for this evil, the idea is in fact a foundational component of secular metaphysics as well.

Wow. Hmm. Where to even begin. This is tough. There is so, so much wrong with this that it’s like trying to determine which of a thousand maurading orcs I should decaptiate first.

Let’s start with the obvious and aforementioned presumption that one’s talents are gifts. Which implies that they are unearned. So, let’s work backwards to the premise, and from this we shall then have our conclusion as to what this really means…and we will see how sinister it is.

You want to build a cabin, but you have no tools. So someone gives you them. You don’t work for them, they are gifts. Now, you might have “earned” them in the sense that the giver must like you or at least value you as a human. So that’s something. I mean, you didn’t work for them, but you can argue that there’s some inherent value to yourself that serves as the reason why one would give you something out of the profits of their own time and labor.

So, can you call the cabin you build from gifted tools your own? Yeah. Probably. I mean, you’d have to thrown in the obligatory “I could never have done it without you” platitude pretty much every time you had the person over, but they’d be hard pressed to take any real credit for your work, or even more, to claim some kind of shared ownership of it.

What about if the materials for the cabin were gifted, too? Hmm…getting a bit harder to claim that you’re the sole owner of it. At this point, you could still call it yours, and appeal to the meaning of the word “gift” as grounds for sole property rights, but you’d probably have to give the gift-giver carte blanche when it came to using the cabin. They probably could convince you to allow them to come and go at will and to stay for as long as they felt comfortable.

What if they also gifted you the land on which to build the cabin? Now its harder still to claim it as soley yours. But still, it’s a gift, right? And a gift means that you now own the thing gifted and thus can do as you please with it.

True, perhaps in object principle. But let’s be honest, here. When that much is gifted, propriety, etiquette, social convention, and basic consideration at this point imply and, I submit, necessitate a level of gratitude that begins to bleed over into obligation. It’s “your” cabin, but only in abstract principle at this point. Still…you could make a claim based on the strict meaning of the word “gift”.

What if the food and water were also given to you so that you had the energy to build the cabin? And the clothes and the work gloves and the work boots?  And the medical insurance in case you got injured, and the pick-up truck for trips to the hardware store and lumberyard; and the gas for the truck and the insurance for it?  And the fees for the permits, and the water which will be piped into the cabin, and the electricity which will power the appliances and provide heat and air conditioning? What if all the training on how to build the cabin was also a gift? No fees. Just a free ride at the vocational school of your choice?

Well, you might still appeal to the very definition of “gift” to make the case that the cabin belongs solely to you. After all, you might argue, this is pretty much what it means to be a parent. You provide all of these things to your children so that they can go out and build their lives and you don’t necessarily claim to own the things they acquire after they leave home and start their independent lives. And true this may be, but lets’s be honest. There is still some expectation placed upon the children. All things normal, it wouldn’t be considered anything less than rank insult if the children left home, with all the knowledge and resources the parents have provided, and then declined to have anything to do with them. So, there is some quid pro quo expected, even in the parent-child context.

At this point we must begin to face the obvious. “Gift” doesn’t really imply no strings attached. In fact I would say it’s quite the opposite. Which is why when there are no strings attached to a gift, the giver usually has to make that specifically clear:

Hey, Bill. Got you this new putter. And don’t think you have to pay me back…this is my treat, and I’m not looking for you to return the favor. No sir, not one iota. No strings attached, bro.” 

Still, you could argue a technical right to categorical ownership. One is never obliged to give a gift, and thus the recipient can’t technically be obligated to provide return value. I mean, yes, you can make an ethical argument, which is compelling and is the norm in real life, but “legally” the receiver of the gift is not on the hook to return the favor at all.

So, while it’s unlikely, we could at least at this point technically say that God has given us, as gifts, the talents we have and use. It doesn’t mean that we necessarily owe him anything or that we didn’t necessarily earn the gifts. I mean, we could say that we “earned” them in the way that children earn the gifts of their parents. Certainly there is value endemic to the children in their very person that compels parents to provide nice things for them, right? And similarly God could be said to give us gifts because there is inherent value to us, in and of ourselves, that drives God’s desire to give us skills and talents and potential, right?

Sure…this is all possible, if we don’t wade any further into the quicksand of untenable Christian metaphysics. And frankly, the idea that we aren’t obligated to God in EVERYTHING and in EVERY WAY is complete anathema to the church.

Now, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I stopped here. To explore Christian metaphysis no further than this is why the Church is the rational disaster that it is. Thus far, though we are speaking technically, it still sounds relatively hunky dory. God gives us our talents as gifts because he loves us. Of course in our gratitude we’d use them “for his glory”, as they say. But we still own them, and this is because we are valuable to him.

Of course, in order for us to be valuable to God there must be an actual “we” somewhere in the equation. Meaning we must have an existence of our own, independent of God, for us to be loved and thus the recipients of his affectionate gifts.

And here is where Christain metaphysics take their inexorable sinister turn. This is where all the talk of love and value and affection and gifts goes right down the toilet. Because the truth is that there IS NO WE.  There is no “me” to me. And no “you’ to you. And you’ll see what I mean as we move further along with our cabin example.

So, we’ve already hypothesized that our resources, including clothes and food and education and tools and raw materials, are all gifts to us. Let’s take it a step further. What if your vision is also a gift. What if your very ability to see the nail in order to hit it with the hammer was given to you…you didn’t work for it, didn’t earn it. It’s a true gift. And what if your ears and hands and feet are gifts, too? And your very brain, and all therein, and thus your very capacity for learning; and the roots of that capacity, as well—your innate potential to be good at this or that…your natural, genetic proclivities, like your IQ, your talent for abstract thinking and organization, and your creativity.

Not seeing a whole lot of “you” in the mix are you now? Starting to feel a little squeezed, huh? Starting to wonder just who it is that is receiving these gifts. You’re starting to see that there is a very fine line between “you” and “that which you have been gifted”.

Well, that make senses. Because the root premise is that there is no line. Because there is no distinction. Because there is no you at all.

Your DNA is a gift. Your genes are gifts; and the interaction of the genes by which you are formed in the womb, and the atoms and molecules, and the inherent ability of these things to interact in meaningful and efficacious cause-and-effect ways…these are all gifts, too. The very ability of any of these things which make up you at your most fundamental physical root are God’s gifts. And beyond the physical then we must go, deeper and further until “gifts” comprise all of your reality, and your existence, itself. The very ESSENCE of you—the ABILITY of you to BE you—is not of you, it’s a gift. Indeed it’s no strain on credulity at this point to admit that YOU, YOURSELF, are a gift.

In other words, YOU are given by God…as a gift to YOURSELF.

But wait. That doesn’t work. YOU cannot be something God gives TO YOU. If your “you-ness” isn’t of you then there is no you in the first place in which TO GIVE YOU.

And now we have arrived. This is the whole point.

When a sweet little old lady tells you to “use the talents God has given you” she is actually implying many, many Satanic things, which is disappointing and terrifying.

She is implying that your talents, and thus ALL of the fruits of those talents is unearned. This is meant to stem the sin of “pride”, but “pride” is only sinful when it is irrational. To say I am a better man than you simply because I am rich and you are poor (I promise you I’m not, by the way) is an example of pride as a sin. To claim that a cabin I built is a wonderful cabin and to take responsibility for its beauty and functionality is NOT sinful pride. It’s merely a statement of fact: my hard work has EARNED me a beautiful cabin of which I certainly can, and I would argue MUST, be proud. But Christain metaphysics make no such distinction at all. You see, because your very talents are gifts from God, you can fundamentally take no pride of ANY kind in anything. You cannot claim to have done anything, in and of yourself; you can claim no ownership nor credit for any thing of value you create. Without your talents, you can do nothing productive…because “talents” is a broad, broad category. Everything from your intelligence and creativity to your physical deftness and dexterity, attention to detail, your wit, your ability to organize, your innate understanding of color, your conscientiousness, your photographic memory, your compassion, empathy…and on and on and on. And this evil, false, thoroughly anti-Biblical idea of “talents as gifts” or “talents on loan from God”  has been used by the church to guilt, terrify, manipulate, and exploit the masses of believers for thousands of years.

Next, the sweet old lady’s words imply that one can draw some kind of objective and verifiable distinction between “you” and “your talents”. As though there is any frame of reference for yourself ABSENT the very things that make you YOU, like your creativity and intelligence, contentiousness and organizational skills, your physical dexterity…etcetera, etcetera. These are all things that distinguish you from others. Without these things, who exactly are you to me or anyone else? Take away my wife’s tremendous organizational skills, her intelligence, her extraordinary work ethic, her compassion, her careful and caring nature, and yes, even her occasional rush to judgment, her critical disposition, and her relentless drive to finish her list of chores which never ends, and I don’t know her at all. Take away her talents, and even her foibles, and you take her away from me.

The claim that man has no innate and inherent talents that really belong to him, and BECAUSE of him, and from and to none other BUT him, represents—when followed back to its premise, and then pursued to its logical conclusion—the very death of man, and God by proxy. This is the premise: that God made YOU, entirely, completely out of nothing, or out of something completely NOT you. And thus there is nothing constant…no you QUA you, and thus you can claim NO aspect of yourself that you fundamentally own from beginning to end, and thus you can claim to have earned NOTHING that you acquire and possess in life. It doesn’t belong to you because there is no you.

This premise is the bane of man, and has been an excuse to terrify, torment, and murder human beings for thousands and thousands of years. It is evil. It is not true. It should be rejected for the rank lie that it is.

The dirty little secret behind “the gifts God has given you” is that there is NO YOU at all.  You are nothing. A placeholder for “God’s will”, or “nothing”; at best you are merely a character in the cosmic play of God’s divine determinist plan. You are an illusion…a name on a page, an actor without will. You have no Self, and therefore you have no right to anything. Not even your very existence.

In the next article I will explain why this idea, or a semantically different form of it, is loved and adored by many strains of secularists and scientific determinists the world over, who only THINK they are different from the Christains they ridicule as blind and/or stupid.

END PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has never happened because it CANNOT happen.

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

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

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

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

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

END.

 

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

And I replied:

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

Anyway…

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

END PART ONE

Memory Implants: Another impossible sci-fi trope

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

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

The power of “white privilege:

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

*

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

Now…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remeber this well, my friend:

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

No matter what color he is.

 

Man’s Identity is Not a Matter of Science (PART 2)

The previous article understandably warrants an explanation of the observer’s physical form, and how it can be rendered rationally distinct from the Self of the observer (i.e. Man qua Man/the Individual qua the Individual—the state of singular consciousness).

[Note:  Assume that a reference to the observer is a reference to man…as opposed to God, who indeed may be considered an observer, but who possesses his own unique metaphysical characteristics which aren’t particularly relevant to this article.]

The body, though I submit is corollary to the Self, is not ostensibly absolute, but rather empirical…that is, observable, where the Self is not, because nothing absolute can be observed, only reasoned.  (The Self certainly can be proven to exist, but not by using an empirical standard, but rather a philosophical one.). The observer’s body clearly exists, but is not absolute; it is relative to other bodies and objects.  The Self, however, being absolute, is not relative.  It is constant.  And thus, here I have already asserted some of the differences between the Self and the body which belongs to and empirically represents the Self in the environment (i.e. the universe on the whole).

Again, the Self is absolute, having no empirical form…no physical beginning or end.  The human body we can observe as being born and dying—as beginning in a specifically and empirically defined form and likewise ending.  Though we may speak of “ourselves” as one and the same with our bodies in common parlance, and as being born and later dying; as coming into existence and leaving it; as not being, then being, then not being, again, the philosophical truth is that the Self—that absolute essence of man BY WHICH the distinction between “I” and “other/everything else”  can be made in order that the universe and the reality therein may be referenced TO a CONSTANT—contains NO frame of reference for a beginning and/or an end; a birth and a death; not being, being, and then being again.  And further, we must include one’s body as part of the “everything else” which is distinct from the absolute singularity of the Self.  To me, the proof of the spirit/body, or consciousness/body, or mind/body dichotomy is the empirical reality of the body as an object which is relative to other bodies and other objects, and the necessity of a Constant so that those objects, including the body, which absent the Self are utterly relative, can be referenced and therefore defined.  That is, be given their own specific reality and existence by being NAMED according to the observer, whose essence is the Self.

*

Neither one’s birth nor one’s death can be experienced, because one who IS, according to his essential absolute Self, possesses no frame of reference for NOT IS.  BEING, itself, at its root, cannot experience NOT BEING.  What IS cannot transition to or from an IS NOT.  We claim that we are born and therefore must die (where “we”,  or “I”, is most commonly made the equivalent of the body instead of the Self) because these things are observed empirically, as though empiricism is the plumb line for truth, instead of reason.  Yet none of us can know birth or death—that is, BEING as a function of the ABSENCE of BEING—except by second hand observation, and cannot EVER experience the absence of being because we simply have no frame of reference for it.  It is infinitely beyond our existential capacity to know.  Ironically to some degree, birth and death do not technically meet the definition of “empirical” because there can be no DIRECT observation nor experience of them; they cannot physically/experientially EXIST to us.  And yet we speak of them as though they are indisputably a matter of fact, even though they cannot be proven true by any rationally consistent STANDARD of fact.  They are neither empirical nor are they essentially rational. They are abstract notions that are useful in some superficial contexts, but they are not in any way absolute truth.

Man simply cannot claim the reality of his existence in an unaware state, because it is only by awareness that he can make any claim at all. There is no such thing as pre or post conscious man.  “Man”  by any rational physical or philosophical definition, even using the “objective empiricism” of science, implies OBSERVATION, period.  Man is categorically the observer in his essence, never the observed.  He is therefore not a thing of science, but the author of it.

*

Unconscious natural laws cannot beget man’s mind…his consciousness, for the simple reason that they do have any frame of reference for it.  Consciousness has no meaning to that which is entirely unconscious—these laws cannot create what is mutually exclusive of them.  Further, in such a case, where man’s mind is a function of natural law, man could never devise any notions like “birth” or “death” because he, being a function of the absolute and INFINITE process of natural law, could not concieve of anything like an ENDING to what IS—that is, his own essence….his Self.  Perpetual natural law must create only that which possesses its own perpetual frame of reference.  For man to thus even THINK (his thinking a product natural law according to science) about a beginning or an end to himself contradicts the very root of the INFINITE and ABSOLUTE processes of natural law.

However, the Consciousness, or the conscious Self, CAN create the ABSTRACTION of natural law, because it—that is, the Self, that is, the observer—serves as the reference for the otherwise utterly relative objects in the environment which he observes.  And by his infinite conscious reference, he can create any concept he likes to describe this environment, even a “beginning” or an “ending”, because this is precisely what the Self, being the source of conceptualization and consciousness, DOES.  It abstracts, giving meaning and purpose to the otherwise purposeless, meaningless, and utterly RELATIVE environment in which its body resides.

The meaning and purpose of all things is a product of conceptualization…indeed, the declaration that a thing IS is a product of conceptualization.  This ability of man, unique to him amongst all living things, is why he claims consciousness.  The ability to conceptualize, which I submit is the fundamental essence of man’s identity, declares what IS, and thus declares what IS DOES, including “being unconscious”.

Consciousness implies the ability to conceptualize (and vice versa), and conceptualization, in order to be relevant and meaningful, implies reason, which is simply the non-contradictory integration and combination of concepts in order to form TRULY meaningful ideas.  And it is from reason then that we get truth, which is the rational definition of what IS and what IT DOES.  From truth we get ethics.  Ethics is simply the designation of what IS and what IS DOES in terms of meaning—meaning at root implying morality, which is the purview of ethics.  Another way of saying this is that ethics describes the essential MEANING of what IS and what IS DOES.

Which begs the question:  Means to whom?

And thus what we are really asking is:  What is the MEANINGFUL reference for the TRUTH of those things which are said to exist?  In other words, who makes truth true and meaningful?  Moreover, assuming that science declares objective truths regarding nature, to whom does it owe its objectivity and its truthfulness?  By what reference is the reality it describes rationally and meaningfully real?

The answer is the observer.  And the observer is I.  It is You and Me.  It is the Self.  Man qua man.

END.

 

 

Man’s Identity is Not a Matter of Science (Part One)

Obviously science is useful…clearly its efficacy is there for all to see, for thousands of years. But science can only describe that which is observed, it cannot describe the observer.

The importance of this cannnot be overstated.

Without the observer, there is no frame of reference by which to describe reality scientifically. That is, absent the observer qua observer (i.e. the observer not described and defined by the very scientific processes he is observing) the question begged is: to what or to whom can we reference the machinations of the universe which are said to be governed and defined according to the processes of natural law? Absent the observer, how are all object actions and interactions not infinitely relative? For example, does the earth really revolve around the sun in a universe which has no fixed boundary unless there exists an observer to say it is so, with respect to the needs and the expediencies of HIS vantage point?

The answer is no, it does not.

And neither does the sun revolve around the earth.  The relationship between sun and earth is infinitely relative. Absent the observer, there is no fixed location of ANY object in a universe which possesses no fixed boundary.

I submit that the only non-relative entity in existence which thus can serve as the reference for the (otherwise) infinitely relative movements (action/interaction) of objects in the universe is “I”.  That is, the sense of one’s utter Self…the IS of You and Me…the Root of one’s being. Self. This is the only immovable, fully absolute existing Plumb Line to which all scientific laws can be referenced, and thus it is the Self of the observer by which these laws receive every ounce of their relevance. Absent the Self-aware observer, it is impossible that scientific truths can be known, and therefore impossible that they be called true. That which is not known cannot be declared true—for it cannot be true if it is not true TO a CONSCIOUS reference; if it is not true TO ANYONE, then such a “truth” is wholly irrelvant…which, “irrelevant truth” is a contradiction in terms. A truth which can never be shown nor proven nor applied TO ANYONE is simply a truth which is not true.

And it is the observer, and only the observer, who knows and declares and applies. Truth is Knowledge and Application (relevance), and both of these are a function of the observer, period.

Science, then, if it is indeed true and also contains truths, is thus necessarily a function of the observer, and not the other way around. It is not a matter of discovery, but description. That is, scientific law is not found, it is created…by the observer. The conscious observer, by his powers of conceptualization and therefore language, rooted in the “I” of Individual existence, creates scientific truths from reason. He defines, in rationally consistent ways, to and from himself, that which promotes himself…that which is for himself, so that he may promote his own existence and his own root existential Truth, and absolutely so, according to the (utterly reasonable) metaphysics which demand him. A law of nature, then, devoid of the reference of the observer, is not discovered, as though an ethereal and transcendent natural “process” which resides in some utterly theoretical inky black nothingness beyond and ironically exclusive of man and his universe creates some kind of meaningful relationship between the completely relative existent objects in that universe. The observer, by the reference point of Self and by his powers of conceptualization and language, percieves his environment and gives definition and meaning to the relative relationships between and amongst his body and all other objects which act and interact with each other in that environment. Because of the observer and his absolute and immovable frame of reference of Self, the relationship between objects and all of their infinite parts is utterly relative no more, and thus can now be named, defined, and given purpose. The observer makes nature true, not the other way around. Indeed, the observer creates like God, or as God, perhaps…he by his nature brings into being a universe which otherwise cannot exist, because it can possess no Truth apart from him. And that which has no Truth can likewise have no existence; to say that something IS, which is the sole convention and prerogative of the observer, is the most fundamental truth claim of them all.