Breaking down the anti-life, anti-individual roots of government in audio. This is a reading of the past posts on why benevolent government is impossible, with quite a bit of editing and commentary.
Category Archives: individualism vs collectivism
The White Man is WHITENESS: What James Lindsay doesn’t tell you about being white
Link to the youtube audio…I speak extemporaneously on this. I’m not the best extemporaneous speaker…hope you forgive me. I’m working on it!❤️
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5r4otWyiDac&feature=shares
America: The Perfect Tyranny
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
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
The Genocidal Implications of “Diversity”
Once we begin to think about diversity as something which must be broadly applied to society and the state via the vanguard of public institutions then it is no longer a mere adjective (e.g. “the restaurant had a diverse selection of entrees; the army filled its ranks from diverse age groups”), it is an ideology. That is, it seeks to fundamentally organize and value humanity according to an Idealized vision…the manifestation of the Ideal of Diversity. Diversity the Ideal is the transcendent ontological absolute, which dictates and spawns all things. Diversity” is “God”, so to speak—the transcendent, perfect, absolute IS; and the Idealization of Diversity is the way in which society (and all else for that matter) shall properly reflect and promote this “God”.
Diversity, I submit, is entirely a product of collectivist metaphysics, making it a Collective Ideal. Individuals are thus compelled and propagandized to reject their own existential frame of reference—their individual Self—and are placed into a collective identity. Their existence is utterly managed by a central Authority; this Authority is the practical incarnation of the transcendent “God” of Diversity, in service to manufacturing a society which perfectly reflects the Diversity Ideal. In short, Diversity is “God”; the ruling class—the state/the government—is its power on earth to bring society and the world into submission to it; idealization is the blueprint for how this shall happen and what it shall look like.
Knowing this then, it is not too far a stretch to imagine just how taking “Diversity” to its logical conclusion must mean genocide. And as long as Diversity is that which the state is committed to pursuing, that logical conclusion is inevitable.
The question which is thus begged is this: What is it about current society which demands the need for Diversity? That is, what is observed by the collectivist ideologues that leads them decide that there is a problem and that Diversity is the solution?
Well…I submit that the answer is about as obvious as any answer can be, not in the least because their are only very specific locations in the world where “Diversity” is the solution to what is considered an acute existential threat, and that place is the West, and most especially that which is broadly described as the “Anglo-sphere”. In other words, the problem is white people…as far as I am aware, there are no calls for “Diversity” in places where white people are either absent or represent no political significance.
Now, I know that some might boil “Diversity” down to the simple need to reduce the influence of white people in any given context, and this translates into the mere reduction of white people in number relative to non-whites. This is true, to some extent. In some sense, yes—according to the ideology, the degree to which Diversity is successfully manifest is inversely related to the number of white people around. In other words, the fewer the white people relative to non-white, the greater the degree of Diversity. However, it goes deeper than that, unfortunately.
Taking that Diversity means a reduction of whites relative to non-whites, let’s think about this.
It is quite sobering, especially if you happen to be white, to realize that the implementation of Diversity means as much the absence of white people as it does the presence of non-white people. This tells us that Diversity is specifically and fundamentally opposed to white people because the ideology can be satisfied as much by removing white people as by adding non-whites. Now, we could make the argument that it is the mere preponderance of white people which necessitates Diversity, but this implies that the reduction of the number of white people to zero fully satisfies it. And why shouldn’t it? There are too many white people, that’s the problem. By definition, therefore, entirely eliminating white people fixes the problem. There is no longer a preponderance of white people if white people don’t exist.
Some may argue that that position is much too extreme and that I’m overreacting. They will say that were we to eliminate white people entirely then there would no longer be Diversity. Diversity, they say, is inclusive by definition, not exclusive.
They may truly believe this, but it is nevertheless a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Diversity. The very existence of whites is why Diversity must be implemented in the first place. The existence of whites is the problem, period. To say that it is fundamentally about the number of whites and not the existence of whites obscures the issue. The number of whites is a direct function of the existence of whites, not the other way around. If you eliminate whites entirely then there is no longer a problem that Diversity needs to correct, which is why you do not see the ideology of Diversity being pushed in areas, nations, communities, etc. where whites are either absent entirely or so few in number as to be completely sociopolitically insignificant. Therefore, to say that Diversity shall be satisfied by simply reducing the number of whites to some given point is a lie…Diversity is an ideology, not a mathematical formula. It isn’t about numbers, it’s about manifesting the Ideal. Ideology is a zero sum context…it is all or nothing; you cannot compromise with ideology. Ideology demands a perfect manifestation of the root metaphysical primary, in this case Diversity. Diversity is needed because there are too many white people, and the number of white people is a direct function of the existence of white people. A perfect solution to the problem of whites, then, and thus a perfect satisfying of the Diversity Ideal, is to end the existence of whites.
Furthermore, if one makes the argument that the problem is the number of whites relative to the number of non-whites, then one must ask the obvious question: what number of whites is acceptable? If one were to answer something to the effect of: whites should not be represented in any given context—politics, media, entertainment, employment, education, etc.—beyond that of their overall population percentage, well, this begs a further question. Let’s say that whites represent one hundred percent of the population, and therefore shall represent one hundred percent of any given context. Is there still a need for Diversity?
The answer to this question is certainly!
First of all, if whites represent one hundred percent of the population then by definition that society is not diverse, and so Diversity is demanded. Next, if one answers “no”, then whites can represent one hundred percent of of the population without the need for Diversity—if this is the case, then there is no reason why Diversity is needed in a population where whites are a merely a preponderance. Finally, If one answers “no”, then it implies that the existence of whites is not a reason for Diversity, which means that there can be no particular number of whites which implies a need for Diversity, since, again any number of whites is a direct function of the existence of whites. Again, the need for Diversity is not at root a function of the number of whites but the presence of whites. The most complete way then to deal with the problem of the number of whites is to eliminate the existence of whites. If whites represent zero percent of the population then by definition the problem of the number of whites in the population is automatically resolved, and resolved most completely.
Now, not to go too far into the weeds here, but lets say one makes the argument that any race comprising one hundred percent of the population demands the need for Diversity, or even just a preponderance of any race, not just white people. And let’s say that the solution then is to mix all races together so that there is always a perfectly diverse number of races relative to other races. This equal admixture of distinct races inevitably and ironically gives way to offspring which over time create an utterly homogenous population—the diverse racial genetics merging and producing individuals who share no significant genetic differences with respect to race. In this racially homogenous population, no racial diversity can exist, obviously, thus contradicting Diversity. And this is (in part) why Diversity must be very specific about which race or races pose a threat. It cannot say all races pose a threat to it because the only solution then is either the elimination of all races, leaving no race and thus no Diversity, or a new homogenous race which comprises one hundred percent of the population, which thus also contradicts Diversity. At some point we must face it: Diversity targets specific races for elimination, and in this case that target is white people.
*
The Diversity Ideal will only be satisfied by the complete eradication of white people from society…I like to think that I have made that clear. And make no mistake, this is exactly what will happen as long as the need for “Diversity” continues to be a premise by those in power. The first and most important law of philosophy and logic, I submit, in is that the premise will find its conclusion as long as it remans the premise. As sure as the sun rises in the east, the conclusion will come to pass. The sun will not rise from the east, and the conclusion will not be reached, only when the perspective of the observer completely changes.
The only answer to the question “What is the needed number of whites relative to non-whites before society is sufficiently Diverse?” is zero. That is, there can be zero white people. This has not only to do with the logical contradictions involved when one tries to give a number other than zero, but, even more importantly and profoundly, it has to do with the fact that Diversity is a collectivist metaphysical premise. It is an Ideal. Diversity informs humanity, not the other way around. Diversity is the Reality to which all things and all people shall conform, and, indeed, are obliged by the Authority to do so.
Diversity is perhaps better labeled “Diversity-ness”…this is more conceptually precise, I submit. Diversity is a Collective Ideal, which makes it a metaphysical primary, meaning it is the plenary ontological category which should, and shall by the power of the ruling class, represent all of what Is—of Reality, both in the material and in the abstract; all of what humanity observers; and indeed, all of what humanity is. All is Diversity. This primary position is the frame of reference from which Diversity informs Reality. It is absolute; it is Diversity-ness.
It is not white people then, specifically, which is the root threat to Diversity, it is Whiteness. Therefore, when speaking of white people we must capitalize the W, because white people are merely the manifestation of the absolute Antithesis of Diversity, or Diversity-ness.
Diversity as a collectivist metaphysic does not recognize the existence of white people, meaning of any specific white person and thus any collection of white persons. In other words, it does not recognize the existence of the individual. Now, I should add here that collectivist metaphysics can recognize the Collective Ideal which many governments often refer to as “the People’…that is, “people” as a political category to describe “the masses” which shall fall under the jurisdiction of a governmental Authority. However, “people”, or better said, “ persons”, as opposed to “the People”, are individuals, and thus utterly antithetical to any Collective Ideal, including Diversity.
There is no such thing as “white people” as far as Diversity is concerned, only “White-ness”. From this it is very important to remember that white people, whether one or a billion, are an utter incarnation of Whiteness, and therefore an utter offense to Diversity; Whiteness is the Absolute Evil which cannot be suffered nor tolerated by the Absolute Good of Diversity. Whiteness represents the collective antithesis of Diversity. It is the Anti-Ideal. The full incarnation of the Whiteness thus is represented in each and every white person. There is no such thing as a white individual, only Whiteness categorically manifest, be it in the form of One or of Many. This is another reason, and the primary one, I submit, that a mere reduction in the number of white people in a given context does not satisfy Diversity. To satisfy Diversity is to destroy all white people, regardless of number. Number is a completely meaningless concept to Diversity….Diversity deals in absolutes; it is Diversity-ness or Whiteness, period. Those are the only two options. One or the Other. If there is even one white person left in the whole world then there is absolutely no Diversity, period. Full stop.
Diversity, like all Collectivist Ideals, is necessarily and by nature genocidal. You’ve been warned.
Authoritarians are as Suicidal as They are Homicidal
The tyrants cannot win for the simple reason that the goal they set for themselves does not exist.
Imagine you are on a road to Reno, and you are well aware that it only goes to Reno, yet you simultaneously expect that it shall also take you to Las Vegas and not to Reno. When it doesn’t take you to Vegas, but to Reno, you check your map and see that, indeed, the road you are on only goes to Reno.
Well, obviously the map is lying, you decide. You insist that the map should somehow show that the road leads to Reno and also leads to Vegas, not Reno. So you throw it away and buy a new map. But that map also says that the road you are on only leads to Reno, so of course that map must be lying, too. In fact, all the maps must be lying, so you attempt draw your own map where the road both leads to Reno and not to Reno, but to Vegas. This proves impossible so you blame it on faulty pen and paper. You try different pen and different paper, but you still can’t manage to draw the map, so you decide that all pens and all paper are bad. You try again to go to Reno and not Reno at the same time, but fail. You think that maybe your car is the problem, so you sell it and get a new car. But that car also takes you only to Reno. You take a bus, but again you end up in Reno. You walk, but you end up in Reno. At this point your money runs out so you beg and then steal and yet nothing works. Over and over again you wind up in Reno. Finally, starving, exhausted, hopeless, penniless, and crippled, you are left with only one conclusion: Reality, itself, is the problem. Reality is a fraud. Only by finding a “new Reality”, a “true Reality”, will you find Las Vegas on the road which only takes you to Reno. The solution to your problem is thus what it always was: death. You must evacuate existence to find your way. You can’t find Vegas by way of the road you are on in this life, but perhaps you can in the next.
What do you think happens in the next life?
Nothing. That’s what. No satisfaction. Because in the next life Vegas still isn’t where it is supposed to be because the problem still hasn’t been addressed…and the problem is of course your assumption that a road which cannot take you to place where it does not go simultaneously can take you to a place where it does not go. The real problem is that you cannot functionally apply your contradiction to any reality, and have any reality actually affirm it by manifesting an actual thing. And in the process of attempting to tangibly create the square circle, so to speak, you destroy yourself. You trade the truth for a lie…a lie which makes your very conscious frame of reference impossible. It is the lie which says that what IS simultaneously IS NOT; that A is also NOT A; that the presence of A implies the absence of A. You will pursue this lie for all eternity, because that’s the only possible way to properly manifest your “existence”, you have decided. In other words, by your existence, you will relentlessly pursue the absence of your existence. What will follow is eternal death—a painful damnation where you pursue a goal for all eternity which does not exist. Endless misery without relief, because the relief that would have come is a function of a rational premise that you rejected long ago. This rational premise is thus: that what is true must be conceptually consistent; that A is not simultaneously NOT A; that the road which only leads to Reno cannot simultaneously lead to Vegas (or to NOT Reno).
You might be tempted to be unconcerned, or only mildly concerned, at this kind of damnation. For, after all, you say to yourself, you have free will, right? You have choice. At any moment you can simply decide that your premise is incorrect—that you can and likely will, eventually, wake up and realize that the way out of hell is to accept the simple truth that the road which only leads to Reno cannot also lead to Vegas.
But will you?
Of course you won’t. If you could, you would have done it already, If there was nothing in the first life which could change your mind, then there will be nothing in the second, or the third, or the fourth…and so on. You have sent yourself to hell, and it is you who will keep you there. You sent yourself to hell by murdering your own consciousness at the alter of Contradiction.
Don’t pretend that there is hope in hell. Hell, by its very nature, is hopelessness. You have chosen a “reality” where you clearly observe that the road you are on cannot take you to Vegas yet you insist that it also must take you to Vegas. You are willing to die (and thus kill) for the contradiction, and you do. In that “reality” what choice do you really have? In what sense are you not eternally trapped? Reason is dead to you and you are dead to it. You wanted an existence where contradiction is reality, and you got it.
*
Authoritarians are collectivists; collectivists are ideologues; ideologues are merely peddlers of Contradiction-as-Truth. Authoritarians presume that they are the incarnation of a Divine, Determinist Force—that to which I refer as the Collective Ideal. As I have explained many times on this blog, the Ideal can be virtually anything—-the Workers, Diversity, Social Justice, Climate Justice, god or the gods, the Nation, the Church, the Tribe, the Race, We the People, the Culture, Evolution, Natural Law, Mathematical Processes, etcetera, etcetera. It can even simply be the Authoritarian, himself…any old widget can be the One from which springs All That Is.
The metaphysical crux of collectivism is the fundamental denial of the Individual. Consciousness of one’s Self is ultimately an illusion; Truth and Reality are fundamentally exclusive of individual consciousness. Truth and Reality are (somehow) dictated to the Individual from the “objective reality outside” himself. To assert that one’s own Self—one’s own conscious frame of reference—is actually that by which reality is given meaning and thus defined in the first place is considered merely an exercise in pure solipsism and moral relativism.
This is a lie for reasons which I will not go into here, but suffice to say, the rejection of individual consciousness is at the heart of all collectivist ideologies, and thus is at the heart of all governments, because government is utterly a product of collectivist metaphysics. Thus the rejection of individual consciousness is at the heart of all authoritarians; authoritarianism is the logical conclusion of government, period. There is no such thing as a tyrant who is not also an explicit or implicit expression of government.
The authoritarian contradiction then is the idea that man must be systematically forced, tyrannized, out of Himself, his absolute existential frame of reference, into truth and reality, because his consciousness—the very fact that he observes reality from a frame of reference of his own Self—is his Original Sin; it is the lie which is his root nature. Authoritarians then proceed to mold man’s “false” reality into the “truth” of the Collective Ideal. They force individuals into the Collective by violence, threats of violence, propaganda, and outright fraud, because this is the individual’s “proper place” so the ideology tells them.
Naturally this never works, because collectivist metaphysics are utterly contradictory, and so Authoritarians, never ones to forsake their stupidity and madness, merely dig deeper into the ideology and forge ahead, the bodies piling ever higher and higher until their own is eventually thrown upon the heap.
*
At first it’s relatively easy. A convenient and perhaps even somewhat (ostensibly) plausible “other” is identified, targeted, scapegoated, exploited, rounded up and, at first, deported (if possible or plausible), then imprisoned, and eventually murdered, which was the plan all along. (This move is easier if the masses are intellectually somnolent and emotionally stunted, which, welcome to Anywhere, U.S.A., 2022.)
When this doesn’t “fix” things and usher in the Collectivist Utopia—which it can’t because there is no such thing, because it is rooted in a metaphysical contradiction, and one cannot actually build and apply a “square circle”, so to speak—then what happens? Do we think that the Authoritarians take a long look in the mirror, thoughtfully ponder the situation, and begin to reevaluate their ideas, daring to consider that the problem may actually lie with them?
Sorry. Didn’t mean to make you laugh. What can I say? I’m a funny guy.
No, of course they don’t do any of that…these people are political ideologues, and it is not in their interest or nature to presume anything other than that the Collective Ideal is perfect, and therefore they, being the practical incarnation of the Ideal on earth, are likewise perfect, and therefore the fault must necessarily be with someone else. Once the convenient “others” have been eliminated—the (ostensibly) obvious “outsiders”—then the Authoritarians turn their bloody gaze closer to home. There must be other others lurking around somewhere, most certainly within in their own ranks, they decide. Naturally they find these traitors, fill up the mass graves yet again, and sit back and wait for utopia to materialize.
This of course doesn’t happen, because again it can’t—the square is as far from also being a circle as it always was, so what happens?
You see where this is going.
The Authority simply cannibalizes itself. With each purge it finds itself as far away from Perfect Utopia as ever—utopia always just around the corner from the next genocide. More and more are purged, sacrificed for the great Ideal, but the reward never comes. There is always one more rebel or traitor to gas or shoot, one more expression of individualism to crush, one more industry to smash, one more war to wage, one more book to burn, one more government program to inflict, one more day to hope and change, until finally all that is left is for the Authoritarians to realize that, just like the one who cannot get to Las Vegas by the road which only leads to Reno, the problem must be Reality itself. If Reality is going to be this damn stubborn, then so be it. Reality must be a fraud. With nothing left to do, the Authoritarians “escape” to death, find themselves in hell, and live out their irreconcilable madness, and the consequent torment which it breeds, for all eternity.
END
Questions Which Can Have No Answer…:Why benevolent government is impossible (part two)
Explaining how the inherent contradictions of the questions I listed in part one relate specifically to government is the purpose of the remainder of the posts in this series. Today’s post will examine question one.
1. How shall we enslave them to set them free?
A wise man with whom I used to regularly associate, John Immel, once said that government is authority and authority is force—his point being that coercion is not merely a characteristic of the State, but is in fact the state’s most fundamental characteristic, and likely the only truly relevant one. Absent force there is literally nothing about the State which has any meaning whatsoever. I agree with this completely, and the only thing I would add to John’s aphorism concerns the Law. I might put it this way: The Law is government, and government is authority, and authority is force. Meaning that once Law is declared or implied as the guiding societal principle then government is established to compel obedience…because law absent forced compliance is not law, but suggestion. Government is the physical incarnation of the Law’s right, or Authority, to compel obedience. No citizen gets decide for himself whether he shall obey or not, for if this were the case then the law would, again, not actually be law, but suggestion.
This goes to the heart of why I have for the last several years assiduously asserted that legality is a fundamentally distinct ethic than that of morality, and that, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive. To build a society rooted in the ethic of legality—that men’s behaviors shall be bound and constrained by law—is to ensure that that society is not and never shall be a moral one.
Morality is an ethic that necessitates that men must will and choose; legality is an ethic which declares that choice and will are fundamentally irrelevant…men will do what the law demands or they will be disabled or destroyed. Period. Legality deals in punishment; morality in consequence…and the difference between them is not in the least bit subtle. Consequence is earned; punishment is meted out. You cannot earn a punishment; you cannot be dictated a consequence. The law cannot acknowledge that you earned your punishment precisely because it does not acknowledge the legitimacy of your will and choice. You will obey or else; what you want, what you will, and thus to what end you shall exercise your choice, is utterly meaningless to the law. The law dictates your behavior, and you will act. You have no choice in the matter. Law is not cooperative. “Cooperative law” is a contradiction in terms. You don’t earn. You act, or you are in some sense or literally erased from society. You act as the law demands or you don’t exist. There is nothing for you to earn. The law IS, you act. That’s all. There is no “consequence”, nothing is earned; nothing is given to you or happens to you because you don’t have any real individual autonomy under law.
The law says how you must or must not behave, period. Further, any behaviors not specified by the law are still obliged to it, for the entire context of all behavior is framed by the law. If the law can demand your compliance in one behavior, it can demand it in all of your behaviors. At the root of all your relevant actions is your volitional Self, and this Self is utterly singular. Thus, to claim to own just one of your behaviors is a claim to the ownership of all of YOU, entirely. The law implies that at any point it may demand any behavior from you, full stop. The law is the basis for the authority over the race of men by those who are called, elected, installed, etc. to enforce it.
Let’s look at the following example:
Person A attempts to rob person B; person B shoots person A as person be B defends his property.
Now, both Morality and Legality will value the act of robbery and the act of self defense according to a given standard, and the standard is simply that which the action can be said to ultimately serve. This is where the two ethical systems diverge, never to be reconciled—where their utter incompatibility is illustrated. With morality, the standard is the individual, and thus is likewise that which must be preserved in order that the individual may have actual, rational, objective, meaningful existence. In other words, the moral standard is that which must be preserved in order for the very existence of the individual to be possible on both the physical and metaphysical levels. The moral standard then is Self, and, by extension, that by which the Self is made manifest in reality: life (being alive in the world), liberty (being consciously and willfully active in the world), and property (the means by which being alive and being active can efficaciously occur). In short, the individual is the moral standard, which necessarily makes choice an integral component of ethics, as choice and will are ineluctably integral to the individual. We can therefore value the action of defending one’s property as being a moral action because it is in service to the individual; and the consequence of being shot in the attempt to rob another person as being a moral consequence.
Legality offers us a different interpretation of the scenario entirely. The Law, as I have explained, rejects choice and will as having any ethical meaning whatsoever. The law is about obedience, and obedience is by definition the rejection of choice. “Choose to obey” is a contradiction in terms, as one cannot choose to have no choice. One can choose to cooperate, but not choose to obey. Slaves obey, free men cooperate. And no sane person would ever equate slavery and choice, because “freedom” and “slavery” are opposites. To say one is the other is, to put it mildly, complete nonsense.
So what is the ethical standard according to legality? Well, the ethical, or legal. standard is not the law, precisely, it is fundamentally the Collective Ideal, incarnate via the government (Ruling Class) and which forms the metaphysical basis for legal ethics, but for any truly meaningful purposes we can presume that the Law itself is the standard. We really don’t need to get bogged down in metaphysics to make the point here.
What is the point, then, you ask?
The point is that the action of defending one’s property and the action of getting shot whilst attempted to rob that person of their property are going to be valued according to the degree to which they are in compliance with the Law. The law is the legal standard. If this seems circular, or redundant, well, that’s because it is. The law is, I submit, a wholly irrational ethic…untenable because it’s at root perfectly senseless.
At any rate the law is the legal standard, meaning that if the law says that one must not rob, then the act of robbery shall be unethical…”illegal” is to legal ethics as “immoral” is to moral ethics. Similarly if the law says that one may, or must, shoot someone trying to rob them then the act of shooting the robber shall be deemed ethical. The act of getting shot whilst trying to rob another is thus likewise deemed ethical.
Notice that I did not make getting shot a consequence of the attempted robbery…there is the act of shooting and the act of getting shot. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as consequence. No two actions are necessarily ethically connected in this regard. There is no action-reaction, or choice-consequence, only action-action. There is no necessary ethical value which can be logically drawn from any given behavior to any reciprocal behavior.
Let me try to clarify this point.
The law may declare it unethical (illegal) to rob someone, and likewise declare that one may not defend his property. The law may declare that the act of defending private property (there is no such thing under law, by the way, but that’s besides the point) is the sole purview of the State, for example…the police we could say, and that while it is illegal to rob it is also illegal to defend one’s property. There is no contradiction here…the law demands what you shall do in service to the law, and if the law decides that it is in service to the law for you to both not be robbed and also to not defend your property then that’s what shall be demanded of you. The law defines the context for your behavior and thus your existence, and whatever it declares you must do you will do. If those things seem contradictory or incongruent to you…well, what is that to the law? The law doesn’t care what you want, it doesn’t give you a choice, and thus it doesn’t care what you think. It rejects your consciousness as having any legitimacy at all, so what things seem to you with respect to the law is utterly beside the point.
On the other hand, morality is not like this at all. In morality, it not only is possible but necessary that there be ethical value shared in actions which are reciprocal to other actions. Morality accepts as axiomatic cause and effect, choice and consequence, action and reaction, and this is because morality implies will and choice as necessary to human existence, and thus it understands that there are natural outcomes of behavior which are driven by choice, and that those outcomes are thus necessarily tied in value to one’s behavior. If it is considered to be of value that a man shall own property then it must, morally speaking, be of value that man shall defend his property from theft, which means that if a man must shoot the robber in order to defend his property then getting shot is a moral consequence of attempting robbery.
Now, I certainly understand the moral question of whether or not one should use deadly force in the prevention of the theft of some inexpensive thing, like a pencil or marble, for example…but that actually furthers to illustrate my point. The reason we can have ethical conversations like this is because of morality; such questions are not a remonstrance of it. It is because morality fundamentally values the individual that we can ask questions about things like whether it is a good thing or not to shoot a person who is trying to steal a pencil. With the law, the answers to such questions are simply dictated to you and I. If the law declares that yes, you must shoot, or are allowed to shoot, one who is attempting to rob you of your pencil, then that’s settled. The law says it, you obey. It’s not for you to ask questions…and don’t think. It’s not for you to think.
What has all of this to do with the question, “How shall we enslave them to set them free”?
Well, it may not be entirely intuitive, but it’s not complicated to see the error implicit in the idea of the “benevolent State” as it applies to the rule of law…and I submit that law is implicit, if not explicit, in a slave-mater relationship. The master declares what behavior the slave must perform…this is the law for the slave. The slave obeys. It’s no more complicated than that…the only real difference is that in the state-citizen relationship, with our “free” and “democratic”, and “representative” government, with the smokescreens of “elections” and “constitutional rights”—the U.S. Constitution being the prototypical blueprint for the “benevolent state”—there are many masters and many millions of slaves.
Within the “benevolent state”, like every other state, there are rulers and there are the ruled, and this authority-submission dynamic is the very essence of the most basic forms of slavery. The benevolent state is nothing more, unfortunately, than a master who demands compliance from his chattel. The relationship is rooted in law…behavior is dictated, and obedience, not choice, is the only value the citizen brings to his government.
I understand that this is not a popular idea anywhere, not even in politically conservative or even libertarian circles, which stop short of declaring the state entirely bereft of morality and legitimacy. My perspective that it is entirely bereft of morality and legitimacy is said to be naive, oversimplified, myopic, purely ideological. I wish that were true…honestly I do. Unfortunately, a cursory look around the turgid nation where I reside, the U.S.A., reveals the objective reality, which is this: that what was once arguably the free-est nation on earth, the rights of the individual codified in its most fundamental of governing documents and heavily informed by individual-empowering enlightenment philosophy, has dissolved into nothing more than a pseudo-tyrannical, bloated, perpetually indebted, foolhardy, war-mongering peddler and exporter of neo-Marxist racist dogma which has decided that the apogee of virtue and virtue’s only meaningful objective is “social justice”, and that “social justice” is nothing more than at best doing to innocent white people the very same thing which was done to innocent black and brown people, which is about as lazy and stupid and hypocritical as is possible, and is literally less effective at creating a just society than doing absolutely nothing at all. Yet here we are. We fought a revolution over stamps and tea, but 30 trillion in debt, exploding inflation, World War Three, disintegrated borders, state-compelled “vaccinations” with experimental drugs, perpetually subsidized unemployment, government-sanctioned riots, and abortion rates of up to 70% in certain communities…well, hey, nothing one more election can’t fix. Give Trump four more we’ll be positively drunk on freedom.
The idea of the benevolent state and the rule of law is the idea that no one is above the law. Sounds good. We all cooperate together under law for freedom’s sake. No slave; no master. The government is a mere steward of that law which is established to enfranchise men to act out their natural rights. Law protects and promotes freedom…without it we are at the mercy of the whims of evil men.
Sounds good. However, it’s all just platitude. The hard, gun-shaped truth is that law is nothing without an authority to enforce it. That authority is the government, and the government which must enforce the law in order that the law can have any relevance and meaning whatsoever cannot simultaneously be obligated to that law. It is simply a contradiction and cannot work…which is precisely why it doesn’t. The reason the United States has dissolved into a black hole of corruption, greed, cognitive dissonance, and totalitarian fantasy is because of the fundamental philosophical premises which underwrite it, not because we simply don’t have the ‘“right people” in power. “If the slaves just had a different master they’d no longer be slaves” is a ridiculous claim, yet we continue to think that if we just elect the right men and women to political office we can turn the ship around and return to the halcyon days of beautiful individual freedom. No we cannot, because freedom does not and cannot proceed from the foundational documents which inform this nation. At root these documents speak to only two truly relevant things, and only one if we consider them mutually inclusive of one another: A government shall be established, and there shall be law. This demands, inevitably, that no matter how benevolent the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the nation will inevitably find its way to totalitarianism and collapse, just as we have seen time and time again in virtually all nations and all governments throughout history in all the world.
You cannot and will not free men by enslaving them…and government means slavery. Period. Benevolent or not. Benevolent government may be a benevolent master, which is preferable to a hateful master, surely, but a benevolent master is still a master, nonetheless; and you are still a slave; and just you wait and see how long your master remains benevolent once you decide that you no longer want to be a slave.
END
Questions Which Can Have No Answer are Not Actually Questions: Why benevolent government is impossible (and the lie of “free democratic elections”, and touching upon Is-Ought), part 1
The ruling, or political class, in order to establish and preside over a benevolent State must answer some questions first. As you will readily deduce, these are questions for which answers are impossible, because the nature of the questions precludes them. Thus, they are not real questions. And yet, they must be answered in order for the government to be benevolent…hence the unsolvable problem, as it were.
Here we shall define “benevolent” as that which promotes, nurtures, and defends individual life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, the codification of which can be most readily seen in the United States Bill of Rights, I submit. However, if you don’t accept this definition of “benevolent”, then I presume you have another frame of reference for moral value other than that of the individual. That would be a hard thing to justify as you’d necessarily be advocating for a collective moral frame of reference (i.e the Greater, or Common, Good), as opposed to an individual one, because if not an individual moral frame of reference then your only alternative is a collective one. Yet you’d necessarily be advocating this collective moral frame of reference from your individual existential frame of reference.
See the contradiction?
The problem is that you’d be splitting up knowledge and value into two completely different, and further, mutually exclusive, frames of reference. The individual has knowledge, as evidenced by the fact that you are, as an individual, making a truth claim (i.e. collective moral value), but only the collective is able to make value judgements.
Here is the error: Without value judgements, the individual cannot actually apply his knowledge…but un-applicable knowledge is not knowledge. For example, you cannot know that an apple is different from a rock unless you, as an individual, which is what you are, know what you shall (not can, nor must, nor may, nor should) do with them. To know that if you are hungry you shall eat the apple and not the rock is a value judgment. Meaning that if you only know the definition of “apple” and “rock” but have no purpose for apple and rock at any given moment as it applies to you (i.e. from your own individual existential frame of reference), then the definition becomes irrelevant. An irrelevant definition is a meaningless definition; a meaningless definition is a contradiction in terms. To say that you know something (e.g. that morality is collective, not individual) but not how to value it (e.g. that we shall thus organize a government which serves the Common Good) means that you cannot actually know it. To know something but not what to do with the knowledge means that you don’t actually know it. Knowledge without value is knowledge without purpose is knowledge without relevance is knowledge without meaning is meaningless knowledge…which is a contradiction in term.
Those of you familiar with the Is-Ought problem of morality, as expressed by David Hume, I think it was, will see how the inexorable relationship between knowledge and value makes this quite a problem for the Is-Ought problem. In other words, there is no real Is-Ought problem unless you presume that one can posses knowledge but not value…or, as it is often put, real knowledge is always objective but value is always subjective. This just a fancy way of saying that only knowledge actually exists. You know that the apple is an apple and a rock is a rock, but not how to apply that knowledge in a way that validates it as being actually knowledge (i.e. Truth). Or, in other words, in a way that validates that the knowledge is actually relevant, and thus meaningful, and thus actually knowledge, as “meaningless knowledge” is again a contradiction in terms. “Meaningless knowledge” is the same as “meaningless definitions”, and that? Doesn’t’ make sense. In other words, the Is-Ought problem isn’t a problem unless you A.) confuse “shall” with “should” or “ought”, and B.) erroneously presume that knowledge (or Truth) and value (or Ethic) are mutually exclusive. As they are not, but are in fact corollary, there is no problem.
The Is-Ought dilemma is just a proxy for the determinist assertion that consciousness doesn’t exist. That the willful application of truth is utterly subjective, because it’s rooted in value judgements—in “shoulds”, or “oughts”—which are mutually exclusive of objective Truth—the “is”…that, say, the rock is a rock—and therefore individual consciousness, which is the root of utterly subjective value judgements, is a lie. In other words, there is perception without real awareness…we are but biological computers mathematically programmed by evolution, natural law, etc. etc….but more on that peculiar brand of mysticism at a later date.
By the by, I plan on doing a post on dismantling the imaginary Is-Ought dilemma in an upcoming post…I did a few posts on the subject a while back, but they were clumsy and confusing, so I deleted them. I have since come up with what I think are much better arguments and much clearer ways of presenting those arguments.
At any rate, if. you define “benevolence” with respect to government as something other than that which promotes, nurtures, and protects the life, liberty, property, and happiness of the individual, you’re quite mistaken.
So here are the questions the ruling class, or would-be ruling class, must answer in order to to establish a benevolent State (NOTE: “Them” refers to the citizens.)
1. How shall we enslave them to set them free?
2. How shall we rob them to protect their private property?
3. How shall we torment them to comfort them?
4. How shall we make them sick in order to keep them well?
5. How shall we coerce them to cooperate with them?
6. How shall we hate them to love them?
7. How shall we deny them to affirm them?
8. How shall we murder them to save them?
These questions are the impossible burden of the “benevolent” State. As they cannot be answered, because they are meaningless due to their inherent contradiction, any attempt to implement such a State inevitably dissolves into rank tyranny, despite any benign intentions. We are of course, in the West, witnessing this in stark, shocking real time reality. The “freest” nation in history, the U.S., has dissolved into an object, mostly Huxlian, totalitarian financial/techno-oligarchy in less than two years. It has never been more clear nor obvious in any part of our history than now that our “leaders” are not in fact the organ grinders; and never before have so many of us had the truth of our enslavement projected into our faces with barely a cursory nod to propagandistic deception whilst so few of us seem to feel that we are either capable of doing or should do anything about it. However, I will not spend time on this point. This is a blog not so much about praxis, but theory. Until we can to some significant degree understand the nature and failures of our theological, philosophical, and political environments, our praxis is limited. And, somewhat ironically, given this point, I believe that we will come to realize that speaking, reasoning, preaching, conversing, and writing, is and has always been the best offense and defense with respect to tyranny. So, yes, maybe this blog is about praxis after all.
Masks for Chaos; Masks for Control: YOU are the real virus
If you are diagnosed with coronavirus, you are ordered to isolate; you must stay home and avoid contact with the public. Even if you wear a mask you are not permitted to occupy or traverse a public space. And the reason why you’re not permitted to break your quarantine, even if you’re wearing a mask, is because it’s understood both by the state and their medical advisors that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus (or other microbial respiratory infections for that matter, which is why we’ve never been mass-ordered to wear them in public until now, where certain sociopolitical and economic conditions have altered the state’s approach to public health.)
If masks do not halt the transmission of coronavirus, and this is evidenced by the government demanding that those who have tested positive for the virus be isolated, and cannot breach their quarantine even if wearing a mask, then what is the point of mask laws?
Well, there is of course no medical answer to that question. The answer is purely political.
Some may argue that while masks do not halt the spread of the coronavirus, they reduce it, and this is why mask-wearing is compulsory. But there are a couple of critical problems with this. The first, and I believe simplest, is that if we know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus, then we simply cannot say that any reduction in coronavirus cases is due to mask-wearing. Again, masks are NOT preventative…this we know. Therefore mask-wearing can never reduce the virus transmission rate to zero. Even if we say that masks are a reductive measure, we know that because they cannot reduce to zero, “reduce” becomes an entirely meaningless concept—infinitely relative. Masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus, therefore it will spread in spite of mask-wearing laws. Infection rates will continue to increase as a trend, even if people wear masks. Even if the infection rates were to slow, it could never be known with any degree of certainty that this is due to mask-wearing. It would be impossible to rule out all other factors and determine that the decrease in infection rates is because of masks. All we can know for certain is that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. Thus, we cannot make any logical inferences from mask-wearing other than what is ALREADY known, which is, again, that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. And this is why all those boxes of masks you are now seeing piled up in stores all over the country come with disclaimers on them which read something to the effect of “THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL DEVICE”. Even the mask-making companies know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus. This should tell you everything you need to know.
Another problem is this: Because the coronavirus by its nature continually spreads (at least until it runs its course through a population and then self-limits, as viruses tend to do, or there is a vaccine), and there is no known cure or objectively preventative measure, then there is always at any given moment an unknown number of coronavirus cases circulating in public. Therefore, even if you introduce a reductive measure, like a mask-wearing law, you can never know to what degree that measure is effective in reducing cases of the coronavirus. You cannot calculate a percentage from a reference number which is unknown. What is 20% of an unknown quantity? 10%? 60%?
Exactly.
My point here is that the laws passed by the state in order to ostensibly mitigate the threat of the coronavirus are based on utterly subjective and un-verifiable assumptions. We are unable to know whether or not any of these laws actually have any relevant effect of any kind, let alone a statistically significant one. We do know that measures like mass lockdowns and the inconsistent and random decisions on what constitutes an “essential business” which may remain open to the public have a degenerative effect on the economy and on social cohesion, and we do know how destructive and lethal this is to people. But the state doesn’t care about that. Because here is the reality: In any crisis, the first and foremost problem as far as the government is concerned is always the people. Always remember that.
At any rate, the fundamental coercive nature of the state makes it impossible for it to ever manage a health crisis like SARS-CoV-2, because it precludes the possibly of gathering any objective data which might be useful in combating it. The state, you see, above all, wants to control…it doesn’t seek to understand, to research, to analyze, to think. It wants to control; it wants to consume. That is its only real purpose. Control and consume the individual Self…incorporate the individual into the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be (e.g. The People, the Nation, the Race, the Church, the Class, the Culture, etc.). The state is not wisdom, it is not truth, it is not life, it is not health, it is not help, it is not science. It is force, and force is violence. Period.
And here is where we get to the truth of what is happening with respect to the coronavirus—a truth is so inexorable that it defies the intentions of even the most benevolent members of government.
What we assume is that the state wants to destroy the virus and preserve the individual. But this is a lie. The state wants to use the coronavirus, like it uses everything else, to eliminate the individual, who represents the only real and relevant threat to government, The individual exists as a thinking, self-actualizing, self-aware, self-volitional agent whose nature as such challenges the state’s presumption of its own Absolute Authority. The self-aware individual has a nature which precludes a natural willingness or even fundamental ability to be controlled and to have truth dictated to him, and this is an unforgivable offense to the state, whose only existential purpose is to do just that: control and dictate. And this is why government measures to manage the virus are seemingly contradictory, chaotic, and irrational. The state’s actions are completely irrational and meaningless with respect to science and medicine, but they ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with its true and ineluctable objective of exercising absolute authority over the individual; to consume him, control him and thereby destroy him.
*
Only men and women who are free to exercise their fundamental and existential core of self-agency, reason, awareness, and volition can ever engage in actions which will truly eliminate threats to their lives and property, because only by this can a truly objective outcome of such actions be achieved: the preservation of humanity as it invariably and necessarily manifests according to its fundamental nature, which is the conscious, volitional Self. Once the individual is redefined by the state as an abject, existential threat to state power, and humanity’s root nature as a thinking, conscious, self-aware, volitional agent is cast as an aberration and as anathema to reality, not an expression of it, then the resolution of all national crises will necessarily involve the increased restriction and subjugation of individual freedom. For the state, the root of all evil is what it considers the great Lie of the Individual, and this is the audacity of human beings to consider their own singular conscious minds and wills as somehow rational, natural, and entitled to some kind of existential consideration, much less promotion and affirmation. You see, all crises, like pandemics for instance, which are not state artifice, are to the state a reflection of the root evil of the individual. Thus, to control and consume the individual is the solution to EVERY problem, be it a pandemic, or foreign hostility, or domestic rebellion, or natural disaster, or whatever, which is why government responses to these crises always involve an expansion of government power over its citizen. The answer is never more freedom, but AlWAYS less, even when more freedom, such as in the case of the coronavirus, would encourage measures that could actually work FOR the individual, not against him, and thus real scientific data could be collected and efficaciously utilized. In a truly free (that is, a stateless) society, we would not attempt to protect people whilst simultaneously reject the very thing that makes them people in the first place—their conscious Selves; their minds, their wills. Only an institution of pure contradiction and violence, like the state, does this.
So what do the masks represent?
Fundamentally, they are reminder that you are owned. They are an expression of state power; they are another example of the government’s natural instinct to wage war against its citizens—against the individual; against the Self. The implementation of irrelevant and contradictory legal demands is how the state continues to foment the ethos of the mainstream mass acceptance of absolute Authority. The state does not mitigate or prevent crisis—that is neither its purpose nor its nature. It creates crisis, or exploits it, in order to undermine individual human existence by delegitimizing and marginalizing will and thought and reason, all things which affirm and validate human consciousness, and replaces these things with itself. The governing of human beings is, specifically, the subordination of their individual wills and minds, their very natural SELVES, to the external Authority of the state, which is established as the practical and materially efficacious incarnation of the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be—the labels are endless, but they all mean the same thing in the end: totalitarian chaos and the death of man, leading, ironically, to the utter collapse of the state, itself, until the cycle starts all over again
The state exists to become humanity for it; to own it; to subsume it, and consume it, and this is done though the systematic and persistent creation of chaos, the normalization of crisis, the fomenting of a public mindset of abject fear and mistrust, the initiation of utterly irrational and unrealistic legal obligations and threats, and the dissemination of contradictory ideas (e.g. wear a mask to protect others from the coronavirus; it is not safe to breach isolation even with a mask, because a mask will not prevent the spread of coronavirus). These things are intended to demolish humanity’s ability to rationally interpret and thus manage realty in general, and any given environment. This precludes the individual’s successful and productive association, negotiation, and cooperation with his fellow man. The state exploits the chaos for the sake of its own power. It creates crisis, promotes chaos, wages war against its citizens and the rest of the world (to whatever extent it is able) in order to slake its lust for control and wealth and hedonistic whim, all the while telling itself and the rest of humanity that it is doing a broad, benevolent service for mankind, which, if left ungoverned, uncontrolled, and un-coerced, could never exist on its own merits, because it is existentially insufficient. The consciousness is a charlatan; the will ineluctably foolish and barbaric and self-serving, the truth and morality infinitely elusive to the human character. In short, the state assumes that humanity’s metaphysical nature is utterly useless to existence, and then invents or manipulates scenarios to “prove” its assumption.
The state is an intractable psychopath and an insatiable vampire, and it is in charge of protecting your health.
Good luck with that.
END
Coronavirus and Lockdown Overreach: Why the science is both odious and irrelevant
It is unfortunate that those of us who point out the unnecessary misery and chaos which has arisen from the embarrassing State overreaction to Covid-19 are compelled to include the epidemiological data in our arguments, as well as a variety of quotes and perspectives from scientific and medical experts in the field. And it is unfortunate for a couple of reasons.
First, it conflates and combines what are really two separate issues, the virus itself and its medical impact, and the government measures taken to manage it. The virus itself and its medical implications for you and me should have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. And if you ask me why, I will kindly direct your attention to the US unemployment and debt data, the current stats on psychological trauma related to the lockdown, as the burning cars and tire fires in front of the White House.
Second, it presumes and implies the lie that the State would have been perfectly justified and within its scope to seize control of private property, and dictate the terms by which individuals associate and where they are allowed to do so; that it would have been perfectly acceptable for the State to immediately claim ownership of every man, woman, and child, to collapse the economy, to plunge the nation into ever greater heights of unplayable debt, and usher in an pandemic of psychological fallout that shall dwarf the coronavirus and every other pandemic which came before it.
I find it ironic, if not rather depressing, that people feel that they must resort to mortality and case fatality statistics, SIR models, and R rates in order to defend the philosophical axioms that make individual existence, and all of that scientific data, possible in the first place. Among these philosophical axioms is the inviolable (without disastrous consequences) truth of one’s sovereign ownership of one’s own Self and correspondingly of one’s own labor. Further, I submit that an appeal to the epidemiological data as proof that the State has acted incompetently is really, in fact, only proof that one does not understand the State at all, nor appreciate the fact that if the defense of freedom from tyranny and exploitation were left in the hands of the scientists, with their tenuous grasp on philosophical reasoning and their irrational devotion to ludicrous determinism as an explanatory basis for anything, documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights never would have been written in the first place; and representative democracies throughout the world would never have seen the light of day.
The idea that I have to prove that the coronavirus is not particularly medically dangerous and represents no existential threat to man nor society in order to make a digestible and acceptable argument for ending the lockdown makes me, quite frankly, sick to my stomach. Neither the State nor any other agency or institution, nor man, woman, or child, may claim a right to my life, body, property, or associations, in any circumstance, ever, be it the coronavirus or a giant asteroid or a “war on terror”, a locust plague, a famine, a drought…anything. Government should never be in the business of risk management, because government, frankly, sucks at it.
The State’s answer to saving and protecting life means creating a situation in which life is not worth living. Risk management, the protection of individuals from the dangers of simply being alive, whether it involves climbing a ladder, flying on an airplane, driving a car, eating certain foods, engaging in certain sports, or navigating through the scary microscopic world of viruses and bacteria—whatever—requires nuance, an understanding and appreciation of context; it requires flexibility and temperance, a sense of proportion, and above all, an acceptance of the truth of the individual as a singular and singularly free-thinking agent, ultimately unattached to some collective ideation, and thus able to make efficacious choices in pursuit of a moral existence on his own—that is, that the individual in and of himself is naturally sufficient to his own existence.
Government understands none of this. There is nothing nuanced or delicate or nimble to the State. The State is blunt force…it is murder, it is flattened cities, it is prison, it is one-size-fits-all; it is bombs and guns and tear gas and jack boots and mushroom clouds, it is FORCE. Every drawing it makes looks like scribble, every photograph it takes is black, every song it composes is a shriek. The State knows nothing about protection, only SUBMISSION. It attacked the coronavirus with the same tool it uses to attack any problem, the only tool it has—a hammer. It cannot medically subordinate the virus…for that takes knowledge and experience and forethought and experiment; it cannot discern the at-risk from the unaffected and make public health recommendations accordingly, for that takes nuance and discernment and strategy and mercy and compassion. It cannot smash the virus into oblivion, for the virus is too small and elusive; and it cannot threaten the virus, for the virus cannot recognize its authority.
The State can, however, demolish the lives of the citizens it rules…it can “save” them by destroying them before the virus does; it can make the virus look like a party compared to the misery the State can produce. It can, within the span of a few short weeks, amass numbers of dead and dying that make the coronavirus look like a mole hill, rendering the virus completely innocuous by comparison.
How do you flatten the coronavirus curve?
By making a bigger curve out of the misery and destruction of the population you govern.
THAT is what the State is good at, and that is just what it has done.
So spare me the science; tie it to a rock and throw it in the lake. Show me a man who believes that you and I have a right to our own lives ONLY when the science shows that there is no longer any risk from the coronavirus, and I will show you a man who believes that you and I NEVER had any right to our own lives in the first place.
END
unreformingtheology 