Category Archives: law

Questions Which Can Have No Answer…Why benevolent government is impossible (Finale)

collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, law, Man's Ability, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

To be honest, this series is getting more long-winded than I intended, and you pretty much get the idea at this point, so this article is going to be the conclusion to the series and then I will move on to other things…there’s lots of stuff in the brain-hopper that I’d like to get to.

Like I said, you get the idea: “benevolent government” is a giant contradiction in terms, and it therefore can’t work and will never work.

Exhibit A: the United States of America, arguable the freest and most enlightened nation in history is now, in under 250 years, a violent, corrupt, broke, lying, third-rate, pseudo-communist fantasyland; and this is not in spite of the Constitution, it is because of it…and I am genuinely sorry to have to say that. I struggle to accept it, myself, and don’t confess it gleefully. Nevertheless, the simple fact is this: of all the documents to attempt to reconcile the mutually exclusive ideas of freedom and government, the Constitution arguably does the best job, yet we must understand and remember that two plus two can never equal five, and therefore even that which comes closest to making two plus two equal five still has an infinite distance to go. In other words, that which comes the closest to making two plus two equal five is still just as far away as anything else is or was.

The Constitution affirms government, and that’s why it was doomed to failure (in reconciling freedom and government) even before the ink dried. The Constitution affirms government, and as such, even despite all of the best intentions of the Founding Fathers, it necessarily affirms tyranny. It’s a sad, hard, cold truth. We don’t want to hear it; we don’t want to accept it. I get it, and I understand. But the sooner we accept this truth and move on the better. Nothing good can come from persisting in folly.

As explained in previous installments of this series, the State is founded upon the metaphysical principle of human existential insufficiency. In other words, the very reason why we must have government (for example, dismantling the government is never the solution to any social, economic, political, etcetera, problem…in fact, more government is almost always in some way recommended) is because if left to himself, the individual will inexorably succumb to his depraved root nature. Without the State, it is asserted, anyone can “just do whatever they want”. This is a common argument…intellectually barren, of course, but common. Naturally we can’t have people running around doing whatever they want (Oh, the horror!) because “do whatever they want” always translates to: “give rise to the selfish, violent, murderous, rapacious, exploitative, profane, sexually deviant, criminal reprobates that form core of their very root being, and which is only restrained, like with animals, by punishment and pain, and the threat thereof”.

The “punishment and pain” is a consequence of “breaking the law”, which really means “disobeying the will of the ruling class”, because the ruling class, in all practical actuality, is the law. Without the ruling class the law is entirely irrelevant. The ruling class knows this, at least implicitly—and often, explicitly—which is precisely why they are never subject to the law to the same extent (or to any extent) as the masses.

Which brings me to this business of “no one being above the law in a free, representative, democracy”. This is complete nonsense, and I think, buried beneath the many layers of denial and cognitive dissonance, most of us know it. It sounds good, but it’s a lie. Someone has to be above the law simply because the law, itself, is entirely abstract…it’s a concept, not an object. Without an Authority to enforce law, law is meaningless, which means it’s irrelevant; which means it doesn’t really exist. The Authority is the meaning, relevance, and efficacy of the Law. Authority then cannot be under the Law because without authority, there is no Law. The Authority then can never be questioned, held to account, nor considered in any way illegal (i.e. unethical). The Authority cannot break the law because this means that the law can somehow break itself, which is obviously impossible:

Those of us who are under the law can offer no relevant nor meaningful complaint to the ruling class, because our ideas and opinions are a function of value judgment; and this is something our nature precludes. If we possessed any real ability to make value judgments to any truly (objective) ethical end, then we wouldn’t need Law and Authority in the first place.

Do you see?

The very existence of the Law and Authority is rooted in premise which says that man’s own ethical ability is corrupt and insufficient as a function of our very nature—the fact that were were born at all is why we cannot be in a position to question the Authority and the Law. For us to question, let alone criticize or condemn, the ruling class and its laws, implies that we are somehow able to make proper value judgments on our own. An ability we lack, because, again, if we could, we would not be under the Law and its Authority. Our only proper response to the ruling class is obedience, then….we obey, period, or we are disabled and/or destroyed, There is no discussion; no compromise; no vote…there is the ruler and the ruled, the philosopher kings and the unwashed masses, the gnostic enlightened and the barbarians, the Good and the Evil, the Master and the Slave. We can bring the best minds to the State, the most benevolent of politicians, the most well-meaning of souls…we can attempt to inject compromise and cooperation into this arrangement, we can try to make the square also simultaneously a circle, the cancer also simultaneously the cure, but there will only ever be one conclusion:

Totalitarianism.

And from this, death.

The premise will always find its conclusion. Always. If you want a different conclusion, you must find a new premise. If you want to avoid evil, despotic rule, you must reject entirely the concept of “ruling”. If you want a benevolent government, you must reject entirely the very concept of “government”. It’s truly all or nothing.

And no, government is not merely one way man chooses to organize himself socially and politically, and this is because government, as I have explained in previous installments of this series, is not cooperative. Government—that is, the sociopolitical dichotomy of Ruler and Ruled—implies that it is necessarily the only way that man can be organized; and this is because neither the ruling class nor those it rules over really have any choice at all. The metaphysics of the State demand that there is no such thing as “choice”—at least, none which is fundamentally relevant to human existence—because the ability of humanity, as a function of its very birth; very existence, to make any rational, objective value judgments is entirely insufficient, and thus moot. Man’s actions, which are rooted in his inability to actually and efficaciously apply ethics, and this as a function of his inability to make value judgments, and this rooted in his inability to actually know anything (i.e. to know Truth), and this rooted in his inability to actually be himself—that is, to be a rational and efficacious existential frame of reference—can only ever be fundamentally anti-existence. Left to his own “choice”—which of course and again is a lie, man will only ever act in service to the destruction of himself and others.

So, no, government is not a choice, either by the ruler or the ruled. Both the ruler and the ruled suffer from their existential insufficiency. This being the case, the ruled do not choose to rule but are “called” to rule by the Transcendent Divine, in whatever specific or non-specific way it is defined,, be it “God”, or “the Gods”, or “Mathematical Processes”, or “Evolution” or some unnamed Divine Determinist Agent or Agency (e.g. an “Unknown God”, Acts 17:23). They are the Philosopher Kings, put there because God or the gods simply declared it thus. They are as much a function of the Transcendent Divine as those who are ruled.

The ruled, of course, are not “called” to rule, but to be ruled. This is how it goes, end of story. It’s all about obedience and submission for the unwashed masses.

This is the way it is, period. There is no meaning, no explanation, no understanding, and no purpose beyond “it is because it is”. At the end of it all, that’s the whole explanation.

The fruit of the State is the Psychopathic Trinity: Chaos, Misery, Death.

END

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

forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, morality, Uncategorized, ,

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

You Were Always Living in a Totalitarian State, You Just Didn’t Know It

collectivist metaphysics, government, law, Uncategorized, , ,

It’s always both unnerving and amusing to see people wringing there hands over the draconian and totalitarian measures western governments are taking to “fight” the “pandemic”, as though such measures are anathema to these governments and the documents which inform them. Only when we realize that these measures are a natural and predictable product of our governments, as for all governments, will we truly understand what we are up against and how to efficaciously response to it.

This isn’t particularly hard to understand, it’s only that the truth has been buried in thousands of years of ruling class apologetics. The one, uniquely singular, fundamentally unchanging, common denominator in virtually all of humanity’s ills over the course of its history has been the State, and yet the State remains safely hidden behind legions of blind followers and eloquent rulers and stacks of cumbersome academic volumes extolling its virtues, no matter how dreadfully it behaves or how disastrous and destructive its policies and no matter how infantile and hedonistic and psychopathic its members. Government creates problems and then rushes in pretending to be the solution and yet the cognitive dissonance of the masses simply fills in the logical gaps, regular as clockwork.

Government exists because of the metaphysical premise that man’s nature is insufficient to his own existence. Man’s ability to understand truth and to exercise his will morally in service to truth is considered fundamentally broken (man is “pervasively” or “totally depraved” in his nature, the Protestants and Catholics might say). If left to himself, man will give in to his natural selfishness and move to sacrifice all others to himself, resulting in total chaos, plenary moral atrocity, and ultimately the extinction of the species. The solution is for some small group of men/women, or a single man/woman to be divinely appointed by some Divine Transcendent Power, which informs the Collective Ideal, to use divine authority to force by violence and threats of violence the masses into obedience. The behavior to which the masses are to be compelled is codified, yet can be quite fluid, and is called the Law. In short, the whole point of government is for one group of people to entirely deconstruct all others. Government shall destroy humanity and the environment in which it expresses itself. Period. That’s why governments are always overseeing the worst atrocities in human history, from chattel slavery to mass starvation to the A-bomb. And if you have a lot of questions and are seeing some massive contradictions…congratulations. I told you this wasn’t that hard. Nothing about the state makes any rational sense because it’s entirely mystical at its philosophical foundations. It’s irrational by nature. Don’t let anyone lie to you, there is no such thing as a secular government. All governments are religious at root.

But what about our free democracies, our republics, our self-government, our constitutions?

Stop being so gullible.

Self-government? There is no such thing as collective self-government because your SELF isn’t a collective, it’s individual. You obey the law, and the law is behavior that is biding upon people collectively. That is not self-government, that is obedience to he who enforces the law. For you to “govern” yourself is to act according to your own will and that is the complete opposite of the law, which doesn’t care what you will or want or think. You obey, or you get hurt or worse.

Just think about it for a minute and ask yourself if this really makes sense. How do you codify freedom into law? You take behaviors that you decide illustrate freedom, codify them, even just implicitly so, and then institute a government to force (euphemistically called “encourage”) men to engage in these behaviors. In other words, freedom becomes binding upon men under threat of death, incarceration, or other punishment.

What could possibly go wrong with this logic?

And we wonder how it is that we wake up in 2021 and find ourselves in a world of medical apartheid and technocratic totalitarianism.

For you to be under the authority of the State in service to your freedom is a contradiction. For the law to compel by force a society which shall perpetuate the freedom of the individual is a contradiction. For the government to give you no choice but to act in service of your freedom is a contradiction, It is saying that you shall have no choice but to exercise free choice. It’s incoherent on its face. Freedom is individual will, choice, cooperation, and responsibility for the consequences of one’s own actions. Freedom is morality. The government is the rejection of individual will, the denial of choice, coercive, and at root is nothing more than punishment for disobeying the ruling class. Government is legality.

Government by the people for the people is a nice sentiment, but it’s fundamentally irrational. The government placed in authority over the people cannot be simultaneously under the people, and to attempt to institute such contradiction among men can only result in chaos…and this will naturally be blamed on the people, and their freedom. It’s downright Kafkaesque.

See? They just can’t handle freedom. Too much freedom is the problem.

And here we are.

If men were meant to be free there would be no need for government in the first place. This is the premise which informs all governments at all times in all places. There is no such thing as a free society of men under government…it’s a lie. You were always living in a totalitarian State, you just didn’t know it.

Socialist Soup in the United States: Masks, the Mob, and the Cops (Part FOUR)

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, law, tyranny, Violence, , , , ,

Now, about the police, and the calls to defund them by communist organizations like “Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter”, along with a substantial number of ruling class elites and politicians. America is not Cuba, or China, or North Korea, or East Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. Unlike these overtly totalitarian regimes, whose ruling classes openly employ the police as rank puppets of their autocratic ideologies, and where the police essentially comprise the sum and substance of the judicial system on the whole, where knee-smashing and head-bashing thugs are given badges and uniforms and are tasked with being judge, jury, and executioner all in one…unlike these places, the ruling class of the West, and the United States in particular, have much more of a reluctant relationship with the police. In a “perfect” totalitarian state, which again as I have mentioned previously in this series, is the logical conclusion of all governments, including western democracies, despite totalitarianism being less profitable and less efficient, the police serve the whims and pleasures of the ruling class at all times, without exception, and with pure, undiluted violence, to compel the categorical rank servitude of the masses in both thought and deed. But here in the West, and again the United States in particular, the police serve as an unwitting part of the facade of “constitutional freedom”, and the feint and artifice of liberal democracy. This is because in the West, “liberal democracy” is the ostensible context in which the ruling class operates and exists…it is why the ruling class is the ruling class. Thus, it is the illusion which the ruling class must maintain in order to continue to enjoy the power they possess. Now, again, understand that this does not mean that liberal democracy is maintained in perpetuity in the West…the whole point of this article series is to articulate an example of the evolution of liberal democracy into rank authoritarianism, and the natural tendency of the ruling class to resort to overt tyranny in place of any other form of governance. The natural progression of the philosophical premises which underwrite and inform government ALWAYS lead to an overtly totalitarian conclusion. It is unavoidable. Here I am simply pointing out the irony that is particular to western democracy: that in the interest of preserving it, and thus preserving their political power, the ruling class will reject liberal democracy in favor of the more messy and less efficient, less profitable totalitarian version of governance. This is why politicians in the U.S. will, for example, speak of preserving Constitutional liberties and the right of all Americans to be treated fairly whilst simultaneously ordering the police to stand down and allow enormous sections of dozens of cities to be burned to the ground by rioting mobs of rank communists, and, by the ruling class’s brazen inaction, facilitate the destruction of public and private monuments and statues throughout the nation, which is a direct assault on the identity of the very country they claim to publicly serve.

At any rate, as important members of the political farce called “liberal democracy”, the police in the West must be seen (in most circumstances, anyway) to uphold said democracy, and in the United States, this means upholding the constitution, and this means serving and protecting the rights of the citizen against constitutional violations, even if those violations are perpetrated by the ruling class.  And this means that many police officers identify with the more conservative end of the political spectrum, and thus do not easily acquiesce to being pawns of the ruling class In its quest for greater and more direct control of the masses. The police for the most part are obedient and they are ideological, which is expected from those who have given their lives in service to the State. But because they see themselves as important players in the preservation of the Constitution, and the liberties that that document ostensibly implies, the police pushback against the totalitarian decrees issued by the ruling class more often than the ruling class would like. A good example is the refusal of many police and sheriffs departments in the U.S. to enforce the ridiculous, pointless, and clearly unconstitutional “public health” edicts handed down by governors with respect to the coronavirus pandemic, where governors acted independently of any state congressional approval, or even congressional involvement at all, let alone taxpayer consent. This kind of pushback from law enforcement makes the police ultimately unreliable when it comes to exercising the kind of direct violent control of the masses the ruling class must rely upon more and more as the liberal democracy over which it presides continues its inexorable slide towards the sewer of totalitarianism.

All of this being the case, we can see now why, for a while, anyway, the ruling class must outsource its tyrannical wishes to the lower, dependent-class rage mobs of almost perfect and perfectly pure psychosocial dysfunction. Yet, as I have explained, this arrangement with the mob—the informal soldier of the state rampaging through his own neighborhood destroying whatever and whomever he can find, giving no real thought to the distinction between friend or foe, possessing no objective which is truly comprehensible to himself, and, in addition to destroying his environment, destroying himself—this arrangement is not ideal. The ruling class understands that this approach is brazen, indelicate, off-putting, inefficient, and expensive, and their complicity becomes harder and harder to hide. To instead formalize this mob…to make it official business of the State to terrorize and traumatize the tax cattle into submission by giving the mob badges and uniforms and service weapons  and pensions and a formal, albeit rudimentary and simplistic, ideology upon which to smash and murder and rob and torture—this is a better, more ecological strategy, as far as the purposes is of the ruling class is concerned. By exerting formal, direct control over the mob by institutionalizing it and calling it the police, the ruling class is better able to mitigate their uncertainties with respect to their power going forward. The police, unlike simple rioters, can be more incisive, exact, nuanced, more psychologically threatening, surreptitious, subliminal, and controllable; more loyal, less expensive, less ostentatious, less messy.

Replacing the mob with the cops, however, is a challenge. It’s not a simple task because whilst doing so the ruling class must continue to maintain the illusion of a free and representative western liberal democracy. This is hard to do when the very suggestion of replacing the police can be understood even to the most intellectually somnolent citizen (which is most of them) as a rejection—to at least some degree—of the current judicial system. Thus, in order to make more palatable the idea of replacing law-enforcement defenders of the Constitution with hired thugs who will wipe their jackboots on the document, the ruling class engages its propaganda machine to demonize, demoralize, and morally condemn the police as being guilty of the very things they wish to bring about by replacing them. It’s a pretty effective form of psychological warfare, if not a particularly imaginative one. Simple reverse psychology, but it works. The police are scapegoated and defamed as racist, hateful, trigger-happy, violence-loving, mindless barbarians who indiscriminately accost and attack and murder members of the victim class through sheer murderous pleasure—the “victim class” meaning, in the United States, blacks, and occasionally other “minority” groups, when convenient; the reason blacks are so often portrayed as the victim, however, is that they are so easily provoked to outrage and violence, and this because the ruling class has hooked the black community on the drug of welfare more than any other group by far—and all of these fabricated police atrocities and dark psychological characteristics of course are the very things which shall become ubiquitous in law enforcement and completely legalized once the ruling class is able to manipulate law-enforcement directly, without having to pay lip-service or deference (however superficial it already is) to pesky inconveniences like Constitutional rights.

END

Socialist Soup in the United States: Masks, the Mob, and the Cops (Part TWO)

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, law, tyranny, Violence, , ,

When viewed as chronological episodes of a communist coup perpetrated by communist political and paramilitary organizations like “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” (quotes used due to the inherent hypocrisy in the names), the relationship between the recent riots in the United States and the subsequent demands to defund the police becomes apparent. These two incidents, combined with what can only be described by as unconstitutional and totalitarian suspension of the right to life, property, and association in response to a pandemic which was misunderstood by not only the government, but the medical and scientific community, to the point of utterly infantile incompetence, constitute a trifecta of subversive communist maneuvers designed to collapse the system of representative democracy and replace it with a Marxist ethno-state where the “racist, privileged white classes” serve at the pleasure of some nebulous and under-defined victimhood of marginalized “people of color”. You may be tempted to think that, due to the prevalence of white people who support this ideology, that this is a movement of true equality for all races, true Diversity. However, Diversity as an Ideal, which it must be to constitute the basis of a political movement, is monolithic. Meaning that Diversity must be able to to article the antithesis of itself…it must be able to say that which is NOT diverse, and then morally condemn it. And what is NOT diverse is the “system” of “white privilege”. In other words, that which is the evil antithesis of Diversity is Whiteness, and the repository of Whiteness is White people. White people represent the evil of white privilege and are thus an affront to Diversity. Which means they must be subordinated and eventually eradicated.

Don’t believe me? Fine. Think what you want, but this is how it is, whether you accept it or not. You will surely see. And it is truly a short walk from disallowing representation based on racial identity to the gas chambers. So if you’re white, and you support leftist Diversity ideology and are in favor of its application via US law, you might want to remember what happened the last time a violent, racist group of leftist ideologues gained a political majority in a powerful imperial nation with the weapons, resources, and audacity to commit blatant genocide in front of the entire world.

*

Mask laws are not laws for public health, because there is absolutely no evidence that they are effective in doing what the State tells us they will do: protect us from respiratory illness, and in fact they might and probably do make the problem worse. What mask-laws, and social distancing laws to an extent, are, I submit, are a test of public compliance. The state governors demand obedience to unconstitutional dictatorial decrees regarding a mild respiratory illness, demand that law enforcement proceed with monitoring of required behavior and promise punishment for non-compliance, and then sit back and see who and how many fall into line. The reason I focus upon mask-wearing is because among the three most prevalent behavioral orders—stay-at-home, social distancing, and masking wearing—mask wearing is the most obvious of all when it comes to gauging public compliance.

Despite there being absolutely no conclusive, or, I would submit, even convincing, scientific evidence that wearing a cloth mask over one’s face in public does anything to reduce the spread or risk of coronavirus, and despite that almost no effort was exerted by government to ensure and enforce proper mask-wearing practices, making it almost inevitable that mask-wearing would facilitate the spread of coronavirus, regulations were and continue to be legally binding upon citizens. In short, Americans are being asked to obey a law which was instituted unilaterally by governors with absolutely no evidence that the law was necessary nor effective nor moral. In other words, governors demanded that Americans obey an arbitrary law simply for the sake of obedience, alone. Period. Which is about as far from constitutional and democratic as it gets. “Obey or else” is not the foundation of American enlightenment democracy. The governors don’t seem to care.  And that is scary.

Americans, in response to this, and to the propaganda fear-mongers otherwise known as the mainstream media, and to the pseudo-science of government-funded opportunists in the medical community, dutifully donned the masks…for a while. Then the warm weather came, cries of falling skies and streets littered with the dead and dying victims of coronavirus, and soaring case fatality, mortality, and infection rates were all found to be completely manipulated, and the predictions based on models which were off by mathematical factors so extreme as to make the data incomprehensible. And here Americans began to grow lax with in their obedience. The masks began to slip…businesses no longer really enforced social-distancing and mask-wearing rules, though they remain in place nominally. Now, despite no official retraction in many places of mask laws, shelter-in-place laws, or social distancing laws, Americans are becoming less and less compliant, and are more open about flouting the unconstitutional demands placed upon them by despotic governors. They are starting to understand these “public health” laws for what they are: pointless, counterproductive, and stupid. No thanks to any diligent or responsible reporting from the media, I should add. No, the media sold out to ideology and profit decades ago. And Americans are understanding this, too.

Make no mistake about it, the ruling class is very displeased with this. Americans appealing to their rights as free and complete individuals, capable of competently living their own lives and making their own choices in their own best interests absent the incompetent meddling and tantrum-throwing of socialist ninnies and nannies in government is NOT what the ruling class wants from its subjects.Subjects are to be ruled, and the ruled obey. The constitutionality of the law is irrelevant. If man could work out his existence effectively and morally by being FREE and exercising individual liberty, then man wouldn’t need to be governed in the first place. They ruling class knows this, and they expect you to know it, too. Appealing to your constitutional rights doesn’t inspire your leaders or impress them, it simply pisses them off. If the governor wants you to wear a mask, you wear it. It’s that simple. And you’ll wear it for as long as it pleases them. If you wear it to the graveyard or crematorium and beyond, so be it. It’s the law. They are the law-givers; you are the law-taker. Take it. Do it. And shut up.

In part three, we’ll examine the role of the rioting rage mobs, and why they logically follow the mask-laws and the citizens’ rejection of these laws.

END part TWO

 

“Freedom is the absence of risk.” -Tyrant

Authority, forced compliance, government, law, Violence, Voluntarism, , , , ,

The government is not in the business of risk-management. This is an institution whose only real function and purpose is to extort behavior and money by means of its superior violence. This means that government represents the greatest risk to man on earth. The irony then that we task the government to keep us safe by managing our level of risk!

The State passes a child seat law,  but legalizes abortion, which destroys thousands of children every year. It demands that our children wear helmets when riding bicycles, then indebts our nation to the tune of trillions of dollars off the backs of the young who will be fleeced and extorted to pay that debt. It passes seatbelt laws and laws forbidding the sale of soft drinks of a certain size, then mass murders whole generations of men on battlefields in pointless foreign wars fought to preserve the financial interests of the plutocratic financiers. You can’t yell “fire!” In a crowded theatre, but you can run rank and object fear-mongering propaganda pieces about everything from a pandemic to presidential treason to the biological-based racism of the white man. The State can crown itself the sage and savior of civil rights while we all conveniently forget that this is the same State that upheld the interests of slave-holders and flesh-merchants for generations and legally enforced unholy segregation laws for generations after those slaves were finally free…but free only after a million men who never owned slaves and never profited financially or politically from slavery were maimed or murdered on battlefields over which the vast majority of politicians never shed a single tear.

Government risk-management? It would be the world’s funniest joke if it weren’t already the world’s most tragic tragedy.

The State’s ONLY  legitimate task, and even this fundamentally is quite specious, is to nurture a geopolitical context in which men are free from coercive force. Where they are free to conduct voluntary value exchange with one another without facing direct violations of person or property. The government can only be of any amount of benefit when its ONLY task is to discourage DIRECT violations of citizens—murder, theft, fraud, and invasion. Period. That’s it. It is a roaring lion; a blazing furnace; a hissing viper; a chained demon, which must be carefully watched with an ever vigilant and suspicious eye, and with hands on a whip which shall strike hard and fast at the first sign of  threat…at the mere hint of movement in the wrong direction. The monster can NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances be allowed to wander into our lives by some unconstitutional conveyance like “risk management”. That is a slippery slope which can only lead to tyranny. Think about it. If it’s the government’s job to keep you from getting sick, to keep you safe, then what part of your life are they not then entitled to have a primary say? What you eat; where you go; who you talk to; what you do for a living; how you travel; what groups you join…do you see how dangerous this is? Certainly isolating and sequestering at-risk populations is a good idea, but isolating the entire nation is NOT making a distinction between those at risk and those not. Everyone is a potential carrier and a potential victim at the same time. Which means that the government, in order to keep us “safe”, must control all of us. This is not public health, it is public slavery. The government has no constitutional right to prevent citizens from attending church, running their private businesses, patronizing businesses, going to parks, going to the beach, going to concerts, or traveling to other countries. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, privacy, property, and association. There is no disclaimer which says “except in case of public health crisis”.

The Trinity of Viruses: The State, the Citizen, the Coronavirus

Authority, collectivism, forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, , , ,

Let’s say we give a pass to the blatantly tyrannical approach the United States government and state governments have taken in dealing with the coronavirus “crisis” in the early stages. Not that I would, personally, give any such pass. As far as I understand it, there is no asterisk at the bottom of the Constitution which allows for the wanton disregard of foundational liberties in response to a misunderstood and misrepresented respiratory ailment. But I suppose I understand the panic. After all, we in the United States are a narcissistic society of navel gazing cowards and altruistic fantasy-dwellers who are politically represented  by septuagenarian baby boomers who think they are entitled to eternal politcal power and eternal life, and who, like most baby boomers, are terrified of their own mortality, and who have become so drunk on the ever more potent twin fixes of coercive authority and unfathomable wealth that they are almost entirely unqualified for…well, anything.

So, we drink the elixir of mass panic and ignorance, rush from our homes screaming that the sky is falling, run back inside to our beds and pull up our blankies  and whimper and simper like children in a thunderstorm, and wait for the government to do what it does best—tyranny—to save us from the Chinese sniffles. Of course, there was much we could have done on our own without any of this overt government intrusion in our lives and businesses and families, but the only thing Americans are more afraid of than the coronavirus is personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Anyway, we might forgive the State for its rash, uninformed action seven weeks ago. There was only preliminary information about this virus, some very bad numbers and very inept and silly predictions from the Imperial College in London, along with the natural inclination of the State to shoot first an and ask questions later. But now we have the science…it has spoken. We have the testing, we have the data, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the coronaviru simply does NOT represent any credible mass medical threat to the United States, and that the vast majority of people in our nation will experience symptoms so mild that they will never, and have never, sought any formal medical treatment for them. In other words, anyone not over the age of 65 or with some immunocompromising chronic health condition(s) has about as much chance of dying from SARS COV-2 as they do in a car accident on their way to a jelly bean factory. OBJECTIVELY there is NO MEDICAL reason for the ongoing social and economic lockdown in our nation. None. Medically speaking, the lockdown should end immediately.

In case you don’t want to take my word for it, here is a list of some of the experts I have researched in drawing my conclusions on this matter. I suggest you do a simple YouTube search and see for yourself. Each of of these men is literally among the most awarded, experienced, and successful in their field. There are no ringers here:

Dr. Michael Levitt, Professor of Computer Science and Structural Biology, Stanford University Medical School; 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for designing a computer model for complex chemical interactions

Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University

Dr. John Giesecke, former State Epidemiologist for Sweden; Chief Scientist for the European Center for Disease Control; currently advising Swedish Agency for Public Health; currently advising Director General of the World Health Organization

Dr. Knut Wittkowski, former Head of the Department of Biolstatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, Rockefeller University

Dr. David Katz, Founder and Director of Yale University’s Yale Group and Prevention Research Center

All of these experts agree on four basic premises, I have found. 1. That the widescale and indiscrimate lockdown measures were neither particularly effective nor reasonable  2. That these measures will most likely do much more harm in the long run than the virus ever will or can. 3. The lockdown will ultimately not have contributed much if anything at all to stopping the spread and evolution of the virus, and will almost certainly prolong the inevitable infection numbers and postpone herd immunity. 4. That the lockdown should be eased immediately because it represents an ACTUAL existential threat to public health

So, when I say that the lockdown measures are NOT medically necessary and that the coronavirus is not a credible threat to public health and that all politcal and media assertions that the lockdown measures are in the best interest of the citizen are complete lies, this is not my opinion. This is objective fact as stated by unrivaled experts in virology, epidemiology, mathematics, and chemistry, who have examined this virus from the point of view of years and years of experience and knowledges in dealing with just this kind of thing. In other words, it is settled science. You no longer have to convince anyone that the lockdown measures are a waste of time, are much more dangerous than the virus itself, and that it is little more than irrational paranoia and/or gullibility at this point which drives citizens to accept this tyranny and economic looting masquerading as public health policy.

So why are the lockdown measures still happening? Why are they not lifted now that we know that the reasons for them are no longer valid?

The answer is that the reason for thei lockdown was NEVER the virus, and so whatever science is saying about he virus has nothing at all to do with how the State is going to deal with it. At least, not THAT virus. You see, every law, act, regulaion, or decree which precedes from the State is NEVER ultimately designed to protect you from some danger or threat, be it a foreign enemy, or a neighborhood criminal, or a virus. Rather, these things are designed to protect the State from YOU. YOU are the disease it does not want ot contract. The lockdown is the mask IT dons to shield itself from the contagion known as the indivdivual citizen.

The virus arrived and It was advertised as an existential threat, based upon completely erroneous numbers along with general, plenary ignorance. The government, not an institution of reasoned action but of disproportionate overreaction, predictably burned the Constitution and then urinated on the fire, took out a sledgehammer and proceed to pound indiscriminately away at the econmomy and our civil rights. And we were okay with this because we were convinced that we would die…or, at least, would run out of toilet paper. Which, granted, is almost as bad. You see, people who are in fear for their lives will do things and allow things to be done to them which otherwise they would never fathom and never tolerate. Our politicians didn’t want us getting angry at their lack of action with respect this fake towering colossus of ravenous disease. You see, the rancher doesn’t try to speak rationally to the cattle when they become startled and threaten to stampede. Harvesting the brutes for meat and milk and leather is what keeps him rich and comfortable, and he does whatever it takes, sans actually speaking to the herd with words and ideas. Ideas and reason and recommendation are beyond the ability of dumb animals, but they do understand electric fences, and barbed wire, barking and snarling dogs, and gunshots. And ultimately the cattle are settled down…made passive. They are no longer a threat, and somehow, they feel more secure. In this way, with respect to the coronavirus and the unsettled simpering masses of human cattle, liberty was summarily sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. And the nation thanked them for it.

But now that thanks is wearing off, and the cattle are getting restless again. The lockdown measures continue, the almost overnight the collapse of the economy and the summary denial of basic rights of freedom of movement, association, and private property has led to skyrocking unemployment, business closures, a deluge of welfare applicants, drug overdose, sucide, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, panic disorders, heart disease, cancer, child abuse, healthcare industry collapse, restaurant industry collapse, travel and tourism industry collapse, arrant cessation of life saving check-ups and medical procedures, criminality, and educational implosion, to name but a few. Allowing this to continue threatens the power and position of countless politicians. No one in government is safe. Trump’s reelection chances diminish with every passing day, lawsuits are being threatened and filed against government for civil liberty violations, and so to protect their status, politicians are being forced to make overtures towards ending the lockdown.

On the other hand, every epidemiologist and virologist worth a damn is predicting an increase in coronavirus cases and more deaths once people are allowed to reintegrate back into society. This has to do with the nature of such a virus, which must acquire a certain number of hosts before it tapers off and blends into the background haze of common viruses with which man must coexist during the winter months. The lockdown, instead of halting the virus, has simply postponed the inevitable. Politicians are hoping and praying for the miracle of a quick vaccine, and we should all be extremely wary of any vaccine which is rushed into service before the requisite time of 18 months to two years, which is the usual amount of time it takes to produce and research a vaccine for his kind of illness. Any vaccine which appears sooner is almost certainly spurious at best, and possibly dangerous, and is the result of nothing more than profit mongering and political expediency.

So the gonverment has a conundrum on their hands. How do you reintegrate society whilst keeping a virus which MUST inexorably spread from spreading.

The answer is: you don’t.

But if you are the government the answer is to walk the line of contradiction and hope that the American public is too stupid or too scared or too propaganzized (preferably all three) to notice that they are being played for fools. This nonsense about opening the economy “slowly” and “in stages” and “seeing what happens” and maybe “pulling back if we have to” and “opening business only if they comply with CDC regulations” and by color coding counties like they are doing here in Pennsylvania is NOT a medical strategy. I repeat, it is NOT A MEDICAL strategy. It is a political one. And moreover, it is a continuation of the unconstitutional revocation of basic American freedoms that has been occurring for the past seven weeks. The State wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want you breathing a sigh of relief with the idea of “returning to normal”, whilst NOT actually returning to normal becasue “normal” will be, in the words of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, the “new normal”. Which means that the economy and society will reopen but not ACTUALLY reopen. These “strategies” are politcal theater; an illusion, designed to keep you both calm and in a state of fear…to create a dissonance in your emotions and psyche. The State does not care about you, only about itself. And this psy-ops game they are playing now with “reopening the economy” in baby steps is an indulgent massaging of their vanity. They are hoping against all reality that they can open the economy whilst keeping coronavirus cases on the decline. But this cannot be done, and so they must hope that somehow you will belive that that which cannot be done is nevertheless being done by your government. The govenrment for its own sake must open the economy, but for its own sake it ALSO must not. So this is what we get. An opening of the economy which is not really an opening.

Let us open our eyes and see clearly the trinity of viruses at play here: the virus of the State to you and me, the virus of me and you to the State, and the coronavirus to all of us. And let us understand that only one of these viruses is truly a threat to humanity.

END

The Law is at War with You (Part 3, Conclusion)

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, Ethics, forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, Metaphysics, morality, Violence, Voluntarism, , , , , ,

At the beginning of this article series, I opened with the question: Without the law what is to prevent someone from committing evil action X should they have the opportunity; and what then is the consequence?

From this question, often asked by apologists for legal ethics (those who assume that Coercive Authority, i.e. the State, is utterly necessary for human ethics to exist), two things can be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the law is not necessary to declare moral value—indeed, that moral value must be known before the law exists (e.g. law is to prevent evil action X, an action of which its moral evil warrants the creation-intervention of law). And second, that evil has no negative consequence without law.

The idea that there is no consequence for immoral action absent law presents us with a contradiction; this contradiction is “resolved” by rejecting morality entirely, and replacing it with legality. Here is the contradiction: by asserting that there is no negative consequence for immoral action, an immoral action can no longer be defined as immoral. You see, in ethics, it is axiomatic that action and consequence are corollary, yet the law “splits” this corollary by making action a function of moral ethics and consequence a function of legal ethics. But morality and legality are two completely distinct ethical systems, each with its own very specific premises and corollaries and conclusions, and, most importantly, its own metaphysical foundation. (Morality is based upon will and choice, its metaphysics are individualist; legality is based upon authority and coercive force, its metaphysics are collectivist). They simply cannot be merged/integrated in any rational or efficacious way. So what happens is that morality by default becomes merely propagandistic conveyance for the implementation of legality, whereupon morality is discarded by the Authority (ruling class) and replaced with legality as the author and arbiter of the ethical value of both action and consequence. And this is done quite naturally, and is not necessarily consciously conceived by those arguing for the State and the Rule of Law or the ruling class. For as soon as we assume and accept that consequence must be a function of the law, then it becomes impossible to determine the ethical value of an action without also appealing to the law; and this is due to the inherent mutual exclusivity between legal ethics and moral ethics. This is the nature of ethics.

All of this being the case, in response to the question at the top of this article, we are forced to reply as follows:

Wihout law, why should we think that evil action X is in fact evil? In other words, how do we know that action X, or engaging in action X, is a bad thing?

The answer is of course that we do not; we cannot. Because by asking the question we necessarily concede that legality, not morality, is the only relevant and possible ethical system. Outside of the law, there is no ethic. Any action outside the law cannot by definition be called illegal, and thus it cannot be called unethical, and thus it cannot be called “bad”. The law, in accordance with the logical rules of ethics, is both prescriptive and proscriptive. It dictates which actions are good or bad (or said another way, it dictates the goodness or badness value of a given action) and it dicatates the consequences for actions. The law declares what you must do and what you must not (which is fundamentally oxymoronic, because one cannot do a “not”….so the law fundamentally dicates all behavior at root). And this is why law has nothing at all to do with choice and will. Human action is fundametally driven by individual will. But will is not recogniznzed by law, which by nature is coercive, not cooperative, which is why as time goes by, the law—the State, the Ruling Class—becomes more and more oppressive; it smothers humanity, it does not, and cannot, free it. The nature of the law is to dictate, not emancipate. Law rejects human choice and will, it does not provide some kind of cohesive and moral context for them. The “freeing power of democratic law” is just lie you have been told to make you more amenable to the whims of the ruling class, nothing more. You are coerced by very persuasive, euphonious, idealistic indoctrination, which is much cheaper and more profitable than state terrorism, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, and less messy as well. The chattel bear more service and substance if they walk willingly to their cages and pastures than if they struggle or try to run away. Though terror, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, or some manifestation thereof, will eventually appear no matter how ostensibly democratic a system is…and there are reasons for this, but they are a subject for another article.

Finally, I will end with this:

The law does not provide a context for the implementation of efficacious morality. Law is, according to the ethics of morality, entirely opposed to moral behavior.

In other words, the law is categorically immoral.

END

The Law is at War with You (Part 2)

Authority, collectivism, Ethics, forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, morality, Violence, Voluntarism, , , , ,

In part one of this essay series, I concluded with the declaration that the law is not a means of enforcing moral ethics, or a conveyance of them, but is in fact a replacement of them. And it is on this point that I would like to elaborate.

Most of us assume, because we are indoctrinated to do so from our very first breath, that the law, as a tool of moral ethics, has to do with willful action and consequence. That is, if your willful action is to break the law, your consequence is punishment under the law. But this is not actually so. When dealing in legality, we are inexorably and necessarily simultaneously dealing in Authority. The law and the authority to enforce the law are indeed corollary…without an Authority to force compliance and punishment according to the law, then the law cannot be manifest. Law, absent authority, in other words, has no consequence…and therefore its commands have no substance, and therefore the law does not exist in any practical sense. Said another way, once people have a choice as to whether or not they will obey the law, then there is no law. The very nature of law is to disregard choice entirely…that’s the whole point. If someone chooses to disobey, then the law shall punish them. That’s how the whole thing works. One’s choice to disobey the law does not get them out from under it…not at all. It merely invites punishment according to the law. The law does not recognize your choice as legitimate, and that is why you are punished according to the law when you disobey it. If your choice was recognized as legitimate by law, then there would be no punishment for disobedience. Punishment exists in legal ethics precisely as a means to nullify choice, not to affirm it. Before your choice can result in a consequence which fundamentally satisfies that choice, the law steps in to punish you. Instead of a natural consequence to your exercise of individual will, you will relinquish your money to the State, or suffer garnished wages, or a jail cell, or a firing squad, a noose, guillotine, cross, electric chair, needle…etc.. At the very least, you spend your days “on the run” and in hiding. In any case, the point is that the law steps in long before any true, natural consequence of your free choice can ever manifest.

But of course this is not what most of us suppose…we are taught that punishment (and also reward) is a consequence of choice. If the law punishes the “evildoer” then it is because he is simply “reaping what he sows”. If he had not chosen to disobey, then he would not have been punished. However, this is not in reality how law works. Obedience, by definition, has nothing to do with choice, yet it has everything to do with law. One does not choose to obey, for that is a contradiction in terms. One obeys legal commands, or else one is punished. The commands are dictated by the Authority; the punishment is likewise and equally dictated by the Authority. Both the commands of the law and the punishment for disobedience of the law are equal manifestations of the Authority. They are One, and man is obligated to it. He will either obey, regardless of what he wants, or he will be punished, regardless of what he wants. Said another way: He will either obey, regardless of what he’d rather choose, or he will be punished, regardless of what he’d rather choose. The command to “obey or else” hasn’t the least bit to to with individual will, and thus hasn’t the least to do with choice. The law is dictated TO man; it is not a product of his will, then, but of the will (and whim) of the Authority, which is predicated upon a collective Ideal into which humanity is to be forced, not Individual agency exercised as choice. Man is born into law—he belongs to it, NOT vice versa. And law is a giant rock which is falling on his head; he may move out from under it, but only by stepping off a cliff and onto the jagged rocks below. In this situation, the choice he makes leads to the exact same conclusion, having nothing fundamentally to do with him or his choice at all. And that’s the whole idea. That’s LAW.

From this, a fundamental truth now becomes clear, where before it was hidden and obscured by layers and layers of misunderstanding, disinformation, misinformation, rationally bankrupt philosophy, and sadistic self-loathing tradition: law doesn’t have anything to do with individual action and consequence. At all. Your actions are compelled, thus denying your will, which denies your mind, which denies your singular consciousness (your awareness of Self), which denies your root individual nature, which denies your existence entirely. Manifestations of individuality, like choice (true, objective freedom) are thus ipso facto illegal…which simply means that they not recognized as existentially legitimate and natural. Law is philosophically collectivist, not Individualist. It compels man against his will by collectivizing him and then directing and defining the collective whole into Its legal obligation to serve the Authority (ruling class). And it compels man necessarily against his will because it does not recognize his will, because it does not recognize his individuality. The law views man’s existence as fundamentally collective, thus making man a function of an Idealized reality, not a rational reality. The Ideal is an abstract, the collective thus likewise an abstract, the collective becomes an ironic monolithic entity, and man the individual is thus forced to live in this dream-reality which the State (the Authority/ruling class) intends to make manifest by coercive FORCE, and the law serves as the blueprint and ethical exuse for the resultant bloodshed. This is how the State excuses its mass murder of millions of men and women on the battlefields of governemnt wars and other places whilst simultaneously condemning every random “lawbreaker”—a tax avoider, a drug dealer, a man operating a barber shop without a business license—as a moral villain to be ridiculed as an affront to human prosperity and progress.

The law, my friends, is not a natural context for action and consequence, as if it is merely an expression of object and endemic human free agency, where we all just get together and happily agree to play by the rules. Without a ruling class, there are no legal rules! Those rules we all followed as kids in our games of backyard sports, or tag, or pretend play, these are not law! They are rules without the ruler…which makes them the opposite of law: cooperation based upon an arrant individual willingness to be part of the game, without threat of punishment, nor any means to effect punishment for withdrawing or choosing not to play, save the loss of maybe a little face, or at worst separation from that particular group of individuals merely due to disparate individual interests, upon which another group may be joined, or not.

This is voluntarism, not collectivism. It is not the State, it is Stateless.  It is not legality, it is morality. It is not obligation to Authority, it is the freedom to act morally.

END part 2

The Law is at War with You (Part 1)

Ethics, forced compliance, government, law, morality

If the question is “Without the law what is to prevent or dissuade someone from (committing this or that evil action) should they have the opportunity and should they feel like it; and what then is the consequence?”  …yes, if this is the ethical question with respect to the law, and it is, then we can argue that the law is not necessary to determine the moral value of the action in question. Indeed, we can argue that to even ask the question in the first place is to admit that moral judgement must already have been rendered upon the action. So we know that by the very (ostensible) point of the law in the first place—to dissuade men from and to punish men for evil actions—that law itself has nothing to do with how and why actions are morally valued. In other words, if an action can be valued as “good” or “bad” outside the law, and indeed this value is an a priori premise of the law, then it can be concluded that the law has nothing at all fundamentally to do with moral ethics. And this is very important. Because what this means is that the law can neither fundamentally promotes moral action nor provides for moral consequence.

Let me explain.

Moral ethics are often the ostensible reason why men feel the need to apply law in defense of morality, but those who are committed to law as a conveyance of morality rarely, if ever, claim that law is the means by which morality is defined. And this makes sense, as the very definition of ethics as a bonafide philosophical category must include both action and consequence of  action—these are corollary. In other words, even men who are comitted to law as a means to implement morality accept that the morality of both actions and consequences are wholly defined and understood apart from the law. Said another way, even those who promote the law as a defense of morality tacitly admit that morality is a fully-formed, complete, self-sustaining/self-contained, comprehensive ethical system. It already describes what is good and bad, and therefore it necessarily describes the consequences of good and bad actions, and how to promote the former and prevent the other. The moral value of an action and the corollary moral value of its consequence necessarily imply the moral means of defending and promoting morality. Moral ethics don’t actually need the law. At all.

Which begs the question: why do we have law then?

I’ll get to that. But I suspect you already know/have figured it out.

Law is instituted in defense of morality only after moral actions and consequences have already been observed, defined, and understood. Ergo: “We must have law in order to prevent/punish people from/for doing this or that BAD thing”. That is, law is seen to be a tool of moral ethics. But here’s the problem: it has nothing actually to do with moral ethics…and this is the grand ethical irony. The Ethics of Morality already provide the utility for which the law is said to be necessary. In other words, in any true, legitimate ethical system—of which morality is indeed the only rationally consistent example—the prevention of and consequence for unethical action is endemic to the system. Morality provides for its own conveyances of prevention and consequence. It does not need the law…the law, as far as moral ethics goes, is utterly superfluous. Morality already endemically declares that “if thou do X then thou shall necessarily reap Y”. The future prevention of negative moral action X is the example/experience of reaping of the necessary corollary moral negative consequences of Y…both of which are defined and understood according to morality, not according to the law.

Which brings us to the next point in this essay series: The law then, by deduction of relatively simple logic, is not a tool of morality but a replacement of it. It does not save or protect the innocent, it wrecks the distinction between the morally innocent and the morally guilty, and places the declaration of ethical value squarely in the hands and the whims of a subjective ruling class (Governing Authority…the State). The establishment of a ruling class  is, as a fundamental premise, is the deposing of morality and the institution of legality in its place. And this is necessarily the death of humanity, not the salvation of it.

END part one