Category Archives: Uncategorized

Coronavirus Hysteria 2: We were promised an apocalypse, and the State will deliver what nature has not

So here we are, in the sixth or seventh week of “quarantine”—which, what a lovely little euphemism for “house arrest”—and damn it, the numbers are just not what we were promised. And at the rate things are going, they never will be. We were promised millions dead, and dozens of virus mutations, each more deadly than the last, and instead we got a virus that doesn’t really mutate much at all. We have our mask-wearing laws, our “shelter in place” laws, our stockpiles of toilet paper…so just where in the hell is the insatiable and genocidal mass murdering little packet of RNA called Coronavirus that we were promised?

Now, thanks to prevalence testing (finally…better late than never; well, actually not better late than never, but whatever) we know that the mortality rate of this virus is in the vicinity of the common seasonal flu, maybe even less, and that those most at risk of death are those anyone with an IQ over 90 could have guessed—the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions, mostly lung, heart, and other cardiovascular related issues. In States and Nations which did not threaten state violence to compel economic shut downs and massive unemployment, large scale house-arrest, small business collapse, and the atomization of society through “social distancing” laws, which here in the US are just about the most unconstitutional thing one can imagine short of a rank despot seizing control of the nation and summarily burning the original copy of the Constitution to char right on the Capitol steps…yes, nations which did not decide to rule by throwing all reason and sanity into an infinite abyss and replacing them with psychopathic political expediency—like Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea—have experienced none of the disasters foretold, and have far fewer cases and deaths than many other countries. This of course is objective, emprical, and verifiable evidence…it is evidence that all of the “public health” measures forced upon a compliant and complacent citizenry in other countries has done nothing to save lives, stem the infection rates, or bring greater security and well-being to the people. On the contrary, it has done the exact opposite. Not only has it prolonged the virus pandemic via hindering the ability of the masses to acquire the herd immunity necessary to build long-term protection against the coronavirus, like it protects us against many other viruses, it has doomed them, and particularly here in the United States, to economic insecurity, psychological chaos, bankruptcy, drug addiction, alchoholism, suicide, unemployment, domestic violence, welfare dependency, stress-related health problems such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, and general ruin…along with prolonging their risk of infection, almost certainly increasing propagation of the virus, which means more death from the virus itself and from complications related to comorbidity.

In addition, we are seeing this disturbing push-pull of manipulative reporting from the mainstream media, which is merely the propaganda wing of the government, and primarily for the Left (today’s neo-Marxist sychophants). We are given reason to panic, then reason to hope a little, then more reason to panic, and on and on. It’s what they call in the military “psy-ops”…never let your enemy establish a sense of certainty about the situation and reality in general. Keep them confused and blind to reason and the truth at all times. This virus is hella-dangerous we are told, but we will be just fine if we comply with our quarantine; wear our masks and wash our hands; collect our welfare checks, and stand on those little markers on the floor at the grocery store. But then, you never know…the second wave might be even worse, and we aren’t sure the economy will ever fully return to normal, because there’s no telling what this virus might do; only a few have died relative to the numbers of infected, but watch out! The mass graves of billions is a reality which is just around the corner!

We are psy-op-ed into docility. We are to be controlled through confusion; managed through uncertainty…caged metaphorically, but not physically. The former is much cheaper, and much more effective, and much more profitable.


You see, the root of what is going on here is that we were promised an apocalyptic hellscape of dead bodies and ruined lives by the millions and even billions, but here it is six months into this thing and it has fizzled like a match in a hurricane. The virus isn’t doing its job…it got lazy and took an early retirement. The mortality rates are falling fast in most places, and at present the coronavirus isn’t any more deadly than the common seasonal flu. Infections are still going on, but this virus has such a lengthy incubation period and the country initiated the collective house-arrest orders so late, and the “public health” measures of blindfolds and handcuf…er, I mean masks and gloves, and the unconstitutional restrictions on freedom  of associa…er, I mean “social distancing”, are so haphazard, ill-informed, and ineffective, even according to medical experts in the World Health Organization and National Academy of Sciences, that infection rates have only been slowed only insofar as people aren’t moving around as much. The curve isn’t being flattened because we are beating the virus, it’s simply because the government put a moratorium on living life in this country…in an effort to save it. Well…no one does irony like the State. But infections are still happening, and will continue to happen as long as people are alive and breathing. I wonder what government orders are being cooked up as I write this to deal with THAT little problem? (Of course I’m being sarcastic here…for now).

And this is the corner into which our incompetent politicians and policy-makers have painted themselves. By overreacting to this relatively harmless virus, and giving into the conspiracy theory panic-mongers on social media, YouTube, in the mainstream media, and even in medical institutions which exist to advise the State on public health issues, all of whom were telling us such fantasies as billions could die, and that this is a Chinese bioweapon, and that it is mutating into an unstoppable perfect viral storm of certain death, and plastering dozens of contextless videos of people in Asia being thrown into quarantine camps, barricaded in their homes and apartment buildings, and crematoriums with bodies lined up like a street parade to be disintegrated into a black-smoke oblivion as though Auschwitz had been rebooted…yes, by overreacting to this deluge of rank spectacle with almost zero actual information about the virus and then summarily assuming almost plenary control of every aspect of the life of the citizen, the government doomed the nation to the apocalypse which the virus was never, ever going to actually deliver by itself.

Like I said, no one does irony quite like the State.

In other words, here is the corner which at this point pretty much guarantees that this “lockdown”…this suspension of basic life and freedom in this nation will go on pretty much indefinitely at this point. At least, this is the rational perspective…thankfully the State has a habit of acting irrationally, so there might be hope. Anyway, the government, by allowing this lockdown to continue, creates an economic, social, psychological, medical, and political disaster which rapidly approaches the point of irreversibility with every passing second, and in addition to this doesn’t actually do anything  to halt the threat of the virus but merely prolongs the existence of it as a threat by hindering any chances for herd immunity to develeope and deal with it. And this could threaten the positions of those in power in the long run.

But if they lift the lockdown the coronovirus will ineluctably spread and the numbers will climb…this is the dreaded “second wave” they are talking about on the news now. Of course, there is nothing to fear from a second wave, because the mortality rates will not change…it will not make the virus any more deadly and will in fact, create mass immunity rather quickly as people get it and recover, so there is nothing to be afraid of. But the State knows how ignorant and short-witted and reactionary and fickle the public is and when the people see the number of infections rise again they will of course completely lose their collective shit and blame the State for opening the country up too soon. And this will turn out very bad for politicians and policy makers in the short run.

So…understand this: this forced house arrest and economic cratering we as citizens are being forced to endure at this moment has absolutely nothing directly to do with cornonavirus, and all attempts to present this virus as some kind of actual, visceral, clear and present threat to life and limb is pure fear-baiting and propaganda for power and profit. There is nothing about the virus itself for the overwhelming majority of people to be afraid of. This has everything to do with the ruling class biding their time until they can create an artifice of plausible deniability. In other words, they are opting to go with the long-term disaster approach of holding fast the nationwide lockdown in the hopes that this buys them enough time to come up with a plan to save their reputations, and with it their positions and power. Of course, the longer they let it go, the more short term the long term disaster gets. Now, I’m sure that there are some in power who are looking to the Golden Knight of the Glorious Vaccine to come and rescue them out of their self-sabotage, but that necessitates that this lockdown proceed for at least another eighteen months if not two years. This scenario leaves them with no country left to rule at the end of it all, of course, but if you think for a second that the government isn’t seriously considering a lockdown which extends until a vaccine arrives (and that a vaccination can even be created is no certainty), then you don’t know how insatiable the State actually is, and how ferociously self-interested it can be when faced with what it believes is a true existential threat. Not only are they considering a two-year lockdown, but right now this IS the ACTUAL plan which is being implemented. It IS the reality at present. The government has not equivocated in the least about their power and intention to extend the lockdown for as long as it is “necessary”.  Where “necessary” means “serves its own interest, period”.


So, the virus isn’t doing what the government told us it would do. The “public health” measures are not and will not have the effect on the virus that we are told they will. But see, this is not the fault of government, lest anyone get the wrong idea about the point of this article. I am by no means criticizing the State. I am merely pointing out the perfunctory and necessary failure of it when it assumes responsibilities that are not inclusive of its nature, purpose, and abilities. I would no more accuse the lion of failing to build a canoe than I would accuse the government of failing to handle a crisis, or promote the health and well-being of humanity.

Well, I suppose that’s not completely true…the government could be blamed for making the attempt to go beyond its endemic and singular purpose; but I’m not sure that’s even what it is doing. I believe all of these attempts to address real problems in a productive and satisfying way are merely a facade for rank power grabbing. I believe the State knows exactly its purpose and its skill set, and relentlessly pursues these to the exclusion of all else. Perhaps I’m simply being too cynical, but really…eventually the lion, no matter how naive and ambitious it may be, WILL realize that it’s really only good at being a lion.

Here’s what I mean: the government’s only real purpose and talent is to annihilate. It’s like Ivan Drago from Rocky IV that way—whatever it hits, it destroys. Government is force. Government is an instrument of destruction…it is the centralization and monopoly of overwhelming compelling violence. It’s only job and only talent is to destroy the individual in sacrifice to a collectivist Ideal that it represents incarnate. in the US the Ideal is “the People”, but it can be anything—the Church, the Nation, the Race, the Worker’s Utopia…etc. It may try, and even in good faith, and in earnest altruistic intention, to correct social injustice, or to ensure economic stability, or to protect the health of the public, or the educate the masses, or to feed the them, or house or clothe them. But it fails, always, and at all times. Whatever problem it tackles, it makes worse, sooner or later, because it MUST. Because in all cases except destruction, the government is the lion which is trying to build a canoe. No matter what it does, or how hard it tries, or how good things may look for a while, the canoe must inevitably sink. It won’t work, becasue it simply can’t EVER be an ACTUAL canoe. Because lions do not build canoes.

What goverment does do… what it is so very good at that it does it perfectly even when trying to do the exact opposite, is wreck peoples’ lives. At the end of the day it murders, hinders, starves, threatens, imprisons, abuses, corrupts, and buries any and all expressions of individual autonomy, freedom, free will, and personal responsibility. Fiat currency, unrestrained debt and money printing destroy the econonmy; govenrment schools become institutions of collectivist and moral nihilism indoctrination; government wars begot from emprical meddling annihilate entire generations of men; social justice programs alienate and oppress the majority in the name of “equality”; tax collection takes the competent and productive and feeds them into farms and charnel houses where they are fleeced and butchered to buy the votes of the incompetent and unproductive, and on and on. And that is why, even though the virus disappointed in its foretold disaster, the apocolypse we were promised shall come to pass. Because where nature fails to heel and hobble mankind via its pestilence, meteorological disaster, or disease, the State takes up the slack. The virus failed to annihilate us, but don’t you worry, there will be destruction and death, in the millions and billions, just as we were promised. The virus won’t get you, but here’s what will: depression, anxiety, heart disease, cancer, unemployment, indigence, bankrupsy, alcoholism, drug addiction, desperation, loneliness, domestics abuse, crime, uneducated youth, economic depression, inflation, debt, anger, frustration, mistrust, indolence, early death, loss of friendship, loss of avocation, chronic sickness, failure to obtain preventative healthcare intervention and regular check ups, and on and on…all brought to you courtesy of your “public health” officials who are so desperately trying to save you from that which you will in all probability never see, hear, feel, or even notice should it by happenstance come upon you. Indeed, you may never personally know anyone who has truly suffered from the coronavirus, but you will certainly know personally one, and likely many, who has and have suffered from the State’s policies to protect you from it.


No one does irony quite like the State.



Coronavirus Hysteria: Mask Panic, Mask Confusion, and Why One Law is Infinte Laws

Go look at the literature concerning the effectiveness of masks in slowing or stopping the spread of coronavirus. What you will find is this: that masks both do and do not work.

Now, we know that something cannot both be “is” and “is not” because that’s a contradiction, and contradictions are null. Meaning they invalidate both premise and conclusion and thus result in a net 0…they are valueless and non-existent, and thus should be entirely rejected out of hand.

But the contradiction here is merely figurative…we can safely assume that the scientists and medical professionals who lead the discourse on mask-wearing in the midst of this virus kerfuffle do not mean to give a non-answer, and do not mean to confuse or mislead the public. So what it means is that there is benefit to mask-wearing, but with that benefit is a corresponding risk.

Now, I am not going to ramble on about the why’s and wherefore’s of masks and mask-wearing…about their usefulness after moisture saturation, effective resistance, virus transmission routes, moisture droplets, and all of that kind of thing. All that can be found in hundreds, if not thousands, of articles online. But distilling down the literature, there is a consistent conclusion that can be inferred from all of it, and that is this: That for every benefit to mask wearing there is an equal and opposite risk. For example, a mask may be effective in stopping large droplets of water from spreading to surfaces and other people, whilst at the same time they are not effective in halting the virus on smaller air droplets which can permeate the mask. Masks can give wearers a false sense of security causing them to become careless in social distancing, or deciding that it is safe to be around someone who is symptomatic, or that it is safe to go out when they are sick. Masks can reduce the risk of face-touching, which is likely a much more prevalent route of virus transmission than airborn inhalation. Yet they may also significantly increase the amount of face touching due to people having to readjust their masks, or taking them on and off, or pulling them down and then back up again for whatever reason. If you are a glasses wearer like me, you find yourself constantly having to readjust a face mask due to fogging. It is such a problem for me that I am not actually comfortable wearing a mask out of fear of catching the virus via face-touching. Masks may present as a comforting psychological bromide, yet this may backfire due to overconfidence. Masks are effective to some extent in preventing the inhalation and exhalation of the virus, but only for about twenty minutes, after which they become too moisture saturated to serve as any kind of preventative measure. In order for masks to reduce the risk of spreading coronavirus and not actually promote an even greater risk, the paper-based surgical masks must be discarded after a single use, and never worn for more than twenty minutes; the cloth masks, the makeshift homemade masks, the bandanas, must be washed after every use, and never worn for longer than twenty minutes. Hands should always be clean when affixing or removing the mask, and once on, should not be touched, ever. Failure to do these things not only voids the usefulness of the mask in preventing virus transmission, but can actually increase the risk of someone getting sick and spreading the virus to others.

Now, you may think the point of this article is to assert that mask-wearing is a zero-sum activity. And a very compelling argument can be made for that, and is what I happen to believe. I believe that mask-wearing is nothing more than a public spectacle, and does little more than promote a panic and hysteria with respect to a relatively harmless virus, which does nothing in the end but to prolong the economic, psychological, and even physical destruction of our nation, not to mention the already-irreversible and massive demolition of our Constitutional rights and freedoms, which we will never see returned.

But that’s not really what I am interested in here. The point I want ot make is much more academic, much less idealistically charged…perfunctory. After all, rational consistency is the only real discourse of substance. Everything else is just barking.

Let’s talk law. Let’s talk the idea of mandatory mask-wearing. Which is not such a far-fetched notion, and in some places in this country is already a reality. A law, or requirement, which demands that people wears masks in public or else suffer punishment is ostensibly designed to save lives, right? To protect people from this rogue virus that is ravaging the nation and the world (well, okay, 2.2 million out of a world population of 8,000 million is hardly “ravaging”, but let’s just assume the media’s self-serving perspective on this). And certainly there is some evidence that wearing a mask may save lives by halting or slowing virus infections. But—and here’s the rub—there are a lot of ifs which must be given asterisks…a lot of caveates. Masks may be effective in doing what the law ostensibly intends them to do IF masks are worn no more than twenty-minutes; IF we do not allow them to be moisture saturated; IF they are not handled once they are placed on our faces; IF the paper ones are disposed of after each and every use, and IF the cloth ones are washed after every use and never worn more than once UNLESS washed; IF we only put them on and take them off with clean hands; and IF we don’t allow them to give us a false sense of security and thus IF they do not tempt us to violate other preventative protocols.

What all of these IF’s mean is that simply applying a law which requires citizens to wear masks in public will not actually DO that which the law is intended to do, because for every increased benefit there is an increased risk. Failure to wash masks or discard them, to wash hands before and after touching masks, to not wear them longer than twenty minutes, to not allow them to become moisture saturated, to not wear them more than once, to not allow them to become an excuse to forgo much more important preventative measures, to NOT allow them to become a false sense of security is to INCREASE the risk of spreading the virus. Masks are a razor’s edge of risk…fall off that edge, and you make the problem worse than if you’d never worn a mask at all.

It is clear from this then that one law is not going to do the trick. We will need dozens and dozens of related laws in order for that one law—mandatory mask-wearing—to actually do what we are told it will do: keep us safe. Otherwise it is merely a law for law’s sake; the exercise of authority for authority’s sake. The law which says you shall wear a mask must also say you shall not touch your mask with unclean hands; you shall discard your paper mask after a single use; you shall wash your cloth mask after a single use; etc. etc. You get the idea. And this is the problem. Tyranny is a destination born of ostensibly benevolent intention. Once you allow one law to pass, you imply that ALL others must necessarily follow, and that you shall allow those, too. And before you know it, you are told where and when you  can and cannot open your business that YOU built with YOUR own time and money and resources; what you can and cannot sell; what you can and cannot spend your money on; where you can and cananot go, and with whom you can and cannot associate, and what the nature of that association shall look like; where you can and cannot work, and for how long, and so on and so forth.

Oh, wait a minute. We are there already. My bad.

So it has always been with law and government, and always will be. At the end of it all, the only real State solution to public health situations like we are seeing now is to save lives by disallowing people to live them. At the end of the day, mask-wearing is just another part of the hammer used to bash the virus into oblivion and you and me along with it. For the law cannot recognize the difference.



You’re Not Saved by Being a Christian, You’re Saved by Being YOU: The lie of collective salvation

In the Christian Church, I don’t care which denomination—it doesnt matter, they all share the same foundational metaphysics—what does it mean to be saved?

Now, you might think that this question is a prologue to a deep and meaningful disquisition of Christian soteriology. However, I can assure you that this is quite uneccesary…for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the vast majority of Christians find such a thing completely useless (and couldn’t even begin to comprehend it even if they wanted to…which they don’t). They fancy themselves far too divinely enlightened and practical (they are in fact neither) in their theology to bother with something quite this abstract. In this case, then, I will answer the question according to the “enlightened” and “practical” faith of the Christain church:

It means to believe in Jesus.

But that seems awfully vague, and it is, so we must press a little.

What does it mean, exactly, to believe in Jesus?

It means to renounce your sins and vow to obey God’s moral commands. It is a commitment to reject your “natural” self—your “pre-salvation” you—and to be “born again”.

Now, here is where the whole thing goes off the rails, wheels flying wildly in all directions. Because here we get into the metaphysics of it…though most Christians, to their own folly, don’t even recognize the word. And this is why discussing soteriology with Christians is a complete waste of time. The whole religion dissolves into mysticism; and “faith’ becomes an antonym to “reason” and “sensibility”. Interestingly enough, and sadly, this is also where Christianity goes completely extra-biblical…or anti-bibilcal, really. In other words, there is little to nothing of Christ in any of the Christian ideas one would normally associate with salvation .

The root assumption behind salvation in Christian theology (or rather, ideology) is that the “born-again” you is both fundamentally different from and fundamentally the same as the the “natural you”. And it is this metaphysical contradiction which undermines the faith, and reduces it to either quaint novelty (as in the Amish or Mennonites), anodyne and stultifying cynicism (“middle America” mainline churches)  or mendacious, civilization-wrecking autocracy (Augustine, Luther, Calvin); and all degrees within and among these. You see, the “old you” by dint of birth is unable to please God due to the pervasive wickedness which is a function of your base existence, period. In other words, the very fact that you are is why you are evil and cannot please God naturally. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” the Chruch perversly and irrationally interprets to mean that the very birth of men condemns them to fall under God’s wrath. Man’s “original sin” is that he is born at all. You qua you—you as existant—is evil incarnate.

Of course Christians will take issue with my use of the world “interpret”, claiming that they are simply declaring what the Bible “plainly states”. But this comes from the false belief that what is written in the Bible is somehow immune from interpretation—that somehow the Bible is a closed system of meaning. That it’s a truth in and of itself and thus outside of man, and therefore it is a truth that man must be “enlightened to”, as opposed to something written specifically for him and from him and speaking to his particular existential frame of reference.

This is mystic nonsense—an iteration of Christianity’s pagan-gnostic roots. The Bible is written in language, and as such it is necessarily interpreted by those who posses the innate ability and inherent reference to give it meaning: man. Christians do not simply “declare” the Bible, despite what they may think and claim, they interpret it. And they do so badly.

So, prior to salvation you can do no good thing because of your fundamental depravity. Now, I understand Christians will object to this, arguing that, on the contrary, you can do good but that you have a “tendency” to “trend” (by which they mean inexorably) toward evil; however, this claim does not suffer rational scrutiny. You see, according to the metaphysics, man’s evil is not at root a function of what he does but what he is. And since what he is is evil, then all he does is evil by definition, no matter how “good” it may appear. Because man’s nature is utterly fallen, and “fallen” is the place from which all men are categorically spawned, there is no moral difference between the man who runs an orphanage and the man who burns one down. Both men are equally evil in root nature, both men require salvation in equal measure. and thus what they do must be morally valued equally. Ethics always follow metaphysics, and actions are valued by essence, NOT the other way around.

Man’s existential evil makes him unable to be good, which means that he cannot choose Christ…for such a choice, even if made by him, would necessarily be meaningless. Absolute Evil cannot conjoin with the perfect Good of God’s Son, no matter how much it wants or chooses to. A mystic conversion is the only “solution” to the existential conundrum in which man finds himself. Hence the get-out-of-reason-free cards of election and predestination. God arbitrarily—as far as man is concerned—chooses those who shall choose Him…and if this seems like good old fashioned contradiction, that’s because it is. So don’t waste your time trying to make sense of it. Those who are saved thus become “new creatures”, no longer defined by their collective existential depravity, but by their collective identity as “God’s chosen”. In other words, it has nothing to do with what a man chooses, individually, to do or not do, according to his own singular reference and volition of “I’ or “me”; no, his new identity in Christ is merely a function of some mystical and mysterious conversion from existential “evil” to existential “good”.

In as much as man’s “evil” has nothing to do with what he thinks about himself or does for himself from himself, but everything to do with simply what he is at root…his evil, thus, is in a sense “outside” of him. He has no choice in it…his choice is irrelevant. Everything he does is evil, no matter what it is, because he IS evil. And likewise his “new nature” in Christ—that is, it has nothing to do with him. What he chooses or thinks, in and of his own individual Self, is irrelevant to God’s determining power. Man is a bystander to both his damnation (from brith) and his salvation (from “new birth”). In this sense then, his salvation is collective, NOT individual. It is an Ideal into which he is gang-pressed, not a choice he makes for and from himself. The proof of his salvation is his membership in the Church; and the Church is the collective institution which is given the authority by God to manifest the salvation Ideal upon the earth.

So what does this mean post-salvation for the new Christian? They have been chosen…they are saved, no longer totally depraved, right? No longer victims of their natural, sinister, sinful selves. They are free…free to choose and do good, right?

Well, yes and no, and thus we have more of the same contradiction which undermines all rationality within Christianity. The same rational inconsistencies which plague pre-salvation man and his election unto and into Christ following him to salvation. Man is saved in spite of himself…he does not actually choose Christ because this requires a natural and innate ability to recognize good, to choose it, and to follow through with it, and this ability he does not have because he IS Evil. And this being the case, by what means or power can man, now saved, recognize and do any good thing? By the same power which saved him, of course—that is, God’s grace. Which of course, like salvation itself, has nothing fundamentally to do with man qua man. By ”God’s grace” Christians mean God’s absolute, all-pervasive power over all of Creation, to determine it to its inevitable divine conclusion. So the “good” that the saved man is, and the “good” he recognizes and obeys are an essence and action which are not really of him at all. In short, it’s fair to say that post-salvation man is still just as vile and wicked as he was pre-salvation. Nothing has changed but semantics. Man is not “changed”, but rather, “covered”, which is as close a euphemism as you can get I supppose.

When we are talking metaphysics…when we are talking about the very root essence of a thing, this essence is utter and absolute. It is not transmutable; it is not transient; it is fundamental. It is the infinite core of what a thing IS, by which it exists in reality in the first place. What a thing is existentially is that immutable core from which it exists, period. And thus “this” cannot become “that”. If man is evil, existentially, before salvation, then he is likewise evil, existentially, after. And there is no argument one can make to the contrary which is not ultaimtely going to be punted into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”. There is no means except the surrendering of one’s sense where one can reasonably declare that Absolute A becomes Absolute B.

And Christians know this, at least on some level, which is why they insist that even the saved can still commit sin. You get sin from where? Sin nature. Otherwise, it’s not sin, its just bad or immoral action. To describe an act of sin is to describe the act according to a nature that pervades man at his very root. Christianity recognizes that man’s immutable sin nature follows him into his salvation, which is why the church encourages the laity to “preach the Gospel to themselves every day”. Even Christians need to be reminded how they can do no good thing, and to recognize salvation as a life of “grace”, not individual and volitonal moral living, as though man is capable of such a thing. Try being a Christian and taking credit for any moral or rational choice, and proclaiming that you thus justly earn the reward of such a choice. You will be patently and shamelessly accused of rank heresy on the spot…of ignoring or being blind to God’s grace. Though, to be fair, they may say it nicely. But keep it up and see what happens. Christians have short patience for rejections of “grace”.

Christians never dawdle in reminding each other that it is foolish pride for them to consider the idea that they, at any time, pre or post-salvation, possess any inherent ability to do any good thing. Indeed, the mark of a false Christian is one who believes that he is somehow  good in himself. He is not. He is evil. His salvation was God’s mysterious grace, and likewise whatever good he does or befalls him after salvation is entirely a product of that same grace. Man’s nature never fundamentally changes. He is saved entirely in spite of himself, and likewise his salvation is “worked out” in spite of himself. In other words, there is nothing of You qua You that has anything at all to do with why God chose to save you, and how God manifests this salvation in your life. You qua You—the “I” of “My Self”—is utterly evil, and thus must be completely sidelined before, during, and after salvation.

So back to our original question: What does it mean to be saved?

Well, the real answer is that it means nothing for YOU, because YOU are nothing. You qua You—You, the Individual—are exchanged for the collective Ideal of what it means to be “Christian”. “Christian” is a collective. “You” are now an indistinguishable component of the Church, which is the physical incarnation of the Ideal. “You” have been aborted by the metaphysics. Only the Collective matters.

This is salvation.

And this is a lie.



When is Physics Stupid? When it is the Foundation of the Denial of Free Will

There are several ways to dismantle the fallacy of “no free will”, or “the illusion of free will”.  Frankly, it’s exasperating that this ridiculous idea gets any traction at all, given how obviously irrational and impossible it is.  As soon as you assert the notion, you make a claim to truth; but of course if there is no free will, then by the exact same deterministic logic (man’s thoughts are just molecules and particles conforming to the categorical governance of physical law) man cannot actually know anything, which means he cannot know truth, which means he cannot believe anything to be true, which means he cannot make any assertion at all about anything. And even if we accept that man thinks and man makes assertions (which is impossible if there is no such thing as free will…for free will is merely the volitional exercise of one’s knowledge, which is the very definition of “to assert”) there is no way to claim that one assertion, like “there is no such thing as free will” is true while another is false.

There.  It took me, a stay-at-home-dad sitting on the couch wearing a hoodie and Carolina Panthers pajama bottoms, one paragraph to dismantle an idea held by physicists from Stephen Hawking to Sam Harris.  This ought to tell you something.

These people are being willfully stupid.  They are choosing to believe their deterministic bullshit rather than admit that physics is an abstract description, not a recipe for ontological causality.  Why?  Because they, like so many, prefer power to truth.  If they can claim to be the few mathematical geniuses who understand the Language of the Universe, which is just their version of the Word of God, then they can claim their own Priesthood Class.  They can exist as the Chosen/Called Ones who are God Incarnate to the rest of us.  They can stand in the stead of God and dictate to everyone else, both governments and denizens, their moral obligations, both intellectually and behaviorally; which, pragmatically speaking, means they can tell everyone else what to do with their money.

Fucking sigh.

And I hope you are picking up on the passive-aggression, because I’m laying it on pretty thick.

But let’s, just for fun, because my coffee is not yet cold, elucidate my paragraph above.

The denial of free will is rooted in the argument of determinism.  That is, since we are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules interacting and combining according to very arcane and abstruse mathematical rules, our very thoughts, being a function of our brains, are merely the pre-determined side effects of these rules. (And since mathematical rules/laws of physics are absolute and absolutely infinite, everything is these rules; there are no distinctions between the rules and the objects which are said to act and interact according to these rules because everything is a direct and utter function of the laws of physics…in which case, how is it possible to claim the laws of physics actually govern anything?  To say they govern themselves is pointless redundancy. )

And this completely destroys the deterministic argument against free will.  Because what this means is that there is no such thing as truth.  All ideas are equally valid, since according to deterministic protocol all ideas, being a function of brains governed by the inexorable laws of physics, are a function of the same mathematical rules.  This being the case, it is impossible to make the claim “there is no such thing as free will, is true” or “there is such a thing as free will, is false” since both ideas are a function of brains governed by the exact same rules.  And this is why they must and do appeal to a “superior enlightenment” based upon their elevated mathematical prowess.  There is no rational explanation for why we must believe them, any more than there is a rational explanation for why the laity must submit to pastoral authority since both the pastors and the laity are, according to doctrine, fallen creatures and utterly prone to sin and delusion by their very nature.

But the magic wand of Divine Authority is waved, and as John Immel, a philosopher I admire says, “Alakazaam, POOF!”, we all must just accept that “God” has chosen them and thus it is our moral obligation to agree with them…to bend over and say, “thank you, sir, may I have another”.

To make the claim, “there is no such thing as free will” is to presuppose a person can actually know truth. But, again, according to the very argument against free will, itself, there is no such thing as a true thing versus a false thing since every idea is the product of the same deterministic rules.  When people are not actually free to learn, because their minds are entirely governed by the laws of physics, then by definition they cannot actually know anything.  To learn is to presuppose a difference between knowing and not knowing, and to presuppose a difference between a good idea (rational, or true) and a bad one (irrational, or false).  If there is no such thing as free will (the individual application of perceived knowledge…between a true thing/good thing and a false thing/bad thing, either based upon contextual circumstance or upon foundational philosophical assumptions), and all beliefs and actions are merely a function of brains which are all equally and absolutely governed by mathematical rules, then there can be no difference.  There can be no real ideas, which means there can be no real thought.  Which means there can be no thought at all.  Which means there can be no consciousness.  Which means that people like Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris cannot claim that free will is an illusion, as though this is some truth that they can actually know, and know as true, and of which they should seek to convince others, as though making the point is anything but a colossal waste of time. Because you can’t convince people out of an idea that they don’t actually believe, and this because they don’t believe anything, because their contrary thoughts are merely the effects of the same deterministic forces which produced yours.

As soon as one makes the assertion, “there is no such thing as free will”, they have destroyed the argument.  And because of this fallacy, and the sheer stupidity and rank rational inconsistency and destructiveness of the underlying apologetics, I strongly urge you to reject it.

No, We Do Not Get Our Righteousness From God; We Have Our Own, Which is the Entire Biblical Point

If God gives man His righteousness (as a gift, so it’s said), then there must be something in man which brings value to God; for who gives gifts to those they hate?

This means that man cannot be utterly evil. In which case, there must be something good, inherently, in man.

This goodness, in himself, of himself, is his own righteousness.

God does not give man righteousness, he teaches man that man is righteous ALREADY.

Let’s break down the rational atrocity of the claim, “Man has no righteousness.” Which just means that man can do no good thing. NOTHING. At all. Ever. Because he cannot transfer ANY righteousness to his actions. Because he has none. Zero. There is no righteousness to waking up, nor to going to bed, nor anything in between.

Think about that.

Can’t you just feel the madness of it in your bones?

If man had NO righteousness…that is, his righteousness was nill, this would mean that man’s very existence is unrighteousness. In other words, the very fact that you were born at all is why you are evil.

A few problems:

If you’re very existence is evil–let’s just call it evil, because that’s what (fake) Christians really mean–then your very essence is evil. This means that everything you do–you think, you believe, you say, you are–is evil. Whether you save a drowning puppy or burn down an elementary school, both acts, proceeding from your utterly wicked existence as You–are equally evil. This means that you cannot actually choose evil. Evil action and evil thought ceases to become a moral choice (which means they cease to become choices at all). Which means that you are no longer in possession of moral agency. Which means that you’re not a moral agent.

And guess what this means for man.

He’s not actually unrighteous, nor is he righteous. The very concepts are irrelevancy to him.

He has neither righteousness nor unrighteousness.

And this means…

He is an animal, possessing only instinct; without thought. He cannot choose good or evil, and thus has no knowledge of good or evil. Which means he has no knowledge, period. Because if man possesses not the ability to choose good or evil, then knowledge is utterly pointless, and lacks any efficacy. And absolutely irrelevant, useless knowledge is not knowledge at all by definition.

Which means that God cannot give man His righteousness as a gift, because:

A. Man couldn’t recognize it in the first place.

B. Man couldn’t know what to do with it

C. Man wouldn’t have any use for it.

D.  Man, unable to understand good from evil, couldn’t understand truth from falsehood, and thus wouldn’t know anything at all; wouldn’t see God AS God, and thus wouldn’t take anything GOD had to offer. He might take a scrap of food or a treat from God, like a dog from his master, but he would comprehend no spiritual or moral meaning or purpose; no alteration of his identity in the eyes of his master. He would and could have no concept of “righteousness”, because morality, like truth, has nothing to do with that which is pure instinct.

E. God would know all of this, and so wouldn’t give man His Righteousness in the first place! 

Stop listening to people who lie to you! Stop believing those emissaries of death and the devil who tell you that you need God because you are so categorically baaaaaad.

Understand that when they say you have no righteousness of your own what they mean is that you are Unrighteousness itself! You have no value or worth or goodness…as a function of BEING YOU!

This does not promote a relationship between you and God, it utterly wrecks it, and eradicates its possibility! Because what is entirely Good (God) MUST as a function of its existence be completely exclusive of what is entirely Evil (You) as a function of IT’S existence. 

The lie that human beings are inherently unrighteous has only one purpose and one outcome:

Tyranny, and Death.

The Abortion Debate’s Contradiction Problem

Here is the abortion debate’s fundamental dilemma:

So, on the one hand, the argument is that embryos and fetuses are a direct and absolute function of the parents, who are solely responsible for their existence. Therefore, if this is the case, parents must have the moral right to do with them as they choose. They are a categorical product of the parents’ labor.

On the other hand, it is argued that embryos and fetuses are utterly independent human beings, of completely distinct individuality/agency, and therefore may NOT be treated or considered as being a direct function of their parents, as a product of another’s labor, to do with as they choose, to govern and control, but instead have inherent rights as full fledged individuals.

The whole of the abortion debate is, to me, the fruitless attempt to reconcile this contradiction. Until you resolve this contradiction–which is impossible, by definition–any judgement you make about abortion is entirely subjective. Period.

Either the child is a distinct individual or he is not. He cannot be both. If he is, then it cannot be argued that he has the categorical right to take resources from his parents. He may have that right, but not always. It would depend upon the context, and whether or not a legitimate contact between child and parents can be said to have been established. If he is not, then he cannot claim any inherent right-of-Self and therefore the parents may reasonably and morally do with him as they please, including abortion.

Free Societies vs Tyrannies are Measured on a Bell Curve: Why all States are tyrannies at root

Force is both the ideological and practical root of government, which is why all governments are fundamentally tyrannical, with “free” vs “oppressive” states measured merely in terms of degrees of force. That is, the amount of violence applied to compel individual compliance to the necessarily subjective, and therefore capricious, dictates of the State is the rubric for whether or not a State is considered a tyranny, not the absence of violent coercion, which is the only actual measure, I submit.

Now, the lower the degree of force would seem to indicate the reciprocal: a greater amount of freedom. However, this is not really the case. “Freedom” in a state which uses less overt violence to compel obedience suggests not more freedom, but merely less overt forms of control. This can be anything from subliminal or implied violence which never manifests because of fear, or more effective thought control–that is, a greater prevailing assumption amongst the populace that they are somehow free, in spite of the object and obvious fact that government, by nature and by design, depends upon the exact opposite. (On a side note, having a “Constitution” which “guarantees” specific individual freedoms, which the ruling class and its witting and unwitting advocates can reference when the state is accused of mendacious largess, and which ostensibly integrates individual freedom with the force of government even though these are clearly mutually exclusive concepts, is very helpful in spreading the specious notion of a free society under the absolute auspices of violent coercion.) In addition, I suppose it’s possible that less overt force might simply be due to the fact that the state hasn’t yet fully evolved into the inevitable (and therefore ipso facto) tyranny of which the philosophy undergirding it demands.

But here is why tyranny, regardless of how it may be perceived by the great unwashed masses, is always categorical at an given moment:

Force, as a metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political basis–that is, the rank philosophical foundation of government–is absolute, and thus the underlying real degree of tyranny is always complete. For without absolute tyranny, which I define as the fundamental “right” to compel behavior by force (violence), there can be no such thing as government. Remove force, and people are not organized by command, but by cooperation. And cooperating is NOT the same thing as being governed.

Under government, all human actions can occur  only when the government allows it. This is total tyranny. Period. And because the auspices of violence are absolute by virtue of the underwriting philosophy, all actions of people existing within a society organized according to governing principles, which are rooted in the power of the state to force, are necessarily absolutely violently compelled.

Unfortunately, as long as people confuse comfort, or even “relative freedom”, with freedom, there will be no freedom.

As long as freedom is plotted on a bell curve, there can be no such thing.

Reason Demands that Truth is Relative

Absolute truth, or Truth qua Truth, is a tautology (and this is true of all abstract concepts when they are said to be a function of themselves), which makes it a contradiction, which means that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which means that all truth then is subject to a reference; and this fact makes truth subjective.

Which means that truth then, and obviously, cannot be objective.  On the other hand, the thing which IS objective is truth’s reference.

So…what is the reference?

Well, truth’s reference is he who is asking the question–what, how, why, which, where, etc.. Put another way, it is the Oberver; or, he who is perceiving and then conceptualizing the distinction between himself and NOT himself–or I vs. Environment. This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Percieves from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.

Without this primary, you simply cannot have truth. But it’s more than simply having it, the epistemological primary must be defined reasonably.  That is, he who claims to apprehend, to have or know truth, must be defined without contradiction; without indecision; without subjective or rationally unverifiable claims. Without this epistemological primary, defined according to unyielding rational consistency, there can be nothing which is True.

And, naturally, nothing which is false.

In other words, when you have properly, reasonably, answered the question “What is man and how does he know what he knows?”, then, and only then, will you have Truth.