Category Archives: Violence

Why Only the Individual Can Represent the Moral and Epistemological Standard; and Why Only Voluntarism is Benevolent

Authority, government, Metaphysics, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

It is impossible to accept and embrace cultural or racial differences if the ideology promoting such “acceptance” declares these differences as the very ontological root from which human beings spring.  That is, if the metaphysical primary of me is “whiteness” or “secular-ness” and the metaphysical primary of another is “blackness” or “Muslim-ness”, then our relative existences are mutually exclusive. Which means that there can be no acceptance of differences since the differences themselves are absolute. I can no more traverse the chasm of collectivist-identity metaphysics in order to appreciate the perspective of a “different” culture or race than I can appreciate the “perspective” of a softball. There is no common frame of reference, since the very absolute root of what I am (e.g. “White”) is by definition the antipode of the absolute root of the other (e.g. Black).

And because these metaphysical roots are infinitely contrary, I do not actually exist to him and he does not actually exist to me.

Once this philosophy is combined with moral value, necessarily declared and established by the ruling governing Authority, because collectivist value can only be pragmatically realized or made at all relevant through force, there can be no integration of groups; only the categorical elimination (destruction…death) of the imposter. Meaning that if “whiteness” or “secular-ness” is bad and “blackness” or “Muslim-ness” is good then I have become the imposter. I, in assuming that my existence has any value or efficacy, become a rank moral affront to the “good” group. The “lie” of the value of my existence distracts and subtracts from the actual value of the existence of the black man, or the Muslim man, for example. (Which is where, by the way, we get the political phenomenon of “white privilege”…it’s a predictable manifestation of Marxist economics, which is a function of collectivist metaphysics.)

My very presence, my very birth, then, must be regarded as a pervasive sin, the only absolution for which is death. The act of snuffing out my “artificial” life is thus the moral obligation of those in the “true” and “righteous” group. It is the only cure for what has made me so infinitely  offensive: the fact that I was born at all.

Now, a plug for voluntarism:

The aforementioned is yet another reason why societies established under the auspices of a central Authority…the State; the Government; the King, always distill down to oppression, exploitation, and economic collapse. As soon as an “Authority” is established to represent “the people”, humanity MUST be defined collectively…and therefore, collectively valued. Which means politics will always, always, always dissolve into a “them” versus “us” mentality, which the violence of the State, wielded by the “true” group, must mitigate. Which means that all such societies will eventually become tyrannies.

Choice and Individual Will cannot by any means or any measure be combined with Force and Collective Need.

Period.

 

Why the “Border” Doesn’t Actually Exist as Such to Governments

Authority, government, Violence, Voluntarism, , , ,

The State–the Government–cannot rationally recognize any limitation to its power. (And this fact is purely logical, where I define “logic” here as rational consistency.) This is because government is Authority, and Authority is Force. Force qua Force is not compatible with, nor can it fundamentally be subject to, ideas, reason, compromise, Truth, ethics or morality, context, reality, opinions, pragmatism, rights, etc.. In other words, government, at root, is monolithic violence, and thus all of its actions–when all equivocations, paradoxes, and prevarications are distilled down to the logical axioms–are merely the exercise of violence for the sake of violence.

I understand that this is difficult to both accept and to apprehend/comprehend, but the rationally consistent fact is that actions spurred on by authority, by definition, are mutually exclusive of anything requiring the recognition of individual existential/ontological “rights”; that is, the right of the free intellectual and moral agent to utterly own himself and therefore manifest his own singular life according to his own will…and this axiom (that man is only man if there is the corollary of Will) is a metaphysical, ethical, and social primary which necessarily (rationally) demands that all individual interactions with one another be completely voluntary. But as soon as you inject Force via the notion of “governing Authority” into the equation, you have again by definition contradicted all manner of free and voluntary expression. That is, Force and Will are utterly incompatible, because Will requires categorical voluntary interaction in order to  actually be willful.

Now, all of this is to say that geopolitical “borders” are of no relevance to government except as a yet another means of asserting its power; an expression of Force, to the infinite expansion of itself. They will be “opened” or “closed” not in service to the sanctity of a nation’s individual citizens, who are also merely a target of its Force, but only in service to its own Infinite Absolute.

So, for those of you scratching you heads at the utter disregard our government has for US border security at the moment, and the persistent demagoguery it displays (along with the left in general, which is the overtly statist of the two major political philosophies) with respect to calling border security advocates racists and imbeciles, now you know why. It is merely pursuing the logical ends of the premises behind it.

What You’re Really Afraid Of, Brother and Sister American

Authority, government, Violence, , ,

You who are afraid of white nationalism, you aren’t afraid of white nationalism. And you who are afraid of black nationalism, you aren’t afraid of black nationalism. And you who are afraid of radical Islam, you aren’t afraid of radical Islam. And you who are afraid of the Moral Majority, you aren’t afraid of the Moral Majority. And you who are afraid of refugees, you aren’t afraid of refugees. And you who are afraid of socialized medicine, you aren’t afraid of socialized medicine. And you who are afraid of illegal immigration, you aren’t afraid of illegal immigration. And you who are afraid of the socialists, or fascists, or anarchists, or unregulated markets, or corporate bribery, or corporate welfare, you aren’t afraid of…that.

What you are afraid of, is that you will have no choice. You are afraid that when some people get what they want, you will be compelled at gunpoint to take what you don’t want.

What you are afraid of…

Is force.

And you should be. There is one Master, you see; one State. And those of its children it decides it shall love at any given moment, will be fed its children that it decides it shall hate.

And you are afraid you will be that child.

Aphorism of the Day: Ideas + Force = Force

Aphorisms, Authority, government, Violence, ,

The problem with those who wish to organize society by means of a central governing authority (the State), is not that they don’t have any good ideas, it’s that ther ideas are always a package deal with government force. Which obliterates the ideas, rendering them fundamentally (at the roots of the philosophy) irrelevant, and leaves us only with force.

The Law Cannot Affirm or Protect the Individual, it can Only Destroy Him

government, Violence, Voluntarism, , , ,

Principles, or laws, cannot be established until AFTER men are observed to have “violated them” (in quotes because I know this looks contradictory).

Let me explain:

A law which has never been violated is irrelevant. In which case, it isn’t a law at all. Because an abstract concept, like “law”, which is irrelevant can serve no purpose. And an abstract concept which serves no purpose cannot legitimately  be defined. Thus, a law which has never been broken does not exist in any relevant or practical sense.

Now, before I go any further let me state that it is not a violation of LAW to violate another individual…and by “violate” I mean theft, violence, murder, exploitation, and fraud….the usual criteria for men who destroy other men for personal gain of any kind. That is, violation of another individual is a moral, not a legal violation. And this violation is the kind that matters, for it violates that Thing which serves as the primary reference for ALL ethics–man’s Self–and not an irrelevant abstract concept like “law”, or “rules”. More on this later in the article.

This being true (that laws which are not broken do not exist, which means that laws themselves are an arbitrary fabrication), then laws are established on this arbitrary basis:

Someone observes someone else doing something of which they do not approve. In order to compel that person into “right” behavior (which is a subjective moral standard), they establish a “law”‘or “rule” and threaten violence (usually by the “authority” of a centralized coercive Authority, like the State) if this law or rule is violated…law which until someone’s subjective sensibilities were offended, did not exist. And still doesn’t, except, again, as an arbitrary extension of one’s subjective sensibilities.

Once you draw the rational line from this fact to the “metaphysical” or “ontological” nature of law, it is revealed that laws, at their root, are necessarily a purely subjective and arguably artificial means of restricting human behavior, and for no purpose other than to serve as a purely abstract ethical standard to satisfy subjective opinions and ideals and which ultimately can only be enforced by threat and violence at the hands of a centralized “authority” established to assert them.

Now, at this point I am certain that some of you are thinking that laws are not in fact subjective, and not fundamentally irrational or abstract because they, when “legitimately” leveled, are established to affirm and protect the individual. But this is a fallacy, and is not rationally consistent in the least. Rather, it is a sophist assertion designed to lull individuals into voluntarily accepting limitations to their own right to self and self-ownership, and (arguably most importantly) economic autonomy.

My argument is this: laws do not and cannot exist FOR man. First, because man PRECEDES them; second, because man is NOT abstract but IS; and third, because man can only (and is ALWAYS) be compelled by force or artifice/fraud (including sophism) to obey them.

To point number three, here’s why:

If man obeys laws because they are fundamentally good for him–that is, the entirety of their moral and rational value is that they affirm the existence and life of man and his right to self-ownership and economic autonomy–then HE is the ethical standard, not the law. And thus, the law is necessarily subordinated to HIM. And this then renders laws pointless with respect to man–which is to say, with respect to reality, since it is only in the context of man’s existence that laws have any relevancy, even in the subjective and abstract sense of which they are applied in society today. Violations of MAN, then, not the law, are ethical and moral offenses, since the law categorically receives value as a direct function of man’s life. Violations of law are not moral violations. Thus, only violations of people can objectively be declared wrong. Violations of law cannot be declared objectively anything because they are abstract, and most of all, utterly irrelevant within the context for which they are intended.  In other words, “law”, again, is a useless concept.

Let’s take “speeding” for an example.

A person cannot break a law of speeding because a “speed limit” does not exist–it is an abstraction. And yet, the government is granted power to bind all men to the “law” of “speed limits” which doesn’t and don’t actually exist, in which case it cannot actually bind men at all. So the LAW is nothing. It is government which forces people not to the law, but to the opinions of others–those who have decided that there must be a sanction on the speed of others. And yet, even the opinions of these others is ultimately irrelevant. Because the law is affirmed by the violence of the State, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks at any given moment. Once government claims or is granted authority to compel humanity by violence, the notion of “law” as a function of the “people’s will” or “people’s good” is moot. Violence, by definition, always trumps the will of those upon whom it is leveled. And so law enforced by the State is merely the State compelling behavior for the State’s sake. Period. And the idea that the State-an abstraction in its own right–can legitimately, or can somehow rationally and morally use violence to compel the behavior of men, makes men existentially (ontologically/metaphysically) subordinate to it.

And thus, if we extend this rationale to man’s metaphysical context, man must be by nature immoral, since the State is that which is established to force man into moral, or lawful, behavior. Man alone, on his own, left to himself, cannot obey the law, since it is a function of the State, and if man could obey he law he would not need to be forced to it, which means that it, and force, and the State, would be irrelevant and pointless and could never practically manifest. Thus, as soon as we establish the law we must establish the State…not as an extension of man in order to ensure his freedom, but because man needs governing. He needs governing because he is, by nature, NOT a law-maker but a law breaker.

Am I suggesting that we become a “lawless” society? Am I advising people to no longer recognize the law in a practical sense? Not at all. For it is preferable in a very practical sense to obey the State than to resist it, and I by far recommend this course of action when doing so is not a direct violation of another individual, which, in the U.S., where I am, thankfully remains the case.

However, I am suggesting that we re-examine the popular metaphysical assumptions about man and then re-evaluate our ideas about how he should be left to live his life; and an examination of the relevancy, legitimacy, and morality of “law” is a substantive part of this process.

Governing Power Can Never, at Root, be Exercised on Behalf of People

government, Violence, , ,

The exercise of governing power is purely the manipulation of people by force. Therefore it is impossible that such power may ever be exercised on behalf of people.

Power is always the politic of Authority. And to claim Authority (in the governing sense) always requires the collectivization of human beings at the primary metaphysical level, and this because it claims the right to hold them accountable to an abstract legal standard in order to ensure moral behavior–which is the essence of morality in general–by demanding (compelling) obedience. (Obedience, however, has nothing fundamentally to do with individual choice, which means it has nothing to do with freedom.) Consequently, the individual cannot be the reference for the legal standard’s supposed Truth and Morality, but instead the relationship is the other way around. The individual then is bound in equal measure to all other individuals, because all individuals are fundamentally, equally (absolutely), and collectively bound to the abstract legal standard which those in authority claim to represent as its physical operatives in order to ensure its practical manifestation (and this is the origin of the State’s “Mandate” to rule ). This collectivist metaphysic then nullifies the individual, by definition, at the primary metaphysical level. And of course the eradication of the individual at the metaphysical level necessarily prohibits a collection of them at the metaphysical level. Therefore the entire notion of governing power as a means to rationally and morally organize individuals, and therefore humanity at large, in any collectivized context, like the geopolitical nation-state, inevitably collapses under the weight of its own self-invalidating contradictions.

And this is not something to be lauded, or something which I personally desire–naturally the desire of a rank voluntarist (which makes me a pacifist by definition) is that peace and freedom should reign in the presence of whatever manner of government we find established. Unfortunately the eventual collapse of Rule from Authority, which is Rule from Power, is simply something which is rationally consistent, and therefore indubitably true, and arrantly unavoidable.