Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part FOUR): The implicit epistemological contradiction of Hume’s Law—an epistemology both with and without ethics

As we continue our deconstruction and dismantling of Hume’s Law, it is important to examine the intrinsic contradiction found in the relationship between ethics and epistemology as implied by the philosophical assumptions underwriting Hume’s claim. What Hume’s Law does is create an implicit mutual exclusivity between epistemology and ethics. This is a violation of the basic principles of philosophy and philosophical thinking, and is a large part of why Hume’s law is a rational disaster.

I went into the relationship between philosophical categories in part three of this series in some detail, so I will only summarize it here. The five major categories of philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics—-do not exist in a vacuum of themselves. They all share a corollary relationship with one another, and the sum of the categories serves to reinforce the metaphysical primary (the nature of reality, itself…the root IS of all that is). However, it can be helpful to simplify the relationship between the categories by arranging them linearly, as follows: Metaphysics implies epistemology, epistemology implies ethics, ethics implies politics, politics implies aesthetics. This fact has profound and inescapable implications for any ethical claim, and certainly for Hume’s Law. What the inseparable and corollary relationship between the philosophical categories demands is that if any one category is deemed objective—and by “objective” we mean fundamental, irreducible, universal, absolute, and infinitely consistent—then all categories must be equally so. If one makes a claim to “objective truth”, which is an assertion that one’s epistemological premise naturally promotes axiomatic distinctions between correct knowledge and incorrect knowledge, then one is necessarily, though perhaps implicitly, making a claim to an objective ethic. This fact is an immutable philosophical attribute. One cannot claim objective philosophical category X and then from that conclude that philosophical category Y is therefore subjective. This is impossible. But this logical failure is completely endemic to Hume’s Law.

For example, “Objectivism”,  as far as I understand, is a label derived primarily from the assumption of the objective nature of “Existence”…Existence being the Objectivist metaphysical primary. This being the case, then any objectivist is bound by intellectual integrity in the form of rational consistency and non-contradictory truth to assume that their ethics are likewise objective. Again, it is a rational impossibility to achieve a subjective from an objective. And interestingly, and ironically, this point is the exact point Hume’s Law makes. This being the case, it is then impossible to obtain a subjective ethic from an objective epistemology (a subjective right and wrong from an objective truth and falsehood). But this is what advocates of Hume’s Law inexorably do, and their intellectual and philosophical failure in this is insuperable. What they claim is “no objective and universal morality”, but what they mean is “no objective and universal ethic” (please refer to the distinction between ethics and morality I spoke of in the last article of this series).

Advocates of Hume’s Law do not seem to understand how profoundly undermining this is to their arguments. Those that do will argue that they are not in fact making a claim that ethics, itself (the category), is completely subjective, but only that moral ethics are. But the fact is that one cannot rationally argue for any objective ethic if one presumes that volitional behavior (conscious behavior, as a function of consciousness) is irrelevant with respect to objective truth (objective epistemology). Meaning that whatever one chooses to do is irreducibly subjective, making volitional behavior completely absent any real and true foundation, which means it can have nothing fundamental to to with the “objective truth” from which that behavior is given meaning.

Remember, one MUST assert an ethic if one is asserting an epistemology. And if one is asserting that the epistemology (fundamental truth)  is objective then that which necessarily follows—the ethic—must likewise be objective. And what is the ethic? The ethic is the application of truth to purpose which validates truth. Correct application of truth validates that truth is in fact true, thus this application is “good”. Incorrect application contradicts and thus does not affirm truth, and thus this application is “evil”. Application of truth is necessarily and inexorably willful…that is, it is the volitional application of truth. A non-volitional application of truth is impossible, because such application cannot be said to have purpose, and without purpose truth is irrelevant. And irrelevant truth is meaningless truth, and this is a contradiction in terms.

What are the ethical options for one who proclaims that truth is objective but volitional behavior in the application of truth is not? There are only two, and each one is as invalid and rationally bankrupt as the other. The fist option is to declare that ethics simply do not exist at root; that their fundamental subjectively gives them no foundation and thus no fundamental connection to objective truth and thus no fundamental connection to objective reality…they are severed from the “Real”, as it were. This fails the rational integrity test because epistemology without ethics is impossible—without ethics, truth cannot be validated as true. The second is to appeal to some non-voluntary ethical system, like legality. But in order for a legal ethic to manifest one must assume and then establish an authority which has the power to compel ethical behavior. Yet only two such authorities can be claimed: human and divine (and make no mistake, Determinism, which is the metaphysical trope of many atheists and agnostics, to which they appeal as a get-out-of-god-free card, is merely an iteration of Divine Mysticism…it appeals to an omnipotent force which infinitely eludes man’s understanding because it infinitely determines all that he does, all that he is, and all that he knows, and thus thinks). The first authority fails because it is comprised of men…men must choose to establish such authority; men in authority then must choose to compel by force other men into the legal ethic. )Without force, law is not law, it is suggestion). So to claim non-volitional ethical behavior in service to one’s “objective” epistemology by relying upon the choices of men to establish coercive authorities and the choices of rulers to enforce legal ethics is a contradiction, and thus fails at being an involuntary ethic, and thus is an invalid alternative to moral ethics. The reason legality is an ethical disaster and inevitably leads to totalitarian misery is due to the inherent contraction which says that ethical behavior shall be compelled in the masses by the ethical choices of the few who rule. Legality is an attempt to ethically synthesize free will and force. It will never work, and for obvious reasons. Thus, legality cannot be considered a valid ethic, let alone an objective one. Thus, to assert a legal ethic is to assert no ethic at all.

The second fails because divine coercion of men’s behavior is a root undermining of men themselves. A man unable to act in service to truth of his own conscious volition is a man for whom truth is utterly irrelevant, thus such a man can never apprehend truth in first place. Truth absent the ability to apply it is truth absent purpose. And purposeless truth is irrelevant truth, and irrelevant truth is meaningless truth—a contradiction in terms. Thus, one cannot simultaneously claim such a thing as objective truth but no objective means to apply that truth via one’s conscious volition. To remove volition from understanding is to undermine understanding entirely, and therefore no objective truths can ever be claimed because they cannot be validated. The appeal to the divine authority (like Determinism) to force ethical action is in reality the assertion that no ethic exists. This violates the philosophical axiom which says that epistemology MUST imply ethics.

The point I am making with all of this is that one either concedes objective moral ethics—volitional behavior in service to truth—or one cannot concede that any ethics exist at all. And without ethics, there is no objective truth. Without ethics, there is no epistemology. What is true and false must be volitionally applied (morality) in order that he who apprehends truth can validate it according to observable outcomes from his own existential frame of reference. A truth which cannot be volitionally applied is irrelevant to the observer, and thus the observer has no way of knowing that truth is in fact true.

In short, epistemology demands ethics; and not just any ethics, but specifically moral ethics.

*

The idea that truth can be known, but never applied, is really the heart of Hume’s Guillotine, and this is both a great irony worth pointing out (because it mirrors the irrational ethical implications of Christianity’s description of man’s fallen nature), and a fundamental failure of logic which collapses the whole idea. One can know truth, but never act in service to it. Truth, absent the ability to apply it in service to a purpose, makes truth infinitely irrelevant to he who apprehends it. In other words, Hume’s Law apologists want their cake and to eat it, too. They want to proclaim the existence and fact of objective truth—the ability to apprehend it and declare it—yet they want to deny any objective application of truth in order to practically, empirically, and efficaciously validate that the truth is in fact true. They would argue that truth is self-evident, but absent any objective application of truth, truth is only really “evident” to itself.  This is circular, redundant truth, which is a logical fallacy in the form of tautology (it’s true because it’s truth; it’s truth because it’s true), not to mention an infinite reduction to zero. Any truth without validation via the objective volitional application of truth by the conscious observer of truth (he who apprehends and declares that truth is in fact true) can never, ever, by any means be known to be true. Truth without application to purpose by the observer is irrelevant truth, which makes it meaningless truth, which is a contradiction in terms.

And the great irony here is that what the advocates of Hume’s Law do is the exact same thing the evangelical Christians they so vociferously deride as irrational fairy tale—worshipping harpies do. These “doctrinally pure” Christians, particularly of the Calvinist pedigree, proclaim that man, though he is capable of apprehending truth from falsehood, is, due to his fallen and depraved nature, utterly incapable of applying this knowledge to any good end, making all his actions evil by default. And thus, it is not that man commits sin and is thereby condemned, it is that he IS sin—meaning that his very will is banished from ethical behavior altogether. Man is death incarnate not because he chooses to act in evil ways, but because his nature precludes him from ANY moral compass whatsoever. He has knowledge, but his will is infinitely irrelevant to that knowledge, making that knowledge useless to him. And thus, he is essentially born dead. And this is why he needs saving…and in comes the opportunistic priest class to rescue him from his existential dilemma. For a price, of course. It will cost him his freedom, his individuality, his dignity, his property, his mammon, his labor, his truth, his self-will, his mind, his family, his future, and his life in general. But hey, at least he is right with God.

The Humean ethical apologists are no different.  They make grand claims to objective truth and existence, but then declare that ethics is dead and morality with it. Via some  impossible and essentially mystical contradiction—like objective epistemology without objective ethics—they bind man to an intellectually bankrupt determinist fate and offer him the bromide of nihilistic scientific practicality, with implicit nods to the psychopathic priesthood of the State; and offer draconian legal controls with State violence and the seizure of body and property (as incentive and punishment) as some kind of ethical answer to their empty metaphysics. The deride morality as a merely the shiny obsession of a fool and offer you the madness of the of infinite separation between thought and action as an answer to their ethical failure. They replace the soul with death and the light with darkness.

But hey, at least you are right with god. Not that the Humean apologists will call him that.

END part FOUR

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part THREE): The difference between ethics and morality, why ethics and morality cannot be avoided, and why this is an insurmountable problem for advocates of Hume’s Law

Before we go any future on the specifics of the “is-ought” dichotomy, it is crucial that we understand the distinction between ethics and morality. Anyone not able to clearly articulate the differences between these two philosophical ideas and how they specifically relate has no business discussing Hume’s law, or any other ethical or moral question, for that matter…because they can have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Understanding Hume’s is-ought dilemma and, more importantly, its complete rational, not to mention ethical, failure is predicated upon knowing the difference and the relationship between morality and ethics. Thankfully, it is quite simple.

“Ethics” is the broad philosophical category. Morality is a type of ethics—an ethical system based upon a specific epistemology, and this rooted in a specific metaphysical description of realty…a metaphysical primary. Moral behavior can be ethical behavior, but only if the ethics being implied are rooted in an epistemology which implies morality, and that rooted in a metaphysics which implies the epistemology which implies the moral ethics.

Not all ethics, therefore, are moral. Legality, for example, is a completely different type of ethics, because legality is rooted in fundamentally different epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, there is for example no such thing as a “moral law”…this is a complete fallacy. “Moral law” is a contradiction in terms, because morality and legality presume completely different epistemology and metaphysics (a comprehensive discussion of this can be found in many previous articles on this blog). Speaking of “moral law”, a third example of ethics might be a hybrid of legality-morality that one might find in western liberal democracies, where the law is said to exist in service to moral truths. This hybrid is fundamentally irrational and observably false, because governments dictate, they do not suggest, and you cannot dictate morality. Morality is rooted in choice. One only acts morally IF they are able to exercise choice. Legality is rooted in authority, and authority is force. And forced behavior is by definition behavior which is compelled, and thus is irrespective of choice.

So, whenever morality is discussed, such as in Hume’s Law, it is important to remember that we are dealing with a specific kind of ethics—morality—and these are rooted in specific epistemology and specific metaphysics. Hume’s Law would be anathema to legality, other than perhaps a tangential affirmation of it, because legality cannot accommodate any “ought”—categorical, hypothetical, or otherwise. Legality tells us what ethical behavior one WILL DO—or else suffer punishment from the external authority in charge—not what one ought do—or else suffer consequences that one has brought on himself.

Hume’s Law only addresses morality, and specifically, it is the explicit assertion that morality is an irrational type of ethics, and thus is not objective, and thus does not actually exist, and thus is utterly inefficacious and irrelevant to reality and truth. Proponents of Hume’s Law are NOT—and this is crucial to understand—denying that objective ethics exist even if they think they are (and I submit that likely most of them do). They are merely denying that objective moral ethics exist.

But the declaration of the utter spuriousness of morality MUST be based upon preconceived epistemological and metaphysical assumptions. In other words, ethical conclusions are an unavoidable outcome and consequence of epistemological and metaphysical foundations and assumptions, and are derived directly from them. That is, those foundations inexorably and inevitably lead to ethical conclusions, and thus cannot lead to NO ethics. They may not lead to no MORAL ethics, but they will lead to some type of ethics.

Therefore, the question which should be routinely posed to proponents of Hume’s Law and advocates of the is-ought contraction is: What are your ethics? What is your definition good and the evil if not in terms of morality? And if they have no answer, or their answer is incomplete, then they can have no real argument against morality. Because it means that their metaphysics and epistemology have lead them either to NO ethical conclusions, which means that they have NO understanding of nature of reality (metaphysics) and NO understanding of what constitutes truth (epistemology), OR their metaphysics and epistemology are false and/or insufficient. In either case, they can make no rational claim against morality, since one can only disprove a given ethics—in this case morality— by providing more logical and consistent ethics, and this by holding a more logical and consistent epistemology and metaphysics.

And this, I submit, is impossible…moral ethics are in fact the MOST rational ethics possible. In my experience, without moral ethics one is left inevitably defending either the idea of “no ethics”, which is impossible because any ethical assertion, even the conclusion that there are no ethics, is based upon metaphysical and epistemological conclusions that MUST and NECESSARILY lead to specific ethics (the conclusion that there is no ethics implies that there is no epistemology and no metaphysics, which means that they cannot assert anything about ethics including that they do not exist; in fact, they cannot assert anything about anything at all), OR they are left defending legal ethics, which are rooted in rationally bankrupt metaphysics.

Just quick word on that:

The metaphysics of legality are unavoidably determinist, which makes them inexorably a zero sum proposition. The assertion of determinism is the assertion of nothing at all. Any determining force must itself be determined, since all of its outcomes, according to the very nature and definition of determinism, could at no time, ever, have been theoretical, hypothetical, unknown, or non-existent—in other words, the determinist force at no time could NOT have determined the outcomes it determined, making the outcomes of determinism as infinite and absolute as determinism itself. This leaves no distinction between the determinist force and the outcomes it has determined. This makes determinism an infinite regression to itself, concluding at nothing but itself, and proceeding from nowhere but itself. Determinism—determinist metaphysics, the metaphysics of legal ethics—is a self nullifying proposition

But enough of that. On to part four.

END part Three

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part TWO): What is Hume’s Law as it relates to reality?

In the last article I laid out the basic equation for resolving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma. Here it is again, slightly modified:

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously IS NOT X)

The objective ought, then, is the non-contrary application of truth.

*

Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma in brief:

Hume asserts that when dealing with the question of morality—what one ought do—there is an inexorable disconnect between the non-hypothetical, objective IS of reality, and the hypothetical, subjective OUGHT of moral imperatives. For example, if God tells us that “Thou shalt not kill”, then, as a moral commandment (as opposed to a legal one, which it technically is, but for this example we will assume it’s moral), it can be more specifically rendered “Thou ought not kill”. The reason that Hume declares the ought statement fundamentally subjective is because what one chooses to do—choice being intrinsic to morality and thus “ought”—can never alter the fact that what IS absolutely and necessarily IS. The IS, you see, of anything observed and declared so, is  rooted in the irreducible and absolute reality which informs choice, and thus the ought implied by choice—or more specifically, implied by volition—must inevitably affirm objective reality, regardless of what it is; and thus whatever one chooses, and whatever one recommends others choose (ought to do), will equally affirm objective reality, making the choices and the oughts themselves purely subjective. IS IS, and always will be, and therefore it is entirely objective. OUGHT is always subjective, on the other hand, because it is predicated on a fundamentally stable and unchanging reality (as said, the objective IS). What one chooses to do may alter how one observes reality, but it does not change reality at its root, because reality is absolute and immutable. It exists outside of one’s wishes and choices and therefore one’s particular morality…one’s  “oughts”. Therefore morality, being rooted in volition and thus on “ought”, is always fundamentally subjective. It has no fundamental meaning beyond the capriciousness of cognition, and the the non-substantive nature of the abstract.

Further, by definition, choice is uncompelled, and thus it isn’t possible to declare what one MUST CHOOSE—or, what one objectively ought to do—because MUST CHOOSE implies “compelled choice”, which is a contradiction in terms (in the strictest sense, I mean…while it is true that one can be forced to choose this or that, if there is no option to not make the choice at all, then the choice itself is a false one). And this is why morality is about what one ought to do, not what one WILL or MUST do, further supporting the argument that morality is subjective.

So the Humean is-ought moral distinction means that one can never presume that one ever objectively ought to do this or that, as though what one ought to do is as objective as the frame of reference—the objective existential “IS”, of reality—to which all oughts are inexorably and naturally obligated. The assumption that oughts can be as objective as the IS of truth—as objective as the reality which is objective irrespective of man’s volition—is, according to Humean moral understanding, a substantial error of logic. What one ought to do must always be entirely subjective, since reality remains reality regardless of the ought-choice. What one ought to do is always hypothetical, and thus any categorical imperative—that one always ought make a specific choice as though it has any objective, immutable, bearing on reality—is impossible. Morality thus is always subjective.

And all of this is fine except for one thing:

It is completely wrong.

Hume’s assertions about morality and the separation between the is of reality and the ought of how the conscious observer shall engage his will in response to reality is, in all honesty, the most egregious relational error with respect to morality that I have ever had the displeasure of examining. And the fact that so many intellectuals—and atheists in particular, who are the most ironic “intellectuals” on earth, and whose apologetics are the most spurious and convoluted you will ever have the misfortune of examining—hang their ethics on such folderol leaves one wondering just where to find the “intellect” in the “intellectual”.

END (Part TWO)

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade: Solving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma is relatively simple and straightforward (Part ONE)

I’ve been sitting on this article series for a couple of weeks, ever since I listened to a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Stephen Woodford, who runs a channel on YouTube called “Rationality Rules”, on Stefan’s theory of objective universal morality, which he calls “universally preferable behavior (UPB)”. This is an interesting debate, and I encourage everyone to look it up and watch it…it was educational, though it failed to ultimately resolve anything, and leaves them both pretty much holding the same ground as when they started. This is because both are a little right and a little wrong. Stefan is right in that objective universal morality exists, but he is wrong because he doesn’t know why or how, and his UPB theory is entirely insufficient; Stephen is wrong because he attempts, through the application of “Hume’s Law”, or the “is-ought” dichotomy, to create a mutual exclusivity between epistemology and ethics (though I’m not sure he fully recognizes how exactly he does this), and he rejects the notion of universal morality; but Stephen is right in that Stefan blatantly violates the is-ought dichotomy in UPB without first resolving it, then Stefan proceeds to ignore that fact. Which is pretty bad form. Further, Steven explains that Stefan creates a circular argument for UPB by putting his conclusion (all arguments against UPB are necessarily invalid) in his premise (that to argue against UPB is to concede it). Stefan seems genuinely flummoxed by this, and doesn’t understand that this completely nullifies UPB before it reaches the runway. Which is not a great look on someone boasting his philosophical and intellectual pedigree by publishing an entire book on universal secular ethics.

At any rate, I have desired to post my resolution to the is-ought dichotomy for while now, but I didn’t know where to insert it…other matters, like the coronavirus panic and political and financial opportunism and profiteering being passed off as “public health” seemed more urgent matters to address. However, since I’ve come to realize that public and government responses to the coronavirus panic seemed to have collapsed the American State entirely, I figured that this crisis wasn’t going to end anytime soon. So…my point is, for lack of a better place or time, here it is the relatively straightforward and simple solution to the is-ought morality question:

I will start with the basic equation for a necessary and rationally consistent objective universal morality, with a little bit of description, and then I will expand on it in subsequent articles.

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X, where X shall not be applied as though X were simultaneously both X and NOT X, for this shall contradict X (contradict Truth))

The contradiction of truth by failure to accept the necessary application of truth—and this as a function of the corollary purpose of truth (for truth absent purpose is “irrelevant truth”, which is an obvious contradiction, because “irrelevant truth” is otherwise rendered “meaningless truth”)—in a way which does not contradict truth (contradiction being the implicit or explicit assertion that X simultaneously is and is NOT X) results, necessarily, in the nullification of truth, which of course nullifies any arguments criticizing universal morality as being, itself, an intrinsic contradiction.

The “objective ought”, as it were, is imbedded within and implied by “application”, which is necessarily volitional, as “non-volitional application” is merely the effect of a given cause.  Cause indeed implies effect, but this is an entirely separate issue from that of truth, which necessarily implies purpose. Like cause and effect, truth and purpose are corollary, but a cause need not necessarily have a purpose, which makes it a “purposeless cause” with a thus corresponding “purposeless effect”. And, again, this has nothing to do with truth, because “purposelessness” has fundamentally nothing to do with meaning, where truth has everything to do with it. Truth necessarily needs a purpose in order for it to be known that the truth is, in fact, truthful. As mentioned, “purposeless truth” is a contradiction because “purposeless truth” is “irrelevant truth”, or “meaningless truth”. In which case, if a truth is meaningless, then by what standards or means shall we claim that it is true?
There are none.
Therefore, to remove purpose from truth is to declare a truth only true to itself, which is a circular argument and thus a logical fallacy. In other words, “objective truth” without “objective purpose” is a circular, self-nullifying definition of truth. The objective moral ought, then, is a direct function of a truth’s corresponding purpose, and is imbedded and implied in the application of truth, which as I said must be volitional—that is, a function of will—in order for it to be application, and not merely effect.
END

There will be No More Elections Because there is no More Need of Them: American capitulation ended the Republic in 2020

I’ve spent a couple of days trying to figure just how to approach this article. I’ll admit, it’s been difficult, and fair warning, I will try to be hopeful here, but this isn’t my strong suit (as I’m sure you’ve noticed if you’ve spent any time reading here). In my own defense, though, history hasn’t provided much evidence in support of hope. Nations collapse, empires implode…this is the way of things. It is the inevitable conclusion of the philosophical premises upon which nations and empires and all governments are built. The manner in which these things happen may be different, this is superficial…the window dressing is of a different color and style, perhaps, but it’s still the same window. Still, the future doesn’t exist yet, by definition, so maybe if enough people push back in whatever ways present themselves moment by moment the worst of the tyranny can be thwarted. But…probably not.

While I’m on the way to the grocery store the other day I see a man in a convertible wearing a face mask. So, yeah…make of that what you will.

The good news is that the guy in the convertible won’t be voting in the next presidential election. The bad news is that neither will you or I. Well, I wasn’t going to anyway because I gave up voting almost ten years ago now…because I can’t get around the rank contradiction of voting for those who will rule me.

But let’s talk about that for a moment. The election I mean, because I think the sooner we  admit to ourselves the truth none of us wish to admit, the sooner we can begin to think about how we will manage things going forward.

As I have mentioned in many previous articles, western representative democracies have relied upon a facade and artifice of “freedom”, and “liberty” and “bill of rights” and “equal representation” and “private property” and “all men are created equal”, and other such bromide which is fed to the masses to goad compliance to the ruling class. Marx once said that “religion is the opium of the masses”…at least I think it was Marx. Maybe it was Neitzsche? At any rate, I completely agree with that statement…but only if by “religion” we mean “liberal democracy” because THAT is a religion which so completely and soundly satisfies the aphorism as to render its application to any other religion somehow shallow and incomplete. Anyway, the ruling class in the West has for a couple of centuries governed in such a way that the tax cattle (the middle class, I mean…the ruling class is to a large extent financed and intellectually defended by the wealthy/monied m class, to the point where the line between them today is blurred almost completely beyond distinction)… the ruling class has in the past governed in such a way that the tax cattle affirm and promote their own oppression and servitude because they believe they are free and not because they know they are NOT, and, somewhat paradoxically, fear punishment for disobedience. Both of these methodologies are effective in compelling slavery to the ruling class, and truly the deception of liberal democracy, where citizens vote for politicians who generally serve only for a set number of years, and who give themselves the massively ironic title of “public servant”, is much more profitable, stable, efficient, and effective than rank tyranny. This is easy to understand, for if one becomes a slave willingly because he thinks slavery is freedom, then the ruling class can focus its energies on consolidating wealth and power and influence and meting out death and destruction with the aid of a good night’s sleep. You see, when the slaves are unaware of their situation, their masters don’t need to spend money on fences and towers and guns and guards. They can pretend that everyone is equal, and that we are all friends, and that any distinction between ruler and ruled is academic at best.

However, as a nation evolves this illusory egalitarian mask begins to crumble…and this perhaps even in spite of the best attempts of the ruling class and their financiers in the wealth and monied classes to prevent it. This has to do with the inexorable evolution of the root ideas. You see, everything boils down to the metaphysics—what is fundamentally believed about the nature of reality will necessary define what is true and what is good and how truth and goodness should be disseminated amongst humanity. And from this we get practical application of the fundamental philosophical ideas. They become manifest…empirical. They are worked out, as it were, and evolve to an inevitable conclusion. It would be too much of a distraction from the main point here to discuss this in detail, and I have done so in other articles on this blog, Suffice to say that all governments are rooted in collective metaphysics, and there is simply no getting around this, and the conclusion of collectivist metaphysics is tyrannical politics, and the conclusion of tyranny is inevitable obsolescence—once the tyrannical authority has destroyed or otherwise neutralized all those over which it has authority, it is no longer an authority, and thus it begins to feed on itself…it becomes an Ouroboros, you could say, and thus becomes what it always intrinsically was: nothingness born from fundamental self-contradiction. So even though the facade of a liberal democracy which pays very convincing lip service to individual rights and liberty is much more effective and efficient when it comes to providing the ruling class with degrees of power and wealth only imagined in outright autocracies, outright autocracy IS the destiny of the liberal democracy.

Here’s why: The ruling class wants to stay the ruling class. After a while, things like term limits and free elections and representation and all that folderol become a distraction, then, as government grows inevitably more and more mendacious, an outright obstacle. Liberal democracy becomes an obstacle to what the ruling class explicitly or implicitly knows is the entire point of the existence of the State, and via State the existence of the ruling class: to rule. .The ruling class then begins to lay down for itself a substrata of unelected power, and this unelected power grows and grows to the point where it can no longer be effectively shielded from public view, and no longer wishes to be. It no longer wishes to pretend it does not exist. It knows the metaphysics, and it knows that according to the metaphysics it alone has the right to dictate truth and to determine the moral virtue of anyone and everyone.

And here we are.

The United States is officially no longer. It is done. Over. 244 years it lasted, and this is completely typical for the life span of an empire. In fact, it’s a little on the short side. An empire, based on historical numbers, lasts an average of ten generations, or 250 years, regardless of the form of government. So the nation which boasts the most enlightened and egalitarian and libertarian version of governance has lasted for a shorter duration than the average. We are not special. We are not freer. We are a nation, and that nation is ruled, and nations that are ruled rise and fall the same way, all the time, every time. Because the metaphysics never change. And never will. At all. Period.

The coronavirus killed the United States, and United Kingdom, and pretty much every other western liberal democracy. The government, almost LITERALLY overnight, abolished Constitutional law, and with it, the rights the Constitution bestows upon the citizens…rights which must be honored if the United States can be considered the United States. Movement, association, private property, commerce, free speech, privacy, education, unbiased application of the law…all abolished in the name of public health.

How ironic.

And in response to this, what did Americans do?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

American dutifully complied, and still comply to this day in the vast majority of cases, with unconstitutional decrees issued not by vote, or consensus, or compromise, or due consideration, but capricious, monolithic, politically expeditious governors’ executive orders which are based on no objective medical data, no validated research, no thought to the severe long term consequences or collateral damage. The State sent its propaganda machine into overdrive, cooking numbers, manipulating data, ignoring contrary expert opinions, condemning citizens who dared demand the right to manage their own risk, and calling people racists when all else failed to shut them up. The usual filthy tactics. Weeks went by, then months, then more months…the lockdown persisted and persisted, even after it was discovered that the virus has mortality rate at best that of the flu, and probably lower. But no pushback was forthcoming. Oh, sure, a few protests popped up here and there, but they were quickly condemned by the propaganda juggernaut of the globalist media, and the participants were threatened with jail and other forms of state violence if they did not comply with social distancing and mask-wearing protocols. Then a black man died whilst in custody of police in Minneapolis, and all hell broke lose. Predictably, the lower class rage mobs of welfare/single motherhood psychological dysfunction, along with communist paramilitary agitators like “Antifa” took to the streets and vomited out their perfunctory moral atrocity upon the land—arson, looting, theft, murder—the usual barbarian fare. The tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. The police were told to stand down as private property was destroyed and pillaged and some of the tax cattle were shot and beat to death and smashed to pieces. In response the tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. Then the rage mobs vandalized and burned and  threw down monuments and statues and other testaments to the nation’s history and identity, and once again the police were told to stand down, and they did, and the State let it happen. And the tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. An entire six-block area of Seattle, Washington was seized by the rage mobs and their communist benefactors, who declared it a distinct and separate geopolitical entity from the United States, and commandeered the property and lives of the citizens who lived and worked there, then proceeded to engage in predictable communist behavior—beating, killing, stealing, vandalizing, terrorizing, destroying, littering, making all things ugly, and excelling at incompetence and filth in general. The police abandoned their station therein and the governor told law enforcement to stand down.

The tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced.

Back to elections.

Taking all of this into account, can we really expect the ruling class to allow anymore “free” elections? And even if by some unlikely chance they do, that they will honor the outcomes, assuming they do not interfere with those outcomes, or that they will represent anything meaningful? Elections exist to placate the tax cattle…to maintain the illusion of freedom, because this illusion is seen as a necessary pillar of their power and wealth. But this illusion is clearly no longer necessary. The tax cattle aren’t stirring, they aren’t threatening anything…they are following the herd to the feed troughs and charnel houses and milking-stables in lines, socially distancing six-feet apart and wearing masks. Cities burn and monuments crumble and the Constitution lines litter boxes and American shrug. When the signal is red, we stop. When it is yellow we use caution. And when it’s green we go, but only after seeking a reassuring nod from our overlords in the respective capital cities.

I have two words for you: Joe Biden. He is all you need to know about how seriously the ruling class is taking the next presidential election. A demented old man nearing 80 who can’t string together a coherent sentence and can’t remember anything socially relevant that happened after 1972 and has a rap sheet of corruption that reaches to Neptune and has a reputation of being gropey and gross and who couldn’t beat Trump in a debate if Trump were reading off the funny pages. No one on the left is excited about Biden, no democrat has even a thimble-full of political faith in him, and the ruling class in general, with the election a mere four months away and a chance to oust their most hated president in US history, is almost entirely ignoring the election and instead is devoted to carpet bombing Americans with the endless demagoguery and fear-mongering of an essentially harmless and irrelevant virus.

Those of you who anxiously anticipate the reelection of President Trump as some sort of stop-gap or even remedy to the impending tyranny, my understanding and sympathies are with you. However, I do feel that reality is always the best approach, so I am compelled to inform you that you should anticipate Trump’s reelection no longer. Because there will be no election. Our rulers no longer have to pretend that they serve. Now they are free to simply rule.

END

 

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

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 THREE)

After several months of compliance, the citizens are beginning to reject the lockdown. There are lawsuits, there have been protests, masks are not being worn in public and businesses are not enforcing mask or social distancing laws; some counties have defied governors’ mandates and have moved ahead with easing the lockdown without executive approval. People are beginning to recognize the rank incompetence of the State in handling this pandemic, and they are casting more and more of a suspicious eye upon the data being provided to them by government health agencies and disseminated by the transnational propaganda machine otherwise known as the mainstream media. In short, Americans are rejecting the ruling class’s capricious and bumbling management of their lives with respect to this pandemic.

And here cue the mob.

The ruling class has always employed enforcers…those whose job it is to remind the sheep and cattle just who is in charge. A boot to the crotch, a pipe to the knee, a club to the back of the head, a brick to  the window, a flame to the store…in more official arrangements of totalitarianism you’ll see, in addition to the aforementioned, random arrests, random convictions, long and violent interrogations looking for no real specific information…that kind of thing. Here in the United States the ruling class has no official nor officially sanctioned enforcers, obviously, because this would necessarily undermine the facade of liberal democracy, which undermines their wealth and power; and let’s not forget that the artifice of liberal democracy has  been the mechanism for the greatest non-voluntary wealth transfer in the history of the world. So here, in the U.S., we don’t get the Blue Caps or the Santebal or the  Stasi, we get the mob.

After all, the ruling class in the West cannot simply send in official and officially uniformed, formally sanctioned death squads to capture, torture, and murder the disobedient human tax cattle, by which we mean the middle class, in order to “coax” them back into line. The cattle should not be spooked by such optics. They must be kept docile, and their docility is to a large part ensured by the belief that their government actually cares about them, and respects their individual identity and autonomy. This is of course so obviously false that one wonders why the ruling class bothers attempting to hide the truth at all, and yet in spite of  clear, if not officially acknowledged, disdain for those over whom they rule, the vast majority of Americans continue to believe that their government is, at root, completely benevolent and meritorious, and that it is the perversion of the Constitution which is to blame for their misery, and not the logical consequences of the philosophical principles upon which the Constitution is established that has brought us to where we are today.

Anyway, in response to the flouting of lockdown orders and mask laws, the unofficial State enforcers are called up for active duty. Triggered by unofficial State-sponsored propaganda, like, for example, “random” videos of “random” white police brutality against “random” and “innocent” black people, the mob is sent in to terrorize urban areas, which of course lay just at the gates of the tranquil bourgeois neighborhoods of the suburbs, and in some cases, the mob is even leaked to a small degree into the suburbs, in the form of “protestors”, who are not necessarily violent, yet violence is the message which is being conveyed, if only implicitly. Obey or else, is the message they bring, as they point to the destruction raging just beyond the pristine middle class streets.

The mob is of course comprised of the unofficial enforcement shock troops of the ruling class, and by this I mean the government-subsidized lower classes. The State-sponsored and State-financed brigades of manufactured dependents, whose indolence and irresponsibility and social dysfunction and open rejection of beauty and nobility and integrity and art and intelligence and reason and tradition and social contract and morality is subsidized and thus encouraged by trillions of dollars of public assistance money, paid for by the middle class tax cattle. The ruling class raises up legions of undereducated, angry, unsupervised, bored, hopeless, thoughtless, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic and psychopathic, sexually immature soldiers, raised in violent, dangerous, fatherless, mentor-less, dysfunctional, and supremely traumatic environments and unleashes them upon the city to do what they do best—destroy themselves and everything around them. Thus, the unspoken and implied message to the middle class from the ruling class is sent: You need us. Without us, your political overlords, look at what you shall reap. We are what separates you from the barbarian hordes; we are WHY they are at your gates and not at your front doors. You will continue to obey. You will continue to accept your role as political scapegoat and as tax cattle. We will cut you up for meat and leather and milk and veal, and you will accept all blame and moral condemnation that is rightly applied to us; you will absorb the ire and invective coming from the communist, indolent, entitled academic idiots and their idiotic pupils for social ills that we have wrought and in return we will keep the mob behind the class wall.

END part THREE

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

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

 

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

Let’s examine the relationship between the following three themes of the blatantly communist trifecta currently dismantling the United States republic. And, if I may preemptively say so, the communist strategy reveals itself as soon as even a cursory description is provided…it’s that obvious.

1. Related to the rank and baseless hysteria known as the Covid-19 pandemic, mask wearing has become (and thank God is waning due to pushback from citizens and smaller county governments) as a legal requirement for buying and selling goods and services, and  for public interaction and social gatherings, and this despite the utter lack of any conclusive scientific evidence that masks are effective in ultimately reducing or preventing the spread of respiratory illness. In fact, and on the contrary, there IS evidence that routine mask-wearing in public actually facilitates the spread of respiratory illness due to improper usage and ignorance of the risks and benefits of face-masks in general.

2. Large violent mobs of lower socioeconomic classes gathering to engage in widespread rioting, which includes but is not limited to: theft, assault, murder, arson, and general large-scale destruction of private property and private businesses, all of which is encouraged by members of the political ruling class, both tacitly (on the right), and overtly (on the left). All of this was in response to an incomplete video (not police body-cameras footage, by the way, which as yet has not been released to the public) of alleged police brutality where a black suspect died while being subdued by four officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The ostensible reason for the lower class rage mobs is to “protest” white racism in law enforcement and in general (as “systemic”, which is purposefully nebulous and non-specific, in order that “racism” may be defined and redefined at will and instantaneously, for whatever purpose the leftist ideologues decide is needed at any given moment) against the black community, despite the fact that only two of the four officers involved in the incident were white.

3. Calls from violence-endorsing communist organizations like Black Lives Matter and “Antifa” (I use quotes due to the inherent hypocrisy in the title) to defund the police nationwide and replace them with some kind of as-yet un- and under-defined socialist program which, if history is our guide, will undoubtedly manifest as little more than the enforcement arm of a communist political ruling class, complete with extra-constitutional police-like authority to violently compel a communist social agenda.

*

I understand the initial reaction the average citizen can have to this trifecta of primarily leftist-orchestrated crisis and hysteria…at first glance, it appears chaotic, without reason or rhyme, insanity run amok, and hands wring in consternation, fear, and confusion. But to those, I dare say, with even a slightly deeper-than-average knowledge of how communist takeovers historically play out, what we are seeing in America is pretty meat and potatoes…nothing novel or unique or special about it. The only difference is the superficial aesthetics and semantics of it all. Instead of “working class” or “proletariate” we have “people of color”; instead of the Jews or the Bourgeois we have “white people”; instead of the Reichstag we have Seattle; instead of book burnings we have digital purging. But the substructure is completely identical. The relationship between the draconian Covid-19 lockdown, the mobs of lower class looters, arsonists, and murderers, and calls to dismantle law-enforcement and replace them with communist-ideology enforcement bureaus which will inevitably answer directly to the communist political ruling class is no accident. It is merely the natural evolution of the practical and utilitarian application of the collectivist ideology which informs the communist, racial-marxist activities of the American political left.

END part ONE

Coronavirus and Lockdown Overreach: Why the science is both odious and irrelevant

It is unfortunate that those of us who point out the unnecessary misery and chaos which has arisen from the embarrassing State overreaction to Covid-19 are compelled to include the epidemiological data in our arguments, as well as a variety of quotes and perspectives from scientific and medical experts in the field. And it is unfortunate for a couple of reasons.

First, it conflates and combines what are really two separate issues, the virus itself and its medical impact, and the government measures taken to manage it. The virus itself and its medical implications for you and me should have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. And if you ask me why, I will kindly direct your attention to the US unemployment and debt data, the current stats on psychological trauma related to the lockdown, as the burning cars and tire fires in front of the White House.

Second, it presumes and implies the lie that the State would have been perfectly justified and within its scope to seize control of private property, and dictate the terms by which individuals associate and where they are allowed to do so; that it would have been perfectly acceptable for the State to immediately claim ownership of every man, woman, and child, to collapse the economy, to plunge the nation into ever greater heights of unplayable debt, and usher in an pandemic of psychological fallout that shall dwarf the coronavirus and every other pandemic which came before it.

I find it ironic, if not rather depressing, that people feel that they must resort to mortality and case fatality statistics, SIR models, and R rates in order to defend the philosophical axioms that make individual existence, and all of that scientific data, possible in the first place. Among these philosophical axioms is the inviolable (without disastrous consequences) truth of one’s sovereign ownership of one’s own Self and correspondingly of one’s own labor. Further, I submit that an appeal to the epidemiological data as proof that the State has acted incompetently is really, in fact, only proof that one does not understand the State at all, nor appreciate the fact that if the defense of freedom from tyranny and exploitation were left in the hands of the scientists, with their tenuous grasp on philosophical reasoning and their irrational devotion to ludicrous determinism as an explanatory basis for anything, documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights never would have been written in the first place; and representative democracies throughout the world would never have seen the light of day.

The idea that I have to prove that the coronavirus is not particularly medically dangerous and represents no existential threat to man nor society in order to make a digestible and acceptable argument for ending the lockdown makes me, quite frankly, sick to my stomach. Neither the State nor any other agency or institution, nor man, woman, or child, may claim a right to my life, body, property, or associations, in any circumstance, ever, be it the coronavirus or a giant asteroid or a “war on terror”, a locust plague, a famine, a drought…anything. Government should never be in the business of risk management, because government, frankly, sucks at it.

The State’s answer to saving and protecting life means creating a situation in which life is not worth living. Risk management, the protection of individuals from the dangers of simply being alive, whether it involves climbing a ladder, flying on an airplane, driving a car, eating certain foods, engaging in certain sports, or navigating through the scary microscopic world of viruses and bacteria—whatever—requires nuance, an understanding and appreciation of context; it requires flexibility and temperance, a sense of proportion, and above all, an acceptance of the truth of the individual as a singular and singularly free-thinking agent, ultimately unattached to some collective ideation, and thus able to make efficacious choices in pursuit of a moral existence on his own—that is, that the individual in and of himself is naturally sufficient to his own existence.

Government understands none of this. There is nothing nuanced or delicate or nimble to the State. The State is blunt force…it is murder, it is flattened cities, it is prison, it is one-size-fits-all; it is bombs and guns and tear gas and jack boots and mushroom clouds, it is FORCE. Every drawing it makes looks like scribble, every photograph it takes is black, every song it composes is a shriek. The State knows nothing about protection, only SUBMISSION. It attacked the coronavirus with the same tool it uses to attack any problem, the only tool it has—a hammer. It cannot medically subordinate the virus…for that takes knowledge and experience and forethought and experiment; it cannot discern the at-risk from the unaffected and make public health recommendations accordingly, for that takes nuance and discernment and strategy and mercy and compassion. It cannot smash the virus into oblivion, for the virus is too small and elusive; and it cannot threaten the virus, for the virus cannot recognize its authority.

The State can, however, demolish the lives of the citizens it rules…it can “save” them by destroying them before the virus does; it can make the virus look like a party compared to the misery the State can produce. It can, within the span of a few short weeks, amass numbers of dead and dying that make the coronavirus look like a mole hill, rendering the virus completely innocuous by comparison.

How do you flatten the coronavirus curve?

By making a bigger curve out of the misery and destruction of the population you govern.

THAT is what the State is good at, and that is just what it has done.

So spare me the science; tie it to a rock and throw it in the lake. Show me a man who believes that you and I have a right to our own lives ONLY when the science shows that there is no longer any risk from the coronavirus, and I will show you a man who believes that you and I NEVER had any right to our own lives in the first place.

END