Legality and Morality: Completely opposite ethical systems

We often see law and morality, or legality and morality, as corollary, or interchangeable. However, the category of Value, speaking philosophically, known as Ethics, is not an admixture of morality and legality, but rather may contain either/or, depending on how we define the nature of reality, and from that how we define truth and falsehood (metaphysics and epistemology, respectively), but never both. Because the truth is that Legality and Morality are mutually exclusive ethical paradigms. The former is an ethical structure which exists outside of the individual at the metaphysical level and consequently is something to which the individual must be coerced by an Authority which necessarily disregards his will. The individual’s will comes from inside himself, and the ethical primary, the Law, is outside of him…he is obligated to it, irrespective of his will. That’s why its the Law, you see.

The latter, morality, is an ethical paradigm and system where the individual is the ethical standard, and individuals cooperate—which implies the use of individual will, not its rejection—in service to each other’s success and happiness. A violation of morality is a violation of the individual’s essence…his conceptualizing nature, and thus his will, and from that his choices, and from that his labor and property. Consequence for moral violations can range from a refusal to cooperate with the perpetrator of the violation, up to his destruction or restraint depending on the level of severity. This can be done cooperatively by moral people, and this cooperation does not necessitate or constitute government. Rather, it is a group of individuals who recognize their individual worth and will cooperate with each other in order to protect and promote it.

Much more can be said about morality and its practical application specifically, but I will leave it for now. I will only add that A. Morality is fundamentally a much easier ethic to define, contrary to opinions about morality being categorically subjective (Hume’s guillotine and whatnot), and much less prone the kinds of chaos and confusion and irrationality which lead to things like 2500 page bills being put to a vote in the US Congress whilst giving no conscientious representative any reasonable amount of time to read it. And B. That to reject law is NOT to reject ethics. Lawlessness does not necessarily mean the absence of ethical value. It can, and should, if we are being rational, mean that one rejects ethics via coercion and violence by an authority of the group in favor of ethics via cooperation and mutual appreciation for the individual at the root existential level. In other word, morality is through love of the individual, legality through the hatred of him. If you will permit me a slight irony, morality is the “Law of Love”.

The Law is a collectivist ethic—a set of ethical values that affirm a Collective Ideal (the Nation, the People, the Tribe, the Race, the Socialist Utopia, etc,). Because this Law is collective, the individual is disregarded for the group—conformity to the group is something not intrinsic to the individual’s nature, so he is compelled into it by the authority of the State, which acts as the incarnation of the Collectivist Ideal on earth. When I say “State”, of course, I primarily mean the Government. (For philosophical purposes, the two are usually interchangeable.) When I say “Government”, I mean any individual or set of individuals which claim authority over the group to compel the group by force into “legal obligations”. Authoritative force is corollary to Law; without this force, the law is nothing more than suggestion. “Suggestion” and “Legal Obligation” are about as synonymous as “freedom” and “slavery”, or “life” and “death”. Appeals by the State to an individual’s legal obligations, codified or merely asserted, are often couched in manipulative terms such as “collective good”, or “social contract”, etc. etc.. In realty, there is no such thing as the “collective”. Human beings are metaphysically individual. We have a single and singular conscious frame of reference. We say “I”. The group is nothing more than individuals who share a conceptual framework for reality in language, and in turn, may cooperate to achieve individual ends which, taken in aggregate, may, and usually will, benefit the group of individuals. “Collective responsibility” is an appeal to some esoteric, ethereal, utterly subjective, and utterly abstract “Collective Ideal” which no individual can ever access because their frame of reference, as an individual, is mutually exclusive of it; and yet he must somehow recognize its virtue and sacrifice himself to it. If he does not, he will be sacrificed to it by the Authority. Government officials should more realistically be considered as a mystic priest class, which claims to possess some transcendent knowledge and connection to the divine Ideal which you, the mere pew sitter, cannot possess, because, well..just because. That’s the thing, there is no explanation that you can understand because your very existence precludes this. It’s about faith, you see, not actual understanding.

The idea of a separation between church and state is a noble one, but utterly impossible to achieve. The church is the state; the state is the church. There will never be any other way.

Allowing Yourself to be Forced?

I recently heard Bret and Heather Weinstein, the relatively famous (or infamous, depending on your persuasion) evolutionary biologists argue that government cannot legitimately force vaccination on the public because it has not yet met certain statistical and medical criteria. I’m not directly quoting them, of course, but that is the gist of their assertion. I like Bret and Heather, and I find much of what they say to be generally of the libertarian (classically liberal) mindset, which is good, but this is nonsense.

Boiled down, what they are saying is that the government cannot be allowed to use force against the people until it meets X, Y, or Z standard. Boiled down further, they are saying that force is something which can be allowed. Boiled down a third time is this: Rulers need permission to rule.

Here, of course, the massive contradiction is staggeringly obvious. “To be allowed to coerce” is a meaningless statement. If one allows something, then it’s not coercion, it’s cooperation. Cooperation is mutually exclusive of government. Government doesn’t cooperate, it governs…the verb is clearly seen in the noun. What does it mean to govern? It means to compel peoples’ behavior, regardless of their will, in accordance with Law, and the Law has no meaning absent a government to enforce it.

Government is authority, and authority is force. Force does not care what you think or are entitled to. You don’t allow government, it allows you. It demands, you obey. If the government believes that it is in the interest of its own power, you will be vaccinated whether you want it or not…and it doesn’t need your permission or to fulfill some kind of prerequisite checklist to do it. There is nothing to be allowed. The State will act in service to its power, period, always and forever, and if your resist it you will be in some way removed. End of story.

Coercion does not ask permission. On the contrary, coercion implies that no permission is necessary. It will not be sought; it will not be acknowledged. Government exists to force. That’s its nature. That’s all it will do, and that’s all it can do. To think that you can cooperate with it is to think you can cooperate with the wolves that are devouring your livestock. To end forced vaccinations, your going to have to say no. Not put it to a vote, not hope and pray for new politicians, not come up with some list of criteria that the government must meet.

But here’s the rub…because what’s I’m saying is that to stop forced vaccinations, or any act of the State, is to reject the government’s right to govern; to be, in some instance, the government. You see the problem? It takes quit a lot of cognitive dissonance to do this, because there is no spectrum of being ruled. One is either governed or one is not…its either/or. There are no real degrees. One is either a slave or one is free. So, we shall see.

Government Must Take Care of You Because of Your Existential Failure

The governor of New York will compel vaccination by State violence because, as she says, her number one job is to “keep people safe”.

This is a lie for many reasons, the most fundamental one being that the number one job of the government, any government, is, by definition, to govern. Not to steward; not to guide; not to cooperate; not to counsel; not to assist; not to organize. If government was any of these things, it would not be called government, because none of those things are rational synonyms for “to govern”. What is an acceptable synonym for “to govern” is “to force”, especially when we remember that governments govern according to a collectivist ethic, called the Law, and that the Law necessarily implies government force. This is because Law without force is merely suggestion, and “to suggest” is also not a rational synonym for “to govern”.

So, in short, the governor’s primary job is to expand State power at your expense, and she’s doing a great job. I’d mark her off some points for the lying, but fraud is merely one way in which government exploits the people in order to expand its power, so she’s actually quite an apt pupil all around, I’d say.

That being said, let’s assume that “keeping us safe” really is the government’s job. Who gets to define what “safe” means? Who gets to say what and/or whom we are to be kept safe from? Who gets to decide the means by which we are kept safe?

Well, the fact that the very existence government implies that you, the citizen, are incapable of governing yourself, and that left to your own consciousness, choice, will, and understanding as functions of your very root nature you would prove utterly insufficient to your own existence, and humanity would collapse into a pit of abomination and chaos. So the answer to the questions posed above is obviously “not you”.

What the governor of New York means when she says it is her number one job to keep you safe is that it is the government’s job to treat you like a perpetual infant, with an intrinsic fallen nature that makes you a liability to your own existence. It must keep you safe from yourself. And it will do this by owning and controlling your life to the point where there is no discernible difference between it and you.

What the government means when it claims that it shall keep you safe is that it intends consume you. Because, you see, there is no better protection for you from the folly of your own existence than death.

Government is a Corruption of Human Nature

Government is an unnatural state of man. Man’s nature is rooted in his ability to conceptualize himself and his environment, and thus to conceptually organize the distinction and orient and promote himself accordingly. Conceptualization is the seedbed of language, and language implies communication, and communication is shared between men, and, being a function of man’s basic nature, implies that communication via language is the root of human interaction. All men conceptualize, and thus all men share language…not necessarily the same language, of course, but at root, all men conceptualize and thus all men have the capacity to interact with all other men through language.

In short, communication via language is how all men naturally interact, and this from a conceptualizing nature which I submit implies a root existential equality between them. This existential equality, rooted in the conceptualizing nature, implies that the interaction of men must be utterly cooperative. Further, language is a merger of equal root existential natures, and therefore truly meaningful interaction can only be realized effectively, efficiently, and morally through cooperation.

To coerce another man rather than cooperate with him represents a de facto denial of that man’s root nature as a conceptualizing being, which denies existential equality, and this denial simply cannot be rationally defended. To force another man against his will is to also deny oneself. The outcome of this ultimately can only be confusion and chaos. On a mass scale, such as seen with governments, you will inevitably find war, mass murder, theft, exploitation, oppression, and eventual political and societal annihilation, as a cursory review of the history of all governments will prove.

Coercion is the antithesis of human nature. To coerce one’s fellow man is to presume an existential Authority and moral Superiority. For one man to rule another, or some men to rule other men, is to define and benchmark human existence by chaos, frustration, death, and meaninglessness.

Men coercing other men is the nature of government, and it is the denial of man, which means it is the death of man. Government is never a solution to man’s problems. It is not man when he is well, but man when he is sick.

Your Rulers Own Your Choices

You hear this a lot from your masters in government: “Refusing the [medication] is your choice, but you will suffer the consequences if you do.” Or something along those lines. This is the typical bluster of the abuser—“Look what you made me do!”

Tyranny is not the fault of the master, you see, but of the slave. If you only obeyed, you would not need to be punished. This is how they sleep at night. The ball is always in your court…it’s always up to you. That they make all the rules and you are forced to play the game, well, that bit they always conveniently ignore.

What the ruling class is really asserting is the ownership of your choice, which of course means that you have no choice. What is being told to you is: “Choose what we want you to choose or we will disable or destroy your ability to make choices”. Meaning that if your refuse them they will steal your property, banish you from society, throw you in prison, pen you in a concentration camp, or murder you.

“Dictated choice” is a contradiction in terms.

The Brutal Nature of Government

In order for government to truly act in the interests of the people, it must consider them as having equal or greater value. This means that the government either cooperates with or serves the people. But “serving” and “cooperating” are simply not the same thing as “governing”.

To conflate government with service and/or cooperation is dangerously naive. The relationship of subject to state is the relationship of prey to predator.

Democrats and Republicans (Liberals and Conservatives) are not the Same, but they are Two Sides of the Same Authoritarian Coin

Political parties are little more than the illusion that somehow there is a difference in ruling classes.

There isn’t.

The bromide of political parties lulls the people into thinking that there are people in government who are on their side; who care about them, and who wish to direct government towards their ultimate well-being.

There aren’t.

Political parties all mean the same thing: Authority. and Authority is force. And force is violence. And that violence is always directed from the ruling class to the people. Period. They are the rulers, you are the ruled. What you want, what you care about, what you feel, what you believe are always subject to the authority of the state. That is the nature of law and the government which is the incarnation of the law. Law commands, it does not negotiate, it does not cooperate, it does not compromise. The law dictates, and you obey or you are punished. It is as simple as that. You can dress it up in tales and fantasies of representation and democracy and free elections., but you cannot escape the absolute fact that it is a contradiction in terms to clam that you can freely choose those who will rule you. If you can choose between candidate A and candidate B but there is no option for NO candidate and NO office, then your choice is an illusion. The purpose of the State and the political class is to rule you…how that might look based upon the party initial tagged after a politician’s name is purely window dressing. In the end, it all becomes the same same-tyranny. This is why no mater how many democrats or republicans we elect in this country the slide towards plenary state control over all facets of individual life proceeds unhindered, year after year, day after day, election after election. It is not you and and the republicans politicians versus the democrats, or you and the democrat politicians versus the republicans. It is you versus the ruling class. It is them and us. That is the only real and true distinction.

Yet this does not mean that conservatives and liberals represent the exact same type of philosophical thinking…at least at the less fundamental levels. The outcome of the governance is truly the same tyranny, but this is because neither group understands that the logical conclusion of their philosophical assumptions cannot be achieved by the State. So, in an attempt to create that square circle, they contorts and manipulate the State into the chaotic totalitarian monster that it always becomes in end, and the entire thing inevitably collapses, and the ruling class is left scratching their heads and wondering what in the hell went wrong.

I will tell you.

It all has to do with how conservatives and liberals view human nature…their metaphysical assumptions about man. Liberals assume that man is fundamentally depraved, and utterly unsuited to his own existence. Man is born absent the natural capacity to apprehend truth, and because of that, he lacks the ability to exercise his will in service to morality and virtue. Or, man is born absent the ability to do goodness, even if he apprehends truth. It really doesn’t matter, because it means the same thing: man cannot be trusted to work out his own existence based solely upon his own existential merits. If left to himself, man will collapse into an ocean of vice and murder and exploitation and self-destruction. Therefore, a mystical priest class of philosopher kings who are somehow transcendently enlightened must force the barbarian masses into right thinking and right actions, via laws which they will obey under penalty of torment and death.

The problem is that because it is human nature which is flawed, meaning that man at his most basic and fundamental existential level is utterly insufficient for his own existence, the philosopher kings and their governments must ultimately fail in their supreme goal of saving man from himself, and fail to create a perfect utopia of morality and virtue (whatever that is to look like based upon the political convenience of the time, e.g. a Workers Utopia, a Social Justice Utopia, an Aryan Utopia, etc.).

The only fix for a mankind which is utterly flawed at its very existential root is not to have been born at all. Man is evil BECAUSE he exists—this is the only true metaphysical premise one can conclude from the assumption of man’s natural insufficiency to truth and morality. Therefore the control of man by the State must extend all the way to the very root of man’s existence. The State must BECOME man for him. In other words, man is annihilated instead of ushered into the moral utopia. The State destroys him instead of saving him.

This is the liberal failure.

Now, conservatives are like liberals in their metaphysical assumption about the nature of man, but their assumptions regarding man’s natural depravity are implicit, rather than explicit. This is why liberals and conservatives are not the same thing separated only by superficial semantics, but are instead like two sides of the same coin. The same but different, you could say.

Conservatives assert, and actually do believe to an extent, that the individual is sacrosanct in his essence. They claim the intrinsic natural worth of the individual, and thus make at the very least an implicit claim that man is by nature capable of truth and thus of pursuing moral virtue in and of himself. In other words, man is not considered by conservatives to be a failure to his own existence…at least not explicitly, as the liberals do. They see man as inherently able in and of himself, and yet, man alone still cannot achieve the kind of moral, harmonious existence which allows him to express his worthy nature.

But why is this? If man is of himself capable of truth and morality, then what is his stumbling block?

In conservative metaphysics, as far as I can deduce, the problem isn’t man himself, but man’s environment that poses the insurmountable barrier to his existential success. Man’s inherent virtue finds no soil on earth, because the environment (however that happens to be defined…sometimes it’s defined as the hinderances of evil men, or the hinderances of the natural world, or the limitations of man’s own physical or intellectual powers) is utterly prohibitive of his success, being entirely incompatible (again for a plethora of reasons, as the times make convenient to the conservative ruling class) with man’s nature, though nan’s nature be fundamentally good.

This is where the conservative version of government comes in. The point of the State is to allow—and this is a very, very important term…it is the crux of conservative hypocrisy—for the actual efficacy of man’s capable nature. Man is free to exercise his own mind and will and values only after the State has instituted decrees and has underwritten these decrees with laws which allow him to do so. Those decrees are known as “rights”, and they do not meaningfully and efficaciously exist without the State.

What this means is that the right of man to freely express himself upon his environment can and will be violated without the presence of the State to ensure that the environment accommodates man. This makes “rights” something non-inherent and endemic to mans existence, itself. Rights are institutionalized and rendered meaningful by the State, and these rights are the only effective hedge for man against an environment which will ineluctably annihilate him without the institutionalized acknowledgement of man’s rights, and the implicit violence, through the law, that the State exercises in service to them.

And here is where the conservative metaphysical failure converges with the liberal one. Here is where the coin is forged.

In both instances man’s effective moral existence utterly depends upon the State…man must be accommodated to his own existence by the coercive violent Authority of the ruling class. The left does it by forcing man into his environment, and the right does it by forcing the environment into man. And the difference HERE is of course purely semantic. It is two different ways of saying the same thing. Man’s nature and the environment in which he finds himself are entirely antithetical to one another, and the ruling class exists to force a union between them by coercive violence called “the Law”.

Conservatives will tell you that their brand of government allows you to live free. But “allowing” and “freedom” are mutually exclusive political concepts. You are not free to do that which you are ALLOWED to do by one who has the power and authority to nullify that behavior should they deem it necessary. To be allowed to do something implies authority by its very definition, and living under authority is NOT freedom. It is the utter opposite of freedom. Conservatives allowing people to live free quickly becomes conservatives dictating just what freedom shall look like.

The logical conclusion of liberal ruling class metaphysics is the categorical death of man; the logical conclusion of conservative ruling class metaphysics is the same, it’s just that conservative metaphysics take the scenic route—man’s categorical death is implicit, rather than explicit. The nod to man’s fundamental natural ability to apprehend truth and exercise that truth in service to morality implies that man should be free, in the true sense of the word. Man, because he possesses a natural ability to work out his own existence by the qualities he is born with, need NOT be governed at all, and his natural state is freedom—not under law, not under force, not under authority. But this state of man is of course completely opposed to government, which includes a conservative government, which includes the conservative ruling class. This of course cannot and will not be tolerated by the conservative ruling class, and so this class winds up looking and acting just like every other ruling class:

As tyrants.

In both the liberal and conservative cases, the utopia they promise the masses never materializes, and the masses are left exploited, tortured, and murdered..

END

Government is the Dragon: Why government is fundamentally redundant

The State is an expression of Satan, and by this I mean that it is an institutionalized lie, a father of lies, and by “lie” I mean contradiction. I mean an idea which, if one attempts to apply it, leads only to chaos, misery, and the death of Self. The State is anti-life, anti-human, and even anti-itself. The State is a contradiction, and contradictions are nothing, and they produce nothing. They are holes in reality.

Government is an institution built upon the metaphysical lie that human existence can only be perpetuated by force—that is, by violence—violence against the very nature of man himself—the Consciousness, the Will, Awareness of One’s Self, Volitional Application of Knowledge, and knowledge rooted in reason, reason being the non-contradictory integration of concepts to organize realty into meaningful truths in order to promote both the existence of One’s Self and that of Others to whom and with whom truths are communicated and expressed. Without the Self and Other, communication is impossible, and thus language, and thus concepts, and thus consciousness, itself, is meaningless. And because government is built upon a metaphysical lie—that man’s nature is insufficient to his own existence, and therefore he must be controlled by an Authority outside of his own rational and moral natural faculties—it can produce only lies about those it governs. And this it does with great prodigiousness. However, Government’s greatest lie of all is the one it tells about itself, to itself: that it serves a purpose, and that it is not an abject redundancy.

Government is always built upon a Collective Ideal, and that Ideal is Absolute. It is the Nation, the Tribe, the Race, the People, the Church, the Kingdom, the Worker’s Utopia, Diversity, Equality, Tolerance, the Common Good, etc….and this Ideal, being wholly abstract, is limitless. It cannot be contained within reality, and yet it must rule over reality; it must subordinate reality to itself; it must make reality a direct function of its own infinite essence. Thus, when it makes a claim to its explicit right to rule over man, and by extension man’s environment, it is making the implicit claim that it shall rule the whole of reality, and in fact, the whole of Existence. But by “rule over” we do not mean merely control…it is something much deeper and more fundamental than that. We mean consumption. We mean that it shall consume Existence. It shall become Existence…there shall be no functional distinction between Existence and the Ideal. All is the Ideal.

Government consumes everything around it, based upon the assumption and assertion, both expressed implicitly and explicitly in various iterations, that it alone has a right to exist. All else, then, is to be made into Itself. And thus here we can see that even the very name “Government’ is a lie. It does not govern…for if everything is Itself, then what is there for it to govern? There is to be no distinction between man and State, nor Environment and State (for Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the places where man exists), nor Reality and State (Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the relationship between man and man’s environment), nor Existence and State (Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the nature of how and why all things ARE).

Government, by its very nature and very expressed purpose, obliterates all distinctions between Itself and all else. Government is the incarnation of the Absolute, Infinite, Collective Ideal, which can have no limit, no boundary…that is the nature of an abstract. Like color, or diversity, or altruism, or natural law…these things are conceptual tools that man uses to organize his environment…they are not themselves distinct aspects of that environment. Thus, taken as they are, in there own essence, they are infinite…without boundaries or corners or limits, in the unfettered spaces of the human consciousness. Once the relationship is reversed, we can know of the inevitable chaos and unavoidable annihilation which must follow. Once man becomes a tool of the abstract, instead of the other way around, death must inevitably follow. To make an Abstract the reality into which man and all else must fit is to destroy the distinction. All becomes Abstract, and thus, all becomes nothing. And this is precisely what Government is, and does. Government is the establishment of an Abstract (Race, Nation, Diversity, Equality, Common Good, etc.) as that to which all else must be subordinated. The Abstract RULES OVER…but the Abstract, being infinite, has no frame of reference for anything other than itself. So to RULE OVER is to obliterate the distinction between that which rules and that which is ruled over. From the very start then, Government is rationally defunct…pointless, redundant, meaningless, contradictory. The very idea of Government cannot be accommodated at root by reason, and thus it cannot comport with man and the environment over which it is to rule. Government is stillborn. DOA. it is an institutionalized non-sequitur.

Finally, because Government is all-consuming, Government must necessarily consume even itself. Once it has reached its unavoidable conclusion, which is the categorical control of everyone and everything (assuming it hasn’t collapsed before this…yet, it will collapse, of this you can be sure), Government has nothing left to govern. In other words, when all has been absorbed Into itself, and all has become an expression of itself, there is nothing over which to exercise its Authority except itself. It will then begin to swallow itself…feeding on its own body to sustain its own existence.

And so in this sense, we can see that the State is indeed the Dragon; it is Satan in institutionalized form. The father of lies, where the liar lies principally to himself, and murders himself by fundamentally rejecting the truth about his own infinite pointlessness. Government is the Dragon, and Its name is Ouroboros.

END

Post Script—

To grant you freedom by placing you under Authority; to protect your life by refusing to allow you to live it; to provide for your existence by delegitimizing it; promoting peace amongst you while waging war against you…this is government; this is the State. As it is, was, and ever shall be. An institutionalized contradiction; a granting of all power to a bottomless pit, with no possible outcome except the pit, itself. It is nothing which intends to be everything.

The government cannot help you, and never could; the government hates you, and always did; the government fails, and always will; the government lies to you, because truth is not in its nature; the Government is a contradiction, and contradictions are holes in reality.

 

Masks for Chaos; Masks for Control: YOU are the real virus

If you are diagnosed with coronavirus, you are ordered to isolate; you must stay home and avoid contact with the public. Even if you wear a mask you are not permitted to occupy or traverse a public space. And the reason why you’re not permitted to break your quarantine, even if you’re wearing a mask, is because it’s understood both by the state and their medical advisors that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus (or other microbial respiratory infections for that matter, which is why we’ve never been mass-ordered to wear them in public until now, where certain sociopolitical and economic conditions have altered the state’s approach to public health.)

If masks do not halt the transmission of coronavirus, and this is evidenced by the government demanding that those who have tested positive for the virus be isolated, and cannot breach their quarantine even if wearing a mask, then what is the point of mask laws?

Well, there is of course no medical answer to that question. The answer is purely political.

Some may argue that while masks do not halt the spread of the coronavirus, they reduce it, and this is why mask-wearing is compulsory. But there are a couple of critical problems with this. The first, and I believe simplest, is that if we know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus, then we simply cannot say that any reduction in coronavirus cases is due to mask-wearing. Again, masks are NOT preventative…this we know. Therefore mask-wearing can never reduce the virus transmission rate to zero. Even if we say that masks are a reductive measure, we know that because they cannot reduce to zero, “reduce” becomes an entirely meaningless concept—infinitely relative. Masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus, therefore it will spread in spite of mask-wearing laws. Infection rates will continue to increase as a trend, even if people wear masks. Even if the infection rates were to slow, it could never be known with any degree of certainty that this is due to mask-wearing. It would be impossible to rule out all other factors and determine that the decrease in infection rates is because of masks. All we can know for certain is that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. Thus, we cannot make any logical inferences from mask-wearing other than what is ALREADY known, which is, again, that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. And this is why all those boxes of masks you are now seeing piled up  in stores all over the country come with disclaimers on them which read something to the effect of “THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL DEVICE”. Even the mask-making companies know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus. This should tell you everything you need to know.

Another problem is this: Because the coronavirus by its nature continually spreads (at least until it runs its course through a population and then self-limits, as viruses tend to do, or there is a vaccine), and there is no known cure or objectively preventative measure, then there is always at any given moment an unknown number of coronavirus cases circulating in public. Therefore, even if you introduce a reductive measure, like a mask-wearing law, you can never know to what degree that measure is effective in reducing cases of the coronavirus. You cannot calculate a percentage from a reference number which is unknown. What is 20% of an unknown quantity? 10%? 60%?

Exactly.

My point here is that the laws passed by the state in order to ostensibly mitigate the threat of the coronavirus are based on utterly subjective and un-verifiable assumptions. We are unable to know whether or not any of these laws actually have any relevant effect of any kind, let alone a statistically significant one. We do know that measures like mass lockdowns and the inconsistent and random decisions on what constitutes an “essential business” which may remain open to the public have a degenerative effect on the economy and on social cohesion, and we do know how destructive and lethal this is to people. But the state doesn’t care about that. Because here is the reality: In any crisis, the first and foremost problem as far as the government is concerned is always the people. Always remember that.

At any rate, the fundamental coercive nature of the state makes it impossible for it to ever manage a health crisis like SARS-CoV-2, because it precludes the possibly of gathering any objective data which might be useful in combating it. The state, you see, above all, wants to control…it doesn’t seek to understand, to research, to analyze, to think. It wants to control; it wants to consume. That is its only real purpose. Control and consume the individual Self…incorporate the individual  into the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be (e.g. The People, the Nation, the Race, the Church, the Class, the Culture, etc.). The state is not wisdom, it is not truth, it is not life, it is not health, it is not help, it is not science. It is force, and force is violence. Period.

And here is where we get to the truth of what is happening with respect to the coronavirus—a truth is so inexorable that it defies the intentions of even the most benevolent members of government.

What we assume is that the state wants to destroy the virus and preserve the individual. But this is a lie. The state wants to use the coronavirus, like it uses everything else, to eliminate the individual, who represents the only real and relevant threat to government, The individual exists as a thinking, self-actualizing, self-aware, self-volitional agent whose nature as such challenges the state’s presumption of its own Absolute Authority. The self-aware individual has a nature which precludes a natural willingness or even fundamental ability to be controlled and to have truth dictated to him, and this is an unforgivable offense to the state, whose only existential purpose is to do just that: control and dictate. And this is why government measures to manage the virus are seemingly contradictory, chaotic, and irrational. The state’s actions are completely irrational and meaningless with respect to science and medicine, but they ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with its true and ineluctable objective of exercising absolute authority over the individual; to consume him, control him and thereby destroy him.

*

Only men and women who are free to exercise their fundamental and existential core of self-agency, reason, awareness, and volition can ever engage in actions which will truly eliminate threats to their lives and property, because only by this can a truly objective outcome of such actions be achieved: the preservation of humanity as it invariably and necessarily manifests according to its fundamental nature, which is the conscious, volitional Self. Once the individual is redefined by the state as an abject, existential threat to state power, and humanity’s root nature as a thinking, conscious, self-aware, volitional agent is cast as an aberration and as anathema to reality, not an expression of it, then the resolution of all national crises will necessarily involve the increased restriction and subjugation of individual freedom. For the state, the root of all evil is what it considers the great Lie of the Individual, and this is the audacity of human beings to consider their own singular conscious minds and wills as somehow rational, natural, and entitled to some kind of existential consideration, much less promotion and affirmation. You see, all crises, like pandemics for instance, which are not state artifice, are to the state a reflection of the root evil of the individual. Thus, to control and consume the individual is the solution to EVERY problem, be it a pandemic, or foreign hostility, or domestic rebellion, or natural disaster, or whatever, which is why government responses to these crises always involve an expansion of government power over its citizen. The answer is never more freedom, but AlWAYS less, even when more freedom, such as in the case of the coronavirus, would encourage measures that could actually work FOR the individual, not against him, and thus real scientific data could be collected and efficaciously utilized. In a truly free (that is, a stateless) society, we would not attempt to protect people whilst simultaneously reject the very thing that makes them people in the first place—their conscious Selves; their minds, their wills. Only an institution of pure contradiction  and violence, like the state, does this.

So what do the masks represent?

Fundamentally, they are reminder that you are owned. They are an expression of state power; they are another example of the government’s natural instinct to wage war against its citizens—against the individual; against the Self. The implementation of irrelevant and contradictory legal demands is how the state continues to foment the ethos of the mainstream mass acceptance of absolute Authority. The state does not mitigate or prevent crisis—that is neither its purpose nor its nature. It creates crisis, or exploits it, in order to undermine individual human existence by delegitimizing and marginalizing will and thought and reason, all things which affirm and validate human consciousness, and replaces these things with itself. The governing of human beings is, specifically, the subordination of their individual wills and minds, their very natural SELVES, to the external Authority of the state, which is established as the practical and materially efficacious incarnation of the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be—the labels are endless, but they all mean the same thing in the end: totalitarian chaos and the death of man, leading, ironically, to the utter collapse of the state, itself, until the cycle starts all over again

The state exists to become humanity for it; to own it; to subsume it, and consume it, and this is done though the systematic and persistent creation of chaos, the normalization of crisis, the fomenting of a public mindset of abject fear and mistrust, the initiation of utterly irrational and unrealistic legal obligations and threats, and the dissemination of contradictory ideas (e.g. wear a mask to protect others from the coronavirus; it is not safe to breach isolation even with a mask, because a mask will not prevent the spread of coronavirus). These things are intended to demolish humanity’s ability to rationally interpret and thus manage realty in general, and any given environment. This precludes the individual’s successful and productive association, negotiation, and cooperation with his fellow man. The state exploits the chaos for the sake of its own power. It creates crisis, promotes chaos, wages war against its citizens and the rest of the world (to whatever extent it is able) in order to slake its lust for control and wealth and hedonistic whim, all the while telling itself and the rest of humanity that it is doing a broad, benevolent service for mankind, which, if left ungoverned, uncontrolled, and un-coerced, could never exist on its own merits, because it is existentially insufficient. The consciousness is a charlatan; the will ineluctably foolish and barbaric and self-serving, the truth and morality infinitely elusive to the human character. In short, the state assumes that humanity’s metaphysical nature is utterly useless to existence, and then invents or manipulates scenarios to “prove” its assumption.

The state is an intractable psychopath and an insatiable vampire, and it is in charge of protecting your health.

Good luck with that.

END