Audio Versions on YouTube Channel Now: Starting with the Hume’s Law fallacy

I’ve begun the process of posting audio versions of my articles, past and future, on my YouTube channel. Here are the links to a seven part series on the Hume’s Law fallacy, which I covered in an article from last July. I read the article and offer an extensive amount of extra commentary. Thanks so much.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

The Observer and the Observed: Science cannot make the distinction, and thus it is philosophically illegitimate.

One of my primary metaphysical axioms is the following: The observer cannot be a direct function of what is observed. A rejection of this axiom implies that the observer and the observed are fundamentally one and the same, in which case there is no such thing as either, since no distinction is possible. Nothing is observed, therefore no knowledge is acquired, therefore nothing can be said to exist, either the observer or the observed.

The reason for this axiom stems from my observation that the science, the scientific method, and scientific determinist claims about the nature of reality, all being iterations of empirical, materialist ideas when discussed in philosophical terms (which they should never be, as science is NOT philosophy….meaning that it is decidedly NOT a meta-analysis of reality and existence, and does not possess the tools be such), all presume—that is, prima facia—that such a distinction between the observer and what he observes simply does not exist. The observer is his body, his senses, his brain, and these are all material objects existing empirically and thus whatever scientific knowledge is acquired about those things which the body, brain, and senses observe about reality must also apply to the observer.

This of course is a clear—or at least, it should be clear—contradiction, and only by engaging in the cognitive dissonance ironically seen in mysticism, can science make such an assertion. If the observer is, at his most basic level, just a function of the same materials and forces which comprise what he observes, then there is of course no distinction possible by which the observer may know and understand what he IS versus what he IS NOT, which of course is a clear and obvious prerequisite to actually observing anything in the first place. The materialist assumptions of science when it is asserted as a philosophical discursion render scientific philosophies entirely self-defeating, and thus, to insist that science has anything to say regarding the nature and purpose of reality, is to insist that the “truth” is purely mystical, which means, irrational. As a philosophy, science, the scientific method, and scientific determinism should be rejected out of hand. The very fact that science roots itself it the ability of a scientist to actually observe natural objects and phenomena makes all assertions of scientific determinism/materialism/naturalism with respect to the nature of the observer himself an exercise in irony so profound as to make it perfectly ridiculous.


The predictable “scientific” defense appeals to an illusory consciousness, which is simply another way of describing the inability of science to make a meaningful distinction between the observer and what he observes. This begs the question: If consciousness is an illusion, then an illusion of what, exactly?

You see, the claim of “the illusion of consciousness” really means that consciousness—meaning the conscious frame of reference which is ipso facto necessary in order that any actual observation can occur at all—is in its fundamental nature entirely anathema to existence. In other words, the “illusory consciousness” is just the baseless idea that not only does consciousness not exist, it is completely antithetical to existence and reality at root. That consciousness is necessary to make such a claim in the first place—because someone must be in a position to know, and thus to be aware, and thus to be conscious of the fact, in order that they may communicate it—is seemingly never considered. Truly, when scientists stray into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy on the whole, the limitations of their intellect, or the the lengths to which they will go to ignore it, become obvious and quite startling.

Another claim made in service to the idea that science and its philosophical iterations can make a distinction between the observer and the observed is that space is the distinction. In other words, the space which separates the senses, and thus the brain and body, serves as the distinction between what is observed and the one doing the observing. However, this does not work either, because space, if we look at it fundamentally, removed from it abstract mathematical renderings (abstract mathematical renderings which ironically necessitate consciousness…that is, a distinct, independent, conscious observer) is not actually anything at all. Space, in other words, is not something which exists, it is, in its nature, quite the opposite…it is the absence of existence. Space is void…it is null. It, by definition, is not there. This fact is why I have for years found the concept of “wormholes” amusing and entirely fantastical, at least when described as “holes in space”. My response has been to question just how you can have a hole in space when space, itself, is the hole. For example, how can you have a hole in the hole of a doughnut? How can you have a hole in the hole? How can space occupy space? It’s nonsense on its face.

So, no, space does not suffice to serve as the distinction between the observer and the observed because space IS NOT. Space does not exist in the first place to serve as a distinction or anything else, because space, independently, is meaningless, purposeless, and categorically null.

And here’s the hard part. Unfortunately for all of the empiricists, objectivists, scientific determinists, naturalists, etc., and despite all of the (false claims) of my appealing to the mysticism of Primacy of Consciousness, we are at some point simply going to have to accept the fact that all distinctions between objects, including the brain, body, and senses of the observer and that which he observes, are entirely conceptual. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, but there is simply no rational, logically consistent way around it. Consciousness is categorically necessary to realty and existence at the most fundamental level. Period. Full stop. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can start to talk real philosophy, and, somewhat ironically, real science for a change.

America: The Perfect Tyranny

On its current course, this grand “American Experiment” which is inflicted upon all Americans, willing and unwilling, can only end one way. You see, the purpose of the western Liberal State, the United States being prime example number one—a purpose of which most of us are only obtusely aware, or not at all, because it is only implicit in the premise upon which this nation was built, yet is nevertheless supremely fundamental—is to manifest Chaos…Chaos as an Ideal. It does this, and has done this, by first first blurring, then destroying the line between fantasy and reality, between the empirical and the abstract, until all meaning is erased, and existence is nothing more than a hedonistic wet dream for the ruling class, and a perpetual existential nightmare for the rest of us. The masses will have no means nor impetus to resist or reject this, because all meaning shall be expurgated, then obliterated. Even today, observe the contradiction and cognitive dissonance: There are no sexes, and no genders, but there are races…capitalism is evil, but billionaires own the law and use their wealth to casually assume great swaths of power…words are violence, but wars are justice…lives are sacred in a pandemic, but political and disposable in pregnancy…gas pipelines are oppressive; lithium mines are green. Welcome to the American Ideal of Chaos.

You see what I mean. Chaos. Meaninglessness. Contradiction. Systemic cognitive dissonance, all leading to obedience without thought…meaning that the masses obey without ever realizing that they are obeying because they are no longer capable of knowing the difference between obedience and liberty.

How did we get here? This is not an accident, not a political or societal wrong turn, not the concerted and subversive efforts of non-natives, at least not these things fundamentally. No, this is Constitutional. Meaning, if you read the United State’s Constitution, the zenith of Enlightened liberalism, or rather, read between the lines, you understand that it was always going to go this way. It’s in the premise, and the premise always finds its conclusion.

What do I mean?

The unique point of the American political system was to treat the individual as his own root political entity…as a single, or singular, political unit. Now, indeed this is what he is, but this can only be rationally manifest in a purely voluntary society, where cooperation, not coercion (coercion being the cornerstone of all States and Governments…meaning that without violence, there is no Authority, and thus no government) is the means of all social and political interaction. But the United Sates is not a cooperative society, it is not voluntarist…it is a State. That is, its citizens are governed, meaning that they are ruled. Being ruled means to be under the Authority of the Law…and Government is Law; Law and is Authority; and Authority is Force. That’s the political equation of every Nation and every State and every Tribe on earth since the dawn of humanity. So what do we get when we have a citizen who is his own individual political entity yet who is governed by the State? (By “State” we mean is the ruling class, and by “ruling class” we mean the small group of people who presume the natural right to coerce others into obedience to the law, which finds its purpose and efficacy and meaning entirely in the State. Convenient for the ruling class, isn’t it?)

What we have is an attempt to collectively legislate individuality. In other words, to collectively govern millions of politically distinct individual entities. To centralize individuality. In short, to integrate collectivist metaphysics and individualist metaphysics, which are, of course, mutually exclusive in nature.

Without going into too much tedious detail regarding metaphysics, which I do in many other posts on this blog, by the way, the only possible outcome is the chaos of which I previously spoke. The purely individual man is governed only by himself…and with respect to other men, he cooperates; with respect to men who have rejected his individuality by being murderers, thieves, fraudsters, etcetera, and thus have rejected their own, he defends himself and destroys them when he is morally obliged to do so; and he may and likely will cooperate with other individuals in this endeavor. There is no ruling class who has Authority over him…such things as ruling classes and governments and law and authority are purely functions of collectivist metaphysics, which are entirely antithetical to his individual and individualist nature.

So when we attempt to legislate the politically autonomous individual from a collectivist authority outside of him…that is, we attempt to thrust individuality upon him by the coercive power of the State, we destroy meaning at its root on a holistically societal scale. When we attempt to thrust individuality upon the individual citizen…when we attempt to force his root nature upon him from outside of him, we are attempting to manifest a contradiction….to make a square circle, as the old, but apt, cliche goes. The outcome will be chaos, which at first will look like hedonism for the masses, then it will become the enslavement of the masses to feed the hedonism of the ruling class. The final stage of course is the obvious and inevitable collapse of the State, with the ruling class bitterly fighting amongst and devouring itself before finally sinking into its self-inflicted black hole of contradiction.

Now, about hedonism here.

Hedonism, which is simply is the practical application of moral relativism, will be the only thing that the government, from its purely collectivist roots, can recognize as being that which is actually individualistic. In other words, when the government thinks “individuality”, or in political parlance, “individual rights”, it thinks hedonism. And from its inexorable collectivist metaphysical roots, it can only think hedonism. And by hedonism, I mean “people doing whatever they want without moral consequence”.

“Individuality” according to the collectivist metaphysical assumptions upon which the State is founded, again means “people doing whatever they want without moral consequence”…indeed, this is always the single most oft-cited argument in favor of the establishment of States. Without the government, we are told, people will do whatever they want without consequence, and this inevitably implies a grand orgy of self-indulgent atrocity, and the necessary extinction of the human race. Government, you see, according to its collectivist metaphysics, exists precisely because humanity is by nature, in the iteration of self-aware individuals, insufficient to its own very existence. Government IS humanity, then. Government is you, effectively, for you—it is your ability to be—and therefore it owns you, and this is why all governments, no matter how enlightened they may be, all become tyrannical unless they are conquered or collapse somehow before. Government is not for the people, it owns them, and dispenses with the notion of individuality, because to the collectivist roots of government, individuality is object lie, and individual consciousness is an fraud…an imposter to reality. Without the ruling class making rules and enforcing them by violence and threats of violence, the individual will destroy himself. His existence, on its own, is implied non-existence. The individual then, if ungoverned, is a walking, talking contradiction.

Now, in light of this, consider the utterly ironic and counterintuitive notion of a government “by the people and for the people” where the people are, in the Locke-ian sense, self-contained individual political units. What if we have a government that attempts to deny its own metaphysical roots, and instead of rejecting individuality, like all governments prior, attempts to legislate it…to make individuality a matter of law…of force…of coercion. This government, ironically, attempts to force the individual into freedom. What if there are enough enlightenment philosophers around doing enough work and being persuasive enough to convince a set of wealthy would-be ruling class land-owners to establish a nation based upon the principle that the government’s responsibility is to make individuality the fundamental objective of the collective LAW.

The result would be a disaster of epic proportions. It would be…the perfect tyranny.

The government is going to force you by law to accept the right of people to do whatever they want, where “whatever they want” is, and can only ever be, according to the immutable and inexorable collectivist metaphysics upon which all governments, including this American government, are founded, defined as the right of people to indulge their rank hedonistic desires. Not that it’s sold to the masses that way. It’s sold as freedom, life, liberty, property, natural rights, “all men are created equal”, and other such things. Hell, even the ruling class used to buy it.

What kind of society do you think you’d see as this political ideology evolves? Chaos? Contraction? Doublespeak? Moral relativism? The death of meaning and the death of objectivity?


And what is the inevitable outcome of all of this?

Mass psychosis? A society-wide death cult? Destruction and collapse?


The scary thing is that you will likely never even notice the perfect tyranny because it is the tyranny that tells you that you get to do whatever you want, and that feels so damn good and so damn free and so damn right. And if they can keep you fat and lazy and stupid enough for long enough, then you won’t realize until it’s too late that when people are governed in order that they may “do whatever they want” in the hedonistic sense, someone is going to want to commit murder, and therefore someone is going to be the victim…and the State, being obligated to do so, will start to look around for a politically convenient someone to be that victim, and eventually, somewhere after the babies and the school children and the elderly are throw upon Moloch’s alter, that someone will be you, and worse, that someone will be someone you love.


Why the Is-Ought Problem, or “Hume’s Law”, is a Fallacy: Hume’s Law presumes passive observation, and ignores the “shall”

Hume’s law says, in short, that one cannot derive an “ought” (a prescriptive claim) from an “is” (a descriptive claim). In other words, there is no such thing as objective morality because volitional behavior (the engagement of will being how we classify behavior as moral, immoral, or amoral) is always predicated upon purely subjective “if” premises. See the following:

The moral formula presumed by Hume’s Law is: “Because A is this or that (descriptive), you ought do behavior B (prescriptive)”. Now, implicit in this formula is an “if” upon which the subjectivity of volitional action is predicated—“You ought do B if you desire outcome C”. For example, “Because God is the wisest and most powerful being in the universe, you ought obey his commands”, with the implied “if” being—“If you wish to honor Him” or “If you wish not to be punished by Him”, etcetera. The “ought”, you see, is purely subjective because it is dependent upon a subjective valuing of the objective description. The fact that God is the wisest and most powerful being in the Universe cannot objectively demand that one choose to value that fact to this or that degree and then act upon it in this or that way. Only if they happen to value it ought they act this or that way. Yet whether or not they value the fact, to whatever degree, and whether or not they act according to that value, doesn’t change objective reality…it doesn’t change the objective description. “God is the wisest and most powerful being in the universe” is the description…the fact…the objective reality…the “is”. Whether that ought compel one to choose this or that action is utterly dependent upon the degree to which one decides that fact matters to them. What one ought do with a given truth claim always depends on the degree to which a they value it. If they value it, then they ought do this or that. That’s why morality, what one ought (or ought not) do, is only ever subjective. Morality (prescriptive) is purely an “if”, where reality (descriptive) is an “is”.

Here is my response to the assertion that objective morality is impossible, due to the ethical is-ought dichotomy:

That there is no such thing as objective morality—that there cannot exist objectively good and bad volitional actions—is an assertion which contains many rational errors, and all of them rooted in the following presumptive premise, implicit to Hume’s Law: that observation is at root passive, meaning that truth, and therefore by extension, knowledge, is in essence purely a description of reality which is entirely dictated to the observer from outside himself.

This is the premise, I submit, which has ushered in the demise of every argument heretofore attempting to debunk Hume’s Law, because virtually everyone either explicitly or implicitly accepts it on its face. Consciousness is passive; reality dictates its description wholesale to the observer who simply regurgitates it in some manner. In other words, there are no objective acts of will because will is a function of consciousness, and consciousness is merely an illusion of reality, or at best an epiphenomenal mirror which reflects it, but is not real, itself. Human behavior is merely the regurgitation of objective reality back onto itself. Human action is thus determined; consciousness, if it exists in any sense at all, is merely a bystander, an epiphenomenon, and thus fundamentally irrelevant to objective reality. Even Christian doctrine, the place where some of the most ardent defense of objective morality stems, ultimately concedes that truth, and thus knowledge, and thus the volitional application of knowledge, is strictly the purview of God; and that even if it were possible for man to commit moral acts, they must ineluctably be infinitely inferior in morality to God’s acts, rendering them only relatively moral, meaning only subjectively moral, and thus not truly moral at all. Yet I submit that, according to prevailing Christian dogma, even God’s morality is utterly relative to Himself, because He alone is the moral standard, making anything he chooses to do moral, thereby making objective morality a direct function of God’s subjective whim, which again means that morality is only purely subjective.

All of this makes every Christian argument affirming the existence of objective morality an exercise in rank hypocrisy. Indeed, Christian doctrine professes that Christ is the only one who can keep the Law of Moses perfectly—He is God; men are mere mortals, fallen, and immutably wicked in their root nature. Even after salvation (and why anyone gets saved at all is an object mystery, because men cannot earn it, as their very nature is evil, and thus there can be no reason anyone should be saved in the first place) morality isn’t theirs, but the “work of the Holy Spirit through them”. Jesus is the only man who can truly act morally, and thus the only one who can keep the Law. This is because He is God, and only God is capable of keeping his own moral standards. However, what is meant by “standards” is “whatever He feels like doing”, because he is God. This of course isn’t “standards” at all, but pure whim; and “objective whim” is a contradiction in terms.

At any rate…

Since the premise of Hume’s Law is virtually always conceded a priori, all criticism ultimately fails. In other words, if one builds his argument against Hume’s Law upon the very same epistemological premise that Hume presumes, then one must necessarily fail. One doesn’t win a debate by agreeing with his opponent before the debate even begins.

Let us consider a different premise, then.

I submit that observation is not passive, but active; that truth is not dictated to the observer but is, in fact, a function of observation, and thus a function of the observer. It is not reality which describes itself to the observer, it is the observer who describes reality for himself; and it is the observer who describes what is true, from himself, in order that he may promote himself truthfully in his environment.

Yet this is not relativistic or subjective truth. Truth finds articulation and meaning in language, and language is purely a function of the ability of the observer to conceptualize what he observes. What is extremely important to understand, and critical to objective morality, is that language implies communication, and communication implies that there are other observers with whom a given observer shall communicate, which means that truth is shared…it is not relativistic or solipsistic. In order that truth be objectively shared (that truth be shared truthfully, so to speak), it must be shared consistently. Truth is not “relative truth” or “subjective truth”—these are contradictions—but objective truth. This means truth is a matter of conceptual consistency, and conceptualization itself is the foundation of language. Thus, conceptual consistency is the only way truth, and thus actual, objective knowledge, can be shared. I cannot declare to you that I have created a square circle (and no, I don’t mean a bunch of squares set up in a circular fashion…as cheeky as that may be) because that is an entirely meaningless claim, containing a synthesis of concepts, “square” and “circle” which in such a relationship are contradictory…that is, conceptually inconsistent. You have no frame of reference for “square circle” because you simply cannot have one, because the very ability to conceptualize, which is the root of your consciousness, and that from which we form language, precludes it; and since language is necessarily shared because it ineluctably implies communication, and is, again, rooted in conceptualization, conceptualization must be consistent among all observers. If you have no conceptual frame of reference for contradiction then neither do I, and thus you know objectively that I am not speaking the truth. It may not be that I am necessarily lying—it could be that I am deluded or mistaken—but I am certainly not speaking the truth. It is an object falsity to claim that there is any such thing as a square circle, because this claim is conceptually inconsistent, and thus violates truth, meaning it violates a consistent conceptual description of reality; and it is impossible for the observer observe reality this way; and further, impossible for him to share it as truth.


The idea that observation is fundamentally passive means that the observer’s knowledge about that which he observes can only ever be of that which is utterly outside himself, meaning outside of his consciousness, meaning outside of his conscious frame of reference as the observer. Therefore the observer can never truly posses knowledge in and of himself because the sum and substance of reality has absolutely nothing to do with him qua him at all, making observation entirely moot. This makes it impossible that there is actual observation occurring, since an observer who possesses no real conscious knowledge, because he is entirely irrelevant to the “objective reality” he observes, is an observer who is entirely obsolete, and therefore so is observation. Meaning that as far as reality is concerned, it is not actually being observed.

Without an observer, there is no observation, by definition. I submit that it follows then that a reality which is unobserved cannot be said to exist at all, let alone objectively, since there is no means and no frame of reference by which it can be defined…that is, described…in the first place. It is, absent an active, conscious observer, entirely meaningless, entirely purposeless, and therefor entirely irrelevant, all of which renders its existence null, since the question “What objectively exists?” or “What is objectively real?” can have no answer. With no observer, there is nothing to say—to describe—what it is or is not, which means that there can be no it in the first place.

Without an observer, reality cannot be described, and therefore it can have no description, and therefore there can be no descriptive claim, no “is” from which the observer can derive his “ought”. Objective reality, you see, cannot describe itself to itself…this is a redundancy which makes description null. With no active observer and thus no one and nothing to derive any knowledge of or meaning, purpose, and relevance from reality, that is, to describe reality to form knowledge and thus establish the actual truth of reality, reality remains necessarily undefinable, meaningless, purposeless, and irrelevant, and thus can never be described as being anything at all, and thus cannot be said to be a thing which actually exists and is real in the first place. The corollary relationship between the observer and the observed is simply ineluctable.

Further, the implicit (or even explicit) assumption that observation is fundamentally passive (and it is a fundamental assumption, dealing with the nature of observation at its metaphysical root) is false because that which is fundamentally passive is by definition not doing anything, including observing, and thus “passive observation” is the antithesis of observation. “Passive observation”, in other words, means “not observing”. An observer to whom reality dictates itself—or “describes” itself—is a passive observer, meaning an unconscious observer, and is thus not actually observing,


The problem with the implicit-to-Hume’s Law assumption of passive observation and dictated description is that it is simply an impossibility.

Dictated truth—dictated description about what actually is real—to the observer by reality is impossible because this suggests observation without any objective meaning nor any objective use to the one doing the actual observing. In which case, observation itself is utterly pointless and irrelevant. The observer is not real, you see. He is outside of reality, or it is outside of him, in which case “observation” is nothing more than reality simply dictating its own description of itself to itself. Which is just another way of saying that there is no observation at all, and therefore no observer. The sum total of knowledge then is purely a meaningless, pointless description of that which has nothing whatsoever to do with the one who supposedly knows—the observer.

As far as reality is concerned, the observer doesn’t exist. You qua YOU, conscious you, have no true existence, only subjective, relative existence. Whether you live or die, objective reality remains fully objective reality. Indeed, this is the root of all “empirical” and “rational” philosophies: Even if you did not exist or never existed, objective reality is always objective reality. There is an infinite and eternal ontological chasm between the transient, fleeting observer—his consciousness blipping in and out of existence at random with birth and death, possessing no real meaning nor effect—and eternal, immutable reality. There is no corollary relationship between the observer and the observed except that of mutual exclusivity…which of course is no relationship at all.

If we accept that such a claim like “the sky is blue” is objectively true because it is an accurate and consistent description of reality, then we must accept that the observer who observes this possesses objective observation, and by declaring it—by describing reality in language—possesses objective knowledge. Knowledge, I submit, implies meaning and purpose, and thus must be something the observer can apply to such purpose. Which means that there is in fact an objectively correct way to apply knowledge and an objectively incorrect way—there are objectively right behaviors, and objectively wrong behaviors. In other words, that there is such a thing as volitional action which can be objectively valued, which means there is such a thing as objective morality.


The observer is active, meaning he is conscious. He is aware of the the distinction between himself qua himself, the Conscious Self—he, himself, being not merely a body, but an observational constant, so to speak—and that which he is observing—that is, his environment—and understands that the distinction is corollary, not mutually exclusive. Observation is thus relevant, meaningful, and purposeful, which means that observation is knowledge which the conscious, active observer thus applies in order to orient, manifest, and promote himself in the environment. In short, objective reality is objectively observed by an objective observer who possesses objective knowledge by which he makes objective decisions about how to objectively act in order to objectively promote himself in the environment.

Or, we could say it this way:

He who observes objective reality is by definition an objective observer (he, himself qua himself, is objectively real), and he is fully capable therefore of observing objectively and thus acquiring objective knowledge, which is called truth. This objective knowledge he then uses to make objective decisions about how he shall objectively manifest and promote his existence in the environment. In doing so, he acts in accordance with objective truth and thereby acts objectively good, or, morally.


Hume’s Law erroneously presumes that morality is fundamentally about something that one “ought” do. This is incorrect.

Hume’s Law presumes that “oughts” are purely subjective, and depend upon explicit or implicit “ifs”. This is correct, and would be relevant if morality were fundamentally about “oughts”, which it is not.

The logical extension of the assumption that morality is purely a function “oughts”, which are subjective, is that objective morality then must be devoid of things one ought do and instead contain things one must do. Of course if they are things one must do then they are not choices, in which case there is no volition involved, and thus we are no longer talking about morality. If one must perform certain acts then they are not volitional…they are not acts of will, and therefore these choices and behaviors cannot be said to possess any moral value.

So you see, If one does not get a choice, because there is no volition involved, because it’s about what one must do, then it’s not morality. Yet if one does get a choice, and thus does engage the will, then one does not have to make a specific choice, for this is the nature of choice—whether they do or not has no bearing on, nor anything to do with, objective reality. The “is” descriptive premise is neither obligated to nor dependent upon the “ought” prescriptive premise—and thus the behavior can only ever be subjectively moral. In short, you either have subjective morality or no morality at all.

Hence the reason why Hume’s Law is often informally rendered “Hume’s Guillotine”, the metaphor being that of a blade which decapitates any argument in favor of objective morality. Any appeal to objective morality necessarily terminates in a self-nullifying contradiction.

However I submit that this is not so, because the implicit premise of Hume’s Law—that morality is entirely predicated on what one “ought” do (a premise upon which the validity of Hume’s Law entirely rests)—is completely false, and fails to consider the more obvious ethical root of morality, which is not “ought” but rather “shall”.

“Shall”, in terms of moral ethics, is simply this: What one shall do are those actions which rationally and therefore necessarily follow from the epistemological premise, in this case, that truth exists as a function of the conscious observer and is rooted in his description of objective reality. In other words, what one Shall do is that behavior which is implied by the Truth.

“Shall” should not be confused with “will” or “must” which are entirely different concepts, ethically speaking. Objective morality is certainly a matter of volition, but this volition is a function of what the observer, as his metaphysical root implies. shall do because he is what he is. That is, what he shall do in the capacity of actually being that which he is: the observer. His choices and behavior shall be rationally consistent with himself, and to do not what he shall do is a fundamental denial and rejection of himself, which renders his volition a lie, because it denies the very source of volition—himself qua himself. In other words he cannot by his will deny that he has will. He cannot by his existence deny his existence.

Morality is not at root about what one ought or ought not do—not about making good or bad choices—it is about engaging the will in a manner consistent with the truth…the truth which exists in the first place because it is a function of the the observer; and that for one to attempt to act in manner inconsistent with the truth is a denial of one’s own self and is a contradiction. One cannot deny that he IS by an act of his will.

Morality is simply man acting out the truth that he objectively exists as himself qua himself. It is about valuing choices and actions according to how they validate man’s objective existence at his metaphysical root, and it’s about valuing consequences of actions according to the degree to which they validate him.

An immoral act is an act of self-rejection at the very metaphysical root, and the result is chaos, and, inevitably, suffering for the perpetrator, his victims, and those who choose to indulge him and his lies. The consequences for immoral actions are not “punishment”—this is a term and concept relevant only to legal ethics, not moral ethics (and, yes, they are mutually exclusive)—but the response of reality and truth to a metaphysical aberration. A man who attempts to murder another man has fundamentally presumed to own that other man’s life, which, this idea being wholly irrational and a lie, becomes in fact a rejection by the murderer of his own life. The intended victim is entirely justified then in using deadly force to defend himself. He is not obligated to respect the life of the murderer who refuses to rationally acknowledge his own, and will act out his lie by attempting to murder his fellow man instead of affirming him.


The correct way to render the ethical “shall” premise is this way: You are, therefore you shall. Meaning that to attempt to do what you shall not do is a fundamental denial of you—“You shall do X if you want to deny yourself”, is an obvious error. The denial of you of course means that you couldn’t possibly do or have done X in the first place. Thus, to attempt to reduce “shall” to some form of ethical subjectivity results in a meaningless, contradictory assertion.

Knowledge must be consciously applied, which means purposefully, which means volitionally, which means that volitional action is a fundamental function of the possessor of knowledge…that is, the observer. If what is observed is objective, then observation must also be objective, because the “purely subjective observation of objective reality” makes observation and reality mutually exclusive. So if observation is objective then knowledge thus is likewise objective, and thus there must be an objective way to apply that knowledge. This objective application is objective moralitywhat one shall objectively do because one objectively is. To attempt to do other than what one shall do is an attempt to consciously deny oneself—that is, consciously deny one’s own consciousness; willfully deny will; choose to deny choice. This is meaningless and null.


If the observer observes objective reality, then observation itself is necessarily objective. Subjective observation of objective reality is a contradiction in terms when we are speaking in fundamental terms. The observer, in order to be in a position to observe objective reality, must himself be objectively real. Both the observer and his observation, which is at root his consciousness, possess equal ontological value to that which is observed. The observer and his consciousness—the means by which he actively observes—are as objectively real as objective reality.


Observation necessarily spawns knowledge of and about that which is observed; knowledge is necessarily meaningful to the observer; and meaning implies relevance; and relevance implies purpose. Knowledge therefore is practical, and its practicality is manifest and realized through application.

Application of knowledge must be volitional…it must be an act of the will. Non-volitional application of knowledge is impossible—if what is known cannot be willfully applied, then knowledge is irrelevant, and therefore meaningless. “Meaningless knowledge” is a contradiction and is thus null. Knowledge which is not willfully applied is not consciously applied, and therefore it cannot truly be called knowledge. Without knowledge there is no observation; without observation there is no observer. If there is no observer of reality, then there is no one to define what reality actually is. Reality which cannot be defined cannot exist, “What is real? or “What exists?” or “What is?” are impossible questions because they can have no answer. That which cannot be defined cannot be declared to be anything, and thus cannot actually be anything at all. If objective reality is not true to that which can conceptualize it, and translate its existence into something with purpose, meaning, relevance, and value, then it is existentially redundant. Without an observer, what something is is entirely irrelevant; and irrelevancy at the root metaphysical level means that there is no difference between a thing existing and not existing. It is fundamentally irrelevant…whatever it does, including exist, amounts to the very same degree of meaning and value as if it did not. It’s existence—its place in reality—is of the same root metaphysical value as non-existence. It exists as though it did not. This is a contradiction to reality and thus is null.

The truth is that not only is there no existential mutual exclusivity between the observer and the observed, they are inexorably corollary. One always implies the other. This would seem obvious—transparently axiomatic based upon the overt terms—“observer” and “observed”; “consciousness” and “that which consciousness is conscious of”. Yet Hume’s Law, as I have illustrated in this missive, implicitly and fundamentally bifurcates them to the point where not only does one not imply the other, but “objectively reality” implies that there, in fact, can be no such thing as an observer at all, because consciousness is nothing more than reality projecting itself back onto itself. This is a contradiction and is thus null.

Thus: No volitional observer, no conscious observer, no observation, nothing observed, nothing defined, nothing meaningful, nothing relevant, nothing at all. No will, no observer, no reality. Or, put most succinctly: No morality = no reality.

To summarize:

If what is observed is objective, then observation is, in fact, observation of the objective, which means that observation is not exclusive of objective reality and thus is likewise objective. This means that knowledge of the observed objective reality is also objective. Knowledge must be applicable to be meaningful and relevant, and application means volition, which makes the observer a volitional observer, which means he is a conscious observer (is naturally aware of the distinction between that which he is and that which he observers). Thus knowledge, being objective and implying willful application, implies that there must be an objective way to apply knowledge. There must be an objectively correct way to apply knowledge and therefore an objectively incorrect way; an objectively good way and an objectively bad way; an objectively moral way and an objectively immoral way; objectively moral actions and objectively immoral actions.

Objective Reality = Objective Observation = Objective Knowledge = Objective Application = Objective Morality

Reality = Observation = Knowledge = Application = Morality

Metaphysics (Observed, Observer) = Epistemology (Knowledge) = Ethics (Application of Knowledge)

Metaphysics = Epistemology = Ethics

It seems that the truth of objective morality has been staring us in the face for several millennia now. Who would have thought?


The purpose of this post was not to elaborate upon which specific behaviors are moral or immoral, it was simply to prove that objective morality is both possible and necessary, and that Hume’s law rests upon false presumptions concerning the nature of the the observer and observation, the nature of reality, and the nature of morality. These false assumptions are a.) That observation is fundamentally passive, and b.) That volitional action is a purely subjective matter of what one “ought” do based upon information entirely dictated to the observer by an objective reality which exists utterly outside (meaning, entirely exclusive of) his conscious frame of reference. A further flaw of Hume’s Law is its failure to recognize that the assumption that knowledge is objective but the application of knowledge is subjective is in fact a contradiction and is therefore null.


The Metaphysics of the State: Why Biden’s Supreme Court pick, based primarily on race and sex, was completely rational

I have heard heard conservative and libertarian media pundits, academics, journalists, and intellectuals complain about Joe Biden’s recent U.S. Supreme Court pick of Ketanji Brown Jackson. Biden’s criteria was simple and straightforward—his nominee was to be, first and foremost, a black female. This was in keeping with his campaign promise to nominate a justice upon such criteria should he get the chance. He did, and here we are.

The problem, were are told, is that we should not be choosing those who shall serve on the highest legal court in the land, for life, according to immutable characteristics such as race and sex, but rather on “individual merit”.

I just have to laugh, here. I mean no disrespect, but seriously, the government wouldn’t exist if it acknowledged that individual merit was actually a thing. My goodness…I’m incredulous every time I think about just how unaware conservative and libertarian thinkers really are.


This assertion that Supreme Court nominees should be assessed on “individual merit” is of course rooted in what is ultimately a metaphysical premise regarding the nature of human beings. To declare that people must not be judged as members of a collective, exhibiting the proper, yet spurious, group-identity marker, or markers, such as race and sex, is to declare that what really makes a human being a human being is their individuality.

Well, what does that mean?

One’s singular, conscious frame of reference—that’s what it means to be an individual. What makes you uniquely YOU, is that you observe, interpret, and manifest your existence from a single existential frame of reference. This frame of reference is, functionally, the distinction between YOU and OTHER, where OTHER is other persons (other individuals), and the environment (the material context for the practical manifestation of Self-ness).

The distinction between Self and Other is the inexorable distinction between all human beings, and is why every one of us is morally equal to everyone else. No one person is any better than any other person, because “better” would mean possessing greater existential value. This of course is impossible since each individual is a function of an absolute and singular conscious frame of reference. In other words, each one of us is, at root, absolutely ourselves, and thus each one of us equally exists as Self. No one person has more or less existence than any other—to assert otherwise is obviously ludicrous. Thus, one cannot make an existential value distinction between individuals. Everyone, by dint existing as a singular Self, is morally equal. They have equal value and relevance to Reality,

The argument which naturally follows is this: Does this mean that the murderer and the thief, for example, are as “good” as anyone else? If all of us are morally equal at root because we all equally exist, what difference then does it make what a person does with his existence? How can we judge the murderer and the thief as evil if the plumb line for moral value is simply existing.

Here is the answer: The murderer and the thief have, by their choices and actions, utterly rejected themselves…that is, they have rejected their own existence as Self. In doing this, they no longer have meaning nor purpose, and thus can have no value.

Let me try to explain.

By violating the life and property of their fellow human beings they have forfeited all of their existential value by declaring, implicitly or explicitly, that such value is a lie. In other words, he who commits murder and theft rejects, first and foremost, their own individuality, and by this, their own fundamental worth. Having utterly devalued themselves, and so stripped themselves of any rational meaning and purpose to anyone or anything else, the criminal forces others to deal with him as a rank existential aberration—an object threat to individuality, not an expression of it. In other words, once the criminal rejects his own existence by engaging in theft or murder, he can be of no meaning, purpose, or value to others, and thus others have a moral right (and a moral obligation) to restrain him, and if needs must, eliminate him. To boil it down to a simplistic metaphor: If the glass refuses to hold water, then it has become nothing to me, an I shall throw it away.

There is much more to be said about this, but I will move on to the main point of this article.

The argument is that we should be selecting Supreme Court candidates based on their individual characteristics—how they think, how they interpret the law, their personal philosophies and morals, their individual experience in this or that school, this or that post, etcetera, etcetera—and not on collective, superficial, identity markers such as race and sex.

The problem, however, and one which our conservative and libertarian friends never seem to quite grasp for reasons that escape me, is that government is a collectivist institution, not an individualist one. In other words, the State simply cannot judge anyone according to their individual merit because the State does not and cannot recognize that individuality actually exists.

When I say that government is a collectivist institution, I mean that its very establishment is rooted in collectivist metaphysics, not individualist metaphysics, and these are mutually exclusive. The government exists to govern, and to govern means, fundamentally, to coerce behavior by violence and threats of violence. There is no such thing as government outside of this. None. There is no other real purpose for government besides coercing human behavior in order to serve the interest of a given Collective ideal.

In the case of the United States, the government claims in its founding documents to act on behalf of what it calls “The People”. However, one should not take this to mean “the persons”…even if the Founding Fathers intended it to mean this, because, given the nature of government, it can’t. No, no…these are completely different categories, rooted in completely different metaphysics. “Persons” are a group of individuals. “People” are a a sociopolitical entity to which individuals are inexorability fused. Put simply, the individual is a function of the People, not the other way around.

Government is Authority and Authority is Force. The government cannot consider one’s individual merit because as far as government is concerned, there is no such thing as the individual. It cannot consider one’s individual experience, because individual experience is by definition a function of one’s individual existence, which the collectivist metaphysics of government do not recognize.

Government does not and cannot and never will act in the interest of the individual, but only in the interest of the Collective Ideal it represents. This makes sense even on a the most rudimentary of logical basis. I mean, think about it. Think about the nature of your individual existence—what makes you YOU—and the complexity of it, and then see how stupid and ludicrous is the idea that somehow all which makes you individually you can be compelled/coerced by some third party Authority outside of you, which you most likely have never met and will never meet, and which knows nothing about you as a person. Think about the thousands of choices you make per day; your fleeting whims; your changing opinions; your capricious tastes; the fundamentally unpredictable nature of your environment from moment to moment; your fluid schedule, daily, weekly, monthly, or at the very least yearly. Even the most organized and regimented among us is faced with a thousand options per day and a mind that is constantly analyzing and assessing, evaluating and critiquing; and though it may seem like many of us simply operate on rote in some meta existential context, I can assure that this is not the case. Existence is contextualized to the individual…you observe and manifest your life from a singular conscious frame of reference. You are, at root, an “I”, not a “We”, and you know this in your heart. There can be no such thing as a fundamentally plural existential frame of reference. The relative relationship between environment and observer, which is a necessary prerequisite for Reality, Itself, can only work if the observer is singular. A “plurality of root observation”, or, simplified, a “plural observer”,” is a contradiction in terms. Sometimes you hear it called a “collective consciousness”. It’s complete nonsense.

For the government to presume that it can control the individual without denying individuality is a lie; and until we all understand this, government will continue to reduce humanity to corpses and chaos, just as it has always done and will always do, because that is all its nature can allow.

All this being said, it is a farce to think that the government can ever fundamentally judge a person based on their “individual merit”, as though the State is able to acknowledge that such a thing exists, let alone care about it. For the government to acknowledge individual merit—to acknowledge that the indiviudal is capable of any meaningful manifestation of his or her existence without the presumption and intrusion of the State—is for the government to deny its own legitimacy and thus its own existence.

The government will always and forever collectivize humanity…and, again, this is entirely unavoidable because it is a function of government’s nature at root. If the government is not collectivizing humanity, then it is not the government. The government will never consider one’s “individual merit”, for the simple reason that it doesn’t accept “the individual” as a legitimate existential concept. The government will judge, vet, review, examine, and consider every single of one us, be it a Supreme Court nominee or the guy selling oranges on the street near the quarry, only according to whatever Collective Ideal it decides it is manifesting and expressing at any given moment—in modern U.S. terms, Social Justice, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The government will value each and every one of us based upon the degree to which we serve and affirm this Collective Ideal, and this means that it will not judge us according to the complexity of individual characteristics, but the superficiality of group identity—that is, whether we are black or not. and female or not, with respect to the case of Biden’s Supreme Court nomination.

The government will never consider a Supreme Court nominee, nor anyone else, for a position on the basis of “individual merit”, and it has never really done so. Just because the Collective Ideal which makes one valuable to the State happens to be more ham-fisted, less nuanced, today (i.e. skin color and genitalia) than perhaps in the past doesn’t mean that the government is any more tolerant of the individual.

Biden simply did what was, in fact, the most rational thing he could do in picking a Supreme Court nominee: Promote the interests of the State over those of human beings.

What else is new?


The Genocidal Implications of “Diversity”

Once we begin to think about diversity as something which must be broadly applied to society and the state via the vanguard of public institutions then it is no longer a mere adjective (e.g. “the restaurant had a diverse selection of entrees; the army filled its ranks from diverse age groups”), it is an ideology. That is, it seeks to fundamentally organize and value humanity according to an Idealized vision…the manifestation of the Ideal of Diversity. Diversity the Ideal is the transcendent ontological absolute, which dictates and spawns all things. Diversity” is “God”, so to speak—the transcendent, perfect, absolute IS; and the Idealization of Diversity is the way in which society (and all else for that matter) shall properly reflect and promote this “God”.

Diversity, I submit, is entirely a product of collectivist metaphysics, making it a Collective Ideal. Individuals are thus compelled and propagandized to reject their own existential frame of reference—their individual Self—and are placed into a collective identity. Their existence is utterly managed by a central Authority; this Authority is the practical incarnation of the transcendent “God” of Diversity, in service to manufacturing a society which perfectly reflects the Diversity Ideal. In short, Diversity is “God”; the ruling class—the state/the government—is its power on earth to bring society and the world into submission to it; idealization is the blueprint for how this shall happen and what it shall look like.

Knowing this then, it is not too far a stretch to imagine just how taking “Diversity” to its logical conclusion must mean genocide. And as long as Diversity is that which the state is committed to pursuing, that logical conclusion is inevitable.

The question which is thus begged is this: What is it about current society which demands the need for Diversity? That is, what is observed by the collectivist ideologues that leads them decide that there is a problem and that Diversity is the solution?

Well…I submit that the answer is about as obvious as any answer can be, not in the least because their are only very specific locations in the world where “Diversity” is the solution to what is considered an acute existential threat, and that place is the West, and most especially that which is broadly described as the “Anglo-sphere”. In other words, the problem is white people…as far as I am aware, there are no calls for “Diversity” in places where white people are either absent or represent no political significance.

Now, I know that some might boil “Diversity” down to the simple need to reduce the influence of white people in any given context, and this translates into the mere reduction of white people in number relative to non-whites. This is true, to some extent. In some sense, yes—according to the ideology, the degree to which Diversity is successfully manifest is inversely related to the number of white people around. In other words, the fewer the white people relative to non-white, the greater the degree of Diversity. However, it goes deeper than that, unfortunately.

Taking that Diversity means a reduction of whites relative to non-whites, let’s think about this.

It is quite sobering, especially if you happen to be white, to realize that the implementation of Diversity means as much the absence of white people as it does the presence of non-white people. This tells us that Diversity is specifically and fundamentally opposed to white people because the ideology can be satisfied as much by removing white people as by adding non-whites. Now, we could make the argument that it is the mere preponderance of white people which necessitates Diversity, but this implies that the reduction of the number of white people to zero fully satisfies it. And why shouldn’t it? There are too many white people, that’s the problem. By definition, therefore, entirely eliminating white people fixes the problem. There is no longer a preponderance of white people if white people don’t exist.

Some may argue that that position is much too extreme and that I’m overreacting. They will say that were we to eliminate white people entirely then there would no longer be Diversity. Diversity, they say, is inclusive by definition, not exclusive.

They may truly believe this, but it is nevertheless a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Diversity. The very existence of whites is why Diversity must be implemented in the first place. The existence of whites is the problem, period. To say that it is fundamentally about the number of whites and not the existence of whites obscures the issue. The number of whites is a direct function of the existence of whites, not the other way around. If you eliminate whites entirely then there is no longer a problem that Diversity needs to correct, which is why you do not see the ideology of Diversity being pushed in areas, nations, communities, etc. where whites are either absent entirely or so few in number as to be completely sociopolitically insignificant. Therefore, to say that Diversity shall be satisfied by simply reducing the number of whites to some given point is a lie…Diversity is an ideology, not a mathematical formula. It isn’t about numbers, it’s about manifesting the Ideal. Ideology is a zero sum context…it is all or nothing; you cannot compromise with ideology. Ideology demands a perfect manifestation of the root metaphysical primary, in this case Diversity. Diversity is needed because there are too many white people, and the number of white people is a direct function of the existence of white people. A perfect solution to the problem of whites, then, and thus a perfect satisfying of the Diversity Ideal, is to end the existence of whites.

Furthermore, if one makes the argument that the problem is the number of whites relative to the number of non-whites, then one must ask the obvious question: what number of whites is acceptable? If one were to answer something to the effect of: whites should not be represented in any given context—politics, media, entertainment, employment, education, etc.—beyond that of their overall population percentage, well, this begs a further question. Let’s say that whites represent one hundred percent of the population, and therefore shall represent one hundred percent of any given context. Is there still a need for Diversity?

The answer to this question is certainly!

First of all, if whites represent one hundred percent of the population then by definition that society is not diverse, and so Diversity is demanded. Next, if one answers “no”, then whites can represent one hundred percent of of the population without the need for Diversity—if this is the case, then there is no reason why Diversity is needed in a population where whites are a merely a preponderance. Finally, If one answers “no”, then it implies that the existence of whites is not a reason for Diversity, which means that there can be no particular number of whites which implies a need for Diversity, since, again any number of whites is a direct function of the existence of whites. Again, the need for Diversity is not at root a function of the number of whites but the presence of whites. The most complete way then to deal with the problem of the number of whites is to eliminate the existence of whites. If whites represent zero percent of the population then by definition the problem of the number of whites in the population is automatically resolved, and resolved most completely.

Now, not to go too far into the weeds here, but lets say one makes the argument that any race comprising one hundred percent of the population demands the need for Diversity, or even just a preponderance of any race, not just white people. And let’s say that the solution then is to mix all races together so that there is always a perfectly diverse number of races relative to other races. This equal admixture of distinct races inevitably and ironically gives way to offspring which over time create an utterly homogenous population—the diverse racial genetics merging and producing individuals who share no significant genetic differences with respect to race. In this racially homogenous population, no racial diversity can exist, obviously, thus contradicting Diversity. And this is (in part) why Diversity must be very specific about which race or races pose a threat. It cannot say all races pose a threat to it because the only solution then is either the elimination of all races, leaving no race and thus no Diversity, or a new homogenous race which comprises one hundred percent of the population, which thus also contradicts Diversity. At some point we must face it: Diversity targets specific races for elimination, and in this case that target is white people.


The Diversity Ideal will only be satisfied by the complete eradication of white people from society…I like to think that I have made that clear. And make no mistake, this is exactly what will happen as long as the need for “Diversity” continues to be a premise by those in power. The first and most important law of philosophy and logic, I submit, in is that the premise will find its conclusion as long as it remans the premise. As sure as the sun rises in the east, the conclusion will come to pass. The sun will not rise from the east, and the conclusion will not be reached, only when the perspective of the observer completely changes.

The only answer to the question “What is the needed number of whites relative to non-whites before society is sufficiently Diverse?” is zero. That is, there can be zero white people. This has not only to do with the logical contradictions involved when one tries to give a number other than zero, but, even more importantly and profoundly, it has to do with the fact that Diversity is a collectivist metaphysical premise. It is an Ideal. Diversity informs humanity, not the other way around. Diversity is the Reality to which all things and all people shall conform, and, indeed, are obliged by the Authority to do so.

Diversity is perhaps better labeled “Diversity-ness”…this is more conceptually precise, I submit. Diversity is a Collective Ideal, which makes it a metaphysical primary, meaning it is the plenary ontological category which should, and shall by the power of the ruling class, represent all of what Is—of Reality, both in the material and in the abstract; all of what humanity observers; and indeed, all of what humanity is. All is Diversity. This primary position is the frame of reference from which Diversity informs Reality. It is absolute; it is Diversity-ness.

It is not white people then, specifically, which is the root threat to Diversity, it is Whiteness. Therefore, when speaking of white people we must capitalize the W, because white people are merely the manifestation of the absolute Antithesis of Diversity, or Diversity-ness.

Diversity as a collectivist metaphysic does not recognize the existence of white people, meaning of any specific white person and thus any collection of white persons. In other words, it does not recognize the existence of the individual. Now, I should add here that collectivist metaphysics can recognize the Collective Ideal which many governments often refer to as “the People’…that is, “people” as a political category to describe “the masses” which shall fall under the jurisdiction of a governmental Authority. However, “people”, or better said, “ persons”, as opposed to “the People”, are individuals, and thus utterly antithetical to any Collective Ideal, including Diversity.

There is no such thing as “white people” as far as Diversity is concerned, only “White-ness”. From this it is very important to remember that white people, whether one or a billion, are an utter incarnation of Whiteness, and therefore an utter offense to Diversity; Whiteness is the Absolute Evil which cannot be suffered nor tolerated by the Absolute Good of Diversity. Whiteness represents the collective antithesis of Diversity. It is the Anti-Ideal. The full incarnation of the Whiteness thus is represented in each and every white person. There is no such thing as a white individual, only Whiteness categorically manifest, be it in the form of One or of Many. This is another reason, and the primary one, I submit, that a mere reduction in the number of white people in a given context does not satisfy Diversity. To satisfy Diversity is to destroy all white people, regardless of number. Number is a completely meaningless concept to Diversity….Diversity deals in absolutes; it is Diversity-ness or Whiteness, period. Those are the only two options. One or the Other. If there is even one white person left in the whole world then there is absolutely no Diversity, period. Full stop.

Diversity, like all Collectivist Ideals, is necessarily and by nature genocidal. You’ve been warned.