Tag Archives: all governments are tyrannies

The Fallacy of Codifying Ethics, Which Elevates Them to Morality; and the Related History of Man

I submit that Morality cannot be codified; it is ontologically endemic; it’s a function of the Self qua the Self. Morality cannot be put into a list and then applied to humanity collectively. And this is because morality, being a function of the Individual Self, is absolutely and fundamentally individual.  And it is indeed absolute…for you are nothing if not YOU, and utterly so (meaning it is impossible to quantify You…to make your ONE and ONLY knowable frame of reference for all reality a matter of parts). Morality observed and understood rationally demands that the individual, in his singular existential context, be viewed as the Moral Standard.

All this being true, morality is therefore automatically and categorically contradicted when codified. Once listed, it is removed from the individual, placed beyond his true and objective experience and reality and becomes nothing but a set of abstract rules which then attempts to define and contextualize all individual experience into a single collective category: the Law. And just like that man’s moral worth is no longer a function of himself and his own unique experiences and relationships; relationships where he honors the morality of other men by treating them with the same respect and sanctity with which he rationally should be treated…as a matter of choice, NOT threats, making violations of his fellow man TRULY immoral and himself TRULY guilty. Instead it becomes a function of obedience to the Law. And since obedience is fundamentally not a choice, because demands of obedience promise punishment for disobedience, which taken to its logical conclusion means the right of an Authority–always established specifically to force compliance to the Law–to destroy those who do not obey, then choice is removed from the individual’s existential equation. That is, once morality is a function of force and not choice, it is no longer morality by definition. You see, if one acts under the threat of death, then they are not choosing to act; they are acting as merely a necessary matter of course, invoking no more volition than they do when breathing or sweating.  For there is no such thing as a choice between death and life, because there is no true choice between nothing and something.

So the Law, in an effort to create a moral society, does the exact opposite. It strips man of his individuality, which is his entire and self-evident frame of reference for ALL things and ALL reality, which thus nullifies choice. And once man cannot choose to do good then he cannot do good at all, ever, because morality and choice are corollaries. And if man cannot do good then there is only one thing that the Authority (which always means the State, because Authority and State are corollaries, too), which is specifically tasked with manifesting GOOD, can do with man.

Annhiliate him.

And here then we have this equation:

Morality = Law = State = violence to compel Man to Law = death of man = death of Law = death of State

And this is the self-nullifying progression of collectivist ideology upon which ALL governments are based.  Notice that it demands the death of man in favor of absolute, and absolutely abstract, Authority, as the practical application of the Moral Standard: the Law. Morality, and thus the entirety of the worth of man, becomes a function of the degree to which he is sacrificed to the Law, which is (as corollary) his sacrifice to the State. Naturally then the greater the degree of sacrifice the closer he is to moral perfection. Inevitably then man is, in the latter stages of a given State’s evolution, sacrificed absolutely–his greatest moral accomplishment being his death, by the State, in order to completely satisfy the Law (and, yes, Jesus Christ is an apt example of this: His death was ultimately a POLITICAL one, no matter what mystic pablum the church spins for you). The Law thus, in the real and rational sense, is merely violence against man for the sake of violence. This is because once there are no more men left to destroy the Law becomes moot. For without the blood of man in which to bathe what is the Law? After all, the Law is not for itself, but for man…the Law for itself is a contradiction in terms.

So…the purpose of the Law is to morally perfect that which it must annihilate. (Find the contradiction in any idea and you will find the evil.) And when the consequences of attempting to implement such rank and pernicious hypocrisy collapse under the weight of years and years of contradiction disguised as regulatory and electoral “fixes”, the few traumatized and stumbling, delirious and starving survivors slowly come together and resolve to rebuild…and invariably start the whole process over again.

Humanity…when shall we ever learn?

Any Honest King Will Keep His Wormtongue and Kill His Conscience

Only in fantasy stories do kings wake up and cast off their Wormtongues. This is because Wormtongue is the reality of the innate and necessary corruption of Authority–the compelling of behavior by “legal” violence, despite the most noble of rulers and their noble  intentions.

You see, in reality, it is Wormtongue who speaks the truth to the King; and it is the King’s conscience which lies. A “good King”–that is, a truthful and honest king, who is consistent with the metaphysic which demands Authority to compel obedience to Law–will abide Wormtongue and banish love.

Is this good, rationally speaking? Of course not: but again, it is good IF we accept the axiomatic definition of Man which necessitates the idea that it is appropriate to govern him. And by “govern” I mean: organize his behavior, specifically his interactions with himself (men and women associating with others), by codifying moral behavior (Law), and thus moving it outside of its only true and natural source, the individual, and thereby making morality utterly abstract and thus utterly subjective as far as man is concerned, and thereby necessitating an Authority–be it a King or any other incarnation of State Violence (that is, the State, period), even “democratically elected public officials” (and by the bye, a greater example of raw, meaningless, subjectivity you’ll not find anywhere than those words)–whose authority transcends any real rational integrity, and who fundamentally exists for the sole purpose of using force and threats to cause the obedience of the denizens.

And what is this definition of man?

It is that he is not him Self. He is not “I”. “I” is an illusory existential frame of reference–a lie–which, by its inexorable and infinite hold on him, makes him unable to perceive the Truth: which is that he is, in fact, nothing at all. That he qua he (he as Individual), is really an infinite collection. He is the group, yet never OF the group. He is “race”, or “class”, or “sex”, or “nation”, or “church”, or “minority”, or “underprivileged”, etc.. The individual is the group; which contradicts his individuality, and thus demands that it be sacrificed by the Authority into the collective “reality.”

And so I say again, any honest King, with even the slightest apprehension of just what the fuck his whole point is, and whether he admits it to himself or not, understands that he is Violence to men, and literally nothing else. He IS the force which compels everyone and everything into the collective Ideal. He is The Efficacy of the Ideal…of the Utopia…of the Collective Paradise. And thus, he IS the very Ideal itself. And this being true, it is his duty to incessantly invite Wormtongue to stifle whatever compassion he may be tempted towards. For to deny the raw and unfettered subjugation and sacrifice of men is to deny the Ideal, and thus deny himself.

There is no such thing as a King with a conscience. Any such King admits, whether he knows it or not, that he is a fraud, and that sooner or later, the kingdom MUST collapse.

And it will.

It will.

Mandatory Voting: To Vote is to Be Ruled: Voting, and why it is not a choice (Finale)

Let’s talk about mandatory voting laws, as seen in some countries. Australia comes to mind off the bat. I have read the Wikipedia article on compulsory voting, and I can assure you that none of the arguments presented here in this article were addressed in that one.  In other words, unsurprisingly, there was no rational consistency to the “against” arguments in the Wikipedia article.  This is because once you concede the legitimacy of Government–that is, Force–to command behavior to subjective social (politics and ethics) outcomes, there IS NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST GOVERNMENT FORCE.  Incidentally, this is why it makes sense to avoid almost all political discussions these days.  Because, you see, the real debate is not about which political ideology should become law–that is, should be thrust upon the masses at gunpoint, which is what law is, because the Law NEEDS violent men to enforce it or it is irrelevant–but about whether or not anyone has a right to use violence to compel the behavior of another.  And if all sides start the argument from the place of “yes”, then the differences in political opinions concerning how to best wield the violence necessary to compel political ideologies which MUST use it, under the false moral auspices of “Law” in order to sell it as something other than rank violence in service to entirely subjective standards, become purely semantic.  Philosophically, there is no actual difference.  Which means that ALL ideas which incorporate Government necessarily lead to the same place: tyranny.

Anyway, back to mandatory voting:


A forced choice is not a choice; and FORCED compliance to the outcome of a choice is overt evidence of the illegitimacy of such a “choice”.  (Of course, when I say “forced compliance to the outcome”, I mean as opposed to the necessary natural experience of an effect.  Like, if you choose vanilla ice cream for dessert you are going to taste vanilla ice cream.  This isn’t force, this is consequence…a free and willful consequence of a free choice.)

This false choice (forced choice) is, in fact, and ironically, an outright denial and rejection of man’s ability to choose, which is a rejection of his very agency.  And thus it is a rejection of his ability, qua himself, to be aware of anything–to know anything–at all. And thus, it denies that he is capable of making a choice in the first place. Here’s why:

The scenario is this: I must choose A or B (or A or B or C or D…the number of “options” is irrelevant).  But the coercive nature of the choice functionally eradicates the difference.  Because of FORCE, A = B.  Or, said another way, A = B via FORCE.  If I am forced into A or B, then choice is not the thing defining the relationship. Real choice, predicated upon my will, which proceeds from the understanding that I (Self), being the conscious agent, form the ethical and epistemological (good and true) reference for the purpose and relevancy of the choice, is not what defines the distinction–the relationship–between A and B and myself.  Rather, FORCE from an outside agent or institution of Authority (legal violence…which is not synonymous with moral violence) is that which defines the relationship.  My choice thus is irrelevant.  For by the nature of coercion I am forced upon A or B, and A or B is forced upon me.  In other words, I am forced to accept A, OR I am forced to accept B.  And this means that both A and B equally represent my submission to the Authority…which is merely submission to violence.  (Who has supreme authority? The guy with the biggest gun.) Thus, they both equally cease to be an option, and therefore I do not choose between them in any legitimate sense of the word. They have both become merely symbols of my submission…my sacrifice.  They are equal manifestations, distinction-less, of my utter enslavement to coercive authority.  Whatever other distinctions there may be between A and B are irrelevant.  They both equally represent Authority.  And Authority is FORCE, and FORCE nullifies volition, and this nullifies choice.

A and B cease to become actual options because they cease to become functionally distinct.  They represent a monolith of sorts; a singular thing to which I am bound by FORCE, not by choice.  A = B precisely because I cannot actually choose them, because I do not define the relationship.  That I must accept A means, as far as I as an individual am concerned, the exact same thing as I must accept B, and vice versa.  The fact that I may not act freely of my own will on my own behalf but am forced by threats of violence into the “choice” makes “choice”, itself, at the very conceptual level, compulsory.  And “compulsory choice” is a contradiction in terms which necessarily denies my agency. That I must be forced to consider A or B demands the assumption that I do not, in and of myself, possess the ability to properly apprehend their value, and thus their meaning, in the first place.  And this means that I cannot possibly know the difference.


Legitimate and foundational choice is the necessary and rational right of the individual to decide (choose) how he wants to relate to ONE specific thing at any given single moment.  This means that choice is never really, at root, between A or B, but between A and NOT A, or B and NOT B; and by this I mean that A is not the same thing (does not equal) as NOT B, and B is not the same thing as NOT A.  The rejection of A does not necessarily mean the acceptance of B…for B is not A’s “negative corollary”, or vice versa.  The non-acceptance/application of A is not B; and the non-acceptance/application of B is not A, because A and B are entirely distinct things.  The absence of one does not equal the presence of the other.  Simply because A might or may be selected for a particular purpose does not make B the reciprocal of A.  That is, the absence of A does not fundamentally, logically, or ontologically equal the presence of B.  And this is the root of real choice, because real choice does not synthesize the two.  It means the actual, efficacious, distinction between A and B, as opposed to a purely illusory or semantic one.  If I am presented with a choice between coffee and tea, and I decline the tea, it doesn’t mean that I must have the coffee. I might have the coffee, but the declining of the tea is not, itself, the acceptance of coffee.  Because the real decision I am making is not whether I will have coffee or tea, but whether I will have coffee or not have coffee; and whether I will have tea or not have tea.  Tea is absolutely distinct from coffee, and coffee is absolutely distinct from tea, and both are absolutely distinct from me. Their identities are not bound to each other, nor to me.  And I, as the moral and intellectual agent, whose Self represents the reference for the meaning and purpose of them, MUST make the CHOICE (and dictate the terms by which the choice is made based on what I WANT and what I THINK) to apply each one, as distinct from the other, to me, separately.  And I am not obligated to either, separately.  But as soon as we wreck the distinction…as soon as we make the reciprocal of A, B, or vice versa, by FORCING “choice”, then we nullify choice.  And thus, as soon as we use FORCE to remove the rational distinction between objects, or leaders, we remove the rational distinction between those objects or leaders and the individual.  We are merely using FORCE to utterly integrate the individual into the will of the Authority, periodThere is no choice for an individual who’s choices are demanded, and determined for him by the Authority. There is only the sacrifice of man to this new “reality”, where A IS B and B IS A, because the “choice” of one over the other represents no rational difference to the individual, but merely his absolute obligation, manifest by violence, to the will of the Authority.