Tag Archives: collectivism

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with your Life (PART 3)

The United States Constitution declares, under penalty of punishment via the most powerful and one of the most violent political ruling classes in the history of the world, that ALL citizens be granted the right of equal opportunity under the Law.  There is no LEGAL sanction in this entire nation given to anyone who wishes to marginalize, disadvantage, discriminate against, oppress, exploit, enslave, or annihilate another person when it comes to political representation, life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  No public university, business, bureau, department, or institution of any kind can disadvantage anyone; they cannot limit the ability of anyone to pursue their own desires and ambitions under the Law.  In addition, I submit that only the insane and/or the self-loathing private proprietor would discriminate in the practices of employee-hiring or customer service on the basis of some group identifier like race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc..  When it comes to private interpersonal value exchange, I can think of no typical collective attribute which can amount to any rational decrease in benefit.

But the Constitution assumes an Individualist metaphysic (albeit insufficiently by virtue of the fact that it legitimizes government, which is necessarily collectivist at root), and THAT, if one’s metaphysic is Collectivist, makes it entirely useless when it comes to guaranteeing “true equality”.  Therefore, because Individualism means that everyone gets to play the game, and everyone starts at the same place and with the same number of cards.  Collectivism means that the governement PUTS everyone in the same place and GIVES everyone the same number of cards…and it further means that that IS the game, period.  Because there can be no difference in outcome for any of the players, there IS NO game. There is nothing to do at all. Everyone STARTS at the place the government wants them to end, so there is nowhere else to go.  For the individual, this kind of existence is the equivalent of hell.

So, for all intents and purposes, the place everyone under collectivist ideology begins and ends is the grave, and the number of cards everyone eventually collects in the game is exactly zero.  Because eventually the ruling classes run out of people to rob.  Steal from the producers long enough, and they are simply unable to sustain production.  It is the elementary logic of cause and effect.

Collective/Collectivist “equality” has nothing to do with asserting the notion of all individuals possessing the very same root moral existential value, but rather has everything to do with forcing all individuals to submit themselves to the Collective Ideal, where the foundational existential frame of reference for humanity is not the Individual (i.e. One’s Self), but the Group.  Those deemed antithetical to the Ideal because they do not and/or cannot possess the necessary group characteristic (e.g. race, political party affiliation, socio-economic class, religion, nationality, etc.) are scapegoated as the root of all that is evil, by nature, and the bane of and stumbling block to the Collectivist Utopia (for example, the bourgeoise in Marxist ideology is the scourge of the Working Class) and therefore are oppressed, exploited, and murdered.

The ideology of Political Correctness (PC) claims in essence to provide socioecopolitical protection for “minority” groups (i.e. the “disadvantaged”; the “marginalized”; the “underrepresented”) against the “majority” —and in the case of the U.S., “majority” means straight white males, whose oppressive nature as a class has compelled them to create a rival Collective Ideal (e.g. the Patriarchy), which represents an existential threat to these “minority” groups.  PC does not claim protection for the individual, fundamentally, because the needs of the individual are not considered…because the individual HIMSELF is not considered.  Political Correctness by logical necessity assumes a collectivist metaphysic.  It doesn’t care about the Indiviudal because there is, at root, no such thing.  There are only rival socioecopolitical classes, period.  To consider the Individual is to contradict Political Correctness at its very foundation.  According to PC, there is no such thing as a “minority” individual …there is either the “truth” of the COLLECTIVE minority, or the lie of the Individual. A black individual, according to PC metaphysics, is a contradiction in terms.

*

Remembering what I said in part one of this three-part article, what happens to individuals when they are stripped of their individual identity and collectivized is that they are destroyed.  Group identity does not protect indivuals from the destruction they shall reap under Collectivist metaphysics.  Therefore, PC ideology is not a hedge against ANY ONE’S exploitation, exploitation being the corollary to destruction.  Being black will not save you from the inherent authoritarian violence necessarily to be manifest by an organization like Black Lives Matter should this group ever acquire a monopoly or a large percentage of political power; just as being a member of the working class did not protect Soviet workers from Stalin’s fire squads and Siberian gulags; just as being a Cuban in Fidel Castro’s Marxist-Nationalist revolution did not serve as incentive enough to dissuade thousands of Cuban’s from to sailing to Florida on what amounted to bits of floating garbage and random scraps of driftwood.

It isn’t YOU, the Person, that the Collectivist ruling class—which exists as the physical and practical incarnation of the Ideal in order to wield its Authority to compel obedience—cares about, no matter what you are told in the propoganda and bromide which passes for purpose amongst the socialists in our midst.  It’s the Ideal…that is, the Abstraction—the fantasy of group-think philosophy—which matters.  It is the notion of Collective Perfection which exists only and ever in the transcendent ether of a “reality” beyond the Individaul…beyond YOU qua YOU.  What this means in practical reality is that it is ONLY the ruling class which profits from Collectivism (and this only temporarily, until the experiment inevitably collapses under the weight of its own rational and moral bankruptcy).  And this is because the Ideal has no relevance nor meaning absent those who assume the LEGAL right (those espousing the PC Ideal are always statists at root) to compel humanity—to sacrifice it to the Ideal (i.e. themselves).   An Ideal with no rulers is null and void in any empirical and relevant aspect.  It is a law with no law enforcement…a self-contradiction, self-nullifying, irrelevant, pointless clanging of cymbals.  Noise, nothing more.  And so the Authority—the rulling class—IS, for all relevant purposes, the Ideal, itself.  And the IDEAL is all that matters.  Not you; not me, no matter who we are, where we come from, what we think, or what we look like.

So to all of you who laud the strengthening storm of Political Correctness and its evil twin sister, Social Justice, because you believe that it will usher in your long-awaited political and social and economic salvation, with commandeered wealth and a nexus of succor and self-aggrandizing satisfaction…

I laught at you.  I pray for you.

END

Advertisements

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with Your Life (PART 2)

I submit that political correctness is unabashedly spawned from the substrata of collectivist metaphysics.  It claims to defend the civil rights and emotional integrity of “underrepresented” and “disadvantaged” groups…and this implicitly beyond, in spite of, and, at root, INSTEAD OF the principle of Equality Under the Law which the US Constitution guarantees for all of the nation’s citizens. So…already we seem to have something of a paradox going on here. Let’s unravel it.

As soon as it is claimed that one group (or more) is “disadvantaged”, it is necessarily implied that another is “advantaged”.  Therefore the only (rationally) possible, albeit perhaps implicit, goal of those advocating for “disadvantaged” groups is to make them “advantaged”, though they will claim either from ignorance or deceit that it is merely “equality” they are after.  But this simply cannot be the case as I will explain.

It’s not possible to have the second (“disadvantaged”) without the first (“advantaged”), so what advocacy for the “disadvantaged” amounts to in the end is merely the reversal of labels.  That is, there is and can be no real interest in equality, but rather in creating a system whereby the “advantaged” are relieved of their property through State-sponsored (“legal”) theft which is then given to the “disadvantaged”, ostensibly to engender social equality but in reality to create a permanently dependent category of voters who sell their freedom and their souls to have their fellow citizens pillaged by the State on their behalf…or so they think.  In truth the plight of the “disadvantaged” never ACTUALLY improves because that isn’t really the point.  In other words, advocacy for the “disadvantaged” is merely a barely-clever strategem intended to grow the Marxist-oriented ruling class into a juggernaut of utterly insatiable authoritarian political power.

There can be no rational speaking of equality whilst there exists any sort of collectivist class baiting, with spurious and manipulative jargon like “disadvantaged”, and this because of the collectivist metaphysical roots of whatever group of citizens happens to be the momentary political pawn du jour.  Because these metaphysical roots are certainly NOT merely political, but existential and as such MORAL, you see.  What I mean is that soon as one group is classified as “disadvantaged”, thus implying another is “advantaged”, we have morally bifurcated the citizenry at the very roots of how we define reality, itself.  That is, we have made our spurious class distinctions into a LITERAL war between good and evil; and this is why there is such ferocious and utterly intractable violence to be found on the collectivist side (the left) of the political spectrum. Collectivist politics make no distinction between a group’s economic value and its MORAL value.  The “advantaged” are EVIL; the disadvantaged” are GOOD…and why are they good?  Well, ostensibly because they are the victims of the political structures established by the “advantaged” in order that they may remain advantaged.  In reality it is because they are the group that the collectivist ruling elite have decided promote the Ideal which they will represent as Its governing Authority.  The “disadvantaged” are the group that promotes the expediency of their power.  This is the ONLY reason they are called “good”. Period. Full stop.

Another point on this idea of the “disadvantaged” as victims of political and institutional oppression, and thus represent the good:

Whether there is any truth to this ot not is irrelevant.  First, because those who advocate for the “disadvantaged” are those who wish to use the coercive violence of the State to promote their OWN political ideals at the expense of certain groups, making them hypocrites; and second because once you collectivize  human beings into groups—as opposed to foundationally judging and defining them as individuals—morality becomes utterly subjective.  To define an individual as FIRST and FUNDAMENTALLY a product of the group is to replace the person with an IDEAL.  And ideals, being purely abstract, can ONLY be SUBJECTIVELY valued.

Further, the “disadvantaged” cannot be made equal with the “advantaged” BY DEFINITION, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is, it is impossible that EVERYONE be “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” because this contradicts these very concepts in the first place. So in order to be rationally consistent we must argue that these distinction are inherently false and utterly illegitimate as a means to describe the people…that everyone should be equal under the law, and that “disadvantage” and “advantage” are labels to be banished from political discourse (as self-serving and manipulative) and that equality under the law is ultimately the only meaningful, relevant, and practical context of each and every citizen as far as the State is concerned.

But this is simply impossible as soon as one claims to advocate for the “disadvantaged”.  You either advocate for equality under the law, or you advocate for the authoritarian despotism we see in EVERY society which has rooted itself in the pernicious class-baiting sculduggery of the bastard children of collectivism (Marxism, National Socialism (Fascism), Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, and so on).

And so, getting back to the Constitution:

This document does not collectivize the citizenry (at least not intentionally…the inevitable rational and moral failure of the Constitution is due to the fact that it implies the legitimacy of government, of course, but not because of its driving metaphysical principles, which cannot be considered collectivist per se). And since it does not collectivize the citizenry it can neither imply nor confess the legitimate, legal existence or relevance of any particular “class”.  The Constitution, in other words, because it is not a collectivist document, has no frame of reference for the notions of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged” groups.  These are strictly Marxist ideals, and as far as the Constitution is concerned Marxism is a flaming ball of rubbish orbiting somewhere on the far, far outer fringes of reality, somewhere between madness and incompetence.  That is, class distinctions like “disadvantaged” are utter anathema to the Constitution.

Groups claiming that they are doing the “holy” work of advocacy for the “disadvantaged” you will notice NEVER appeal to the Constitution as the basis for rectifying any perceived unfair legal discrepancies between individuals.  This is because A. they don’t acknowledge the root existential legitimacy of the individual in the first place; and B. the Individualist nature of the Constitution means that as far as they are concerned it has about as much to do with rectifying social injustice and managing the disparate economic classes as does a spoonful of room temperature lima beans. They don’t concern themselves with the Constitution because they understand it is an ENEMY of their collectivist assumptions. True “Justice”, in their eyes, is not about the Constitutional rights of the Individual but about who wields absolute power on behalf of the “moral” collective Ideal.  The politics of political correctness are of power, not truth; revenge, not justice; sacrifice to the State, not cooperation among the people.

END (Up next, PART 3)

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with Your Life (Part One)

The moment you are collectivized according to group identity, and even if the dominant group (that wielding supreme coercive power) is the one in which you happen to belong, your annihilation is assured, both spiritually (metaphysically) and (eventually) physically.  As a member of the dominant group you might feel safe for a while, but that time is most definitely borrowed. And it is to your advantage to understand that your sense of security is astonishingly irrational.

Did the fact that they were white and German protect the “master race” from the horror and destruction which befell Nazi Germany both from within and without?  Were the proletariat spared the fear, abuse, starvation, incarceration, and firing squads of the Politburos of Soviet Russia or Communist China?  How are the Korean PEOPLE faring under the oppressive thumb of the leadership of the Democratic PEOPLE’S Republic of (North) Korea?  What about the poor working classes in Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Castro’s Marxist-Nationalist Cuba?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions, a cursory Google search will provide you with them in less than 90 seconds.

I’ll wait…

There is no rational, moral, or lasting benefit to belonging to any socio-political collective, be it the scapegoated (e.g. white males in America from the latter 20th century to the present) or the lauded (e.g. virtually anyone, including animals, except white men in the same time frame) because such a thing is simply a defiance of Truth.  The collectivization of the individual, and when given his facile and utterly subjective collective Identity, be it race, gender, religion, political party, culture, nationality etc., etc., entirely denies him.  And thus to collectivize the individual is to destroy him, and this in turn—individualism being the very foundation upon which rational reality (that is, the nature of ourselves) is defined—makes the lasting perseverance of humanity impossible until the political power structure which is forcing collectivized reality upon the masses collapses.  And this collapse is inevitable…the political power structure will either fall prematurely due to the greed, laziness, and inevitably resultant incompetence of its state officials, or it will run its full course to a necessary conclusion: the death of everyone under its authority; and thus it will collapse because it no longer has anyone left to rule, making it no longer an authority. That is, its ideological and practical self-contradiction will have come full circle. And inside the circle the individual is destroyed, regardless of the group with which he is identified.

*

Each one of us possesses an absolutely singular consciousness, which I define more precisely as our innate ability to know Self (Awareness of the “I”).  This metaphysical singularity (of Self) serves as THE reference for all of reality.  In other words, what is real must be real TO THE SELF.  For without the Self, reality cannot be referenced, and thus it cannot be defined, and thus it cannot be said to exist, and thus it cannot be said to be REAL.

The Sense of Self is is why the most distinguishing aspect of human identity is its linguistic reference to the “I” of existence.  That is, human beings reference themselves as “I”—as a fundamental singularity—despite our bodies being non-singular…that is, a collection of parts: limbs, organs, veins, capillaries, ligaments and muscles and sinews, cells, molecules, atoms, particles, and on and on.  Yet we instinctively understand that our awareness and agency—that which makes me “Me” and you “You” and him and her “Him” and “Her”—are not parts, but an IS.  And because this singularity is the root of our very Identity, we all NECESSARILY and innately use the pronoun “I”; and “I” qua “I” cannot by definition be “We”.  The Individual cannot be Collective.  Though ontically our bodies are collective, instinctively humanity develops language around the Self, proclaiming “I” as the linguistic representation of the singular frame of reference for reality…a reality which collapses once “I” is sacrificed to “Us”.  Because “Us” is naturally the antithesis of “I”.  That is, “Us” as the reference for reality specifically and necessarily subordinates “I” to an IDEAL that is beyond the Individual.  And that Ideal is the Collective (race, nation, culture, class, etc.).  The Individual who is collectivized then BELONGS to the group, utterly subordinated to it at the very root of existence.  The logical conclusion of this is that the Individual, being metaphysically subordinated to the Collective, ceases to have any relevance in and of himself, and therefore is seen as entirely NON-existant…he is an offense to the existant “reality” of the group, and thus morally reprehensible and necessarily disposable.  He will be murdered in service to the group, first spiritually (metaphysically), and then, eventually, physically.

*

If the “Us” of the Collective is the metaphysical foundation of reality then it becomes that which is objective…or objectively real.  This necessitates that the Individual must become that which is subjective…or subjectively real. Therefore the Individual can be given NO definition at all, since there is, OBJECTIVELY, no ONE to communicate with some ONE else in order to agree upon a definition.  In fact NOTHING can be defined because all definitions become a function of Authority—that which exists to force the Collective Ideal upon Individuals (more on this in a bit)—not reason.  And Authority is FORCE, not TRUTH, and thus Authority is the very antithesis of meaningful reality.  It therefore is the promoter of rank chaos…of not meaning but MEANINGLESSNESS.  In other words, once humanity is redefined as metaphysically collective, RATIONALLY defining reality becomes impossible.  Reality becomes disorganized, not organized, because language, which relies upon REASON for its relevance, is replaced with POWER (Authority).  And this is why the more humans become socialized (which means collectivized), the more chaotic and hypocritical society becomes.  Men are women and whites are black and adults are infants and she is he and propaganda is news and accusation is proof and majorities are minorities and psychological projection is righteous indignation and socialism is freedom and fascists are anti-fascists and punishment is privilege and bullies are victims.  And the natural political consequence of an increasingly chaotic and meaningless reality is growing tyranny.

So…if you want to know why the United States looks the way it does today, well, now you do.  The madness, you see, when you understand the metaphysical differences between Collectivism and Individualism and all that these differences necessarily imply about epistemology and ethics and politics and aesthetics, ironically makes PERFECT sense.

*

Collectivism, due to its inherent rational inconsistency, simply cannot provide a framework for any kind of efficacious reality.  And in such a metaphysical context the Individual will be considered utterly insufficient to existence.  NO individual, then, no matter the group in which he is placed, can ever ultimately thrive in a Collectivist context.  The individual—be HE, HIMSELF, black, white, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, etc., etc.—represents an absolute offense to the Collective and will be destroyed.  It is not the black INDIVIDUAL, for example, which the Collectivism of Black Lives Matters cares about, but BLACKNESS the IDEAL.  And that Ideal is what REALLY shall be promoted and served.  And as all abstract Ideals must have a practical incarnation in order to force Individuals into their service, the Ideal becomes, for all practical intents and purposes, the small number of men and women who exist as its political officials.  In other words, the ruling elite who “lead” the movement are the Authority represeting the transcendent Ideal in the tangible world, and they, being IT for all practical purposes, become the SOLE beneficiaries of the “justice” the Ideal promises. BLACKNESS (using our example) as represented by the ruling Authority, not black PERSONS, reaps all the power and all the wealth and all the “rights” and all the “justice”.

The natural, unavoidable, and unalterable purpose of Collectivism is to destroy every man, woman, and child, no matter who they are, with no ultimate regard for any ONE’s class, race, economic or social status, etcetera.  None of that makes any difference in the end.  If left to run its course, Collectivism, no matter what pet group identity it is said to represent, is NO respector of persons.  And so in a way, this actually DOES make it the most “socially just and equal” of all philosophical paradigms:

EVERYONE dies.

END (Part One)

 

 

 

When the State Asserts that Man is Both the Standard of Good and the Threat to the Good: The rational failure of a Government by and of the People

Man must be protected from himself is the argument for government in a nutshell. And this? Is a very bad argument. This sophist rationale is why freedom is never to be found under the auspices of government.

Any government.

Ever.

Anywhere.

Because freedom which is function of what an external monolith of “legal” violence, like the State, will allow is not freedom. It is, by definition, control. The phrase “that which allows us to be free” contains a fundamental contradiction in terms. Freedom does not and cannot operate under the auspices of threats of violence for stepping out of external, codified boundaries. And to say that these boundaries are what guarantees that freedom itself (in the form of unfettered wicked indulgence by the naturally depraved human being) doesn’t become oppressive is another contradiction, as it makes the restraint of freedom the foundational moral operation; it makes the limitation of freedom the means, so the argument goes, of ensuring freedom.  But unless man is able to choose his actions, by not having his behavior fundamentally dictated and coerced through threats of violence should be stray from an abstract, subjective (yes, subjective) legal code, there can be no morality. Why? Because there can be no choice. For if man cannot choose to do good, then man cannot do good at all. And actions which are compelled at gunpoint are not choices!

It is not necessarily intentional. It is not necessarily rank deception. It is most likely a function of the prevailing philosophy regarding the nature of man which has never, to my knowledge, been reconciled to reason…where reason is a place that cannot ever, under any circumstance, accommodate contradiction.

*

Because of man’s tendency to do evil, so the argument goes, left to his own unfettered (un-governed) devices society must inevitably dissolve into an orgy of tyranny and oppression.

This is a contradiction which nullifies the argument, and renders the practical application of it both impossible to any efficacy and ultimately destructive. For man cannot be both good and evil. What I mean by this is that he who is the standard for morality–for good–cannot also be he who wrecks this standard. He from whom rights are said to be derived cannot also be the one who poses the threat to the those very rights. Man cannot be the primary thing worth saving and the primary thing which jeopardizes that salvation.

Now, of course we may rightly assert that some human beings truly do evil and therefore are capable of harming others, but this is not the argument with which we are presented in defense of government. The argument is that human beings on the whole cannot fundamentally be trusted to exist outside of the power of coercive authority because human nature itself is depraved.

Human beings have the natural tendency toward evil, so it is argued. They are prone to it–not by choice, but because of naturally determined instinct. What this mean is that when presented with the option of good or evil, human beings, absent any external arbitrating, force, will do evil. They must…because they are driven in such an unfettered circumstance by their nature, and their nature is evil. Therefore, human beings must be governed by an outside force–a governing authority– in order to keep their natural evil in check, and to (hypocritically) ensure the existence and perpetuation of the human race by means of a rigid and regulated social apparatus that ultimately dictates all behavior by threatening its denizens with violence should they dare resist its self-proclaimed mandate to control man for the sake of man. And this is the metaphysical and ethical foundation upon which government stands. Go and see for yourself. Ask 20 people why we need government and I guarantee you that 20 of 20 will regurgitate, in some manner, the hypocritical philosophy I just explicated.

This foundational philosophy ironically and certainly inadvertently undermines the oft-trotted argument that government can exist of the people, for the people, and by the people. That is, it undermines–by its inherent and fatal contradiction–the assertion that people are the standard of the law which the government exists to uphold. If people are by nature evil, and this the root of their very being, then it simply cannot be argued that they may simultaneously represent the good which government must protect. On the contrary, if man is by nature evil, and can no more help doing evil when left to his own devices than he can help walking upright, then people in fact represent a singular threat to good. Because their nature is inexorable and absolute evil, they are the antithesis of good. And therefore, people must be controlled, not set free, by an external coercive authority. And this is exactly what they are, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You cannot claim to be free in an environment where all of your actions are ultimately a function of what someone else says you are allowed to do.

Further, the  idea that a government can exist in the interest of a humanity which is by nature evil is to assert that the government is a proponent of evil. This, however, is never the argument for government, because though true, it wrecks the benevolent facade of coercive authority. On the contrary, the argument is always that government exists for good, and that without government, man’s evil nature will reign supreme. And what this means is that it is not man, but the government which is actually the standard of good. The people are not the standard. The people are not that from which moral “rights” are derived. The government is. For the “rights of the people” are irrelevant absent government, because absent government man’s natural evil must subordinate them. The people, then, are not the source of moral dictums, but are the singular danger to them. They are not the value of the law. They are the enemy of it. So they must be controlled.

*

You cannot legitimately argue that man represents that from which natural moral rights are derived, and yet at the same time claim that he is evil and represents the singular existential threat to those rights, and therefore must be governed. This is to create in man a dichotomy of nature which contradicts and nullifies itself. If man is good, and this as a function of his very nature, then it is both irrational and counterproductive to establish an institution which exists to compel moral behavior by “authoritative” (legalized)  violence. For to insist that the naturally good man must be compelled to good through violence is to deny that man can do good on his own, and this denies that his nature is in fact good.  And if man is evil, and this a function of his nature, then man cannot possibly be compelled to good, for good is utterly exclusive of his being. To compel him to good is an impossible task. For man, being evil, perverts good, he does not cultivate it. It’s like adding poison to a meal and calling it seasoning. The only thing for which the naturally evil man is fit is destruction. In either case, government is utterly beside the point.

*

To attempt to use force to compel the naturally evil man into goodness, or to prevent the naturally good man from losing his goodness is like attempting to compel the frog out of his frog-ness, or to prevent the frog from losing his frog-ness. The frog is by nature absolutely a frog. No amount of violence and no amount of coercion can make him a rabbit. And since the frog is by nature a frog he can pose no threat to his own frog-ness. No centralized coercive authority is necessary to prevent, nor is it effective in preventing, the frog from losing his frog-ness.

The man who is good by nature has no use for government, because by definition he cannot lose his goodness. Nor can he pose a threat to his own natural goodness (i.e. left to himself, man who is “naturally” good when governed somehow becomes “naturally” evil when free of government). Because to claim that he may pose a threat to his own goodness is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally good. And the man who is evil by nature has no use for government, because he cannot be compelled to do good. Because to claim that the man who is evil by nature can be synthesized into good is to deny that he is, in fact, naturally evil. The naturally evil man is fit only for destruction. And if he is destroyed, then there is no one to govern, and thus there is no point in government.

*

And all of this leads us to another truth.

Man cannot be defined according to a moral nature. And of course once we no longer define him this way, there is no rational philosophical argument for the existence of government. Why? Because government is force, and force is violence, and violence nullifies choice. The man who cannot choose is a man who cannot express his own agency; and the man who cannot express his own agency cannot express SELF. Thus, he cannot BE himself in any relevant way.

You see, man is not a moral agent in the sense that morality defines him. Man is a rational agent. What this means that man is the epistemological frame of reference for all he knows; all he thinks; all he does. That is, man being himself, where “himself” is the agent who conceptualizes existence and thus makes it relevant and meaningful, is why man knows what he knows. Because he is SELF, and absolutely so, he is able to make distinctions between good and evil, and truth and fallacy. He is the arbiter–the reference–for knowledge.

Man’s nature is not a moral one, it is to be the reference for morality—for good and evil; truth and fallacy.  HE defines and applies these things. Therefore, it is HE who governs them, not the other way around (the other way around being to make man subordinate to the very ideas and concepts which are meaningless and useless without him). For what is Truth unless it is true TO AND FOR MAN? And what is goodness unless it is good TO AND FOR MAN?

These things are worthless. They are nothing. They are non-existent.

It is man who serves as the epistemological and moral standard for all of the reality in which he exists. Man cannot rationally or productively be subordinated to a legal moral standard that derives the entirety of its value and relevancy and meaning from him. Man cannot serve moral standards, moral standards must serve him. Man does not serve truth. Truth serves him.  To erect a set of rules for man to follow and by this claim he is good is to strip man from his rightful place as the only rational moral and epistemological reference for all of truth and goodness. And once this happens, truth and goodness have no meaning…and so the rules are pointless. Rules to which man is subordinated by violence are ultimately his destruction, not his salvation.

🍀

Voluntarism: A brief series of arguments for why government for man’s good is a contradiction in terms

The presumption behind all government is that men, absent the “fail safe” of forced compliance to moral behavior (which is a contradiction in terms, because force nullifies choice; and without choice there is no moral act) must necessarily act to exploit others because man’s–that is, the individual’s–root nature is base and mendacious. This assumption has many problems, not the least of which is that it does not explain how those in government get a moral pass on their own inherent depravity.

Further, it also implies and then forces a collective identity because all governments must exist for a “collective” or “common good”, which, being outside the natural context of the individual, must fundamentally be defined as an esoteric standard, available fully only to those in authority (governing officers, who are really a sort of a political priesthood) who claim to represent this Common Good as its messengers and ministers.  However, the very fact that the collective good as a moral standard must elude the individual because of his inexorably and self-evidentiary singular existential and metaphysical context, means that the “common good”cannot possibly be manifest. Because of the singular nature of human existence, each person must decide for himself what is good or not, based upon a rational Standard of Good, which is the Individual, which means each person’s inexorable and absolute right to their ownership of Self. “Common good” must be forced upon the individual in object violation of their individuality, destroying them in favor of the new statist metaphysic: collectivism, as a function of the power (violence) of the State. This in turn undermines and eventually crumbles these governments which exist in service to “common good” because whether collectivists want to acknowledge it or not, without the individual, there is no public; there is no “common” society. Which means that there is no “common good”. Thus, all States founded upon such a moral standard are rooted in a contradiction which, beyond its label, can have absolutely no substance.

And there is no government which is not a function of collective identity, and thus “collective” or “common good”. Because such a government could only act and exist to serve the specific individual at any given moment. And there is nothing which can do that except the individual himself. In which case, it’s not a government, it’s free will; its cooperation; it’s voluntarism.

*

The root problem of government is that it necessarily implies that men, absent force, cannot be expected to make moral choices; and therefore there is no moral standard that doesn’t ultimately rest upon violent coercion. This destroys man at his root metaphysic. It means that man must be compelled to morality, which is the corollary of Truth, in spite of himself. That is, in spite of his nature. That is, in spite of his existence. Meaning man cannot successfully exist unless the very  substance of that existence, his nature, is destroyed. Man must cease to exist in order that he may exist.

And it is upon this terrible contradiction that all governments are built.

*

The use of force to compel moral actions is an object contradiction in terms. Absent choice, morality is a nullified concept. And an outcome not based upon a free act of the will of the moral and self-aware agent is not a moral outcome. That which denies the individual his individuality–that is, his free agency–cannot be said to ultimately benefit any individual.

*

On the one hand, those who argue the necessity and efficacy of government will assert that men are by nature lacking virtue–“ineptitude and vices of men”, as von Mises once said–and therefore cannot be trusted to engage voluntarily into a moral sociopolitical system. And yet government, which is a collection of those very same men men, is somehow not naturally lacking virtue.

How does one square this circle?  How do we resolve the contradiction that says that men need government because they lack fundamental virtue; and yet government is comprised of men? How is it mere paradox instead of rank fallacy that individuals won’t naturally choose good, but collections (the governors and the governed) of individuals will?

*

If it’s true that men, left to themselves, will necessarily dissolve into all manner of vice (murder, theft, deceit, and your basic general exploitation) then the last thing I would think makes sense is to give a minority of men the majority of violent, coercive power. You’d have to assume that those men could wield it righteously in order for good to be the rational outcome.

But of course as soon as you assume this you’ve undermined the fundamental moral (and metaphysical) argument for government in the first place:

That man left to himself, by nature (man qua man), will not act righteously.

*

Absent the foundational and absolute right to violence to compel behavior, there is no government in any capacity. This being the case, force against man is not really minimized, as some minarchists argue is the benefit of government, it is absolute.

*

I think we confuse the right of collective self-defense with the right to compel behavior by violence or threats of violence before any actual offense occurs.

*

The idea that there is no free market absent the ever-present threat of violence, which I submit is itself a form of violence, seems a contradiction in terms. How is man either free or moral if he acts out of fear of violating the State and not because he understands it is wrong to violate another man? The State is not the moral standard, the individual is.

And I’m not saying the state is evil. I’m saying that forced morality is a contradiction in terms. Which means the state is neither evil nor good. It’s impossible because it is a contradiction.

*

The moral do not need to be governed, for they are moral. The immoral will not, or cannot, recognize the State’s moral authority. This means that the only way for the State to “work” is if it threatens the first and neutralizes the second. And neither action equals freedom by any legitimate definition. So you merely get a State which exists for the sake of its own power; its own legal “right” to violence for the sake of violence.

 

 

American Socialism: Sympathy to be feared

I understand the desire to stand up to the forces of oppression, exploitation, and bigotry, and to recompense the victims of such things, and to safeguard the lives of those who may yet be victims.

But the way to do this is to dismantle the apparatus by which oppressors and bigots do such evil things, and that is the philosophical argument for the “right” of a Governing Authority acting on behalf of a Collective of the People to compel economic and social assembly and interaction by FORCE. This Authority acting on behalf of the Collective must, by its authority, define the Collective (the “People”) according to an abstract Ideal which thus subordinates the individual, and which necessarily creates a Primary Group–those who best reflect the Ideal (like “aristocracy”, “workers”, “minorities)–to which all other groups MUST be sacrificed.

And it is THIS philosophy which has been the intellectual and moral foundation for every atrocity that American Socialists (the Left, in particular) claim to abhor: slavery, segregation, voter restrictions, the genocide of Native Americans, etc., etc. For in ALL of these cases it has been the Authoritarian State, underwritten by the philosophical premises of Collectivism (some Ideal of “common good”)  which has financed, supplied, manned, and created the legal, and by extension moral, principles by which these programs are established and perpetuated.

In response to such tyranny the Left proposes about the most irrational and dreadfully hypocritical thing imaginable:

Enlarge the power of the State and with it, its Authority to subordinate individuals to itself on behalf of whatever group it decides represents the Ideal.

In short, they advocate the atrocity as a solution to the atrocity.

But, you see, remedial logic informs us that a problem cannot also be its own solution.

Except, apparently, in the mind of the American Socialist. Which is a mad, mad mind.

Collectivism and the Corollary Between Wealth and Power

I define Collectivism this way:

Collectivism is–when we follow the breadcrumbs back to the logical premise–the collectivist metaphysic. And the collectivist metaphysic is this: that human existence and identity is not a function of one’s individual self, that is, one’s own ability to create a cognitive conceptual distinction between one’s singular conscious Self, and Other/Environment (or, That Which is Not Self); but rather, existence is function of some manner of group affiliation based upon a group Identity, and the necessarilry underlying deterministic processes which such existence and identity demands.

For example, according to what I term “racial Marxism”, one is considered first and foremost a product of his or her racial category. Like,for example, “white” or “black”. Therefore, the root of the individual Self is found in the ontological primary–or, better termed, the “collectivist Ideal”– of “Blackness” or “Whiteness”, and this Ideal is in turn practically and pragmatically defined and represented by some “Authority” who must claim themselves–or himself or herself–the incarnate representation of the Ideal.

Individual Self, then, is always subordinated to the collective of “black people”, or “white people”, as defined and exemplified by the Authority–they, or he or she, who represents the Ideal, and physically manifests it, to the group.  And since the individual is of course born into their “Whiteness” or “Blackness”, the individual himself or herself having no choice in the matter, he or she is wholly determined by the processes which have dictated his or her race; and these processes are always at least tacitly ascribed to the Ideal. For what can ultimately determine race except the Ideal which grants race its efficacy and meaning?

Thus, one’s sense of individual Self, according to the collectivist paradigm, can only be an abberation–an affront to the natural, deterministic order of things. In other words, a sense of individual, autonomous Self, is, in fact, an act of existential treason, and must therefore be destroyed by force, not by choice, since in man’s “fallen” state, which is his “natural” context of Self, he is beer we reality from this perversion of existencethis abominationthis endemic and categorical depravity.  And by “force” I mean not only violence, but intellectual larceny–artifice, propaganda, lies, appeals to emotions over reason.

*

I submit that in collectivism, because of its  reliance on Authority for its practical manifestation (enforcement), power must constantly be dispatched, and this always for the sole purpose of acquiring wealth–or “resources”–at the expense of others. That is, power exercised from a collectivist premise is solely a power meant to commandeer; it is never a legitimate–that is, voluntary–exchange of value, regardless of the context (the specific collectivist Ideal in question). You see, collectivist power does not earn. It takes.

Now, I should pause here, in the interest of rational consistency. Above I just referred to “collectivist power”, however, I submit that this is a redundant expression. The exercise of power over others always implies a collectivist premise; a collectivist Ideal. There is no way to compel by force the behavior of another human being if we in fact concede that each one possesses a metsphysical context of singular Self whereby they alone are in the position of ultimately determining their own desires (needs and wants) from this absolute context; that is, the context of individual Self.

Put simply, to use power to compel behavior is to assume that the individual is existentially insufficient, and therefore he or she must be compelled from “outside” themselves, by one or some who claim the authority to exist for them, according to some “transcendent” enlightenment (revelation; awakening), which is always a function of some omnipotent, ethereal  “creator” or determining force, which is collectivist Ideal–like “Blackness” or “Whiteness”, for example.

Henceforth, then, I will not speak of collectivist power, but simply “power”, since I submit that all power–the use of force to compel others–necessarily proceeds from a collectivist metaphysic.

2.

Relationships which in incorporate exercises of power by one or some over others are never, and can never be, mutually beneficial. One is always affirmed and expanded, while the other is always sacrificed.

In other words, the exercise of power is always intended to commandeer wealth, never to earn it; and this power is always morally and intellectually underwritten by an appeal to Authority.

Now, the corollary relationship between wealth and power is built upon this Authority. For Authority is an appeal to some absolute mandate from the transcendent, cosmic Ideal to use power to compel sacrifice (of wealth, which includes Self). Authority, then, in a sense, IS power; and power is force, and force is always applied to elicit sacrifice.

So what is sacrifice, beyond the surrendering of self and wealth? Sacrific, within the collectivist framework, is the absolute moral and intellectual obligation of he or she who is to be sacrifice; which makes true then that compelling sacrifice through power is the absolute moral and intellectual obligation of he or she who is in authority.

So, what is the exercise of Authority again? The use of power, which is force. And why power? To commandeer wealth (resources); which is the practical, visceral, and inexorable consequence of increasing the scope of Authority as a function of the transcendent, collectivist Ideal’s absolute mandate to compel absolute sacrifice to that Ideal.

*

Authority is the use of power according to an Ideal’s mandate to compel sacrifice; but it is also an epistemology and an ethic–that is, it is an intellectual and moral appeal to the “truth” of the collectivist Ideal.

The Ideal itself must be rooted in Authority, you see, because it cannot be described by rational explication since it is by definition beyond the epistemological and ethical frame of reference of individuals. And this is why ideological “truth” is always a function of ” revelation”, where revelation is defined as the transcendent (or “supernatural”) dispensing of unknowable knowledge.

Since authority, then, is the moral and intellectual appeal to the “truth” of the collectivist Ideal for the exercise of power in order to commandeer wealth, we are relationally–or “politically”, in philosophical parlance–going to observe what I call an “authority/submission dynamic”.

The authority/submission dynamic in turn implies the following practical politic also dynamic with respect to wealth (resources):

Absolute gain/Absolute loss

The salient term is, of course, “absolute”; for once we concede Authority as the intellectual and moral political premise, power must be absolutely applied in order to compel people and wealth absolutely into the collectivist Ideal. The Ideal of which is, again, incarnate in the Authority, which has been specially (transcendently) “called” to compel sacrifice.

The Authority has a divine mandate to use power to compel individual sacrifice because it is necessary to compel behavior, since human beings from their “natural”, and “fallen” or “insufficient” individual frame of reference cannot choose to obey, being wholly outside the collectivist metaphysic, as specified by the particular Ideal in question. In other words, since the human being is cognitively/consciously an individual (all of us naturally employ the pronoun “I”), he or she cannot obey on his or her own. He or she cannot, by “nature”, see beyond the absolute frame of reference of his or her individual awareness/consciousness. Thus, he or cannot choose to obey; he or she must ultimately be forced.

So, when we speak of collectivism, Authority is necessary to force the surrendering of individual wealth. If Authority is not necessary, then there is no rational argument for any kind or measure of authority in the first place. To say Authority is optional is to metaphysically concede that the individual possesses the innate ability to apprehend truth from the frame reference of individual Self, and thus can independently choose to act in a manner consistent with truth, and truth’s corollary, morality. In which case, compelling behavior by force must then violate truth and morality at the most fundamental level–the metaphysical. And this completely repudiates the collectivist Metaphysic and Ideal, full stop.

Therefore, authority conceded in any measure, I submit, must inevitably be applied absolutely. And absolute authority applied is the application of absolute power. And absolute power seeks to acquire absolute wearth.

So, authority/submission = absolute gain (for the authority)/absolute loss (for those under authority). In ratio form, this relationship looks like this:

1:0

The ratio represents the notion that the collectivist Ideal, which is absolute, and established by its Authority, is the only legitimate thing which has a right to exist. Since it alone possesses “truth” (being “truth” itself), and is the absolute source then of the truth–the “real” reality– of all things, anything which assumes, or appears to possess, an independent existence must be sacrificed. And nowhere is such an independent existence more apparent than in the individual human being–he and she who has the evil temerity to use the pronoun “I”.

Think of this like “God” in the erroneous orthodox Christian sense, where God is the direct and utterly controlling, determining and determinist source of all things–all which exists and acts. If God is and acts for everything, then what does that make everything?

It makes everything God.

God is all, and thus all is not actually all at all, but all is nothing. And hence the ratio: 1:0.

But here’s the thing, and you probably see where this is going. Since God = the essence, will, and action of all things and all persons, what we really have is not that God = everything, but that God = God. Or:

1:1

Which is really:

1

Therefore any individual who claims a distinct existence, and by that distinct existence a distinct identity, and by that distinct identity a distinct volition, must be forcefully sacrificed, and abeolute my so. They must be compelled into oblivion by the absolute seizure of their wealth (which includes their very selves— the source of all their labor) so that that which is the 1 is truly and pragmatically and effectively the only ONE.

3.

Authority as a function of the collectivist Ideal demands absolute sacrifice, and it compels this sacrifice by exercising absolute power, and this in order to subordinate all things and all persons to itself; the practical manifestation of this being the commandeering of resources to the point where no one else– no individual–has the means to pursue or manifest or display their own unique existence in any relevant or substantive measure whatsoever.

Authority, to put it directly, is the violent seizure and consumption of resources to an absolute degree in service to a given collectivist Ideal. Nothing outside of this Ideal–or, functionally speaking, the Authority which enforces it upon individuals–is considered to possess a legitimate existence. Thus, anything– or, more importantly, anyone–outside of the collectivist Ideal, which by definition includes all individuals, will be sacrificed. It (anything) and they (anyone) will be rendered the ZERO so that the Ideal can be the ONE.

And thus we are brought back to the claim which is the title of this  article:

Wealth and power are necessary corollaries when a function of a collectivist metaphysic; specifically defined as a given collectivist Ideal. An increase in one necessitates an increase in the other, and this by subordinating all wealth–all life, property, labor, currency, and capital–to an established Authority, which creates thus the authority/submission political dynamic, which in turn renders the existential ratio of the Authority to its subordinates (as the authority is the practical incarnation of the Ideal) as 1:0; which functionally equals 1, where 1 is the Authority, which claims to act in service to the Ideal– this Ideal being the infinite, transcendent, cosmic Cause and Inexorable Determining Will of all things, and on the behalf of which all things are sacrificed by Authoritative power.

In short, Collectivism will inevitably and necessarily manifest the exercise of absolute power in order to acquire absolute wealth; one necessarily amounting to the other.

4.

Within the framework of collectivism, an increase in power necessarily results in a commensurate increase in wealth, and vice versa; for wealth and power are corollaries because the collective Ideal necessarily assumes them both, and, ultimately, absolutely.  The point then, or the unavoidable consequence, you could say, of wealth is power; and the point, or unavoidable consequence, of power is wealth.

Both find their intellectual and moral foundation in Authority, which in turn creates the requisite political dynamic of authority/submission. And what the Authority demands, both intellectually and morally, is that all things, including and especially individual human beings, must be forcibly (violently, or through manipulation, which is a form of violence) compelled into absolute sacrifice, and this because human beings naturally and endemically observe existence from the frame of reference of a distinct, autonomous, and singular Self, which is by definition an intellectual anathema and a moral offense to the collectivist Ideal.

The collective, or group, Identity is rooted in the collectivist Ideal, which is the transcendent Cause and Essence and Will of all things which divinely mandates the Authority–a human being or group of human beings who serve as the incarnate (i.e. material/practical) manifestation of the Ideal–to assume and use absolute power to acquire absolute wealth (persons, property, labor, currency, etc.) in order to functionally establish the assumption that the Ideal is the only thing which may exist; because it alone, not the individual nor any other thing in creation, is absolute.

A specific collectivist Ideal can be almost anything. A few examples are:

•A deity or deities

•A religious denomination, or sect, or the “Church”

•Culturally or socially-based collectives like the Tribe, the Family, the the Nation, or Tradition

•Sub cultural or political groups like the Gang, the Club, the Party, the Association, the Team, the Brotherhood, the Union, the Workers

•Natural “law”, like the Laws of Physics, genetic or biological determinative attributes like race, gender, and even IQ depending on who you ask, evolutionary “forces”, and other physical, biological, and/or physiological processes.

 

 

 

 

 

Equality, Social Justice, and the Inverse Corollary of Existence to Identity

Since existence between objects is relative–that is, movement between two or more objects in a vacuum (of space) means that depending on how an observer chooses to measure the relationship, either object at any given time can serve as the reference for said measurement–the only thing which can be said to be fundamentally equal between objects is their existence.

Now, before I go any further, and before one of my many philosophically astute readers observes and comments upon the inevitable rational dilemma involved in taking “existence” as the metaphysical primary to its logical conclusion, let me provide you with the following disclaimer:

I submit that existence isn’t actually the metaphysical irreducible–that honor is reserved for “ability”.  The ability to exist (which really has its foundation in the ability to conceptualize existence), in other words, must precede existence.  But for the purposes of this article, and to use a concept that is more readily understandable and familiar to most people, “existence” as the assumed foundational metaphysic is acceptable.  In any case, whether we assume “existence” or “ability” as the metaphysical primary does not significantly change the argument within the specific context of this article.

Moving on…

Now, what I mean by “the only thing equal is the existence of the respective objects” is merely that the being–the IS–of object A is equal to the being–the IS–of object B.  This is due to the fact that objectively, and necessarily, each object, empirically apprehended, must be said to possess absolute existence.  In other words, each object is not an amalgamation or an integration of existence and NON-existence, for this would constitute an impossible contradiction.  Because the objects exist, they cannot, by definition, NOT exist in any measure.  You cannot integrate a NOT with an IS; and since clearly each object IS, then they are by no means any value of not.  And further, because there can be no such actual thing as nothing–for nothing, by definition, cannot be something–each object must be entirely, infinitely, and categorically something.  Put another way: each object must have existence, and they must have it absolutely.  And since the existence is in equal measure absolute, or infinite, there is absolute, or infinite, equality between the two objects.

This is validated by the fact that there is no way to observe a distinction between each object’s relative and respective existence, for all we can say about existence is that it is relative, which in no way mitigates or limits existence as the absolute metaphysical primary.  (On the contrary, I would argue that in order for existence to be relative, it must be infinite…it must be absolute and limitless; and the the contradiction is only ostensible, not actual.)  The identity distinctions between objects are based upon the premise that they each possess absolute existence first, in order that they can then be defined (conceptualized) relative to one another.  In other words, existence must precede any relevant application of relativity.

To put this in simpler terms, we can say that the moon, for example, absolutely exists, and likewise the apple.  One cannot be said nor measured to exist in a greater or lesser degree than the other.  “Lesser” and “greater” are concepts which require relative distinction, which is only relevant if the objects exist first in order that distinctions, which then are relative, can be made.  In other words, the relativity of existence is predicated upon existence, itself.  And…well…at the very least, relativity and existence are corollaries.

Because of the fact that existence between objects is utterly equal to an infinite degree, any attempt to apply equality beyond the application of the truth that both object A and object B exist, and this infinitely, and therefore literally, and unambiguously and, in the literal sense, indistinctly, is a gross logical fallacy.  The reason for the logical fallacy is as follows:

The absolute existence of object A demands that it, by definition, is simultaneously absolutely not object B, and vice versa.  As object A and object B have utterly equal (even, identical, really…but that’s another, even more nuanced article) existence, they are also simultaneously infinitely distinct from one another.  What this means is that these objects are infinitely different once we concede their absolute existential equality.  A succinct way of putting it is:  as their existence is infinitely equal, their identity is infinitely distinct.   Their identity is distinct to the same infinite degree as their existence is equal.

This is why any attempt to cultivate “social justice” based upon “equality” of individuals (a contradiction, since “social” is a collectivist, not individualistic, philosophical ideology) must fail.  It is rooted in the false notion that there can be an equality of identity, and not existence.  The notion is false because it violates the Law (as postulated by myself) of Existence as Inversely Correlate to Identity:  If A is itself absolute, it is likewise and simultaneously absolutely not B.  Or, stated more abstractly:

Where A(Existence) = B(Existence), A(Identity) ≠ B(Identity)

Practically applied, what this means is fairly obvious:  I (for example) am not you and you are not me–our identities are infinitely distinct.  We are each One…we are absolutely ourselves whilst being absolutely NOT each other, which makes us infinitely individual at the most basic level: existence; and only here, at existence, is equality rationally applied to society.  And by this I mean that equality simply means that one individual in society may not deny the other individual the right of pursuing his/her own life as he/she chooses and is able as an extension of their infinite existence.   And thus this individual, distinct, existence, being  ipso facto and therefore necessary, must be both True and Good.  And therefore pursuing such existence as one chooses–also by virtue of being the only one who possesses the singular frame reference of Self, absolutely, from which to manifest his or her life, and thus CAN be the only one who can rationally choose how to manifest his/her own life–can only be considered an explicit right.  Equality cannot mean that one individual has the right to impose his own, or a collective’s, wholly abstract standard of “equality’ upon a society of individuals.  For this (irrationally and contradictory) subordinates the absolute individual to the “group”, contradicting his/her existence entirely.  Which means that instead of making individuals equal, “social equality” denies them entirely.  And once individuals are denied, there is no frame of reference for either “social” or “justice” or “equality” at all.  Once the individual is eliminated from the existence equation, there is no way to define existence in the first place.  And without existence, you have no relative relationship between people or objects; and without those, there are no distinctions.  And without distinctions, there are no definitions, no concepts, and no values.  And without definitions, concepts, and values, there is no reality.

Because I am infinitely me and infinitely not you, how we express ourselves within the environment –being an extension of our unique individual Selves–must also be infinitely different.  But to demand “society” to give us equality of resources in the hopes of fostering an equality of outcomes is logically untenable.  Giving equal amounts of resources to distinct individuals, who are distinct at the the the most basic level, their identity, cannot possibly create equality in any practical sense because equality is not about identity, and doesn’t belong to it.  It is not about how we express our utterly unique and distinct Selves upon the earth.  Rather, equality is about existence.  Or, more formally, t is about sharing the same fundamental metaphysical absolute: existence.

And how do we exist?

As individuals.

And individuality is how we apply and express ourselves upon the environment.  The way we express ourselves, practically, or socially, is via not our existence but via our identity; that is, via that  which we are as infinitely and always distinct from that which we are not.  And in the “social” sense, what we are NOT…is other people.  We are NOT, then, the GROUP.  Because if we are the group, then we are not ourselves…in which case, we loose our identity, and thus the idea of “group”, or “society”, or “justice”, or “equality” (in the false collectivist sense) becomes entirely, and ironically, irrelevant.  You cannot advocate the equality of individuals without also advocating the identity of: “individual”.  And once there are no individuals, there is nothing to make “equal”, in the social sense.  And thus, the only way to make individuals “equal” in the social sense is to destroy that which makes us equal in the real sense (the rational, efficacious, moral sense): our existence.

And this is why all forms of collectivism (e.g. fascism, communism, socialism, religious gnosticism) will always destroy humanity, and horribly, violently so.  Collectivism can never prosper humanity because it fundamentally denies the REALITY of humanity. 

Now, this is all, of course, merely the petals on the flower of metaphysics; and also, it’s really important to understand that “existence” as a metaphysical primary breaks down spectacularly once we climb several rungs deeper into the ontological discussion (but not in a way that necessarily effects the veracity of this article’s assertions or its conclusions, I submit, as I mentioned in my disclaimer, above).  Nevertheless, the discussion of absolute equality of existence as an inverse corollary to the absolute distinction of identity is helpful in analyzing the practical applications of collectivist ideologies in general, and specifically the morally defunct and ultimately humanity-razing Marxist notion of “social justice”.

 

 

Christian Tyranny: The Ben Carson Presidency

When it comes to the governing of any given society, discussions of  “government”, its structure and purpose, are always an appeal to authority. Keep this in mind.  It is axiomatic.

According to both the religious and secular collectivists (people who assume that man is most fully and truly represented in existence by groups, as opposed to individually) human depravity is the moral essence of man’s ontological state (ontology = the nature of being).  In other words, at the metaphysical level (the level of existence), man is depravity.  And what depravity is, is the idea that man, for some reason or another, depending on the ideological context (e.g. religious versus economic (e.g. Marxism)) MUST be governed by an outside authority in order to ensure his survival.

(As an aside, it should be understood that the contextual reasons for man’s depravity are ultimately immaterial.  For the functional conclusion of this ideology is always the same, no matter who holds it or why:  the death of the individual–the death of Self.)

Man must be governed by representatives of the collective abstraction (which, again, can vary depending on the ideological context: the State versus the Church, for example).  Because absent government, due to the individual’s inherent depravity, man is doomed to an anarchist orgy of sin and death.  Individually, it is assumed, human beings lack the sufficiency to “rational” and “organized” existence, thus they are determined to exist immorally, and ultimately, futilely without the forced coercion of government, which has been established by “providence” (and what constitutes “providence” again depends on the ideological context) to organize existence FOR, not FROM, mankind.

As I said in the opening sentence of this article, Government appeals to authority.  But authority appeals to force; and it is only by force that a man depraved–a man inadequate by nature to existence–can survive.  But before we go any further with this thought, allow me to discuss just briefly this idea of “existence”, because it is always to the end of man’s “rational” existence that collectivist ideologues push the notion of survival by, of, and to government.  By advocating their collectivist metaphysic, they explain that they are merely conceding the reality of existence.  Though masked as an objective metaphysic itself–which it isn’t–“Existence” becomes itself an ideology; it becomes a byword for the moral end of the abstract ideal to which they, by force of government, seek compel humanity. In other words, they need to force you INTO your existence.  In and of yourself, you, being entirely depraved and insufficient to life, cannot exist.  “Existence” also, you will notice, is a euphemism for “reality”.  Reality IS existence, and force is required to manifest both for the individual.

“Existence” is always the subjective abstraction to which every collectivist ideology claims to derive its reason, or rationale.  That is, individual human existence qua existence is ironically the reason man must be forced , through violence or deception or threats into Self-denial…into the collective authority’s idea  of what it means for the individual to BE.  And this is consistent with the ubiquitous and common appeal in all collectivist ideologies to the “reality outside of man”–and there is some variety of this notion in almost everything, from Marxism, to Objectivism, to scientific empiricism, and so on.  What this functionally means is that the individual can only truly exist by rejecting what he is told is the fallacy of  his own, individual and singular existential context…that is, the reality of Self, which they always claim is, at its root, subjective.  In other words, the individual is told, ironically, that he only really exists by accepting the idea that he doesn’t actually exist at all.

By this (backwards) logic, even man’s very birth can only occur under the auspices of the collectivist system (e.g. the “laws of physics/nature”) or society (e.g. the Workers Utopia; economic egalitarianism; the Church Body).  This presumes that such a collectivist system or society must have existence prior to the birth of human beings.  Of course, this is an impossible scenario because without the existence of the human being, there is absent the necessary frame of reference by which the collective could be organized or structured in the first place.

What all of this means is that man survives at the pleasure of the Collective, and in geopolitical terms, we refer to the Collective as the State.  And by the State, what we mean, practically speaking, is the Government; or, more specifically, the human Authorities which are the fleshly incarnation of the Collective Will.  And this means that individuals are obliged to serve the State for their own “good”…for their own existence, not the other way around.

For a man like Ben Carson, who professes to a belief in the sovereign (read, deterministic) Will of God, how is the State defined?  What is Government?  What is its role and purpose?  Its not particularly difficult to figure out.  Naturally, the Government is an institution established by God to enforce His Will, collectively.  And by that I mean, of course, upon society.  The Church, on the other hand, though intimately tied to the Government, is that institution–ruled by its own specific incarnate Authority of the Divine Will–which establishes the governing principles, interpreted from the Holy Texts (“God’s Word”) by divinely enlightened priests, which the State’s Authority (e.g. President Carson) will, through the establishment of specific “secular” law, level upon society through violence and threats of violence by its monopoly of force.

Ben Carson says that he “follows the doors God opens”.  This means that if he happens to become President, it is, according to his doctrine, because God wants it that way.  God determined him into the Presidency.  Any effort on his part or the part of the voters is entirely tangential, and ultimately irrelevant.  And what is it that God wants him to do then?  Does He want Carson to govern as though it is his duty to ensure the right of the individual to exist as though what God wants is NOT the individual’s obligation?

Of course not.  This is completely at odds with what Carson believes will have thrust him into the Presidency in the first place.  It is contrary to his entire existential belief system.  It is, for him, an impossible consideration.  It is an idea which simply cannot hold any efficacy.  It cannot possibly be true.  The idea of an individual’s Self determinism is utterly exclusive of Carson’s metaphysical premise: that man is a function of God’s Will. Period.  For Carson, “individual” existence is an affront to the “truth” of DIVINE REALITY.

Carson’s duty as President is for him to function as a direct extension of God’s sovereign and determining Will.  That idea is a function of his doctrine; and that doctrine assumes the metaphysic of man’s natural depravity.  And that means that man will be sacrificed to the State.  Because Carson does not and cannot make the existential, functional, practical, or moral distinction between the people, the government, and God’s Will.  “God’s Will” becomes the entirety of his metaphysics…and by that I mean it is the nature of ALL existence.  Therefore, there is no room for human beings–for individuals.  There is only the antagonism of God by the individual’s claim, either conscious or as a behavioral byproduct of his “depravity”,  to possess a separate, distinct existence of his own, and the requisite, perpetual, and  violent conflict which this claim demands.  And this means, when all the sophism and rhetoric is cleared away, that Ben Carson’s job as President is this, and this alone:  the subjugation of the individual for the purpose of eradicating the existential and moral affront which the individual’s presence presents to God’s Sovereignty.  Only the abstraction of “God’s Will” is Truth.  Only the abstraction of his “Sovereign Purpose” has a right to BE.  The individual presents a direct challenge to God because he lays claim to his own existence.  But this anomalous existence is one of depravity and insufficiency.  Therefore it must be governed, and that’s what Ben Carson will do.

But always remember that within the collectivist mindset, which is Carson’s mindset I submit, Government is Authority and Authority is Force. To govern the individual is to compel his life in service to the collective abstraction. That is, to govern the individual, according to the collectivist metaphysic, is to destroy him.