Tag Archives: collectivism

Liberty is Impossible Because of Man’s Total Depravity

The presumption is that man is fundamentally depraved and thus inadequate to his own existence. In other words, man, if left to himself, will by nature seek to torment, exploit, and murder his fellow man and himself.  Of course, what is never explained is how those in government get a metaphysical pass on their own absolute depravity. But we are not supposed to ask these kinds of questions.

In short, it always boils down to metaphyics; the question “What is man?” forms the basis of every political, religious, and moral discussion the world over.  These discussions are fundamentally philosophical, and the fundamental of philosophy is metaphysics.

And this is why ostensibly rational human beings can ask the ironical questions “Liberty is good, yes, but what of the inevitably destructive consequences of too much Liberty; TOO much freedom? Liberty, but at what cost to humanity?” And they ask these questions whilst completely oblivious to the irony.

The assumption that man is metaphysically flawed and therefore inadequate to his own existence makes liberty for man categorically impossible.

And so, since the assumption is that man is fundamentally depraved by nature, it is avered that the only way man can truly exist is in a collective. Thus, we get the collectivist metaphysic so prevalent in the world and is, I submit, at the very heart of all governments and all religious institutions–which are simply governments themselves. Man can only be “himself” in any relevant or efficacious way by identifying with this group or that.

This is why there is such a push to nationalism and militarism and symbolism in almost all countries, even as groups within those SAME countries are pitted against each other; and this in order to maintain and promote the de facto premise that groups by their very nature must assert their moral mandate to engage in belligerency against ALL those on the “outside”–a mandate which is merely a function of the group’s rote existence.

The individual we are taught must be sacrificed to the group, not only for the good of the many, but–and this is the truly insidious part–for the good of HIMSELF. Which is a rank contradiction that is also never addressed; because there is no answer for this evil idea.

The Ironically Titled Movie “Inside Out”: How it teaches the collectivist metaphysic of “Outside In”

Let’s get to the issue at hand here: the collectivist philosophical irony of thinking that what is clearly an outsidein metaphysic–that is, man is a direct and absolute function of his environment–is really something which can relevantly include the individual man; what I would call the “inside”, or the Self, of man. I aver that this is the deception being propagated by the new animated Pixar film, “Inside Out”.

The message implied by the movie is basically the same message implied by American culture in 2015 in general, and it is that the individual somehow stands to gain by accepting the idea that all he or she is is a function of what they experience…of the causal universe; of what happens when the “discovered” physical laws which are absolute and inviolable, and somehow exist in an infinite, unseen vacuum of their own perfect and self-contained integrity, knock one thing into another thing, and then those things into other things, and so on and so forth until “you” appear.

And this is the root and unavoidable conclusion of this message:  that you are both you and NOT you.  That you have emotions and you don’t have emotions.  That you benefit from understanding these emotions and what they do and what they contribute and you don’t benefit.  Because you somehow exist and yet do not exist.  That somehow one times zero can equal something NOT zero.  That you are a direct function of your environment, and your emotional experiences attest to this, and yet, this in spite of the glaring and overt contradiction in the statement “YOU are a DIRECT function of your environment”.  For it does not take but a remedial understanding of logic and a cursory glance at reason to ascertain that if one is a direct function of his environment, then one cannot possibly exist in the first place…which renders the statement itself patently false, and thus inevitably destructive and murderous should it ever be implemented in any practical way  upon a society.  And by “society”, I mean individuals.

Now, let’s pepper the assertion “You are a direct function of your environment” with some educational (and ostentatious) parentheses, in order that we may render to it a proper translation and explication:

You are a direct (read, “absolute and inexorable”) function of your environment (read, “laws of nature”; read “determinative forces”; read “the causal universe”; read “someONE needs to be in charge of the masses because they can only possess the illusion of consciousness, which will be a disaster for them (read “the ruler’s self-assumed power”) if they ever decide to exist for and to themselves; read “group metaphysic”; read “destruction for the sake of destruction”).

And thus is revealed this formula:

Absolute causality = absolute determinism = absolute collectivism = group metaphysic = inherent vacuum of definitions/meaning/purpose for said group which any given member of the group at any given moment is unable to provide due to the very nature of the group metaphysic (e.g. the illusion of individual consciousness) = a select number of “divinely-appointed” rulers who must compel the unenlightened masses into “right” thinking and behavior = the categorical sacrifice of the individual for the group = destruction for destruction’s sake since without the individual and without a perpetual and external “threat” to the group there is no reference for the group in the first place = perpetual group vs. individual antagonism (wherein the individual is always collectivized into a rival group, since the illusion of individual existence must be maintained in order for the leadership to convince people of the need to passively accept and willingly offer up their own self-sacrifice) = rationally vapid, morally nebulous, never-ending calls to overt nationalism almost exclusively limited to unfettered pro-militarism, seemingly incongruously paired with the Balkanization  of society into competing groups who villify each other and vie for some illusion of power within the Central Authority structure which is in reality restricted solely to those “called” to lead the group by the mysterious and cosmic Divine Will.  And thus, the formula becomes circular, repeating itself over and over and over again, with literally no end in sight until nature alone finally brings about the end of humanity.

Only the individual can end the cycle, which is nothing short of hell on earth (or hell in general); but this necessitates that the individual become the absolute existential constant, fully of himself and to himself, and this necessitates an almost total re-defining and re-codifying of the accepted human metaphysical premise.  And given the pervasive and almost inextricably planted notions of Man-as-Extension-of-a-Causal-Universe averred by even the most trenchant and brilliant of libertarians and rationalists, I do not see an end in sight, if there even is one at all.  I mean, I see it for myself, because I live it with the understanding that my life is not a function simply of my environment, and that in some way, in some form, I, via my acceptance of my SELF as the only universal constant by which anything has any rational meaning at all I will perpetuate that Self irrespective of the environment or other people’s irrational ideas, and that death has no more claim upon my existence than “blue” or “left” or “heavy” or Planck’s Constant or any other concept which man has decided that though he created it, and he is the sole reference for which it can have any relevancy or usefulness,  nevertheless he is entirely subject to it, unto both life and death.

Which ironically (though this irony goes unnoticed) renders life and death one and the same.  Meaning that if you concede the moment you are born you begin to die, then logically you assert that the moment you come alive is the moment death lays claim to your existence.  Thus, life = death.  And since not even these two basic concepts can serve any rational purpose to any form of efficacy, because they lack even a nascent facade of practical meaning, what difference does it make what we think or do?  What difference does anything make when we declare death a direct, inevitable, and absolute function of life?

Here’s the answer you are looking for:  It doesn’t. Because we have no claim to SELF, because we have sacrificed it to the very concepts which are supposed to promote us.  For shame!

So..in short, you were born for the sole and determined purpose of dying.  And that makes you literally no different from any collectivist who may demand your sacrifice for his pleasure (sorry…the “group’s” pleasure”); from the collectivist you claim to reject; and your claims no different than claims you pretend to trample.

No.  Sorry.  It isn’t as easy as you would like, nor as you would think.  Rational consistency, it seems, itself must be sacrificed in service to “truth”, right libertarians?

Time to think a bit more about things.


The basic epistemological chain of reasoning, which bespeaks of the collectivist, determinist metaphysic (as I shall explain), on display in the movie “Inside Out” is this:  Your emotions are a function of your environment, and you are a function of your emotions. Which makes you a function of your environment (your environment = emotions = you, which means environment = you), according to transitive property.  Which is in perfect harmony with the group metaphysic.  Since you are a function of the very “laws of nature” which govern all reality, and therefore existence, you cannot really lay a claim to “yourself”, nor can you claim to possess any real truth because, again, there is no such thing as “you”.  “You” are just like everyone else, who really isn’t anyone else.  For everyone is a function of the same, inalienable, inviolable laws which govern everything, and so there is no means for you, individually, to obtain truth, or knowledge of any kind, or morality of any kind, or existence of any kind, except it be bestowed upon you from the outside, just as your existence is.  And the only ones who can do that are those who (in some manner or fashion, usually under the guise of a state “ruler” or “leader” or “pastor” or “priest” or “king”…some manner of “divine” proxy) have been somehow specially “called” to represent to the masses of humanity those forces (God’s Divine and Sovereign Will, the Laws of Nature, the Essence of the Party, or the Race, or the Culture, or the Nation, or the Tribe) which govern them absolutely.  How they get  a pass on their own absolute group metaphysic and their own insular and total determinism is a “mystery” punted into the cosmic abyss.  They never explain it because they cannot–for even they are merely lowly representatives of the infinite Will, they will say.  And even if they did explain it to you, you wouldn’t understand anyway because your lack of individual awareness makes you an nsufficient vessel to contain such lofty knowledge.

In other words you wouldn’t understand it even if they told you; and if you did understand it you would abjectly concede it, which makes understanding it quite irrelevant.  You would simply agree that it is rational; you would have no questions to ask; thus, there would be no discussion…no defense of it.  You would be a “called” one, fit to rule and to lead and to cajole and compel and to sacrifice and to profit and to absorb.  And you certainly wouldn’t question that.  For the benefit of such a role would be self-evident and readily apparent, particularly when it is in perfect keeping with the Divine Will.


If you see the movie “Inside Out”, or if you have seen it, you will notice or have noticed that at no time does the ability to maintain a rationally consistent conceptual paradigm ever enter the discussion.  Concepts, in other words, are presumed ipso facto…that is, they simply exist as the universal absolutes which compel material outcomes in the environment to which human beings have a corresponding, determined and predetermined emotional reaction.  This chain of causality does not change, you will also notice or have noticed, from infancy through adulthood.  Human beings have bestowed upon them, somehow, language, which is merely the codification and cohesion of concepts (abstractions)  into a practical linguistic framework allowing for group integration.  That is, we communicate via language because we are a natural product of the group–the collective–which has given birth to us, because we are it, as far as we can know, and not as a means to manifest our own individual personalities, wills, whims, and ideas upon our environment to our own ends and for our own comfort and pleasure and perpetuation.

Which is what language really is and why we really possess it.  In other words, we have language because we, individually, have the inherent ABILITY to have it; making us, individually, the only true reason for it.  The ability to conceptualize is the ability to communicate through language; and this is the ability to reason.  For reason is simply the rational consistency of the conceptual paradigm, applied through language.  Language qua conceptualization qua reason is only relevant if there is an absolute reference for it.  Since it is  the individual who has fundamental, existential possession of it, it is a direct function of the individual, which means the individual must be the absolute source and absolute objective of it.

But once you remove the individual and make him an absolute function of the environment qua his emotions, as this movie does, then you have no need for language, and thus concepts, because language is merely a means by which to compel people into the collective, period.  Language is not of the Self, it is of the group; but this movie is about ONE girl.  NOT the group.  And in this context, the individual “you” is merely a bundle of emotions, without rhyme nor reason; directed to and fro by the passions elicited by determined and inevitable environmental stimulus, trying to make sense of what is fundamentally senseless, because the true metaphysic of the Self has not been realized; and this is the message of the movie.  Without the group to tell you what everything is supposed to mean–to define your reality for you and to provide the interpretive lens for all the seemingly incoherent and capricious environmental influence…to give you a hook from which to hang your very existence–NOTHING fundamentally can prevail except confusion, which in the movie is rendered as “Sadness”.  And “Joy”, no matter how hard she tries, cannot overcome to emotion of “Sadness” because the truth of existence according to the group metaphysic is that ALL reality is doomed to crumble into an endless abyss of nihilistic madness and despair if one concedes that he or she has some manner of individual presence.   Individually, you are the rope being stretched between two competing, irreconcilable, forces:  the lie of Self and the Truth of the Group qua the Environment.  And though all emotions seem to have an equal say in things at first, as the child grows up left to herself, the power of Sadness becomes more and more dominant, subordinating ALL other emotions to its inevitable consequence:  destruction.  Destructive behaviors, destructive ideas, destructive conclusions.

It is the group’s responsibility to turn sadness, happy; to make the confusing, rational; and the meaningless, purposeful.  And when we are left alone (and the little girl in the movie is nothing if not the metaphor for the lonesome INDIVIDUAL, as we spend 90% or more of the movie inside her head), with no group available with which to integrate ourselves, then the environment will kill you.  The only way to control it is to acknowledge its power, and your complete inability to organize it on your own.  You need OTHERS.  And that’s the moral of the story, as we see when the little girl finally understands that she must either subordinate herself to her family–her parents–or die.

The perceptive among you will notice that the little girl never has any just cause for her sadness, or her anger, or her disgust, nor even her joy; though “Joy” is, I submit, a metaphor for the collective, because Joy always invokes images of belonging; whereas Fear, Disgust, Sadness, and Anger are the emotional displays of rank selfishness.  No, the little girl feels things without the corresponding conceptual rhyme or reason.  And what this means is that she can never claim to have been wronged by any circumstance, which means she can never claim to have a legitimate grievance against anyone else, and thus she can never claim that she has a right to justice.

This too is hallmark–an uber foundation–of collectivist philosophy.

Interestingly enough, the family “unit” is seen as the salvation for emotional-qua-environmental induced misery, and yet, through a few scenes within the heads of mom and dad, we see the following emotions in the “leadership” roles (in each character, there is the “boss”; the dominant emotion to which the other emotions defer). Mom’s dominant emotion is “Sadness”, and dad’s is “Anger”.  Which, yeah…interesting.  In the little girl’s head it is “Joy” who is the brains of the outfit, but Joy quickly gives way to Sadness (reluctantly…showing the stubbornness of the young in clinging to their individuality) when life’s circumstances take a turn for the worse and she is forced to move away from her friends to follow dad’s job to San Fransisco.  This speaks to the prevailing negative power of the environment, I believe, which is a subliminal way of criticizing America’s “free” society.  You see, no matter how hard we try, even as adults the negative emotions dominate, because there is just too much fucking freedom.  Even in a society ruled by the largest central authority the world has ever seen, individuals are just too burdened with their own choices and their own interests to ever truly be happy.

I’m sure more could be said about this, but alas, I’m getting long in this essay, even for me.

At any rate, this, I submit, is why the movie doesn’t spend any time at all dealing with concept formation nor language development in its treatment of one’s emotional evolution.  They remove the individual from himself (or herself, as it were) by making him a categorical function of his environment; his emotions being the primary and only relevant expression within the human organism of environmental stimulus absent the influence of the collective (and since the collective isn’t directly dealt with, per se, in the movie, there isn’t any reason to deal with concepts, which again are only useful in emphasizing group dominance).

I find it telling that there is almost no back story to this movie.  We know nothing about why the family moves to San Fransisco, or what dad does for a living,  or where mom went to school, or even if she did, or what either mom or dad like to do for fun.  They exist as merely props for the girl…a representation of the monolithic power of the environment to control feelings and thus behavior and thus existence; and then, near the movie’s conclusion, the conveniently provide the metaphor for collective integration.  For the life of me I cannot even remember their names, of if they were even given names at all.

The family  has no friends, no extended relatives, no work acquaintances to speak of.  Basically, mom and dad aren’t fully human, let alone ever portrayed as sentient, volitional individuals; and this is made even more poignant when we see that they, exactly like the little girl, are ruled entirely by the anthropomorphized emotions in their heads.  Mom and dad are the intellectual and metaphysical equivalents of the child.  Their only “advantage” it seems is that they have at least some semblance of group-awareness.  They understand that the key to happiness is to let the environment–your collective–define it for you.  Give in and let go.  Mom and dad, and later the State, will make it all better once you stop thinking that you somehow have a say in anything at all; as though you are anything more than a pre-programmed cog in the inexorable mechanism of universal causality.


The moral of the story, with respect to how to interpret emotions, is that all experiences are a composite of emotions.  That is, a given experience, to be truly matured and meaningful, is neither sad nor happy, nor angry, nor disgusting, nor fearful, but is a combination of some or all of these emotions.  Those of you now familiar with the implicit nihilism and futility of assuming an individual existence within a prevailing collectivist metaphysic will quickly make the connection to this conclusion and the fundamental assumptions which underlie this film.

Why do you think this is?  Why do you think we are to assume that no emotion has any singular, inherent meaning?  Why can no emotion stand alone as this or that, or as claiming absolute sovereignty over any given situation?  Why cannot losing your best friend be simply sad, and not both sad and happy?  Why are the emotions always mixed?

Is it because you are happy about part of the experience and sad about another part of it?  But “environment” cannot be compartmentalized, you see.  Environment is the singularity…it is THE governing force behind your emotions.  There is no partitioning of what is absolute, by definition.  You are a function, in totality, of your environment, and therefore there is no such thing as you deciding which experience means what to you; or which part of which experience means this or that.  Environment, and thus experience, is entirely monolithic, homogenous.  And this means what?

Right.  You’ve got it, I dare say.

The moral of the story is that of emotional equivalency.  The reason why emotions as they relate to environmental stimulus are always mixed is because, being a direct effect of the singular environment, they can have no distinctive value.  Sadness is no better nor worse,nor more rational or irrational, than joy.  Anger is no different than fear, practically speaking.  “Sadness”, “joy”, “fear”, “anger”, “disgust” are concepts, and concepts are the sole purview and prerogative of the collectiveThey can have no meaning with respect to you individually. As such, whatever you perceive, as an individual, as a function of the environment, is the exact same thing as what you perceive next, or what you perceived before.  Feelings are simply not distinct in any practical nor relevant way.  You cannot claim to be sad, nor happy, nor angry at any given moment because there is no actual difference.  Emotions are the environment, and the environment is unequivocal, and YOU are the environment.  Meaning is conceptual, and conceptual reality is group reality.  Period.  Full stop.

In short, there is no need for you to be afraid, or disgusted, or angry, or sad; and there is no need for you to worry about being happy as though you, individually, are in any way responsible for that.  You only need to obey.

And through your obedience you will find all the practical emotional meaning and fulfillment you need.

The Confederate Flag Fiasco, and Why it’s a Win For Collectivist Authoritarianism

Ignoring the usual specious messages concerning the Confederate battle flag, let’s look at this another way.

Since ostensibly our government is a representative one, we can make the claim that public property–the government land subsidized by the citizens–is property belonging to the PUBLIC (setting aside for the moment the fact that collectively-owned property is an impossibility, which makes the whole argument about what should or shouldn’t be displayed upon it thus irrelevant). This being the case, any private citizen should be able to petition the government to display his or her works upon public property; that is, if we want to consistently apply the idea of public property–property owned by the people, which is (theoretically) the very definition.

There can be no rational and therefore no moral reason to deny any such petition other than if the display is in service to an expressed intent to violate the life or property of another citizen. (For example, if someone wanted to display a swastika on public grounds to openly express his or her desire to kill all the Jews, this would make such a display immoral, and thus it should be denied.)

Since symbols are subjective, one cannot deny such a petition on the grounds that the symbol ITSELF is offensive, or means this or that…because again this is an attempt to invoke the logically impossible argument that symbols have objective meaning. To claim a symbol means something to EVERYONE is clearly overstepping one’s own epistemology, since it is impossible for you to know what something MEANS to someone else unless they concede YOUR definition of it.

The only other alternative is to ban, in a rank display of contradiction, ALL symbols from the private citizen upon public grounds. But this of course would need to include ALL monuments and flags pertaining to the State itself, since (again, ostensibly) the government represents an extension of the people; thus, there can be no such thing as purely a “governmental” or “national” symbol.

You see, what those calling for the arbitrary removal of the confederate flag from all state grounds are doing is attempting to reconcile two mutual exclusivities. The symbols of the Central Authority (the government) AS BEING and AS REPRESENTING the symbols of the private citizen, thus making government or national symbols acceptable but private symbols illegal. Insofar as it is impossible to make that which is COLLECTIVE a symbol of and for he or she who is INDIVIDUAL, it is impossible to declare the moral and legal display of national symbols while declaring the display of private symbols upon government grounds immoral and illegal. As soon as you appeal to the right of the nation to display ITS symbols on public grounds, you MUST appeal to the right of the individual to do the same, since the first CANNOT exist without the second. That is, if you mean to be rational. Which is only an assumption, of course. Looking at the nature of the predominant philosophies in circulation today, one might just as easily assume the collective eschewing of rationality.


Nevertheless this is the argument being made, and that we are being asked to swallow; and those rationally minded among us simply cannot concede that it is ever a good idea to exchange reason for madness simply because not doing so is “offensive”–whatever that means.

The idea that the government has the right to display its symbols and monuments upon public property but the individual does not, due to the risk of “offense” , is merely conceding the right of the State to subordinate the citizen to itself. Which is PRECISELY what this flag nonsense is all about. Nothing more nor less. This is a fight not for the rights of the oppressed minority, but an attempt to spread oppression to ALL people because it is now commonly accepted–either consciously or tacitly–that the only moral individual is one who is being sacrificed to the Group; and ALL Groups derive their just meaning and purpose from the State .

In other words, the only good individual is a dead individual.

What Makes America So Fascinating is Also What Makes it So Terrifying

What makes America so fascinating and terrifying? Here’s one thing:

Literally within the span of a couple of weeks we go from a national dialog on the nature of race and how it is defined by individuals as an expression of their own personal self-identification; a dialog which had the potential of radically changing the very root philosophy with respect to race, most likely to the benefit of ALL human beings everywhere–that is, a rejection of collectivist anthropology which can only divide, never reconcile individuals–to what we have today. Which is this: a seedy, obtuse, collectivist demagoguery of the issue altogether, and the feral, mindless, intellectually inhibited demand that the government use its overwhelming physical force to ban public displays of patently subjective symbols and implicitly morally blackmail private retailers into likewise banning said symbols.

This does two things, neither of which are remotely edifying, and neither of which do anything except lead ALL races down the primrose path of blind, zero-sum philosophy to inevitable misery and destruction at the hands of an absolute central Authority which destroys humanity for destruction’s sake alone. The first is that it eschews rational dialogue–that is, reason–for rank violence (state force) as the ultimate (and thus only legitimate) moral imperative; and second, it drives a wedge of animosity and distrust between a large segment of US denizens and their “representative” government.

Naturally, and predictably, this is the tragedy that never makes it into the public consciousness. And why should it? Guns and sophism have always been more effective at changing the world than reason and thought. It’s what we are most comfortable with. And just as Huxley predicted, comfort bought with the currency of murder and oppression is the only real mark of “existence” when we concede the nihilist consequences of an irrational metaphysic: Since man is not of himself, he does not own himself

Your Absolute Dependence Upon Pastoral “Authority” for an Efficacious Rendering of Reality (i.e. Your Sanity): Part FOURTEEN of “Collectivism Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal”

“Let’s face it; we’re all prone to wander.”  (P. 32, “Community: Your pathway to progress; North Point Ministries, 2008)

Well…no.  This is simply not true.  Useless conjecture; but even worse, it is patently deceptive.

We are not ALL prone to wander.  I could rattle off a half dozen people off the top of my head who I know are not “prone to wander”…whatever that means; I’m guessing here, because they haven’t defined it.

Ah…now that’s telling isn’t it?

Tell you what.  Hold that thought for a sec.

Furthermore, how in the hell is it possible to empirically verify such an assertion?  Did the authors interview every human being on earth both alive and dead to determine if they ever wandered?  And who decides what it means to “wander”?  And by what criteria and what consensus do they decide? And did the subjects they interviewed concede the definition?  And if they did not concede the definition, were they then excluded from the survey?  And if they were not excluded, by what rationale did the researchers decide it was legitimate and consistent with objective research protocol to disregard the opinions of the subjects with respect to the proper definition of terms?  And further, if they WERE excluded, does not that invalidate the initial claim–that “We are ALL prone to wander”–because, if some people are excluded from the survey, is not the hypothesis automatically disqualified on the basis that not ALL people were interviewed?

Also, what makes them the experts on what constitutes “wandering”? I mean, we can probably agree that, say, farming, homesteading, sharecropping, and squatting are pretty obviously not “wandering”.  But what about hunter-gatherer societies? Are they considered wandering? What about military families who move a lot?  Or traveling salesmen, or musicians, or acting troupes, or circuses?  Do they suffer from the blight of wandering as defined by North Point Ministries?  Should we demand they stop being so damn irresponsible and grow roots and put them down?  Or…um…is “wandering” merely a figurative term?

Hm…yes.  I think we may be on to something.


You see, once we understand that “wandering” is a euphemism for “sin”, and that only the “orthodox” ecclesiastical authority is allowed to define “sin”, this obviously absurd and impossible-to-substantiate claim (“we are all prone to wander”) is quickly revealed as an important and foundational part of the American Church’s very profitable deception.

Now, I’m sure it has, at this point, not escaped your attention that the author does not define “wander”.  And that, incidentally, is a glaring omission common in reformed literature, since the days of Calvin and Luther…at least.  You see, “sin” is never specifically defined in writings dealing with doctrine; and that’s because sin as a concept must have a fluid definition in order for it to be profitable as a tool of manipulation.  In other words, “sin” is whatever the ecclesiastical authority–(defined as those “standing in the stead of God” to shepherd (compel by violence, threats, or both) your spiritual “walk” (trail of tears))…yes, “sin” is whatever the ecclesiastical authority says it is at any given moment, in any given circumstance.  This way they can control the moral narrative of your life, and by this control the practical fruits of your labor; your existence.  Which is the whole point. The treasure is not in heaven as they have told you, but rather it is the fruit of your labor, and it is meant to flow upward, to the top of the hierarchical pyramid…and this is collectivism 101.  The government (the moral and intellectual supreme authority) of the church, just as it is in Marxist autocracies, is the only agency which really matters.  Said in an ironic way, you exist to NOT exist…that is, you exist to be sacrificed categorically to those who are “called” to ‘lead” you–where “lead” is a euphemism for “possess”.

You see, according to the metaphysic of reformed doctrine, there is no “you” distinct or autonomous from your “sin” (the reformed human metaphysic being, succinctly stated: man IS Evil; or man IS Sin).  Thus, in the process of purging you from your “sin nature”, YOU, the self-aware agent, must also be purged (and your awareness is an illusion at best; however, a self-indulgent lie and proof of your categorical apostasy probably better describes how individual consciousness is perceived by the eldership).  This purging is most effectively accomplished by destroying your cognitive ability to anchor yourself to a rationally consistent conceptual paradigm. And this is done by constantly manipulating the meaning of terms so that you remain in a perpetual state of confusion with regards to apprehending reality; that is, through manipulating concepts by implicitly teaching the constant vacillation of the meaning of words, the ecclesiastical leadership keeps you permanently dependent upon them for your sanity.  A denial of their “authority” is a denial of reality and condemns you to a state of madness from which there can be no salvation.  Of any kind.  Because “salvation” (or “Christ”, or “God”, or “YOU”) cannot have any meaning at all apart from their AUTHORITY.  That is, without them interpreting your life FOR you, you cannot tell which way is up or down.  You are as likely to wind up in hell as in heaven, and it doesn’t matter anyway because there is no functional difference.  It’s all misery because it is all undecipherable, disconnected images combined with sounds and utterances that have no reference in objective reality.   Truly it is psychological abuse and manipulation of the worst kind.  And psychological abuse is the worst kind of hell, because it lives INSIDE you.  There is no escape.  And this is why the American Spiritual Industrial Complex is so insanely profitable.  The threat of hell is, or can be, in a sense, and ironically, the worst kind of hell.  And make no mistake, it is FEAR which drives the payroll.  It is the insertion of a living and active hell into the minds of men which makes men dependent on any half-witted knob who merely claims, with absolutely no appeal to reason whatsoever and none asked for,  to have the “words of eternal life”.


Now, a rational definition of “sin” is pretty much that of which any sane person will assume; a definition, incidentally (for all your biblicists), one could easily garner by an honest, unfiltered, and unmolested examination of Scripture:  don’t do things that violate the the sanctity (the right to individual self-ownership) of your neighbor.  Don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t covet, don’t blaspheme…pretty straightforward moral standards not unlike those found in a rather significant, but oft ignored (because it’s far too easy, you see), moral code known as the Ten Commandments.  But since ALL of Scripture is merely a function of the Reformed “gospel narrative”, the ability to grasp the true meaning of these moral imperatives eludes you, because you, unlike your Pastor, have not been given the divine enlightenment necessary to determine for yourself what “not-coveting” or “not lying” or “not stealing” really looks like (remember, they must provide the definitions for you, moment by moment by moment, in perpetuity…for this is the only reference for “reality”…for conceptual meaning).  Thus, your pastoral “authority” is forced to interpret the “narrative of reality” for you, because you, having not been called to stand-in-the-stead as they have, and thus having NOT been divinely bequeathed enlightenment (for according to reformed epistemology, truth is not learned but is bestowed) you cannot possibly understand the Ten Commandments because you cannot possibly understand what sin really is because your absolute sin-nature has precluded you from any reference of a rationally consistent reality by which you could interpret “sin” in the first place.  Simply put:  since your consciousness is an illusion, you cannot define anything you claim to see.  Thus, they must define everything for you, according to their pastoral “enlightenment”, and this “enlightenment” is the utterly irrational metaphysical construct of a “gospel-centered” interpretation of ALL reality; which is ironic because such an interpretive lens makes defining “reality” in any rational sense impossible.

It is by no accident that the interpretation of reality always begins and ends with discussions, though no consistent definitions, of “sin”; that is, sin is always a function of the present context; it is always in the NOW, which is why even after salvation we are all still “functional” sinners (active reprobates by nature); sin is NEVER relegated to the past; there is no cure for sin because there is no cure for YOU; your existence IS, and IS NOW, and thus sin is always “with you” because sin IS you. 

This is done to serve the narrative that your sin is perpetual, of course; that there is absolutely no moment of your life which is untainted or untouched by your debauched nature.  If they can convince you that you are always doing wrong simply by breathing, they can convince you that doing right is quite impossible, but only if it is outside of their “covering” of course. Naturally then, and quite logically, being humanity’s “covering” is a highly lucrative position.  And this is why there are so many churches, and so many wealthy churches, with so many very wealthy “shepherds”.

So now you understand why there is no consistent definition of sin, as you might see in the Ten Commandments where morality is referenced to the autonomy and right-to-life and right-to-self-ownership of the self-aware agent (God and Man).  “Sin” is only ever remotely  defined with any specificity when the ecclesiasty perceives a threat–real or imagined–to their authority; their ex post facto ownership of your mind, body, and property.  “How dare you question our beliefs?” They say.  “How dare you question our vision and how dare you impose the temerity of your blindness upon us? Your gossip and your lies and your recalcitrance trail behind you like a cloud of darkness, infecting and corrupting all the wonderful things God is doing in our church family. You are probably not even saved.  In fact, no…you are not saved.  I declare it. And I will rattle my keys under your nose in mockery of your apostasy.” Yes, this is the only time sin is given anything even approximating an objective definition.

And if this sounds too profound to be true…if you are curling your lips and upturning your nose at the absurdity of my assertions, well…then whatever “God-appointed” authority to which you’ve been lending your ear is admittedly doing his or her job with exceeding facility.  You are supposed to think people like me merely polemic.  You are supposed to recoil in fear and wince horror at such suggestions.  You are supposed to blow raspberries at anyone who would dare question the motives of those who have everything to gain from exploiting your love and, even worse, your fears, and who make it a blatant point to reject reason and to offer no further apologetic for their doctrines than “who can ever really understand His ways? [shrug]”.  You are supposed to instinctively reject any possible connection between the doctrines they teach and the destructive outcomes so frequently observed in the American Church (child sexual abuse, financial scandals, sexual harassment and exploitation of women, embarrassing and psyche-demolishing church-splits, heartless and vindictive attitudes towards non-believers, open and unrepentant hypocrisy amongst the leadership, rejections of Christ en masse by former believers…to name just a few).

They’ve been perfecting their approach for thousands of years.  Your knee-jerk rejection to the idea that you could possibly be exploited by these people for their own selfish benefit, either willfully or out of ignorance, is proof that practice has indeed made perfect.  I mean, let’s face it:  you won’t be convinced to jump in front of a train unless someone spends a lot of time practicing the approach necessary to convince you that your life is ultimately beside the point; that the train cannot go where it must go with you in the way…and that being in the way means existing at all.  That is, and ironically, unless you jump directly in front of the speeding train, you cannot help but to hinder its divine mission, which, you have been convinced, is somehow worse for you than rejecting the very life you believe God created and gave you in the first place!

Yes, and thus, like the proverbial frog slowly boiling to death, you sit in the sanctuary and stare at the plexiglass podium and nod at your reformed pastor’s message dutifully, unaware of the grave reality of your condition.  And upon hearing my message you psychologically assume the fetal position, terrified at my hyperbole and paranoia.

You see, for me to declare to some people that their lives matter and that human life matters has become a yarn of madness to them, and sends them into  fits of moral indignation, a sputtering of denial, and compels them to cry aloud “God-hater!” and “Heretic!”.

And when they’ve finished, I confidently proclaim my case rested.

Part THIRTEEN of: Collectivist (Marxist) Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

“Can you remember a time when even though you were really committed to do something, you didn’t do it?  Or have you ever had a strong conviction not to do something and you did it anyway?  We want to stay committed.  We want to stick to our convictions.  But somehow we fall short.  We don’t usually wake up in the morning planning to abandon a commitment or jettison a conviction.  It’s more of a slow drift.  We are tempted to do something we shouldn’t, and then we talk ourselves out of doing it, and then we decide to do it anyway…but just his once.  We are all incredibly adept at self-deception.  We never intend for the “just this once” to become the norm.  But  before we know it, we’ve drifted away from our exercise programs, our diets, our schedules with margin, our budgets, our moral convictions, etc.. It is how affairs begin; it is how honest business men become dishonest; it is how social drinking becomes alcoholism; it is how good dating relationships go places we never intended. “

(p. 32, Community:  Your pathway to progress; North Point Ministries, 2008)

Okay…hmm.  I struggle with this.  I mean, this could be one of two things here.  The first is:  it could be deception based upon a fully committed but inconsistent belief in a false doctrine–total depravity.  The second is:  it could be deception based upon a fully committed and also consistent belief in a false doctrine, total depravity, but stated in a such a way that the author(s) don’t actually say, in so many words, what they really think…because they understand that the plebes–tithers and free laborers–might rightly bristle at and, even worse, question the rational consistency such utter bullshit.

Here’s what I mean.  Now, it’s a bit subtle, I admit.  Well, at least for those in the audience who may not be fully versed in the tactics employed by the neo-Calvinist/neo-Reformed Ministry of Propaganda.  To those of us, like myself, who have a long and comprehensive (and expensive–thanks to falling prey to the false doctrine of Church Tithing) history with the neo-Calvinist movement, it screams at us like an Irish Banshee dancing on trash can lids.

You see, what we have here is the the contradiction of what I call the notion of man’s Dual Metaphysic.  This is the idea that man’s mind and body are somehow rendered absolutely distinct, whilst at the same time those who promote such an idea usually concede that there is no real way of defining just where this distinction is…that is, they cannot actually say where the body ends and the mind begins, and vice versa.  Which of course makes the entire idea completely useless, but we’ll ignore that obvious point for the moment.

This mind/body dichotomy may be more familiar to most of you as that of the spirit/body, but I submit that that’s not a particularly accurate way of looking at it, because what is really being promoted is the idea that man can actually think, and somehow assume upon thing, and yet MUST, according to his nature, do another.  In short, it is the idea that human beings do not act based upon their cognitive assumptions; that human beings do not act according to what they believe.  It is the idea that man can both somehow be aware of what moral actions he should take, and yet be fundamentally insufficient for actually manifesting those actions in reality.

First of all, this is irrational on its face.  If man does not possess the capacity for manifesting moral actions, because his very existence as a human forbids such actions, then he can have no frame of reference for the cognitive assumptions about the morality of doing them.  In other words, if you never–or even more precisely, can never–observe a man leap over a tall building in a single bound because humans simply cannot be reconciled to their environment this way based upon their endemic physical properties, then you cannot possess a rational assumption that man should do such thing; and therefore you cannot rationally chastise yourself or other men for NOT doing such a thing.  You cannot preach moral invective against men for NOT doing an action which is impossible by nature for men to ever observe themselves doing.  That action cannot be a rational component of man’s identity for the simple reason that he cannot do it, and thus he cannot be morally guilty before God or anyone or anything else for not doing what he can’t do by design.  There is no moral, nor actual, tangible, empirical context for an action man cannot take by design, and therefore it is impossible that he should ever cognitively assume he should do it, and thus should want to do it for moral reasons, or any other reason, and thus lament not doing it as though it is some kind of inherent metaphysical flaw.  And further, there is no rational foundation for the possession of knowledge concerning what man should do when he cannot, by his very nature, observe himself ever doing it…because to observe man doing it would destroy the very rational identity of man entirely.

So this message, in fact, cannot be anything but exploitative and psychologically destructive.  It is frankly evil to flagellate and decry and condemn humanity for knowing what they should do and not doing it when knowing it and doing it are mutually exclusive properties at the root metaphysical essence of man, which makes both, in fact, impossible.  You cannot cognitively know that you should do what you cannot physically do as a function of being human.  Period.  Man’s moral beliefs about his behavior cannot be rationally separated from his existential identity…that is, how he observes himself physically and pragmatically reconciled to his environment.  In short, if man should do something, he must possess the inherent ability to do it.  To say man should do something he cannot by his very existence do is nonsense, and even more insane is to seek to punish him for not doing it.  Ideas like these must destroy men in the end, and should be actively ridiculed and avoided.


Now, do I need to state the obvious?  Does it really need to be said that not everyone falls off the bandwagon?  Do I really need to remind us that some people have no need to be on the bandwagon at all? And this is because they do not struggle with their convictions or their commitments.  I suppose it would be an utter shock to the archetypes of “divine” enlightenment in the neo-Reformed ecclesiasty to learn that some people can be social drinkers and not and never do become alcoholics.  Would it be straining their credulity to explain that some people remain committed to their exercise programs and do not give in to their “real” desire to lie around in bed all day and have Yodels hoisted up to them in dumb waiters? And it is because this is not, in fact, their real desire at all, but rather their real desire is to remain committed to their exercise program.  A tacit look around my neighborhood on any given day above 40 degrees will reveal the serial joggers in our society’s midst.  I can assure you that these people are not fighting some form of “sin nature” with an all-loving, all-benevolent theo-marxist Reformed church collective encouraging them to conquer their demon of sloth with every “small group” meeting they are required by their “leaders” to attend or face church discipline, not to mention the divine sanction of God as wielded by the Senior Pastor, for the mortal sin of choosing, as a grown-ass adult, to do something else with their own time on a Wednesday night .

I swear, they have turned the church’s small groups into fucking AA; and they treat every person who attends as an addict.

How in the hell do rational and, by all pretenses, sane adults suffer this kind of treatment by men who possess, usually, no greater educational accomplishment in life than a high school diploma and a few years in a Protestant indoctrination camp where the nucleus of the entire experience is to purposefully avoid and overtly demonize any opposing ideas or interpretive methods, and this merely as a means of censuring any examination of their own indefensible assumptions…yes, why on earth do they put up with this?

The answer to that question has everything to do with the prevailing metaphysic in our culture, and frankly, most of the world, and it is a metaphysic that roots man entirely within the abstract “cause and effect” systems invented by men whom all of us are told are experts.  Systems originally invented–if we are being charitable–to promote individual man and to propagate his comfort and success within his environment.

Unfortunately, the altruistic nature of these ideas has long since been corrupted; and for thousands of years individuals have been conditioned to sacrifice their own minds and their own observations and their own conclusions to a select group of priests whom the masses are told possess a special nature, a special sight given to them by God, or nature, or the Cosmos, or whatever Power lay beyond the grasp of the ordinary human being.  And to this day people scarcely stray beyond that line in the sand, beyond which they have been taught since they were little kids is where the baaaaaad things live.  And all of this is founded upon one simple little lie, which is told to you over and over and over again, in both grand and subtle ways, in almost every moment of every day of your life:

Life causes death.

That your very birth has ushered in an endless sea of misery and despair, culminating in an oblivion which is anything but, because there can be no peaceful oblivion from the frame of reference of a life filled with an actual, experiential existence which rejects the individual by its very nature from his very first breath.

And we are trained and indoctrinated to believe that the fact of our birth puts us at odds with our existence, and thus we turn to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who claims through divine insight or special talent that they can mollify and subdue the relentless assault of our very own presence which, if left to ourselves, will certainly overtake us in almost an instant and damn us to that never-ending and infinitely agonizing death which our very life produces.

It’s cute to say this, we think:  The moment you are born you begin to die.  What simple truth.  What insight.  How clever.  And yet this innocent observation belies a deeply destructive philosophy rooted in an impossible contradiction:  that life–that existence–hates itself, and by itself, brings death to itself.  That living, at the very root level, causes dying.  That the reality of YOU demands that you succumb to the idea of NOT YOU ruling your very existence.

In other words, your very existence is a cosmic anomaly.  An irrational epigraph upon the otherwise perfectly mathematical and benevolent cosmic canvas, and only some very special men who possess a nature both at once like yours–so that they can appear sympathetic and co-equal–and also utterly distinct, and infinitely dispensed with a  nature that somehow defies the very death you fear, and possesses the peace of understanding which can only be bestowed by the All-Powerful Consciousness, and never actually learned by the un-chosen masses.

And this is why we fall for these evil ideas.  This is why I, myself, fell for these ideas.  Because they perfectly represent everything all of us have already and accepted about our existence.  We come to the Small Group already keenly aware that our existence despises itself.  That our very presence in the universe means by default painful, wrenching death.  We understand our utter subordination to the Laws of Physics, which demand we must die, as all equations assume man as merely a factor in them, not the creator of them.

We come to the small group already conceding that control is an illusion, and that that which created us, be it nature or God or whatever, loathes our very existence, and that this is verified by the never-ending assault upon our person by time and the environment, and the constant demands that we “volunteer” our property and time to the maintenance of groups and governments which exist to save us from ourselves…that is, the very inevitable death which is a fact of our birth. We come to the collective already conditioned to accept that fear, due to our incongruent and meddling presence in the otherwise ordered perfection of the universe, is the prevailing emotion of a life left our individual existence. We come nursed from infancy upon the idea we do not engage in social collectives because they are an extension of our lives as individuals, and that from this place of individual life we choose–we decide–which groups and which organizations enhance and elevate our individual existence by providing a framework for us to work out our own individual desires and pleasures in a deeper way; but rather the perversion of  this truth which makes group integration a foundational requirement for any modicum of existential efficacy and comfort. We come to the church already baptized into the belief that the group is something which can save us from ourselves…that is, we are submerged in the notion that individually we MUST die, but in the group we somehow have a chance to live.

Of course the irony is that group integration ultimately demands a categorical sacrifice of our individual selves…so either way, death shall find us. We merely assume that the group route to death, rather than allowing death to find us in tormented folly when left to our individual existence, is less overtly painful. But the truth is that it isn’t, because in the group–due to the actual and rational and thus true metaphysical essence of man as an absolute and autonomous SELF–there is inevitably the constant rendering asunder of the individual. It is akin to a collective narcissism, where the “true” self (the individual) is constantly at war with the conceptual, or “false”, self of the group. The pain of death that we all are taught to fear is in fact revealed in perfect form in the collective.  And this is because there is no escaping the reality that YOU are the beginning and end of your existence. And any group which tries to encroach upon that metaphysical reality will inexorably tear at it, unto infinite misery.

You want a law of nature? There it is.

I would like to also mention that  engaging collectives absolutely with the idea that group membership is the panacea to individual shortcomings is the very definition of falling off the bandwagon.  It is the final and utter surrendering of oneself to the futility of one’s own life.  It is the recognition that one has no right to himself because outside of the collective, his mind, no matter how well intentioned, is completely subservient to the painful and destructive whims of his body.  But there is no bandwagon to speak of in the group because in the group there is no ONE who exists to get on it.


According to the doctrine of Total Depravity, there can be no aspect of man which is capable of either doing good or apprehending good.  There is no place within man’s metaphysic where man begins and his evil ends, or vice versa.  Thus, there is no rational argument to suggest that any sort of mind/body dichotomy exists.   If man is totally depraved, then his mind and his body are both in equal measure depraved, because the common denominator is MAN.  And man IS evil.  There is nothing he can do, and knowing is likewise doing, that is good.  And this is because he, at the absolute core of his existence, is not himself in any measure, but is rather depravity itself.  Knowledge of good, like manifestations of good, cannot find a repository in man’s essence.  And this of course separates man from God infinitely, and even more alarming, creates an infinity of evil in man which must rival the infinity of good in God.  In other words, man is absolutely evil like God is absolutely good; and in such a case, it, ironically, is impossible to make a moral distinction between the two.  Good becomes no better than evil, and evil becomes no worse than good because both are absolute.

There is no reference for that which is absolute, and so there is no means by which to measure or value it. “Good” and “evil”, “God” and “Man”, cease to have any relevant definition.

And therefore we must understand–and make no mistake about this–that the doctrine of Total Depravity infinitely separates God from His Creation and renders them booth meaningless.  And this is as evil as any idea can get.  Reformation theology is an unmitigated evil which destroys both man and God for the temporary emotional and material profit of a few men who either consciously propagate this debauchery and apostasy for their own wicked objectives, or do it out of ignorance.  In either case it is imperative for all of us to flee it.  And due to its pervasive presence in all of Christian circles today, I would recommend you extricate yourself entirely from all vestiges of the institutional church in general.  Do not abandon Christ, but do abandon those who proceed from formally established collectives in His name.  They are almost categorically up to no good.  Show me their Statements of Faith, and I will prove it to you.

So the question is:  Is the deception presented in the quote which began this essay proceeding from a conscious knowledge of the lack of difference between man’s mind and body; and that it is purposely taught that man can somehow know the good he should do in order to hook potential devotees into accepting the false rationale that their choice to subordinate themselves to the leaders of the collective is somehow logical and reasonable; or do  these proprietors of Christian despotism really believe that the mind/body dichotomy is truth, and that they are promoting some sort of actual good in condemning men to a life-long rejection of themselves in the interest of a vapid abstraction (i.e. the “community”)?

Ultimately I do not think it really  matters.  Whether out of folly or conscious deception it is all evil.  There is, at the end of it all, no excuse for either.  Whether by folly or by conscious purpose, an account must be given by those who promote such destruction…such psychological manipulation and psychological violence.  Because one thing is certain, neither the fool nor the cunning one can deny the observable outcomes of the ideas promoted in this little book, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, and practiced to disastrous effect.  One only needs to look at the swath of church survivor sites cutting deep and wide paths through the internet to witness the carnage, and to know that at some point ideas, not the individual actions of a few random men implementing them (which, given the utter devotion to collectivist ideas, it is ironic to see how these groups throw individual scapegoats to the wolves when they are called out for their crimes) must bear the responsibility.  However, it should be understood that the men who implement these ideas without remorse or regret do not get a moral pass on their actions, and the evidence denies them the ability to claim ignorance.

So call out the purveyors of collectivism, particularly in the Church, as evil, and implore those who will listen to avoid any association with them and to deny access to their ideas.  For until these collectivists in the church repent of their madness and their destructive devotion to the group, they cannot be engaged as individuals.  Because he who cannot view you as an individual, complete with all the laudable and beautiful attributes of your own unique individuality, cannot himself be seen as anyONE, either.

For he who sees you as nothing is himself nothing to be seen.