Tag Archives: Metaphysics

Yeah, Gravity Actually CAN be Explained

Uncategorized, , ,

https://youtu.be/4mxZuvpBZyo?si=jalZcJDsCAM2Cc_O

Gravity’s Real Nature

Have you ever wondered why gravity cannot be directly observed or experienced? Have you ever wondered why only its effects are observed and experienced, but not it, itself? Like space and time, we are told that gravity-qua-gravity does, in fact, exist. Yet these things are always and inexorably to be inferred only; only indirectly known as expressions of perceivable objects. Remove these objects, and gravity—and space, and time—are likewise removed—they become without any specific relevance, meaning, or description.

Hmm…that’s curious. Science, which adamantly rejects anything purely metaphysical as being utterly subjective at best, nevertheless is completely certain that forces and continuums and coordinate systems which simply cannot be qualified nor quantified—perceived or measured—directly, ever, in the history of science, are as objectively real as you or I am—as real as the moon, sun, and stars.

The only way to “observe” gravity in and of itself is on paper or screen in a mathematical rendering. If one were to ask the greatest scientific minds in the world to show us gravity in its own independent and distinct form, they could not do so; and this is because to exist, distinctly, is simply not gravity’s nature.

This is what makes gravity so special, and interesting, and mysterious, right? That’s why science is so fascinating—it deals with the mysterious and the paradoxical. Except…funny how contradictions become “paradoxes” when they are intrinsically scientific; and funny how science never extends the same courtesy to metaphysical claims. Metaphysical contradictions are always contradictions. Metaphysics is never given the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, it is a contradiction to declare the objectivity of gravity’s existence when such objective existence can never be verified because gravity can never, according its very nature, be directly experienced or observed. Only in science can that which only exists theoretically simultaneously exist objectively.

With that in mind, the following, I submit, represents a description of gravity that both defines and explains it in a way which, unlike it is with science, is not intrinsically contradictory, and puts it in its proper metaphysical and conceptual place, which is where it has actually existed, in fact, all along.

Now, to be clear, I am not suggesting that gravity is a simple thing to quantify, or that it shouldn’t be quantified; nor I’m I suggesting that this is what I will do here. The quantification of gravity I am happy to leave to the mathematicians and physicists. In this article it is my intention to qualify the nature of gravity in rational terms, without appealing to contradiction or paradox.

Now before I get to the body of my article, there are two issues that need to be addressed first:

Number one:

I should not be confused with a conspiracy theorist—I am not, for example, a “flat earther”. I believe that the Earth is round. I believe that gravity is a thing. As I previously stated in this article, I am perfectly fine with how science quantifies gravity…I accept the math. I don’t believe that any one or any institution is purposefully engaging in some kind of grand “gravity deception”. What I don’t accept is simply how science qualifies gravity…that is, describes its nature.

Number two:

For those of you who might believe that gravity is something you can feel—the fact of the matter is that, no, you cannot. A quick Google search puts it this way [italics mine]:

“Because gravity acts on every part of your body equally, you don’t experience a sensation of being pulled down unless there is a counterforce like the ground pushing back up on you.”

Without going into unnecessary detail regarding exactly why a force which “acts on every part of your body equally can’t be felt” (I do understand why, and could explain it, it’s just not relevant here), my point is this: gravity, by its nature, can only ever be observed and experienced indirectly. This means, fundamentally, that gravity, as science understands its nature, can only ever exist in theory.

*

I submit that gravity is not a force at all, but rather is the perception of a specific relative relationship between objects.

What gravity is, then, is not gravity qua gravity at all. Gravity is not actually “there” in any literal sense of the word. Rather, gravity is a concept that the Observer (Man) uses to describe a specific relative relationship he perceives between objects in space; and more specifically, gravity relates to the root existence of any given object.

Gravity, I propose, relates to the intrinsic act of existing—a fourth dimensional movement, one could say, manifest as a constant rate of what I call “existential acceleration”.

More on that in a bit.

Despite what you might be thinking, there is nothing particularly silly or clumsy about this assertion. I submit that gravity in this sense becomes almost obvious once we make a single, relatively minor cognitive adjustment to how we think about the nature of existence. Once made, the relative relationship we call “gravity” becomes clear; and further, I submit, is consistent with all current scientific explications of how gravity is observed to behave.

Let us consider that the nature of existence is not passive, but active; that there is no such thing as an object at rest, fundamentally, and thus existence itself represents an inexorable, constant state of activity, and that this active existence can be described as an object’s “constant rate of (existential) acceleration” along what I have called its “path of existence” (POE).

And this is indeed what I submit: that gravity is how the Observer (Man) conceptualizes the active existence of objects. When we understand that existence is not passive, but active, and thus represents a peculiar fourth dimensional movement of its own, then the mystery and contradictory nature of gravity as it is currently described by science fades, replaced with a simple metaphysical equation, so to speak: Active existence = constant rate of fourth dimensional “existential acceleration” along a “Path of Existence”.

Thus, when we consider the “pull” of gravity of a more massive object on a less massive object, like a planet “pulling” on a meteor, for example, what is the actual nature of this relationship according to my thesis?

As the meteor wanders too close to the planet, it is not actually being pulled in by the planet’s gravitational “force”. This is how it may appear to an observer, but this an optical illusion. What is really happening is that the meteor has wandered into the planet’s POE (path of existence). If the meteor is not moving at a sufficient enough velocity to get beyond the planet’s POE before intersection, it will eventually collide with the planet’s surface (or burn up in its atmosphere). It isn’t that the meteor is being pulled in by the planet, but rather the planet, in accelerating along its POE has “run into” the meteor. To an outside observer this collision looks as though the meteor is being “pulled in” by the planet, and he sees it curve away from its linear trajectory and down towards the planet…but, again this is an optical illusion.

But why the illusion?

Because the existential frame of reference is the same for all things, including the observer.

It must be understood that all things equally exist—this is axiomatic. For example I do not exist to a greater or lesser degree than you do; the ball does not exist to a greater or lesser degree than the bicycle does. Thus in the above scenario, the observer, the planet, and the meteor are all equally accelerating at the same constant rate along their own respective POEs as a function of existing. This is why the observer perceives the act of the smaller meteor curving into the planet, and not the planet “expanding out” to collide with it. Possessing the same existential frame of reference as the meteor and the planet means that the observer perceives the gravitational relationship in parabolas, and “forces” which “pull”. The existential frame of reference is the same for all objects involved, thus gravity will not be perceived linearly.

To put it another way: Let’s say that in the above scenario the observer, the planet, and the meteor are all sitting still space, at enough distance from one another that gravity is not a factor. None are moving in any linear fashion. None are moving in any direction at any velocity. They are “bodies at rest”, is to speak.

What movement will the observer then perceive?

Well, the answer is “none at all”. Existential movement (the constant acceleration of an object along its POE) cannot be perceived directly by the observer since the the rate of existential acceleration is the same for all things which exist, including the observer. Thus gravity—a sort of “fourth dimensional existential acceleration at a constant rate”—shall be perceived when a less massive object travels in space relative to a more massive one at a close enough distance to have wandered into its the POE; and it will be perceived parabolically.

Gravity shall also be perceived, of course, by the fact that less massive objects can rest upon a more massive object’s surface. The reason why I am planted firmly in my easy chair right now is because of gravity; yet it isn’t that I’m being pulled down by some unseen force. Rather I am experiencing the effects of a significantly more massive object’s —Earth’s—“existential acceleration”.

*

If all objects exist to an equal degree, and therefore the constant rate of existential acceleration is likewise equal, why do objects possess greater or lesser degrees of gravitational “force” as a function their mass? Why is gravity stronger on, say, Jupiter, than it is on Earth if both Earth and Jupiter “existentially accelerate” at the same rate?

Discrepancies of perceived gravitational “force” have to do with the size, we could say, of the POE (path of existence). It stands to reason that the more mass an object possesses, the greater the size of that object’s POE (wider and extending further), and thus the greater the gravitational “force” which is perceived by the observer.

The reason, for example, that Jupiter’s gravity is more “forceful” than Earth’s is because Jupiter is much more massive, and thus possesses a much larger POE. Jupiter’s POE therefore extends much further out into space than Earth’s (and this fact is verified by current science—Jupiter’s gravitational force does, in fact, extend much further out into space than that Earth’s, and thus is both longer and wider). Therefore, the reason that objects which appear drawn to Jupiter by its gravity do so at a greater overall rate of acceleration is because they are in effect “under acceleration” for a longer duration before intersection than they would be relative to earth. The general rate of existential acceleration is a constant that is non-relative amongst all objects which exist—however, there are relative discrepancies which are a function of the size of an object’s POE. The greater an object’s mass, the larger the POE, the greater the time under acceleration, which translates into larger objects possessing a relatively greater gravitational “force”.

Now, remember this “force”—the “pull” of gravity—is an illusion; and smaller object isn’t accelerating “in towards” the larger; rather a more proper description of what is actually happening is that the larger is accelerating “out towards” the smaller (“out towards” in a fourth dimensional sense)

I know it’s getting a bit abstruse now, so let me slow down and explain this in more careful detail.

It is important to understand that “existence as movement/acceleration” is a rather difficult thing to conceptualize. Again, it represents a kind of “fourth dimensional” movement, and thus must be conceptualized in a very unique way. Naturally, being fourth dimensional, “existential acceleration” is not linear, and thus is hard to render in three dimensional space.

At any rate, here is the basic “equation” explaining discrepancies in relative gravitational “force” according to my description of gravity:

More mass = larger POE (“path of existence”) = more distance for a more massive object to “existentially accelerate” towards a less massive object caught in its POE = greater relative gravitational “force”

Again, it isn’t that more massive objects exert greater gravitational “force” or “pull”, and it isn’t that more massive objects “existentially accelerate” to a greater degree than less massive objects. It is that more massive objects have POEs which are larger, and thus extend further out into space, which means that there is more time for the more massive object to “existentially accelerate” towards any object caught in its POE. Gravitational intensity is a function of time in the POE.

Further evidence to support my thesis is the fact that objects under the influence of a given object’s gravity will “fall” at the same rate, regardless of size and/or mass. On Earth, for example, when accounting for mitigating factors like wind resistance, a penny will fall at the same rate of acceleration as a bus; a feather the same rate as a bowling ball.

Relative to my thesis on gravity, this makes perfect sense. An object “existentially accelerating” will necessarily accelerate “towards” various objects in its POE at the exact same rate. There could be no intrinsic properties of objects caught within the POE which would change the degree to which they are being accelerated towards by the more massive object. In the same way that a truck will accelerate towards a tree and a wall in its path in equal measure. The truck doesn’t care what is in its path—it just accelerates at the rate it does towards whatever happens to be there. The same is true for an object accelerating along its POE. It accelerates at the same rate towards whatever is in its path.

*

As I refer to “gravity” in this article as the manifestation of an object accelerating at a constant rate along its POE, a question which might arise is: why is the “movement of existence” acceleration and not velocity? Why a constant rate of acceleration and not a constant rate of speed? Well, the answer is rather simple, I think, though perhaps not especially intuitive.

In simple terms, speed is fundamentally passive, while acceleration is fundamentally active. In a vacuum, an object traveling at a constant speed need not, itself, be doing anything nor having anything done to it. Meaning, an object traveling at a constant velocity in a vacuum can be passive; it need not do anything nor have anything done to it to maintain that constant velocity. This is not so for an object in a vacuum which is moving at a constant rate of acceleration, In order for an object to maintain a constant rate of acceleration in a vacuum it must be active. It must be actively doing something in order to constantly accelerate, even if what it is doing is receiving some sort of external motivation.

The point here is that an object under a constant rate of acceleration must be an active participant in the movement. An object which is merely maintaining a constant velocity need not be participating in anything at all. It can be completely passive and yet still be moving. Not so with acceleration. Thus, if existence is active and represents movement (the “movement of existence; or existing”) then it must be “active movement”—it must be movement where object participation is always required. Thus, the movement must be a sort of “existential acceleration”, not merely “existential velocity”.

Further, it could be argued that for a single object in a vacuum, a mere constant rate of speed does not necessarily represent fundamental change over time, whereas acceleration does. Or perhaps better said, acceleration represents constant change over space and time, where velocity is only change over space, but not time. I will end this explication here, in order to not overcomplicate this article. I trust you get the point, at any rate.

*

It could be argued that this section here should have come the beginning of the article, but ultimately it’s a minor point. At any rate, an obvious question begged is: Why must existence necessarily be active and not passive?

Well…let me ask: According to what, exactly, do things exit?

The answer is: according to their ability.

In other words, things exist because they are able to exist; and ability absent action is irrelevant. In other words, ability implies doing—ability without a corollary action is ability which is irrelevant—that is, is ability which might as well be unable. It is the functional equivalent of inability.

Ability thus necessarily implies action. Ability is active. Inability, then, is passive.

Therefore to say that an object’s existence—which is any object’s most fundamental state—is passive, is to ultimately say that the object is unable to exist. This of course is a contradiction. If an object exists, then it exists because it is able to exist, and therefore its existence must be active.

In short, passive existence is existence which is unable to do anything, and therefore isn’t doing anything, which obviously includes existing.

*

This concludes what I assert is the proper metaphysical description of gravity. I submit that it is the most accurate description of what gravity actually is (meaning a description of the nature of the phenomenon, as opposed to a mathematical rendering, which I will leave to science). Gravity is how the observer perceives any given object’s active existence. It is the acceleration at a constant rate of an object along its POE (path of existence). The more mass an object possesses, the larger its POE, which accounts for the perception of a stronger gravitational “pull”: A larger POE = “existential acceleration” over more time = greater gravitational force relative to objects with less mass and thus smaller POEs.

*

Before ending this article, there are a couple of issues that need addressing; they will almost certainly come to the mind of any astute reader.

…

First, I shall address the issue of “gravitational lensing”. This is the phenomenon where light can be observed to bend around massive objects in space. Gravitational lensing is presented as evidence for both the existence of, and curvature, of spacetime. Now, without getting into the serious rational issues with the notion of infinite continuums like “space” and “time” existing in the literal sense, and thus in a sense that they can actually bend, and bend and displace themselves into themselves, I shall only say that I submit that gravitational lensing is this:

Gravitational lensing is simply the observer perceiving the effect of light, being emitted in a steady stream (of protons) and, due to its great speed, perpetually “outrunning”, or “moving past” the POE of a given massive object. Light appears to “bend” as it moves away from the object’s POE.

Think of it this way…

A truck is accelerating down a road, en route to collide with an endless train running perpendicularly across its path.

Now…

No matter how fast the truck goes it can never actually collide with the train, even though, as I said above, the train is endless, and even though the train is running perpendicularly across the truck’s path. The reason the truck cannot hit the train is because the train is always moving fast enough to outrun the truck. By the time truck reaches the endless train, the endless train isn’t there to be struck.

How can we visualize this crazy analogy?

Obviously we can neither observe nor conceptualize a contradiction, but how might this look given the parameters?—that no matter how fast the truck accelerates, it can never strike the endless train running across its path because the train is moving too fast.

Well, it might look like the train is persistently bending or bowing away from of the truck near the point of impact. In other words, each car of the train, just before impact, is able to slip past the nose of the truck, and continue traveling in the same direction it was, while the truck speeds on by. This would have the effect of making it look as though the train is constantly bending away from the nose of the truck as the truck speeds on down the road.

This, I submit to you, is what is happening when we observe gravitational lensing. Light is simply moving too fast for the object which is accelerating along its POE to ever reach it, thus it appears to “bend” around the object.

…

Secondly, I will very briefly touch upon the “expanding universe”. Here, too, I think my description of gravity can help explain this phenomenon, without having to resort to some mysterious and ultimately self-contradictory notion like “dark energy”.

Objects, like, galaxies, which are separated by sufficient amounts of space, will, like all objects, accelerate along their POEs (paths of existence). However, due to the extreme distances between these objects, there will be no “gravity” observed…meaning, objects separated by sufficient amounts of space will never cross each other’s POEs. Gravity thus will have no bearing on how these objects are observed from our frame of reference.

So, how then will they be observed?

As merely stationary over infinite time?

Not likely…existence is active, after all. Existence is movement.

Will they drawn closer together? Again, no, because as I already said objects being drawn close tother do so because of gravity…meaning because they are crossing POEs, which in this case is precluded due to distance.

The only option left then is that they will be observed to “pulling” away from each other…expanding the distance relative to each other. They will continue to accelerate along their own individual POEs…accelerating “into” their own existence.

*

I’m sure all this has stretched the brains, maybe painfully so, of those that have come this far. Thank you to anyone who has bothered to read this. Your time and attention are more appreciated than you can possibly know.

Finally, allow me a bit of therapeutic psychological cope:

I fully expect this thesis to be disregarded out of hand as arrant nonsense by the vast majority of those who bother with it…and that number almost certainly will be close or zero.

C’est la vie…it is what it is. Like virtually all creative ideas that truly offer something of new, productive, and valid substance, their fresh take is rejected as madness at first.

Oh well…as I said, such is life. Nevertheless, I submit that I shall certainly be validated in the…

END

The Dissident Right Doesn’t Understand Individualism: Exposing the ignorance of Auron MacIntyre

collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, dissident right, Uncategorized, , , , ,

Auron MacIntyre is a dissident right (DR) thought leader and political commentator…one of the few that has gone “mainstream” as it were, in that he works for The Blaze, which is a Glenn Beck rag…I mean, if that’s your idea of mainstream. The Blaze may be as mainstream as it gets for the DR, I predict, unless they decide to tamp down on the national socialism, which is unlikely unless they plan on doing the old political “bait and switch” to rope in enough suckers to put them into power. I mean, the only place to go besides national socialism is libertarianism, communism, or classical conservatism (or some variant of these), and none of them particularly scream “dissident”, today. So national socialism it is, I guess. At least Auron MacIntyre is unassuming and milquetoast enough to make it seem less threatening. Dave the Distributist is probably better in this regard, but he can’t pronounce words. Ergo, Auron is the dissident “celebrity”.

Er…congrats?

Whatever.

Auron is your typical middle-class, lily-white millennial intellectual—midwit idealism, facile, erudite, and possessing some skill at making the obvious (that which is clear to any run-of-the-mill conservative) seem more profound. In other words, a penchant for bullshit which is unique to his generation of political thinkers.

He has a gentle, non-threatening demeanor and his content is easily digestible, making for one who can smoothly and comfortably disseminate and reflect the DR’s utterly predictable ideology. He burdens neither himself nor his audience with any pesky bugaboos such as complex ideas, illustrations, or explication. How nice of him.

About a year ago, I was listening to one of Auron’s videos—I cannot remember which—wherein he blamed the current rise of Western communism and the consequent moral chaos and social misery on “individualism”.

Which, no, wasn’t a joke. You might think so, but he actually believes it. He actually thinks that today’s global communist hellscape is a product of the categorical antithesis of the collectivism which utterly informs this hellscape.

And then I started thinking…and after only a few moments, not to brag or anything, I realized the problem: Auron MacIntyre doesn’t know what individualism is. I mean really…as in, he doesn’t get that philosophies are formed from primaries and premises that concern the nature of man and reality and that these are what’s known as “metaphysics” and that to truly understand what you are talking about politically you must understand the metaphysics, especially if you fancy yourself a public intellectual tasked with effectively guiding a dissenting political movement, because if you don’t you’ll wind up making an embarrassment of yourself on YouTube by saying something foolish like “individualism is responsible for New World communism” and prove to everyone that your time would be better spent mowing lawns or doing some other less intellectually-demanding task…that is putting it mildly.

By “individualism”, you see, Auron means “solipsism”…which isn’t individualism at all. This solipsism he blames on enlightenment-based classical Western liberalism which informs Western so-called “representative” democracies. You know, John Locke’s whole “the individual is the smallest political unit and the State should consider him thus and govern in the interest of his inalienable right to life, liberty, and property and blah, blah, blah…” or something to that effect.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with Auron that this kind of thinking is indeed the root of the West’s current political trauma, but it is not because “representative democracies” are rooted in individualist philosophy, but because the enlightenment philosophy which spawned classical liberalism which in turn spawned the Western “representative” democracies which are now morphing into a global communist tyranny is not in fact individualist, but an inevitability failed attempt to synthesize individualist ethics with collectivist metaphysics. Western democracies thus are not a manifestations of individualism, or individualist metaphysics, but of collectivist metaphysics which attempt to make the individual the Collective Ideal to which the State will compel the masses. In other words, today’s Western “representative” democracies are nothing more than collectivism in individualist clothing.

Now, because they are manifestations of collectivism in disguise you might be tempted to excuse Auron’s ignorance. I assert that he is nevertheless culpable because the collectivism, while disguised, it is only very, very thinly disguised. Anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear can perceive the lie from a mile away. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing…if the “sheep’s clothing” consisted of a ten-cent plastic sheep mask affixed with a rubber band, and nothing else. So Auron isn’t understandably mistaken, he is willfully ignorant…and there is simply no excuse. Anyone who asserts himself, implicitly or explicitly, as a political thought leader speaking on individualism is obligated to discern the actual metaphysical differences between individualism and collectivism…and should be able to do this in their sleep. Auron, on the other hand, cannot seem to do it in a video that he produced, reviewed, and edited. Scary.

If Auron truly understood the difference between individualism and collectivism he would understand that individualism could never give rise to a communism government, or any government of any kind, for many reasons, the most obvious one being that individualist metaphysics do not, by definition, imply the group. Thus, one is left wondering how he concludes that you get centralized political hegemony and rank sociopolitical unity from a philosophy which rejects group-identity as having any legitimate metaphysical value whatsoever. In other words, individualism asserts that the group can never truly, properly, or legitimately represent or express the natural, existential interests of the individual; only the individual is a legitimate expression of the individual. The group—the collective—is a mere subjective, contextual, and tertiary function of the individual; the individual is never a function of the group. The “group” in the individualist sense is simply any number of individuals cooperating in service to a given subjective interest, period. There is nothing of law or obligation or duty or reward or punishment or collective identity or collective value or collective responsibility anywhere to be found in any real and rational definition of individualism. These are entirely collectivist premises…and they are premises in which today’s Western communism is obviously and ineluctably rooted. Auron’s assertion that this communism is a function of individualism is laughable…and worse, it is an intellectual abomination. He should be embarrassed.

Back to his conflation of solipsism with individualism…which is, metaphysically, the impossible and contradictory idea of the Self as the Collective Ideal. This lie—this convenient lie—is a bit of insipid collectivist propaganda—a straw man fallacy—to convince people that individualism is a great bringer of human calamity against which only a strong Socialist or National Socialist State can be erected as an effective hedge. It’s a lie as old as Genesis.

The idea that you will get communist political tyranny by appealing to individualism, properly defined, is rank foolishness. Individualism, properly and rationally understood and established, means that the individual qua the individual is the only thing capable of truly and legitimately representing his own objective political interests. This rationale drawn out means that individualist politics must be entirely cooperative, never coercive. The individual shall not be compelled by violence, threats of violence, fraud, legal obligation, collective obligation, or punishment into any collective political identity…he has no metaphysical, rational, ethical, or political obligation to the group whatsoever. No Global Community, no National Identity, no Class, no Race, no Tribe, no Club, etcetera has any legitimate, rational, or moral claim of any kind whatsoever upon his mind, body, or spirit, period, full stop, ever. There is no legitimate ruler, king, queen, or ruling class ever, anywhere. There is no Authority; there is no submission. Ethics are moral, not legal. Politics are categorically voluntary. Ethical violation bring moral consequence (for violating one’s neighbor), not legal punishment (for violating the Legal Authority).

To assert that the rise of Western communism is to be blamed on this philosophy is risible and intellectually criminal. In doing this, Auron MacIntyre has shown that he is completely unfit for his chosen profession…unless we consider his profession to be “propagandist”…then give that man a raise.

*

Individualism, again by definition, precludes any root metaphysical value or legitimacy to any group. Thus, it is completely impossible for individualism to produce communism, which, as a collectivist philosophy, necessitates group identity as a person’s root metaphysical expression, and the Collective Ideal as the foundation of the sociopolitical apparatus. This being so, it begs the question: How in the hell did Auron MacIntyre allow himself to get so confused? That is, assuming he actually believes the nonsense he peddles.

Again, it all goes back to the confusion and conflation of solipsism with individualism. He thinks that anyone claiming to be an individualist is asserting that he, the individualist, is the only thing that actually exists. In other words, all things, and especially all other people, are illegitimate expressions of reality unless and until they are made to serve, or become an extension, better said, of one’s Self. Auron’s “individualism” is really just narcissism, philosophized. One’s Self is the metaphysical root, and all “else” is simply a direct function, and direct expression, of “Self”. And what has happened, Auron thinks, is that classical liberalism—rooted in enlightenment philosophy, materializing in a government that exists to promote the individual—has created a generation of narcissistic citizens living in a solipsistic society, creating a culture of moral relativism producing rank degeneracy, thus producing the fertile soil in which to grow leftist political opportunists who exploit the social instability and manipulate the people into atomized, deracinated masses existing purely to serve the hedonistic whims of the ruling communist class.

You see, to Auron, individualism = classical liberalism (libertarianism) = moral relativism (hedonism, degeneracy, irreligion) = national and social disintegration = communism. That’s his equation, and it’s the philosophical equivalent of 2+2=5. It’s complete nonsense from top to bottom…because Auron doesn’t see what should be obvious to any political philosopher asserting himself as among the intellectual class: that his definition of individualism isn’t actually individualism at all, but is, in fact, collectivism. And while this may not be entirely clear to the random layperson, Auron is a professional thinker who has risen to the status of Dissident Right celebrity…and he doesn’t know elementary metaphysics. He is unable to discern the basic real difference between individualism and collectivism, which are the only two metaphysical categories that matter with respect to human existence. This is profoundly problematic, and it reduces his philosophy to Sesame Street levels of seriousness. Be a collectivist…be a National Socialist if that scratches your weird and creepy itch—it’s your right to think and speak what you want, but at the very least you should be able to define what you believe, what you don’t, and know the difference.

Now, if you have read any of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of my articles on this blog you will know that I have explained what collectivism is many, many times, but here it is again in a nutshell…and I don’t really tire of writing it because it is so important: Collectivism is the philosophy informing every single government which exists or has ever existed, anywhere, at any time. It establishes a Collective Ideal as the metaphysical primary from which, by which, and of which all of reality, especially and including mankind, has its direct essence and existence. In other words, all things and all men are, in their proper place, expressions of the Collective Ideal, in totality. There is to be no relevant nor practical distinction…no relationship, no corollary. All is the Collective Ideal.

The Collective Ideal, being utterly abstract—transcendent, divine, and beyond the frame of reference of human consciousness—is a mystical archetype, thus it can be almost anything. The most common broad, or general, Collective Ideal is “The People”; a more specific example is “The Working Class”. The individual, possessing a singular conscious frame of reference, is, in his root nature, a natural born enemy of the Collective Ideal. His sense of Self is his Original Sin. His individuality is a rank offense to the Collective Ideal, which does not see individuality as a legitimate expression of Reality. His Consciousness and its corollaries, will and choice, must be nullified and destroyed, then he must be absorbed into the Collective…he must become an extension of the Collective Ideal, and this is realized by his categorical obligation and obedience to the One Group, enforced and coerced by the Ruling Class—the State—which exists as the incarnation of the Collective Ideal to the masses. Men must all belong to and become a function of the One Group—the Group must have no parts, so to speak. The Collective is not an “us” but an “IS”.

As I said, this is accomplished by the State. A ruler, or a ruling class, is established (assumes power) to enforce Collectivist Ethics, known as the Law (Legality…as opposed to Morality), to which the the masses (the “unwashed” individuals) shall be obligated by violence, threats of violence, and punishment. The State—government of the ruling class—represents the materialization of the Collective Ideal into tangible reality. As far as the masses are and are to be concerned, there is simply no practical distinction, period. The ruling class is the Collective Ideal; the Collective Ideal is the ruling class. The ruling class thus becomes, for all practical purposes, The People, The Working Class, The Nation. the Race, Climate Justice, Social Justice, The Church, etcetera. The ruling class, in other words, is God to the masses, and the masses exist solely at the , whim and pleasure of its divine Authority. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is thus: if the Collective Ideal is God, the ruling class is Christ.

This is Collectivism; and the description herein is Collectivist metaphysics…in brief summary, of course. So from this, let us remember Auron MacIntyre’s interpretation of Individualism and then ask ourselves just what exactly the difference is between that and collectivism.

The answer is: there isn’t any. Auron’s definition of individualism is simply collectivism, where the Collective Ideal is the Self. One’s Self, being solipsistic in its metaphysics, and not individualist, represents that from which all others are a direct function and expression, and to which they shall be obliged whether they like it or not. This “individual” thus believes that he may commit any number of moral crimes against his fellow man, because his ”fellow man” is a lie. Only “I” exists…the “individuality” of others is an existential fraud and must be subsumed into “Self”.

As I said, this is merely collectivist metaphysics in individualist clothing. It is a complete lie to say that this solipsistic “individualism” has anything whatsoever to do with actual individualism. Like a tin wagon has anything to do with a battleship. Bollocks.

Yet there is no surprise here…Auron would define individualism this way. His ignorance is a function of his collectivist ideology. In other words, an ideologue always defines other ideas from the “immutable” frame of reference of his own (false) assumptions, which, being fundamentally a function of mysticism with a gnostic epistemology, do not possess any “null hypothesis”…which is just a fancy way of saying that the ideologue will never accept any reasonable criticism of his mystic beliefs precisely because those beliefs are not a function of reason in the first place. “An insane person cannot be reasoned out of his insanity” you might say. Thus, Auron, being a collectivist—which means an ideologue, because collectivist metaphysics are not rational, ever, in any iteration, and thus are mystical, and thus all collectivists are ideologues, not reason-ists—not only would, but only ever could define individualism from a collectivist frame of reference. That is, he would and only could define what an individual is according to a collectivist metaphysical interpretation. Which, being mutually exclusive of individualism at the root metaphysical level, must necessarily define it incorrectly, because it doesn’t understand it, because it can’t, which means Auron can’t. Collectivist metaphysics consider the individual—the Self of human singular consciousness…one’s singular conscious frame of reference—an illegitimate expression of reality…a lie and a fraud and a threat to “truth”. And in Auron’s case, a threat to the American Nation

And it is from this irrational, ideological, and mystical metaphysical frame of reference that most people approach reality, humanity having lived under the auspices of government and ruling classes for nearly the whole of human existence, and thus not really knowing anything different, and Auron is no exception. Which is precisely why, when confronted with the evil that is today’s leftist communism, his solution is simply to lie to himself and become an obverse version of the opposition. He fights collectivist ideology with more collectivist ideology. His solution isn’t freedom…though he thinks it is—he is lying to himself. His solution is to reframe and rebrand his overtly collectivist enemy as a manifestation of individualism, and then declare, implicitly or explicitly, that we need a strong, collectivist response to the evil of global, communist “individualism”. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Well…Auron doesn’t…because he is an ideologue, and rational consistency is simply not the means by which ideologues discern between what is true and what isn’t. He addresses his hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance not by seeing his rational error and correcting it, but by appealing to the mysticism of his metaphysics, which instead of seeing the rival Collective Ideal (e.g. the Communist World as opposed to the Nation State) as mere an iteration of his own collectivist metaphysics and then dealing with the hypocrisy accordingly, he simply rebrands it an invasion of “individualism” and condemns it. In other words, he takes the lazy way out. This is not a philosopher or thought leader, its a propagandist. And it is so very violent.

*

When you ask anyone, “Why does man need government?”, the answer is almost always some version of, “Well, we can’t just let people do whatever they want”. In other words, if we let human beings do “whatever they want” we will get rank psychopathy; and, if left to itself, outside the Authority of the Collective Ideal and its ruling class, humanity writ large will collapse and disintegrate under the weight of its own natural-born intellectual and moral perversion. In other words, man’s individuality—his Self, his frame of reference of singular consciousness—is insufficient to his own existence.

America, and the West in general, if we are to believe in the best of intentions—which, frankly, is a big “if”—have attempted to buck the idea of the “insufficient individual” and establish “representative” democracies to form governments that promote the “enlightened” version of individuality, and legislate the “People” in the interest of “inalienable individual rights”.

This…er…hasn’t worked, to say the least.

The United States, for example, once the smallest, most minarchist government in the world is now by far the largest, and rivaled in history perhaps only by the British Empire, which at least had the corresponding flashy pomp and ceremony. I mean, seriously, leave it to the Americans to create the only boring empire in history. And a stupid one.

At any rate, the Founding Fathers would certainly blush in embarrassment (or envy) at the hulking, monolithic, centralized abomination that their “enlightened” experiment has become. The experiment was a giant fail, to say the least.

Now, people think that the American socialist juggernaut is a deviation from its philosophical roots, but this is a lie. On the contrary, what we have today is a direct function of them, and can be traced via a direct line right back to the Constitution. That’s an easy bull’s eye, quite frankly. The socialist nightmare with which Auron now has to content on his home turf is not in spite of foundational American political principles, but a product of them.

The reason why is multi-faceted, but it it includes a rather simple and intuitive explanation…one which can be inferred from the information already written in this essay. At the heart of the United States of America is, like all nations, its government. The United States was always going to have a government, and thus the United States was always going to be rooted in collectivist metaphysics, regardless of how vociferously and genuinely its founders and political leaders espoused the virtues of individualism. Because government is always and only a manifestation of collectivist metaphysics. Always and only. Period. Full stop. Individualism simply does not recognize coercion as a legitimate means by which anything is achieved in the interest of the individual, ever, under any circumstance, and government is by nature and purpose coercive, Ever. Thus, governments and ruling classes are simply out of the question. Period. Full stop.

This being the case, the United States government, and the “enlightened” West in general, was only ever going to define and promote the “individual” according to collectivist terms. Whether they knew it or not.

And what are these collectivist terms?

They are the terms which say that individuals are insufficient to their own existence because they are, in their natural state, violent, self-serving, rapacious, pernicious, licentious, arrogant, narcissistic, solipsistic, psychopathic, thoughtless, mindless, morally degenerate, and hedonistic.

So…a society ruled by a government which exists to promote the “individual” is going to look like what, do you think? And what kind of people are going to rise to positions of prominence and authority in such a society?

Go to your television, computer, phone, newspaper, window…favorite social media site, Netflix. Spend a few moments looking around.

Exactly.

Welcome to the nightmare. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Auron is right to be concerned; and he’s not wrong in his description of the problem. I have called America the “perfect tyranny”—meaning that it is collectivist metaphysics taken to their purest, most rarified conclusion: absolute epistemological and ethical chaos. America is the object legal declaration of rank hedonism. For a government to exist to promote the “collectivist individual” means to legislate—to enforce and promote by State violence—pure evil. It is the state-sponsored utter rejection of Truth, God, and Reality writ large. It is legally enforced insanity. If you thought mid-20th century Germany or Russian was bad? Just wait.

So, yes…it is not Auron’s description that is the problem. As I said, he is right to be concerned. It’s his metaphysical analysis and solution which are the problem, because they are entirely hypocritical. What the West is doing and becoming today isn’t individualism, it is collectivism, and always has been. It’s the “Self” as the Collective Ideal…which isn’t the Self at all.

Individualist metaphysics are not solipsistic at all. Without getting into the details, because this is already getting too long, individualist metaphysics do not consider other people—other persons…other Selves—as existentially and morally inferior to one’s Self, and illegitimate, but instead corollary. In other words, to deny Others—to deny the sanctity and validity of the person, mind, spirit, and property of Others—is to deny one’s Self. Thus, it goes without saying that individualist metaphysics necessarily preclude the establishment of a State, which exists to co-opt these things in service to the Collective Ideal (meaning the ruling class) by violence…and it masks this moral affront by calling it “enforcing the Law”, and the law is purely the collectivist Ethic.

In true individualism there is no government, no ruling class, no aristocracy, no king…because there is no Collective Ideal to be made incarnate in order to compel mankind out of its “false Self” and into its proper “Collective Identity” in order to “save” “them”. In other words, human beings are born entirely sufficient to their own existence, with a conscious frame of reference which is by nature capable of apprehending Truth and Value and willfully acting in service to them according to itself. Man is able in his natural Self, not evil, and therefore does not need to be forced and coerced by some gnostic Authority into “right thinking and behavior”.

Governments, always a function of collectivism, not individualism, are utterly antagonistic to humanity, not its protector and provider; and represent its enslavement, not its freedom; and its destruction, not its salvation. In a truly individualist society where “people can do whatever they want” moral degeneracy—rape, theft, fraud, murder, etcetera—are anathema, and bring swift moral consequence, and are categorically incompatible because they represent a rejection of the rational definition of “they”. Meaning that if I do whatever I want, but what I want and what I do is the violation of my neighbor (my fellow man), then I have in fact rejected myself, and thus there is no longer a legitimate moral “I” or “Self” anywhere in the equation. I have ceased to be a man and have become death to my neighbor, and he is not obligated to suffer me. He is morally justified, and even morally obliged to protect himself and his fellow man, even if it means destroying me. Incarceration, banishment, death—these are moral consequences in an individualist society, not punishment, and I have earned them by willfully committing the crime of violating my neighbor and thus denying my Self in the process, becoming no longer a man, but an evil presence, which must rationally and morally be resisted. Thus, there is no useful nor justifiable hedonism or moral relativism in an individualist society, nor any government to inflict these by law. There are only persons, not “the People”, who together cooperate for their own good, and thus by natural, corollary extension the good of others.

Auron MacIntyre doesn’t understand individualism. Individualism could never give rise to a communist State; it couldn’t give rise to any State. Auron thinks his enemy is the left and the left’s “individualism”—its “individualist ethos”—but in reality it is himself…in the form of his foundational collectivist metaphysics. And thus, if he and his ideological comrades on the dissident right get their way, they shall inevitably become a manifestation of that which they hate.

Or at least pretend to hate.

END

The Gross Hypocrisy of the Dissident Right (Part Three)

Authority, collectivism, Metaphysics, , ,

As I said, the Dissident Right are pro-government. but anti-democratic. They believe in the State, and they believe in a big one. No surprise there…they are bog-standard statists; this is just par for the course for disaffected midwitttery. The issue here is that they are already living in a big State, so they’ve already won. What’s the fuss about, then?

Oh. Now I remember. It’s a leftist State, and they are on the right. The Dissident Right wishes to trade an authoritarianism they don’t like for one they do.

Um…okay. Now, think about the profundity of cognitive dissonance it takes to think like that. The point of authoritarianism is that those under it don’t get to choose; and the Dissident Right concedes this very point and thus their very obligation to the current Authority by being themselves authoritarians (National Socialists, to be exact). That any rank statist believes they are entitled to choose which authoritarian master they shall serve is clearly ludicrous and speaks volumes as to what the 90’s generation behind this ideology really is—impetuous, vapid, intellectually lazy, entitled. arrogant, collectivist to the core, and morally adrift. They are they obvious progeny of those already in power. Ironic.

The Dissident Right desires a government that will exercise its monopolistic coercive power in service to their ideology instead of against it. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. It’s the tired political strategy of “let us oppress our oppressors”; “let us be the master and they be the slave”; “to be oppressed is evil but to be the oppressor is good”…that sort of twaddle. It’s rationally incoherent and of course intellectually dishonest, and worst, it simply affirms the very oppression under which the Dissident Right currently finds itself…as do we all. I mean, if the formula is sound—that is, if authoritarian government is good and effective—then who is in charge at any given moment is arbitrary, fundamentally. The only political differences which could arguably matter can only occur within the ruling class, and the dissident right are not in the ruling class, by definition. Thus, they speak from a place of being entirely ruled, which is, according to their own political ideology, right where they should be. Which means, again according to their own ideology, they don’t get to choose who’s in charge. “The masses must be ruled, not empowered” is the cornerstone of the very authoritarian-type government the Dissident Right espouses; and they are among the masses. And here’s the biggest irony: the only thing to which they can appeal for political legitimacy to question their leftist masters is the enlightenment-driven, classically liberal ideals in which they were reared as citizens of the anglo-sphere…and they violently reject these ideals as fraudulent. Classical liberalism is the root of their woes, is how they look at it. Yet, they implicitly appeal to it in everything they do. It is the only basis by which they feel justified in complaining about their current situation.

Midwittery and mysticism. It’s the type of magical thinking that typifies millennials. The 90s are coming home to roost. But we knew that bill was coming due, didn’t we? And by the by, the Dissident Right is the mirror image of today’s left, and believe me it’s not an accident.

Now, sure, the right amount of rhetoric and sophistry and the lie of “our Authority will be in service to our people” no doubt will sway some to the D-right cause, but ultimately it’s just an admission that “their people” must be ruled, and ruled they shall be, and thus the best “their people” can hope for under their Dissident masters is some superficial relief for a time…maybe a generation or two…and then, when their masters’ appetite for power turns insatiable, as it ineluctably shall, they will find themselves right back where they are now, and very likely even worse.

I could end the article series right here, but it would lack satisfaction to do so because simply pointing out political hypocrisy is perhaps the least effective way to actually end hypocrisy. After all, it takes an all-pervasive and almost instinctual level of cognitive dissonance to accept and defend the concept of government writ-large, so hypocrisy is merely a root characteristic of the nature of most everyone living under it. Thus, people scarcely notice ideological and political hypocrisy when it is dangled in front of their face, let alone woven into a relatively complex philosophical and political essay.

So, more than the hypocrisy is this: the authoritarian state simply does’t work the way the dissident right intends it, no matter the lip service they pay to truth. morality. and order. There is no “they” on whose behalf the D-Right’s National Socialist state will or can act. As I have explained in some depth in my series on “Why All Governments Become Tyrannical”, government, of any type, always represents the incarnation of a Collective Ideal—wholly abstract, mystical, divine, and ontologically transcendent. It is a metaphysical, not merely descriptive, Group Identity which commands all individuals to conform themselves—their minds and bodies—to its Essential Truth. (Not their souls, because collectivist metaphysics does not consider the Individual—that is, the singular, conscious Self—to be a legitimate expression of Reality…it does not recognize the root Self, and thus, does not recognize the soul.)

An example of a general Collective Ideal is “The People”, or “We the People”; a more specific example is “The Working Class”, or “The Proletariate”…I give many other examples of common Collective Ideals in previous articles; the point is that the Collective Ideal can be almost anything; this is fundamentally because it is entirely mystical, and thus completely unreasonable (i.e. not conforming to that by which consciousness actually arrives at truth, meaning, and value).

All individuals—the “masses”—writ-large must become One with the Group…the Collective. This metaphysical premise thus persists until all of those under the Authority of the ruling class, the State, which exists both as an incarnation of the Collective Ideal and the means by which the masses are enslaved to it, are either entirely subsumed or destroyed. That is, the masses become members/expressions of the ruling class, or they are murdered (or imprisoned and left for dead, which is in essence the same thing). In which case there is no one left for the Authority to hold Authority over, so the ruling class eats itself and then collapses, whereupon some new Collective Ideal and new ruling class rises from the ashes and rivers of blood to replace the fallen one, and the whole kerfuffle starts all over again. On occasion, a revolution or other circumstance preempts the collapse of society writ-large and the incumbent ruing class is replaced within the infrastructure of the current system. This is simply a different manifestation of the same process. In either case, this is precisely how the “Matrix”, so to speak—the general collectivist metaphysical premise—perpetuates itself. Necessarily and unavoidably built into the equation is the destruction of the collectivist system, but what remains in tact, planted in the rubble, is the seed…the heart…the premise…that is, Collectivism, Itself. The metaphysics survive, and so they give rise to essential clones of previous Collective Ideals. New ruling classes emerge and coalesce, and thus the Matrix is able to continue…forever enslaving, exploiting and murdering, over and over again, on and on .

This is the Dissident Right…the new, same-old Destroyer in the guise of a Savior. They fancy themselves revolutionaries of a “special kind”, and the guardians of reason, truth, and sanity in this chaotic leftist world. All they really are is its natural evolution. A forgone conclusion.

The only real change to be made is is to stab the heart. Kill the premise and you will kill the Matrix. Reject the foundational Collectivist Metaphysics of the State and the ruling class and you will preempt all of the evil incarnations which otherwise necessarily follow, time after time, and again and again. You will break the cycle. The Dissident Right cannot do this, and thus they offer the only thing a false prophet and false savior can: more of the same. Same lies, same misery, same death. In other words, they offer nothing at all. Their grievances against the left may all be correct, but they are empty because their “solution” is entirely redundant.

What is the point of Dissident Rightism then? To reap a few generations of relief, at best? But at what cost…and how many innocents from the “other side” will die and suffer as a result of the rise of the “New Justice”? Is this what we really want? To concede the perfidy and lies of the left by conceding the very same metaphysical premises which have doomed us in our current communism because it might makes us and our children feel better for a little while? And further, if we concede the left’s premises why should we not also concede their authority?

There is no rational answer to this question. The only answer is a purely mystical one; it will all get fixed by hope over reason. By the power of millennial magical thinking.

In actuality there is only a shrug at the end of Dissident apologetics. A Dissident Right thought-leader, Dave the Distributist, has openly admitted to being a mystic; thus his most fundamental epistemological and ethical Standard is ultimately beyond his ability to comprehend and articulate because it is a function of a God which exists outside his conscious and conceptual frame of reference …again, by his own self-admitted mysticism. Yet he fancies himself an evangelist for New Right Truth.

You can’t make this up. It’s a Monty Python sketch…except its not funny. It’s risible on some level, yes, but not because it’s silly, but because it’s so very sad.

Rhetoric. Tautology. Cognitive Dissonance. Madness. In the end, the only argument the Dissident Right has for why it should be in charge and the left should not is simply…well…just because.

That’s not a recipe for anything good. Mark my words.

END

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

Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, Uncategorized, , ,

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

It’s Not About Obedience Alone, it’s About Discipleship: The ruling class demands body, mind, and soul

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, government, , ,

Recently a deranged totalitarian thug over in Australia, where they have been popping up like mushrooms lately, declared that you are an anti-vaxxer, and an enemy of public health, if you oppose the government’s injection mandate, even if you have yourself received an injection. Now, this is obvious doublespeak and completely insane by even the most rudimentary of rational standards, but nevertheless it can be explained by briefly examining the nature of the State as a function of the collectivist metaphysics upon which it is established.

Collectivist metaphysics makes it clear that the State owns you, yes, but it’s rather more profound and fundamental than that. The more precise way of putting it is that the State IS you, or that it SHALL BE you.

The State—the government; the ruling class—being the incarnation of the Collective Ideal is, again, a collective metaphysical premise. This means that “you as you”, as an individual, is a completely incongruous and invalid concept with respect to the nature of Reality. The State, on principle, rejects “you”, or “you-ness”, as a categorical lie. Thus, when it comes to what and who you are under the authority of the State, there should ideally be no distinction whatsoever. The State is you; you are the State. Your true sanctification is therefore the complete possession of you—all you have, do, think, and say—by the ruling class.

You see, your Original Sin is your innate sense of autonomous Self; your exercise of will in service to that Self is your damnable rebellion. Obedience then, by itself, is simply an act of your own will—obedience is often done merely out of self-interest, which makes it, again by itself, just another act of rebellion. To merely obey and get the injection is not real compliance. It’s not really any better than not getting the injection at all. You must agree with your heart and mind that the injection mandate is good. You must submit your will to your rulers. You must agree and promote. You must evangelize. You must take active steps to condemn, ridicule, incarcerate, and destroy those who oppose the will of the State. The State is you, and you are it.

Body, mind, and soul…anything less makes you a criminal.

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part Three)

General Philosophy, Identity, individualism vs collectivism, Man's Ability, Metaphysics, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, , , , , , , , ,

“…how can one be born if one does not exist in the first place? How can you experience birth if birth is the fundamental beginning? There is no YOU to be born prior to your birth, and so the consequence is birth but there is no action which involves you at all. The action which is entirely mutually exclusive of you somehow concludes with you.”

I understand how abstruse and arcane this quote is, taken from part two of this series, so I decided to dedicated part three to clarifying the point made, and also insofar as this point necessarily relates to death. Also, in reading back this quote I was able to anticipate possible objections and concerns as a function of the overt complexity of the argument; those will likewise be addressed.

To begin with, let’s look at this analogy. The car you drive (if you have a car, that is…if not, well, you’ll still follow) did not always exist as the car, per se. Prior to being your car it was merely a collection of parts, and before that, piles of metal and glass and plastic and paint; and before that, raw minerals which were mined from the ground, or chemicals mixed and refined in some industrial laboratory. After a few years, the car is disposed of, and will then decompose and break down, back into its multiple parts. But these parts, prior to and after the existence of the car, per se, continue to exist. They do not return to oblivion in the same way that they do not spring from it. After all, we know that according to the law of conservation of mass that matter cannot be created and destroyed; and philosophically this is form of the logic of non-contradiction. Meaning that the reason matter cannot be fundamentally created or destroyed is because a thing which exists cannot spring from non-existence, and it cannot become non-existent. Its existence IS; it is axiomatic, it is a-priori; it is de facto.

Likewise, one might say that while a human being did not exist as such prior to birth, there did exist a collection of parts—hormones and fertilizer and eggs and sperm cells and enzymes and proteins, DNA…you get the idea—which eventually came together to form the human being—let’s say you, in the interest  of casualness—that we recognize as a specific individual person. Following death, you shall desololve and decompose back into the many parts which formed you. All of these parts existed prior to you, and they all will exist after you. You are the parts, and the parts are you, and the parts remain in some for as a-priori existing; they are absolute; eternal.

Here is the problem with this explanation, and I’m sure you’ve probably already discerned it. The car, coming from a collection of parts, does not have a sense of Self. It possesses no singular consciousness…it does not recognized, or rather, it does not observe and interpret its environment, and all of reality itself, from a singular, specific, constant frame of reference. The car, in other words, does not know it’s a car. The collection of parts which make up the car do not suddenly, once in “true” car form, begin to associate as a single entity, able to conceptualize itself as a single object, and likewise its environment and all things in it. The parts of the car do not suddenly reject instinctually and naturally their distinct existence and begin to call themselves “I”, “Myself”, “Me”.

Do you see what I am getting at here? The difference between a car and a human being is that human beings DO possess a singular consciousness; a single observational and conceptulaizing frame of reference which demands and necessitates that the parts are not in fact fundamental, but merely form one’s body. Yet one’s SELF—that by which those parts paradoxically utter the words “I”, “Myself”, “Me”, and “Mine”—is the true nature and essence of human existence. To deny this is to relegate consciousness to some inexplicable epiphenomenon, or infinite mystery, or an illusion, or some random blip of mathematical uncertainty…and yet none of these claims can possibly be true because Truth itself necessitates that they be entirely false.

And it is this Self—this singularity—which I mean when I say that the human being is said to begin at birth and end at death. Of course the parts of “you” live on…and of course “you” were born of parts. I am not obtuse or blind to this obvious and pedestrian fact. But the real YOU, your SELF…your agency, awareness, will, consciousness…is NOT of parts, because there is no One from many parts; no I from Not I; no Self Awareness from infinite unconsciousness. And absolute consciousness does not “return” or dissolve into absolute unconsciousness; what IS does not become object oblivion. The law of the conservation of matter must also infer a law of conservation of consciousness (Self Awareness; which is the ability to conceptualize Self and Other) unless we are prepared to claim that consciousness is a lie or an illusion…a claim is very easily debunked and dismissed as the very mysticism and irrationality that those who peddle it claim to oppose.

And this is why I utterly reject the notions of birth and death. Not because they serve as anthropological and biological concepts to describe the cosmically and mathematically prescribed evolution of a human bing, but because they are a deception, and their fundamental meanings are completely spurious at best. Birth and death can only apply to he who is conscious, and yet they utterly contradict consciousness because they render it transitory, coming from oblivion and returning to oblivion, and thus render consciousness a moot and worthless concept. Which renders birth and death themselves moot and worthless. And yet if consciousness IS, and is ACTUAL, it must be absolute and constant, and thus likewise birth and death are rendered moot and worthless. In either and all cases, birth and death are fundamentally meaningless. They may serve as convenient contextual and subjective descriptions of a person’s existence, but they are not absolute, and are not objective, and have no actual bearing on the root nature of human existence. Birth and death are irrelevant with respect to parts. The parts, being absolute and perpetual, according to the law of conservation of matter, are not ultimately born, and do not die, and thus if man is like a car, made up of perpetually existing parts in some form or another, then he does not die and he is not born any more than a car is born or dies, except in the purely figurative sense.

But man is said to be born and then to die; and any way you try to rationalize this claim, it fails. And it fails for one simple reason. Man, unlike his car, knows himself.

END

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part TWO)

collectivist metaphysics, Determinism, Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, , , , , , ,

The Wikipedia article on the expanding universe, cited in part one of this article series, does not acknowledge the necessity of the observer to Reality, particularly with respect to movement, and ignores the distinction between movement qua movement and relative movement. Instead it appeals to the artifice of the metric tensor to explain how the universe does not actually expand, and that space and objects in space do not actually move, and yet it kinda does and they kinda do. I submit that science has become, in some fundamental way, the pseudo-philosophical, and albeit implied, art of rejecting the observer as entirely superfluous to Reality, Existence, and thus by extension, Truth and Ethics. But instead of simply admitting that science has no frame of reference for describing (the fundamental nature of) the observer, and thus conceding that he should be left to other schools of thought and other methodologies for his description, science functionally declares his “objective” non-existence as observer-qua-observer (or, better stated, his “ultimately non-efficacious existence”) an empirical fact, and this  because the observer is scientifically revealed to be so.

I am not entirely certain why science promotes this folderol…a focused and overt dissertation on the subject has never been submitted. Nevertheless, what is overt, and painfully obvious, is that science has no rationally consistent methodology for describing and explaining the observer. The observer lies completely beyond the scope of science, and for some reason this is unacceptable to the scientific community. Is it arrogance? Bullish pride? Who knows…but by rejecting the observer as purely ephemeral at best, it attempts to rectify the inrinsic contradictions this rejection of the observer necessitates…for example, that the universe is not expanding, and space and objects in space do not actually move, except that it kinda is and they kinda do. And the metric tensor is a perfect example of an artifice used to reconcile the contradiction.

“Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”  [Bold print added for emphasis]

A few problems with this…I will attempt to plot the inconsistencies as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Earlier, I stated that the claims that “neither space nor objects in space move”, and “the universe does not expand into anything, and does not require space to exist outside of it” are correct. However, it is important that I qualify my agreement as being in some way quite superficial; that is, my agreement terminates once a deeper examination of these claims in the context of the full Wikipedia quote commences (see the beginning of part one for the full quote). And unfortunately, the examination needs only be cursory.

While it is true that objects “in space” do not move, the article, as I have mentioned, fails to qualify the meaning of the word “move”. That is, it does not make the important distinction between movement qua movement, which certainly does not exist, because this is impossible in a vacuum, and relative movement, which certainly does. In a vacuum, object A, alone, does not move, because there is and can be no relevant, measurable, definable distinction between, say, A at position X and A at position Y. A is simply “in” the vacuum…there is no “where” then to its existence except itself, as it were. It just exists. It is A qua A. But if we add object B to the vacuum, then there is no longer the existence of A qua A, but also the relative existence of A to B. And now there can be a relevant, measurable, and definable distinction between A’s position at X and its position at Y—as relative to B. In this context then, A does in fact move, it’s simply that the movement is relative, not absolute. And the converse of this is also true—that B may move relative to A. Of course, it is the necessary role of the observer to determine which object, A or B, is to be the reference for the relative movement between the two. Is A revolving around B, for example, or is B revolving around A? That question can only be answered by the observer, because only the Self is constant.

Moving on.

While it is rightly stated that the universe does not expand into anything, it should, for clarity and veracity’s sake, be stated that, this being the case, the universe does not actually expand at all. Space, and its corollary, time, being non-existent outside of the universe, along with anything else, means that the universe simply exists relative to itself, so to speak…or in other words, non-relatively. Meaning that the universe simply “is what it is”. In actuality, “the universe” is simply a label we give to the sum and substance of Reality. The universe, thus,  is not a thing, so to speak, but an abstraction, and as such it holds no deeper meaning nor significance than as an abstract context for Reality. The expansion of the universe then is simply a way of describing a particular form of relative movement between certain objects man observes in his environment.

*

“It is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that actually changes in scale.”

Spacetime is an interesting concept, or phenomenon, you could say, I suppose, as it is presented to us by science. It is referred to in physics as being a “coordinate system”. But here in the Wikipedia article we see an implied distinction between the coordinate system, or the metric tensor, and spacetime.

So which is it? Is spacetime a coordinate system, or is the coordinate system distinct? Well, due to the intrinsic rational inconsistencies with the scientific conceptual perspective of spacetime, and being familiar with science’s penchant for excusing these inconsistencies by appealing to contradiction and then pretending that the contradiction is understood and appreciated by the “enlightened” few—that is, the mathematically and scientifically gifted, who today, ironically, comprise our postmodern priest class—I would say that  science most likely considers it both and neither.

Not that it matters to us really, for it is clear to the rational observer, who resists the scientific community’s determination to exceed the scope of its mathematical boundaries, that spacetime is purely a conceptual placeholder. That is, neither space nor time actually exist. The abstractions of “space” and “time” may be rendered as a mathematical coordinate system, but these are not object or empirical themselves—spacetime is not a thing to either be a coordinate system or revealed as or translated into a coordinate system. It is instead a product of man’s conceptualizing powers—a means by which man cognitively organizes certain objects in his environment.

Space is not a thing itself, it is by definition and by rational necessity the absence of things; you cannot have holes in space (e.g “worm holes”), for space is the hole. And objects do not exist in space…they simply exist. The whole point of space, the vacuum, is that it is not. And objects cannot exist in that which does not exist. And time, being a continuum, is likewise a conceptual abstraction—a product of man’s mind; a product of the conscious observer. Time is and must necessarily be a continuum, for time can have no beginning or end, it is the beginning and the end. Time can have no future or past or present, it is the future, past, and present. Time, in other words, is an infinitely linear conceptual construct which is divided into mutually exclusive units of past, present, and future, which are qualified and quantified for practical application. Spacetime, then, at its fundamental root is the abstract conceptual environment in which all empirical/material objects are said to exist at the irreducible physical level. Nothing more. The metric tensor, or the coordinate system, which physics declares the corollary existential, even ontic I would argue, manifestation of spacetime, is simply another abstract quantification of it.

Naturally science disagrees with this…the metric is no mere abstraction, you see, but a god of sorts. It has causality, and its causality is authoritative; and being mathematical and thus predictable, is determinative; and being determinative is absolute—omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Do not take the assertion that the metric “governs” the size and geometry of spacetime as some unimportant thing, its deeper implications to be glossed over as unimportant or pat. The metric governs—it commands, it controls. It acts and the universe inexorably follows suit. It declares what is to be done and the universe obeys. The universe does not itself expand, and objects and spacetime do not move, and yet the metric changes in scale, and so it does and so they do. They do not, and yet through the mysterious omnipotence of the math, they do. The contradiction, though a contradiction, is nevertheless true, and is a testament to the power of god. He who has ears, let him hear. The power of god is wiser than man…man cannot comprehend it. For man’s reason has no frame of reference, no means of apprehending or processing an IS which is simultaneously and IS NOT. Man, the priests of science declare, must accept such truths on faith alone. Math is god; and he doesn’t need your acceding or your concession to validate his truth.

The universe is merely an extension of god, who created all things ex nihilo…from nothing. And god is the metric tensor; the math. The math is infinite…changing into itself; expanding into its own infinity. So the numbers change, but they don’t, because the numbers go on forever. There is no beginning nor end; the difference in the scale of the metric is the difference in degrees of infinity, which of course is no difference at all. The universe expands, but it doesn’t; objects in space move, but they don’t. The universe, objects, spacetime…they all exist, but they don’t. But how is this possible? Because the god of science declares it so.

The intellectual disagreements between religion science, it seems, boil down to little more than debates about whose god can beat up the other.

END

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part ONE)

Determinism, Metaphysics, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, Time and Space, , , , ,

Accepting that the idea of the expansion of the universe is a phenomenon considered relatively well-understood and axiomatic by the scientific community, and perhaps in general, let’s assume Wikipedia to be a credible citation for summarizing expansion:

“The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand “into” anything and does not require space to exist “outside” it. Technically neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”

Focus for a moment on this section: “…it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself…”

How does Wikipedia define “metric”?

”In general relativity, the metric tensor…may be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential of Newtonian gravitation.”

“And if we look up the word “tensor” we are told that this is a:

”…mathematical object anologous to but more general than a vector, represented by an array of components that are functions of the coordinates of space.” 

In other words, what science, particularly physics, is telling us is that the only thing which is active, and thus existing (where existence to be efficacious must be active, not passive…for existence which does not “do” is not actually existing) is the mathematical coordinate system. All else then, is passive. All else except the metric tensor does not do; does not move; does not act. Thus, existentially speaking, it is purely illusory. Reality is, in true essence, a set of infinite abstract placeholders which somehow the mathematically-inclined observer may apprehend and define, even though he, himself, is not actually there.

This may seem like quite a large leap of logic. How does one arrive at such a philosophical conclusion from a purely academic monograph on tensors, vectors, geometry, and spacetime?

I’ll explain.

*

I was somewhat surprised to see the Wikipedia article on the expansion of the universe admit that the universe cannot and does not actually expand into anything. I was further surprised to see it admitted that neither space nor objects in space actually move. Accepting the logic of the relativity of movement in a vacuum, the conclusion that there is no movement qua movement (non-relative movement) would seem quite self-evident, yet I’ve never seen it admitted by science. Perhaps I’ve just not been hanging around the right circles and source material.

At any rate, both the claim that the universe does not actually expand (expansion qua expansion) and that space and objects in space do not actually move (movement qua movement) are of course completely true. Perhaps the reason for my surprise at seeing them admitted in a science article is that such claims are more a metaphysical acknowledgment than a physical one. They require a certain meta analysis of the universe qua the universe, rather than the universe as experienced relative to the observer. The former is falls more within the scope of philosophy, the latter, physics. This of course is fine, there is nothing wrong with anyone citing a fact, it’s just that I’ve grown more accustomed to science hijacking philosophy and then promptly mangling it like a toddler on a jelly sandwich instead of actually accepting its distinct truth.

Unfortunately, no sooner does the article make the (albeit implied) important and complex distinction between physics and metaphysics, when this distinction is almost immediately obliterated, with science once again hijacking philosophy and handling it like a monkey handles a clarinet.

What this article implies is that all of reality is boiled down to a mathematical artifice…a McGuffin, you could call it. You see, to bridge the gap between metaphysics and physics, a bridge which is recognized by the declaration that the universe doesn’t actually expand (that is, it doesn’t expand into anything…and by this we can extrapolate the logical assertion thus that the universe doesn’t actually expand at all) and that space nor objects in space actually move, science submits a purely abstract, purely cognitively manifested contrivance of an infinite set of specifically structured numerical and symbolic placeholders. It replaces the whole of efficacious (active, and thus, existent) reality with this set, which of course has the effect, intended or unintended (it doesn’t matter), of punting the entire real field of metaphysics and all of philosophy with it into the endless abyss of mysticism.

And even more egregious is the fact that the irony is completely lost on those atheists who appeal to science as proof of the rationality of dismissing God and the notion of God altogether. Because only fools believe in the fairy tale of the “magic man in the sky”, whilst the rational objectivists and sane empiricists can see that clearly all things are created and controlled instead by an invisible, yet omnipotent, omniscient, and ominipresent mathematical coordinate system summing all things to infinity on infinity.

If that’s not psychological projection then I don’t know what is.

*

Movement, you see, doesn’t exist…that is, the article tells us that the universe does not expand, and that space and objects in space do not move, but instead it is the “metric” which changes in scale”.

Except of course, that there is movement. The concept of movement is not irrational; actual movement does happen…the idea is efficacious; action occurs. It only needs to be qualified that movement is relative. An observer needs to be part of the equation in order to provide a reference for the relationship between two or more objects in a vacuum…because the observer—the Awareness of Self (the “I” of Self)—provides the (only rational) constant for object relationship in a vacuum. Once the observer is present to declare that, for example, “X shall revolve around Y” or “Y shall revolve around X”, then movement can be objectively defined, said to exist, and this efficaciously and actually so, and then mathematically measured. Mathematics are a conclusion, or an effect, not a cause, you see.

But science doesn’t accept the rationality and actuality of the observer. Because it has long ago confused and conflated mathematical truth with philosophical truth, it has relegated the observer to at best an undefinable and ultimately irrelvant epiphenomenon, inconsistent and incompatible with reality, because reality is to be wholly defined scientifically, which is to say mathematically.

Movement, even relative movement, is jettisoned and replaced with a metric which “changes in scale”, which is not movement at all, really , but merely the predetermined “evolution” of an infinite numerical and symbolic mathematical data set. And thus, since nothing actually moves, up to and including the universe, the existence of such is entirely passive, which means that its “existence” doesn’t actually exist. Because if existence doesn’t mean existing, then there is no such thing as existence in the first place. The universe, and all in it, and thus you and me of course, aren’t actually there. There is no observer. And thus there is no constant for movement. All is just an infinite data set which reveals a particular sum at a particular predetermined rate at a particular predetermined time…and all of these particulars are merely illusory, too, for the data set is, again, infinite. Thus, all units of data are merely units of infinity, which renders them ultimately impossible to define. So the grand answer to the cosmic question of life and existence and reality and truth and everything can be summed up by science as merely the  conclusion that “infinity equals infinity”. And, I mean, I don’t even know what you’d call this. It’s some kind of grand atrocity of nihilistic intellectual error, to be sure, but if there is a name for it which illustrates appropriately its level of debasement of all morality and meaning, I don’t know what it is. I couldn’t begin to conjure one up, it’s that bad.

END part ONE

The Conflicting Realites of State and Individual Citizen: The ethics difference

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, Ethics, forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, Metaphysics, morality, Violence, , , , , , , , , ,

All governments by nature and implicit definition are founded upon collectivist, not individualist, metaphysics; and I have discussed the differences between these two metaphysical constructs many times on this blog. Government represents an Ideal, which is simply an abstract archetype for Reality, itself…a superstructure, or meta-structure, if you like, but it is completely subjective. Government is is tasked with organizing the existence of both humanity and its environment into this grand, overarching ideal, which, being subjective, could be anything at all: a Worker’s Utopia; We the People; the Aryan Nation; Society of Social Justice (i.e. Marxist Communism); God’s Chosen People; the Diversity Paradise; the King’s Land…you get the idea. In order to do this, government must first interpret Reality in a collective sense…that is, it must assume that all that is seen is a direct and absolute function of the Ideal, and government’s job is to subdue the ostensibly disparate components of Reality, including humanity, and organize them into a cooperative system which works collectively to singularly serve the interest of the Ideal…which functionally means serving the governemnt—the State—which is the material incarnation of the Ideal, containing the sum and substance of the Ideal’s entitled power of practical utility. To the individual citizen, this power, as it inevitably becomes more and more overt and comprehensive, looks like tyranny; he sees soaring tax rates and expanding government interference in commerce and free market value exchange as theft; he sees the subterfuge, doublespeak, hypocrisy, artifice, racketeering, and general political corruption as bearing false witness; he sees the warmongering, empire building, law-enforcement excess and brutality, the facilitation or outright commission of foreign and domestic political coups, false flag crises, and the insatiable military industrial complex as murder. In other words, the individual, particularly one living in a western reprentative democracy, which is founded upon the illusionary and completely contradictory-to-government notions of individual right to life and liberty…yes, the individual is operating on a different set of ethics, and this is because he is, even subconsciously, operating likewise from a different metaphysical interpretation of reality (usually…I’m speaking in general terms). You see, the individual assumes that he exists as himself, a singular agent and agency, a Self qua Self, with a singular and efficacious and actual Volition, which exists of and for and to HImself, and therefore possesses a innate and inherent right to own himself. And this means that the role of the State—though impossible, representing the very denial of government entirely—is to protect and promote his body, which he owns, and thus the product of his body’s labor, and thus to promote free association and uncoerced value exchange as a means of social, politcal, and economic association. From this Individualist principle the Individual thus assumes that coercive State policy (threats of punishment to achieve political ends) constitutes implicit (and often explicit) murder; contradiction, hypocrisy, pandering, doublespeak, subterfuge, exagerration, and propaganda is lying; taxes (at least in some forms…in reality, however, all forms), debt, economic meddling, coporate and special interest bribery, and subsidization (at least in some forms…in reality, all forms) is theft. The individual feels this way because the ethics to which he subscribes—the ethics of morality, as opposed to legality—demand that he do so. Moral ethics establish the Individual as the Standard of Universal Good and Truth. And since the Individual is defined according to the metaphysics as Singualar, Conscious, Conceptualizing, and therefore fully Volitional/Willfull, then uncoerced value exchange (i.e. trade/contract in all of its various forms, both formal and informal) represents the only ethical means by which the metaphysics can be applied rationally to Reality. The forced removal of ones property, or theft, becomes evil; violations of one’s body become murder; interpreting or rendering reality in ways which violate the Individual’s ability to properly ascertain and thus organize it (hypocrisy, false witness, deception, etc.) becomes lying. Murder, theft, lying…these are all evil according to the ethics of morality; and morality is entirely and only a function of Individualist metaphysics. And morality is NOT legality, and thus, it has nothing to do with the State. And what’s more, murder, theft, and lying only exist as a function of moral ethics. They are not and cannot be meaningful to  legal ethics. In other words, as far as the State is concerned, the lying to, and the murder and theft of the individual do not exist. And this is because the Indivdual, from the frame of reference of the collectivist metaphysics from which the State operates, does not exist. You cannot take from one who does not own himself; cannot lie to one who does not know himself; cannot murder he who is not himself.

And here we begin to see the conflict…the mutually exclusive frames of reference between the Individual Citizen and the State Official is the singular foundation of all social choas, in all forms both public and private I submit, and is implied and necessarily animated and catalyzed by the State, with increasingly authoritarian consequences. The establishment of the State creates a society where individualist and collectivist metaphysics collide. The implicit and natural awareness of the moral right of the individual to own himself is disasterously combined with the implicit legal right of the State to coerce by force the indivdual into a collective reality. The friction begins as a small festering sore which is aggravated by ever increasing government despotism against which the individual rebels in whatever way he can that will not run him afoul of the law, to no avail, as he is hopelessly outgunned by the money and violent power of the State, and marginalized and demagoged by powerful and powerfully dogmatic explicit and implicit collectivist institutions and philosophies which overtly and inadvertently promote collectivist metaphysics, like the media and the scientific and religious determinists. Thus, as more and more individuals wallow in the misery of a marginalized and meaningless existence in an ever-increasing insane asylum of collectivist disciples run by an almost unfathomably powerful and rich ruling class, and as more collectivist polices are inacted to “help” those who suffer from polices designed to destroy them by denying their existence altogether, the moral and psychological foundations crumble. The ruling class implements more and more draconian strategies to deliever on the collectivist “Eden” promised to “the People”, many of the ruling class unaware that they are the only ones who can ever possibly live in it because they are it.  All of these strategies fail, of course, because they necessarily must, because the logical presumption of collectivist metaphysics, whether a given politician knows it or not, is that the eradication of individuals is the ethical Good, and the arrant achievement of the Good is the whole damn point of of the metaphysics in the first place. Through the socialization of just about everything—from healthcare to food to education to transportation to employment to childcare to leisure—indolence is affirmed, promoted, and perpetuated. This subsidized indolence leads necessarily to the irrelevance and forsaking of one’s mind, which leads to the forsaking—implicit or explicit— of one’s Self. Eventually, no longer able to extract any more meat or leather from the tax cattle, and no longer able to pay its foreign and domestic creditors, and collapsing under the weight of debt and infighting and external pressures and threats, and thus with no one left to functionally rule and thus no one left to compel into the Collective Ideal, the ruling class collapses or dissipates or scatters or infiltrates other societies/social networks and so goes the nation. This unavoidable end is often bloody and ferocious and apocalyptic, but sometimes it fizzles with a whimper. Either way, end it shall, and there are always mass graves of some sort or another left behind to remind us of the failure of collectivist metaphysics. Not that anyone really notices because, like the Matrix, it always starts all over again eventually.

You will never convince the State that it is tyrannical, no matter how egregious its excesses or atrocious and self-serving its transgressions, because it simply possesses no frame of reference for its own tyranny. It certainly sees itself as the Authority of the land, but you must understand that it holds to a fundamentally different interpretation of the concept. To the individual citizen (and to the individualist it is explicit and obvious), State authority is simply force—government coercing via violence and threats of violence its citizens out of their life and property. In other words, though they perhaps expect the State to act morally, they comply with the State’s legality. That is, they understand that the way the State operates is to take from the individual against his will, considering will as irrelvant with respect to legal obligation, in the interest of the “greater”, or “common good”. The individual operates from a place of uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for much of the lifespan of the nation, accepting a weird and ultimately unworkable amalgamation of legal ethics and moral ethics. Eventually the people begin to notice the stark shift of social norms in the direction of the legal end of the ethical “spectrum”; this is inevitable, as the whole point of the State is to eventually subsume all vestiges of individualism into collectivist “reality”. There is greater reliance on government violence and coercion to “solve” problems, compromise or cooperation become more and more unlikely as the polarization between individualist and collectivist ideology becomes a “cold civil war”; voters are bribed with government promises to subsidize their concerns away, which inevitably requires higher taxes and even higher national debt, polarizing the nation even more as concerns about the solvency of the economy and the legitimacy of the system on the whole begin to send waves of anxiety and anger throughout the populace. Citizens are distracted from the obvious political corruption and mendacity through the bromide of political circuses, vapid entertainment heavily submerged in socialist ideology, and the corporate and political encouragement to engaged in all forms of hedonism, specifically gluttony and sexual promiscuity, with the destruction of the nuclear family and the epidemc of abortion and single motherhood further destroying social cohesion and trust, promoting even more anger and fear, all of which is naturally exploited by the ruling class towards the achievement of even more power and wealth. The citizenry is also distracted by the wanton and widespread legal double standards which excuse the political and celebrity and corporate classes from everything from child sex trafficking to open murder, whilst the middle class is terrorized by threats of being ostracized, or worse, and called insane conspiracy wackos  for merely pointing this out; and accused of all forms of bigotry for not accepting its “responsibility” to “pay its fair share”, which is simply code for accepting and embracing neo-Marxist ideology and in particular socialist economics. The lower class, whilst being imprisoned in massive numbers for the slightest and most anodyne of infractions, and imprisoned in general in ghettos of institutionalized poverty and nihilism, is used to threaten the middle class…the ruling class will have no choice, you see, but to unleash the hordes of lower/working class “victims” who are just itching to exact revenge upon their middle class slavemasters—the middle class being the bourgeoisie root of all “evil” in the world according to the Marxist collectivists who increasingly own the narrative, and this as the media becomes little more than a State Ministry of Propaganda . Borders are purposefully left porous, as a tacit lower class invasion is permitted by the State, terrorizing the middle class into greater submission. The celebrity, corporate, and political classes are of course safe and sound behind the thick, high walls, bristling with guns, of their ivory towers, so such threats and invasions against the middle class come often and easy, as those who wield power rest imminently secure. After all, worst case scenario, they can always flee to Costa Rica or some other foreign haven, and access their tax-free offshore accounts to finance their lavish lifestyles until kingdom come.

But understand, again, that because the State functions entirely from the ethics of legality and not morality, it does not acknowledge that tyranny is possible for it; it does not accept that its Authority can ever be authoritarian. For the State, theft, murder, and false witness do not exist. It cannot steal from, kill, or lie to that which it owns according to the metaphysical principles upon which it established. Remember, according to the State’s collectivist metaphysics, all of Reality is to be brought into accordance with the Collective Ideal, which is the absolute source of Reality, and the means of doing this and thus the practical (material) incarnation of this Ideal is the State. In other words, the collective Ideal is Reality, and the State’s job is to organize it so that it reflects this Ideal aesthetically. And the “perfect” aesthetics are achieved by making a “perfect” Reality, epistemologically, ethically, and politcally, all beginning with the metaphysics.

The State machinations of this undertaking may to us look like murder, theft, deception, incompetence, and corruption…and in fact they are (for the metaphysics of individualism are perfectly rational, and never contradict, which makes them True and Good; Collectivist metaphysics are thus necessarily False and Evil…and their near infinite rational inconsistency on every level bears this out). But to the State—the ruling class and their corporate/celebrity bedfellows—murder, theft, et al is merely the necessary discharging of its collectivist obligation; the perfunctory disposing of its own naturally-entitled property. Why do you think Eichmann was so blasé about his complicity in the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany? Because as far as he was concerned, it was merely an administrative task…like filing records, date entry, and keeping the books. He said as much himself.  And, to be frank, he was being entirely consistent with the metaphysics which he accepted as absolute and irreducibly true. The State technically owned the Jews and everyone else, in his mind…and therefore it can’t be murder then. After all, the State has a right to do what it wants with what it rightly owns.

And by the by, all of this is true for the Church, which defines God implicitly as a Collective Ideal which it exists to discharge upon the earth by force and threats of hell and torment and excommunication. God cannot sin, you see, not fundametally becaue he is wholly rational and considers all men to be their own agents, entitled to their own lives and property and choice…in other words, not because He is moral. But because He is the Collective Ideal…He IS everything, and therefore owns everything. Thus, there is no such thing as murder, theft, et al for God. It’s all His legal right to exercise the legal ownership of His property. And the Church is His Presence on earth. So to those of you who think they shall find refuge in a some kind of “moral theocracy”, think again. “Moral theocracy” is a contradiction in terms.

END