Tag Archives: philosophy

The Gross Hypocrisy of the Dissident Right (Part Two)

Authority, collectivism, government, Metaphysics, ,

It is curious to me, when confronted with the problems unique to government in form and scale, that the source of these problems is never identified as government, itself. In other words, the problem is never the existence of government.

Human thinking at its core seems to contain the false notion that man must be ruled in order to survive. It seems as necessary to man’s survival as breathing. It is an unconscious, even subconscious, instinctual assumption that makes hypocrites of everyone who decides that government X is bad and should be replaced with government Y, These people don’t realize that if man was capable of coming to that conclusion on his own, he wouldn’t need government in the first place. If man could figure how he should be properly ruled, he wouldn’t need to be ruled.

The hypocrisy here is several-fold, but the crux of it is this: the specious metaphysical premises (concerning the nature of man and reality) which assert why government must exist is entirely identical between governments X and Y. This means that at the most fundamental level, there is literally zero difference between them; and they both look at their constituency writ large in exactly the same way—as existentially flawed and needing to be first controlled, then subsumed.

What is this existential flaw? 

It is the flaw of individuality. Each human being possesses an intrinsic, indelible, singular conscious frame of reference…the “I”, or “Self” of individual existence. This is the Original Sin of man’s birth. He is born utterly un-collectivized. And as the government, the State, is an institution entirely rooted in collectivist metaphysics, this makes human beings writ large its enemy.

Man by nature thinks as “Self”; he wills and chooses as Self; he acts as Self…and that is why he is born in sin and suffers root existential insufficiency the moment he is born. And this is why government is necessary, you see. Reality, according to the metaphysics which inform government, is not individual, but collective. Your individual consciousness is a lie. There is no you qua you. There is no “your Self” in an epistemological and ethical corollary relationship with “Other” (other Selves). There is only the Collective Self, and One Collective Truth which is the Collective Ideal, which is The Divine Sovereign on whose behalf the government—meaning the “enlightened” ruling class—rules. Common examples of these Collective Ideals are: The Nation, The Empire, The Race, The Culture, The Workers, The Greater/Common Good, Social Justice, Climate Justice, The Church, and The People, to name just a few. That is reality; and you, with your Individual Conscious Self, are naturally opposed to this reality, and therefore, you must be governed…and “governed ” means “ruled”, and “ruled” means “controlled”, and “controlled” means owned, You qua you cannot be allowed to be. The True Consciousness—the Collective Consciousness—must be dictated to you from outside your Self. And you must be compelled into compliance with the will of the Collective Ideal, which really means the will of the ruling class.

You must be compelled out of Your Self and into The Group. Your singular, conscious Will must be replaced by an obligation to Law (moral ethics swapped for legal ethics) which is a set of Collective behaviors to which the individual shall be compelled by force, propaganda, spurious philosophies, and meaningless traditions by the ruling class. The military and the police, being the bedrock of coercive power, shall be subsidized by the masses. Individuality is not an affliction from which the ruling class suffers, of course, and this is because of…well…magic…divine intervention…special knowledge (gnosis). They don’t need the law, after all, so why should they pay for it?

They won’t. You will. Whether you like it or not. 

Of course in the United States the common trope is that no one is above the law, and we all must “pay our fair share”. Absolute bunk. This yarn of fantasy has been spun and consumed by Americans since the before the Constitution’s ink was dry. Yet a sleepy glance at the law applied to the masses versus the ruling class reveals a discrepancy large enough to shame the Grand Canyon, whilst the preponderance of millionaires and billionaires in positions of political power reveals an even starker discrepancy relative to the tax burden. So much for “all men are created equal”. That anyone fell (or falls) for this rank political absurdity is shameful; that any soldier died for it is an abomination. Look…that the US government was ever going to be compromised of a benevolent collection of humble citizen-servants is perhaps the oldest and clumsiest lie this country has ever told itself. My own cynicism tells me that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have believed such obvious nonsense when crafting the Constitution, which makes me think the whole Convention was little more than a political feint…but who knows? Maybe they were just arrogant and delusional enough to think that they could somehow perform the alchemy necessary to synthesize the State’s coercive nature with individual freedom. In reality, however, it was complete rubbish.

*

The ruling classes are absolved of their own Original Sin of Individual Consciousness by appealing explicitly or implicitly to some divine, transcendent appointment…they rule not as mere humans, you see, but as ambassadors—which really means “incarnation”—of the transcendent Collective Ideal—which really means “God”. Hence why the ruling class claims the Authority to enforce the law whilst they, themselves, are never actually subject to it. They are the law, you see, as far as you and I and the rest of the unwashed are concerned, which means that they are the Authority of the Law, which means that they are that which gives the Law its efficacy and meaning. Which in effect and in practicality means that, again, they are God to us. In the case of a theocracy, the ruling class is quite literally God; in case of a representative democracy like the United States, they are The People, which is, once you cut through the rhetoric, just a euphemism for God. They are the Collective Ideal—that transcendent, utterly abstract, unseeable, ultimately unknowable, infinite and infinitely perfect All in All from which all things are made and that which the individual, with his wicked and preternatural Conscious Sense of Individual Self, is in perpetual rebellion as a function of his being born at all. 

Therefore the ruling class hates you…the government hates you…because it must hate you, otherwise there is fundamentally no reason for it to be the ruling class in the first place. This hatred—and hate’s political corollary, fear—is the immutable nature of every State from the beginning to eternity. There is no government that can ever truly serve humanity because it is contrary to its nature to serve. It is not designed to serve, it is designed to rule. That’s what it does. That’s all it does. It is force at the metaphysical level…its essence is violence. It is the Destroyer, not the Creator. The government is chaos…it exists to eradicate the individual, to eradicate the Conscious Self, the I. It is UnTruth; it is UnGood. It pretends to be the incarnation of God, but in reality it nullifies God by destroying the one thing in Creation which is capable of recognizing Him as God—the Individual. It destroys consciousness and thus the very frame of reference for reality, itself.

And that’s why humanity keeps winding up victims of ruling class mendacity trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. And, alas, right on cue here come the dissident right midwits to the rescue with a proposition for a “new” ruling class that will do power “right” this time. 

Sure they will.

Chattel slavery and the Battle of the Somme were both government programs; the atomic bomb was a government program; Auschwitz and the Rape of Nanking were government programs; Cortes’s rampage across the Aztec Empire was a government program; the Aztec’s practiced human sacrifice, a practice of the State religion, and thus was also enforced by the State, which makes it in essence also a government program. Yet by some deeply impressive cognitive dissonance, the moral atrocities which inexorably follow government in all its forms—democratic, capitalist, communist, monarchist, tribal, dictatorship—are always somehow in spite of it, not a product of it.

Astonishing. 

Thus the solution to the problems which are naturally a function of government never include the simple act of merely questioning the efficacy of government, let alone its existence, let alone suggesting the dismantling of its institutions and a categorical repudiation of the philosophies which inform it. At best we might get a superficial change in leadership, or a change in the “ism”, which of course never actually fixes anything. At best it postpones some inevitable disaster for a while, but in the meantime introduces a host of new ones.

It is curious how an institution which solely exists to coerce by violence and threats of violence is never considered the problem when people in a “free democracy” like the United States begin to feel as though their current political and economic situation isn’t quite as “free” or “democratic” as they thought. Such is the epidemic of cognitive dissonance. A long time ago God warned world vis-a-vis the Israelites not to demand a King, and we still haven’t learned. We pray for a benevolent State and benevolent leadership and from them, peace. We might as well pray for square circles. 

To keep beating this dead horse, the purpose of government is to coerce human behavior through explicit and implicit violence, and thus to control the will and the mind of the individual, and there is nothing benevolent about this. How could there be? Government represents the eradication of consciousness, and thus the eradication of reason and its progeny, Morality and Truth. This is why government always becomes tyrannical, even if benevolence is intended…something “of and by the People” as it were. The reality is that the ruling class, according to its nature, destroys the individual, and subordinates him to an entirely spurious “Collective Responsibly”, in service to the Collective Ideal. From this, individuality is supposed to magically morph into a supreme “Collective Consciousness”, which of course is impossible. Nevertheless the ruling class is ideologically compelled to force-collectivize the masses, which leads to society-wide chaos through ever increasing degrees of public control as the State removes all manner of individuality from the individual. The violence inevitably becomes overt, leading to mass death and systemic collapse.

The collectivist metaphysics at the root of Government are a lie. They are irrational, they are anti-reason, anti-language, anti -consciousness, and anti-life. . The Truth is individualism, period. Government’s entire purpose thus is to take man’s nature and by some alchemy change it into that which it is NOT. In short, government is in the business of making square circles. Government doesn’t then simply fail then, you see, but it is failure, institutionalized.

So, with regards to society under government, what is it, stripped down of all the fake philosophizing and pretense? 

It is the ruling class and the ruled; the master and the slave; the owners of men and the men who are owned. Everything else is fantasy. To think that replacing government X or politician A with government Y or politician B is going to do anything other than rotate the circle of history is complete delusion. 

Hence then the hypocrisy of those who belong to dissident right. The dissident right, being understandably disaffected by the globalist cult of neo-Marxism which passes for political leadership in the west, has fallen for the oldest trick in the book, and allowed themselves to be distracted by the shine of power rather than to do what is wise and truly revolutionary, which is to not immediately desire and seek power, but to examine the metaphysics of power, and go from there. To accept power as a-prior is foolish. 

The shine of power makes us believe that power is both the root of all social, political, and cultural ills and simultaneously the primary solution. This is a lie. It cannot be both. It cannot simultaneously be cause and effect, good and evil, truth and lie. If state power is the source of woes, it cannot also be the solution. One cannot fight cancer with cancer, or Marxist ideology with fascist ideology, and one cannot replace government X with government Y and expect any rationally or morally significant outcome.

Predictably and perfunctorily, the desire of the dissident right is to wrestle power from the left. Not that they have any coherent plan for this…they are revolutionary dilettantes at this stage. Nevertheless, implicitly or explicitly, they all assert that authoritarianism will be necessary to “right the ship”, as it were, at least in the short term. After that…well, if they can finally achieve a society comprised of the “right kind of people”, perhaps a more representative sort of arrangement can be considered. 

Right. 

In short, the dissident right is obviously a national socialist movement…I don’t even think they deny this anymore. Seems cliche to go there, but the truth is the truth. 

This appeal to authoritarianism as some kind of real solution is of course hilarious in its absurdity, and is insulting to the intelligence of even your average midwit. Apart from the obvious fact that authoritarian states never give up power willingly, for obvious reasons, it reveals just how ignorant the dissident right is when it comes to understanding the real nature of power, and of government. Like I said in part one of this series, the dissident right is highly educated but spectacularly lacking in wisdom. They have read many books, memorized many political theories and sociological and cultural philosophies, yet the depth of their actual understanding can be breached with a fingernail.

[End part two]

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

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, government, individualism vs collectivism, Uncategorized, , ,

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

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

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

Anyway…

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

Well, what does that mean?

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

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

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

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

Let me try to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else is new?

END

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 1)

Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , ,

“Gravitational Waves are ‘ripples’ in space–time…”

“‘Waves’ of changing space–time would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

I don’t know everything there is to know, and thankfully I don’t have to. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. In order to successfully exist as a rational creature, pursing Truth and Morality in perfect and purest form, one only has to know this: Existence is rationally consistent; Reality cannot contradict.

Here is an axiom I recently devised as a simple means to apprehend and process the connection between consciousness/cognition and the empirical environment:

“A conceptual contradiction is a physical impossibility.”

Here is an example of what is meant by this: from the position of a given observational (conscious) frame of reference, going left cannot simultaneously be going right in either the abstract or the practical. The abstract idea is a contradiction in terms; any attempt to create and/or actually observe “going left whilst also going right” in the real world shall fail, and will always fail. We can only observe reality from a singular and single frame of reference at any given moment, and that reference cannot bear contradiction…in both senses of the word “bear” here. Now, if we are defining “left” and “right” from the frames of reference of two people looking at the movement from opposite sides, then it can be said that contextually (or subjectively) left is also right because the claim is contextualized and qualified by describing the different positions of the observers. However, the claim is subjective only. At face value, “left is also right” is a contradiction and thus is to be entirely rejected until a qualification is forthcoming. If no qualification exists, thenit is a lie.

Put it general terms, the axiom above inplies simply: A cannot also simultaneously be B. In other words, it is impossible that A may simultaneously be B universally and objectively. The only objective/universal claim is one which applies equally to all observers in all contexts; it is unchanging, and is informed by a single epistemological premise—a single, fundamental defintion of what constitutes truth—based upon a metaphysical premise (what is the nature of reality) which is internally rationally consistent and self-affirming. These are the only parameters available for Objective Truth and from it Objective Reality. If we are all looking at a square on a blackboard, and we all accept the defintion of “square”, then that square cannot also be a circle. Period. Ever. There is no Reality A which somehow by some magic or math is integrated with Reality B, even though they are mutually exclusive realities according to the terms in which they are described, which can mean that we, the observers, are viewing a square which is also a circle…where the square and the circle are equally the same but also categorically different. No. All such claims are object lies. They cannot be. They are anti-Truth. There is no appealing ot mystery, to some Divine force, to law’s of nature, to governing mathematics, to Determinism, to the limitations of human understanding. All of that is a lie. As soon as someone tells you that A is also B and they do not qualify that statement by appealing to context and terms which thus shall render it fundamentally subjective, it is a lie. Period. Full stop. End of story.

The square is not also a circle.

Left is not also right.

The tree is not also a cloud.

And waves cannot exist in a medium which cannot be displaced.

END part 1