| |
ANARCHISM IDENTIFIES the coercion of the State as the main hindrance to freedom and liberty. Yet most anarchists fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth. How is this, and what value is there to anarchism if it is simply a no-State hierarchical blueprint for society? The influence of the corrupted mind and in-the-box thinking on anarchist theory, is the main target of analysis in this essay. How deep is this corruption in our thinking and to what extent does it impinge on the way we see the world, anarchists and statists alike?
“No amount of scientific evidence will ever dispel a single religious notion. Until the mind is turned upon itself to understand the cause of this insanity, the life of an individual will count for nothing.”
I wrote that about 30 years ago. I have seen nothing since to change the conclusion. Indeed, have seen the conclusion confirmed a thousand times over. The term, insanity, is not used as figure of speech, nor as a pejorative. It is used definitively as is my practice with use of language or examination of language usage by others.
Setting aside arbitrary declarations such as “legally insane,” insanity as defined and descriptive is the failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside. Also, as you will see in what is to follow, the term, religion, does not refer only to a formalized version with churches and rituals. It refers to all beliefs of a particular kind of like content regardless of the difference in subjective labels.
There is nearly a universal cry about the horror of war with a declared desire to end it. Yet, cause has not been determined and eliminated with subsequent cessation. The absence of knowledge of the cause of the warring chaos of past and present is not because of some deeply hidden complex secret. The answer lies right on the surface.
The problem is a near-universal psychological condition wherein simple truths are denied and discarded in emotional deference to confused and complex lies. Contributing to the mental blank out of simple truth is also the matter of war being valued due to certain beliefs held, but most often vehemently denied. Without studying and understanding mind (the director of all action) in relation to these war-oriented beliefs, failure to change things and achieve peace and harmony is a foregone conclusion.
In the category of denial of simple truths, I, along with others, was taught in elementary school that everything that exists is made up of something called matter. I was also taught energy is matter changing state. In conjunction is that whatever happens and all that happens is determined by 100% consistent and 100% reliable natural laws. I had no reason to doubt this; in fact was aware of the death and decay or plants and animals which corresponds to the teaching. Many decades later, I still have no reason to doubt. All I have witnessed in my entire life is in correspondence with the declaration.
As for natural law, how else could truth be known except by constants for the basis of determining truth? Of course, in a dynamic existence, change is ongoing, but it is natural law that determines the degree and rate of change enabling us to discern fact from fiction by reference to said natural laws. Once again, in my entire life, I have never seen an exception, nor been able to imagine how there could be.
During the same time period of youth, in a place called a church, I was taught the exact opposite. It was believed and taught that dying didn’t really happen; there was “life after death.” Material decay was a bit too much to ignore in this particular sect, so the “life after death” thing was a matter of the “soul,” a non-corporeal something that could experience “eternal bliss” though all sensory apparatus had returned to dust. No explanation was given for how this is going to work.
The most disturbing of all these religious teaching is the “explanation” as to how all this comes about. It was believed and taught there is an omni god who created all and can change reality at will. This directly contradicts the idea of immutable natural law of insentient nature. The religious scene set acquiring “truth” on a different plane by a different method: “Revealed truth” known only by “communication with God.”
What is described above is mind divided against itself. At such an early age, I understood little, but still could not reconcile the opposites. I could not “respect” these beliefs and not question. By much mental effort over a very long period of time, I came to know much of what was and is going on.
To put in capsule form what underlies all the effects, this is the situation: With the insertion of the omni god idea, reality is mentally reversed. At the same time immutable natural laws which do exist are dismissed as absolutes by the omni will concept, by the same omni will idea, there is inserted the idea of philosophical absolutes which do not exist.
Of all the realizations, the most critical was and is understanding a mind divided against itself and how it adversely affects all areas of an individual’s life from global warfare through the most personal matters. This mind division has been in past and is in the present the condition of at least 99.9999% of the population of the world.
At the aforementioned early age, I became haunted by two questions: How does the mind work? How do you know what you know? Finding the answers has been my most demanding passion for over 60 years. I still have questions, but did find some answers. You will not find these answers in official documents, nor in textbooks, nor any popular publications, nor any material created and/or used by the “mental health experts.”
I do not propose to go into infinite detail about the “mechanics of mind,” but will point out some critical principles with abbreviated explanation. To understand the what and why of a belief, it is necessary to understand the mental how of processing information.
A core principle of mind operation is that it works by differential reference. This is a natural law of mind with a 100% consistency. This mind principle operates on both the conscious and subconscious level. The conscious level operation is very easy to see. The subconscious level is not so easy to see, but can be known to exist and function by observing the consequent cause and effect. The subconscious function parallels the conscious differential reference principle in all respects.
If you hold a particular belief to be true, you will by natural law hold its opposite to be false. You can rethink and change your conclusion, but the principle always applies. You cannot simultaneously hold opposites to be true. You can mentally oscillate between contrary beliefs, but even so, one or the other will dominate and direct thinking whether you realize it or not. Natural law means mental integration of all beliefs held with end result reflecting the primary premise. The mind dominant beliefs set the parameters of thought to the exclusion of all outside of these beliefs.
This brings us to the subconscious. A swift emotional response is derived from an almost instant subconscious evaluation and valuation of an entity and/or relationship. This emotional response will be derived from and consistent what you hold to be true whether the belief is true or not. By the “logic circuit” of mind, a conclusion is always logically consistent with the directive premise whether the premise is true or false. By an if/then back trace via the “logic circuit,” a directive premise can be identified. It is literally mind reading by natural law process.
The “logic circuit” which directs mental integration of beliefs makes no evaluation of the beliefs as true or false. This is the function of conscious mind. Since the “logic circuit” is natural mind principle of operation, detection of error is not within its function. It simply integrates premises given. Since it performs in this manner by natural law, it is “infallible.” If understood, it is the greatest error detector available to any and every individual. It is used by all for this purpose, but not always in a consistent manner. Mind dominant fallacies often deny and set aside what the “logic circuit” reveals as true if such revelations oppose false, but “unquestionable sacred ideas.”
If a derived conclusion is in conflict with any other conclusion held, one must be in error. Both may be in error. This is a red flag announcing loud and clear there is at least one error in the premises integrated with the possibility of more. A contradiction is the equivalent of a large neon sign reading: “You have failed to correctly identify.” You may heed or disregard, but if disregarded, the error will come back in compound measure with a compound price to be paid.
Even though this is highly visible and irrefutable, consistent adherence is not the usual. The prevailing philosophy of subservience creates a disvaluing of self with a constant effort to avoid anything that further diminishes sense of self value. Within this philosophy, there is a premium put on “being right” as a mark of intelligence, hence, measure of high self value.
This tends to motivate evasion and denial of error. This, in turn, leads to compounding of error with resistance to recognition of said error. This attitude is a direct consequence of the mental reversal of reality and derivative concepts by which one evaluates self and others. The reality is that a discovery of error in one’s thinking, if by seeing a truth in contrast, is an asset.
The fallacy is dismissed by the discovery of the opposing truth, therefore, a gain from every realistic perspective. Acceptance of self as a fallible being with making mistakes a certainty puts one on guard with an attitude that discovery of error is the primary thinking goal and the means to “being right.” An error per se is devastating only in denial of fallible self with a “standard of perfection” as the criteria of self measurement.
This resistance to recognition of error although somewhat noticeable on the conscious level is mainly manifested on the subconscious level. Just like on the conscious level, beliefs held in subconscious work by differential reference and are mentally integrated by the “logic circuit.” A belief held in subconscious may not be known to the holder. In fact, it is not uncommon for conscious mind to deny the holding of such a belief. Nevertheless, the differential reference principle reveals its existence by the inclusion/exclusion principle along with the results of logical integration.
In all probability, the information provided and to be provided is completely foreign to you. The reason for the brief explanation above is to try to provide a bit of insight into mind so that what is to follow won’t seem so strange. If you test the differential reference principle and the “logic circuit” on the conscious level, you will see it in operation. This may incline you a bit more to considering the possibility of a parallel subconscious operation as well.
Mind is not a physical quantity, but is part of an objective reality. Being part of an objective reality, the operations of mind are necessarily governed by natural laws. Since mind is the director of all individual actions, would you not consider it of ultimate importance to understand the natural laws of mind functions in order for a mind to control itself as opposed to perhaps unknown programming from external source?
If you and most others agree with the importance of knowledge of the mind in terms of natural laws, why is there not a single article, book, or popular publication from any source including the NIMH that even mentions principles of mind, let alone enumerates and explains?
Next question: How do you know what you know? How is knowledge acquired? Is it by some mystical, random and incomprehensible means? Or is it by natural law process? If not the latter, how does the “other” work? If the latter, why is there not a single article, book, or popular publication that enumerates and explains the natural laws of learning?
The point of the above is to illustrate conscious and/or subconscious exclusion via mind-dominant beliefs held in the subconscious. When a lost and dying desert wanderer “sees” a pool of water, the actual sand in the area cannot be seen. It is mentally displaced by the mental invention of the pool which is projected upon this area of reality blanking out the real. This natural law of displacement is a corollary of the differential reference principle. It applies not only to the physical realm, but the mental as well.
Since the mind-dominant beliefs of which I speak are held to near-universal degree in past and present, it is no surprise to find opposing beliefs excluded in the prevailing belief system; which is to say excluded from the prevailing thinking system as well. Truth is continuous and consistent. This reveals by the exclusion that the mind-dominant beliefs of which I speak are false. The primary requirement of survival and reaching any goal is mentally separating the real from illusion. There are many illusions other than those of water and sand type. An illusion is any belief held to be true which does not conform to reality.
I hope this helps a bit in grasping what is to follow. One more thing before we get into the nitty gritty of detailed analysis. The scope of war and oppression of past and present is necessarily equaled by the type and scope of the beliefs directing the action. If these beliefs are true, war and oppression is a natural condition. There is nothing anyone can do about it. It is only from a perspective of the directive belief being false that examination is warranted. It you tend to emotionally lean toward “so many could not be so wrong for so long,” you might want to think about the above statement. Also, you might keep in mind that consensus of opinion did not make the earth flat, nor ever made fact out of fiction in any circumstance.
The prevailing (global) philosophy is saturated with popular fallacies so large in scope, so varied in surface type, so nearly universally accepted, they emotionally appear as unquestionable truth, as absolutes without alternative and not to be questioned. This is the atmosphere into which you were born and now live.
You have been informed by historical record, contemporary media and personal observation that the assignment of each individual is as property, as expendable means to a lofty universal goal such as “God’s purpose” and/or “for the good of the country.” With few exceptions, there is not only subservient acceptance of the assigned role, but minds programmed in such bizarre conflict that most see this as their “destiny” and actively seek to fulfill the assignment.
The Mind Dichotomy: To Be or Not To Be
This creates an ongoing conflict problem. In this setting of servitude, the reality of the identity, the autonomous individual, is denied in thought, theory and practice. What remains as director of thinking is reification inclusive of the illusion of categorical identity. The programming is such that one is left with the conclusion that without “categorical identity,” (“race,” “nationality,” etc) one has no identity at all.
The psychological attraction of “being” as opposed to “not being” is a powerful incentive to cling to the “being” beliefs when mind can envision no alternative except “not being.” The exclusion of each independent individual as the real sets the base and course of the anti-individual philosophy which has prevailed throughout all known history.
With these beliefs set in mind as absolutes and entwined with self interest and sense of self value, the natural laws of mind functions process the fallacies to the effect of perpetual self conflict. In the emotional conflict between independent self and servitude self, the latter concept dominates the mind. The psychology becomes sense of self value via servitude. This creates the contradiction, the highest value of self is also the lowest value of self.
The psychological/emotional effects of the mind dichotomy is everpresent. When you see a mother grieving for a child killed in war, she is sad from the loss, but proud that her child “gave his/her life for the country.” The same is true of suffering as redemption and “passport to heaven.” She is happy to be unhappy. This “paradox” (contradiction) is nearly universally accepted without question. This situation is not seen as mind being divided against itself due to holding false premises as absolute truth. The mind dichotomy is accepted as a natural condition precluding any thought of remedy of the conflict.
Make no mistake about it, there is a psychological wall of such resistance against truth opposing the revered fallacies, breaching the wall is just barely short of impossible. When centuries of war fail to prompt reexamination of the underlying directive beliefs, there is little hope for words to initiate serious reconsideration. In fact, it is by word usage bent to sustain illusion in denial of the real that stands as a nearly impenetrable barrier against communication necessary to dispel the myths.
There is a constant call for proof of this or that. For the most part, it is just a string of meaningless words. What good is proof if there is no knowledge of what constitutes proof? How do you prove a conclusion to someone when that person has no viable reference by which to decide true or false. I do not speak hypothetically, but lament the encompassing reality of the situation.
There is indisputable proof of death in the finality of the “cycle of life,” yet, billions simply refuse to accept the proof. Were there a widespread understanding of truth and proof, there would be the issue of freedom vs non-freedom with choice clear. The current situation is the psychology of rule as an absolute and freedom as an impossibility. The consequence is rule with the pretense of freedom via non-definitive language usage.
As indicated, the root problem is in and of the mind and only this understanding will effect resolution. Alas, knowledge about the mind has been excluded as well by the false, mind-dominant, “sacred ideas” ie, mental inventions thought to be real. The failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside is often referred to as insanity. This is the past and current saturate condition.
Unpopular as this notion may be, this mental malady is what has established and sustained the past and present philosophical, epistemological, psychological, death-oriented, anti-individual environment. The evidence is abundant and clear: Beliefs direct actions. Actions cause effects. If the effects are not as consciously intended, it is indisputable that the actions (means) are not suited to the purpose. It is just as indisputable that the beliefs directing the selecting and application of means are false. Isn’t this proven a trillion times over? Is there anything complex and hard to understand about this? If so, what? If not, why the perpetual rejection of this proof if not a mental malady?
If an individual were building a house, repairing a car, cooking a meal, or pursuing any one of a thousand purposes, this elementary logic would prompt one to look for cause if intent and actions failed to produce what was consciously desired. In the social realm dealing with interpersonal relationships, this simple dictate is totally ignored.
The perspective mentality is of a separate realm for human beings as if they belong to “another reality.” There are two modes of thought: One reality-oriented mode for the general technical area, and another fallacy-oriented mode applied to the social area. The former area has advanced in leaps and bounds while the latter has stagnated in caveman mentality and violent conflict.
This dichotomy is the philosophical, epistemological and psychological theme of the environment. It is established as the criteria for evaluation and valuation of self and others. With mind divided against itself, there is no escape from the conflict, external and internal. As surely as mind is the director of all action, the mind must be unified (consistent) in reference to immutable natural law as a prerequisite to unification of human beings in peace and harmony.
The Jungle Mentality Rationale: The Leader of the Tribe
The relationship between entities (cause and effect) is determined by the characteristics of the entities involved. This is no less true of human entities than any other. Even a cursory look quickly reveals that imposition upon personal preference by initiation of force and/or coercion produces the effect of resentment and hostility. It logically follows that if peace and harmony is the objective, refraining from initiation of force and coercion is the natural law means to achieve and sustain this end. How can any truth be more visible and irrefutable?
In spite of this simple and irrefutable truth, nearly all engage in the initiation of force and coercion by direct and/or indirect means. In denial of the character of their beliefs and actions, they purport to bring about peace by means of war. This refusal to see the highly visible and elementary reveals a widespread mental problem of the first magnitude.
The “gods and governments” idea along with corollary oppression has existed throughout all known history and probably beyond. There has never been a war to establish or sustain freedom. It is all about who shall dominate. Propaganda to the contrary serves to “justify” the will to rule. “Service to the country” definitively translates to the “sacrifice” of some human individuals for the benefit of the person or persons already in the position of “authority,” or seeking to be. Indeed, the concept, nation, itself necessarily incorporates initiation of force and coercion, therefore, is anti-freedom.
“Free country” is a contradiction from every angle. “Country” is an abstract, a subjective idea, not a corporeal thing to be free or not free. “Citizens of a country” are regarded as subordinate to “national interest,” hence, are not free. “Citizens of a country” presupposes a “national identity,” ie the illusion of categorical identity based on arbitrarily selected similarities in direct contradiction of the actual objective identity of each individual by a differing set of characteristics.
The truth about the philosophy and psychology of rule is denied and kept hidden by word games of illusion and self delusions played by nearly all. One example of the millions available is that two imposing upon one is not freedom. Yet, millions go about proclaiming democracy and freedom as if it were an unquestionable equation.
The adamant claim of desire for peace is contradicted not only by the mind dichotomy and “value of sacrifice,” but by perpetual war and unconscionable atrocities, genocides and cruelty beyond description. No matter, the “sacred ideas” dominate minds and the same destructive effect telling of the same cause is simply ignored with a pretense of change by different labels and variants of superficial trappings.
The task at hand is not only to expose the fallacies underlying war and other assorted violent conflicts, but expose the fallacious method by which they were and are established and sustained. At the deepest level, this requires understanding how the mind works, but much can be understood without pursuing this to the max.
The overall condition that exists today, technical advancements aside, is the same that existed for all known centuries. In all probability, the earliest earth dwellers lived in groups such as family, extended family, clan, tribe, etc. Side by side with the technical progress of the “civilized world,” the gang mentality exist as much today as it did any time in the past. Nation is the most visible of the gang labels with the idea manifested in hierarchal “authority.”
The jungle mentality rationale behind the gang concept, all else being equal, is there is “safety in numbers.” The “safety” idea comes from physical force by combination. This in turn requires unidirection which translates to gang leader. This is the basis for the hierarchal social structure with the corollary concept of individual with “unit value” only as long as said individual contributes to sustaining the anti-individual social structure.
The high praise for “powerful country,” “powerful politician,” “powerful man,” “powerful woman” etc, leaves no evidentiary doubt the worship of power environment places intellect as handmaiden to coercive physical force. No matter how it may be dressed up in “noble terms” and “civilized settings,” truth is, “the law” is the law of the jungle.
The physical aspect of what is described above is highly visible. The mental aspect and its significance in the scheme of things is not so easily and quickly discerned. The physically manifested follower philosophy is necessarily preceded by a corresponding mentality. As evidenced, the subservient mentality has prevailed in all known generations.
What this means is that this prevailing mentality shapes every aspect of existence including mode of thought and equivalent language usage. A critical element is the psychology of leader. This in turn goes to the idea of follower philosophies. This translates into a psychology of choosing not what to believe, but who to believe.
This results in a subconscious reaction that one presenting arguments is looking for followers. It is difficult for most to grasp that following or being followed are both rejected as anti-individual, ie, anti-reality. Do I seek agreement with the arguments herein? If they are true, indeed, I do; but only from independent thought reaching the same conclusions. If I tell you a thousand things and by independent thinking you agree, that is all well and good. If after the thousand, you decide to believe without independent thinking, if I tell you something false and you accept it rather than discover the error and call it to my attention, you do us both a disservice. I seek truth, not followers. I need no external validation for my existence. Following is the problem, not the solution.
The follower idea is the philosophical and psychological situation in literal saturation in perpetuity with revered fallacies creating the impression of reality not to be questioned; hence, is for the most part “absorbed” without resistance. It has created a mental condition of “box thinking” excluding awareness of truths critical to exposing the directive fallacies.
This sets a singular objective. Since by natural law, each individual acts upon what he or she believes to be true, exposing and convincing holders of the falsity of the war-oriented beliefs is the only remedy. Easy to say. Not so easy to do. Exposing the fallacies is a cake walk, but mass rejection of truth by the mind-dominant fallacies is pretty much a foregone conclusion as shown by all of history. Nevertheless, I shall have a go at penetrating the “impenetrable.”
If the war-oriented beliefs are false, they do not conform to reality. If they do not conform to reality, the language usage utilized to promote these fallacies cannot conform to reality either. Again, as simple and irrefutable as it is, within the “box thinking,” it goes unnoticed. The undetected distorted language usage influences thinking; thinking in a self-contradictory, anti-individual manner with said thinkers completely oblivious to what is really going on.
Observe the speaking and writing of devout religionist, avowed atheists, governmentalists and “anarchists.” You will for the most part find the language usage common to all; namely, positing abstracts as the real in denial of individual identity and individual responsibility. Although the words of an “anarchist” may declare opposition to “government,” with rare exception, the arguments reflect the same anti-individual premises as “government” couched in the same distorted language usage.
The Lies of Language
One often hears, “Government initiates force,” or something similar. “Government” does not initiate force. “Government” is the initiation of force. It is each governmentalist who does the initiating of force. Positing “government” as a godhead, as an acting entity is a psychological escapism to deny the fact of individual coercive actions. Among other denials, it hides the fact that voting in a political election is an act of violence.
The language usage is literally saturated with “abstract entities” to psychologically shield the actor from self. Any agreement with and/or use of the language of disassociation is denial of real individual as the actor. It is the language of lies. Such concurrence with distorted language by word or deed serves to maintain the base philosophy and psychology of oppression.
Let it be further understood that those who volunteer for the system are not being coerced. They have agreed to the outcome; an outcome of certain conflict, conflict with other gangs and conflict within each gang as each seeks to rule via the centralized offensive force. The coerced are those who want no part of the insanity, but are compelled by “law” to participate upon penalty of punishment and/or death.
Do not take the language matter lightly. Its influence in supporting offensive force is of monumental importance. It is not just fallacies by language that constitutes a problem. It is the undetected and influencing fallacies in language that is the most destructive. What is revealed in language usage is the mode of thought behind it: Identity, or no identity, reality, or illusion.
Will of God, will of the people, public welfare, constitutional rights, natural rights, national interest, ought, should, gross national product, for the good of the country, the values of society, minority rights, morally right, immoral, race relations, community standards, freedom and democracy, altruism, selflessness, government does, majority rule, freedoms, fighting evil, on and on and on unto infinity.
This is but a partial list of concepts commonly accepted and frequently uttered. This is the vernacular of oppression with which our senses are inundated without let up. Where is or what is individual in these beliefs? What else but subservient with “unit value” only?
They are also lies. Each presumes a subjective mental invention to be objective discovery. Yet, these concepts are accepted to a near-universal degree with no thought of questioning. It is Bedlam without bars with the inmates actually believing they are making sense, therefore, are at a loss to understand the inevitable violent conflict when it comes.
There is no better place to begin the exposure of commonly held fallacies than the “common usage” dictionary. The “dictionary of definitions” does not even define the term, definition, to provide a reference by which to determine if a word has actually been defined, or is just distortion to promote the status quo “gods and governments” idea. This issue is never brought up because “everybody knows” what a definition is.
A common refrain is, “Anyone can define his/her terms anyway he/she chooses.” “A word means whatever I say it means.” Upon this premise, the “meaning” of a term or phrase is by subjective choice infinitely variable. It can “mean” one thing one minute and something else in the next. It can “mean” and “not mean” in self contradiction in the same sentence without raising an eyebrow questioning the usage. This belief and language usage is indicative of, and sanctioned by, the dictionary itself.
If such a practice of infinite “meanings” is viable with said “definitions” corresponding to objective reality and communicating truth, objective reality must change in step with personal preference to validate the alleged ever-changing definition. Of course, if one does not “feel” the need of correspondence between definition and objective reality, one does not even think of such a thing.
This brief observation shows the contradiction of the claim of totally arbitrary “definitions.” Most would readily agree with it when looking at it from this perspective. Yet, this concept of arbitrary “definitions” is practiced in thinking and writing to a near universal degree. Why is there more than one word in a language system?
Follow the logical inference of needed differentiation and you will find that “shifting definitions” are a contradiction of the purpose and principles of language usage. What remains in default is undefined, provocative sounds prompting emotional response with no actual communication as intended and believed.
We all claim to be seekers of truth. What is it that we seek? What is truth? Suppose we look to Webster’s in search of the answer:
“2 A (1): the state of being the case; FACT (2): the body of Real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. Even though the alleged definition of truth is self contradictory, few ever question it. To accept this alleged definition of truth is to accept the anti-individual concepts that underlie the distortion. In turn, it directs thinking unintentionally supporting that which is ostensibly opposed.
Much lip service is paid to truth as consistent with admonition to think in principles. Lip service is all it is as revealed by Webster’s alleged definition of truth; “truth” divided in contradiction and not at all consistent. Sadly, this is the thinking “guideline” for nearly all who have no idea they are being guided, or how they are being guided.
If you think I am nit picking, dealing in unimportant semantics and word games, you think wrongly. Mind programming via word games is a major part of the problem. What I’m exposing as fallacy is that the non-definition and word games is the literal lifeline of the anti-individual beliefs and actions. Take away this resource and governmentalist will have nothing to say.
An individual who would not think of directly stealing a neighbor’s property does so indirectly by the “right of eminent domain” and does not see self as involved or responsible. The same is true of the entire governmental operation as “national interest” and other abstracts are posited as actors and beneficiaries with real causal individuals psychologically removed from their actions and effects. There is no better formula for disaster than the will to rule in conjunction with the absence of sense of responsibility. Distorted language usage is the central means to evade truth and hold onto a false, but preferred self image.
Stop invalid reification and other claims of “volitional, valuing abstracts” along with insistence that all other terminology be connected to the actual as well and the linguistics of coercion are gone. Once gone, real acting individual is compelled to see self as cause and it is a whole new ball game. Definition brings front and center unwelcome truth they must keep hidden to practice oppression while holding onto a contrary preferred self image.
Because it is so trusted and goes unquestioned, there is no worse anti-individual, anti-freedom propaganda book in the world than the dictionary. The errors of commission and omission lie as the root of it all. “Anarchists” are divided for no other reason than they buy into these errors no less than the governmentalists. Language usage tells the story. Definitive examination reveals the common fallacies obscured and denied.
The dictionary does have many valid definitions in the non-controversial areas of the mundane or technical, but when it comes to terminology regarding the social scene and components of same, the dictionary defines not at all.
Look long and hard at this alleged definition of truth. It is the key to seeing insanity as the social norm.
“2 A (1): the state of being the case; FACT (2): the body of Real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. One “type of truth” is called fact, “Real things: actuality.” The other “type of truth” is called “spiritual reality.” Since the term, fact, is not verbally associated with “spiritual reality,” it is logically opposed. What then is “spiritual reality” if not fact, yet is truth? “Non-factual truth”? If it is fact, why does not the “definition” make a singular inclusion? The dictionary proposes “two kinds of truth” in direct contradiction of the claim of truth as consistent. Acceptance of the two kinds of truth idea makes it impossible to regard truth as consistent. Self delusion to the contrary is allowed by the two truths idea itself since it denies a singular objective reference as basis for knowing truth.
Denial, Distortion, and Dual Reality
Perhaps, what this does to a mind and what is going on in mind can be made a bit more clear by a rough analogy. Since it is derived from mind, it is not surprising to find that a computer operation often resembles mind function. However, a computer program has no emotional bias to alter functions. What if it did have a bias directing operation?
Suppose we write a simple math calculator program with a “master circuit:” All threes are ignored. All nines are converted to sixes. As long as the data processed does not contain threes or nines, the conclusions are consistent and correct. They conform to reality. When applied, they will produce end results as consciously intended and expected. On the other hand, data containing threes and sixes will invariably result in false conclusions that do not conform to reality, hence, when applied will not produce end results as consciously intended and expected.
Suppose you have 1,000 computers with math calculator programs and all with a different “master circuits.” Suppose some ignore fours as well as making threes out of fives, or divides sevens by two, or other such variations. This discloses two conditions: Not only will none of the conclusions conform to reality; they will be in conflict with each other.
Suppose each of the programmers and users have absolute trust in his/her computer program and do not even think of examining the program to find out why end results are not always as consciously intended and expected, or the why of disagreement with other computers. Can you imagine the conflict and chaos of attempted application with the certainty of error no matter which of the flawed programs is used at any given time?
In crude, but telling parallel, false “sacred ideas” constitute a “master circuit” in the mind. It is a “priority interrupt circuit.” It is a flawed program that denies or distorts any and all incoming data opposing the fallacious “sacred ideas.” It is reality cut off. The “master circuit” diverting unwelcome truth prohibits continuity of thought and consistent mental connection to the real. Conclusions are in conflict with reality and in conflict with the conclusions of all other “master circuits” of individual minds. Add to this the situation of each individual firmly believing (without question) that his/her “sacred ideas” are the only true ones and you are looking at the general mental condition and situation of past and present. This is conflict central.
Without an everpresent immutable objective reference, there is no way to know whether thinking is true and consistent or not. The unadmitted, but practiced alternative is that “if it feels right, it must be right.” Of course, there is adamant denial of feelings as the criteria of truth, but without an objective reference, how does the thinker know the difference between fact as fact or feelings as “fact”?
A violent future the same as the past is foretold by Webster’s dictionary. No crystal ball needed. What is the truth about truth that Webster’s denies by commission and omission? How do you know what you know? Actually, you look at the answer many thousands of times a day, but have been programmed to distrust your own mind and deny your own conclusions. In the process of acquiring information about your environment, by what do you gather primary information to be processed into knowledge? By sensory apparatus, of course.
No matter how much knowledge you gain by abstract calculation knowing of things far beyond the limit of sensory apparatus, that knowledge is always connected to the physical world via entity identity enabled by awareness of limitation and difference. The same principle of identity by difference applies in discovering entities and relationships of whatever scope and type beyond the range of sensory apparatus. It is the natural law of mind function. No exceptions.
By nature, it is literally impossible for a mind to grasp infinity except as an abstract concept. Although all of objective reality is continuous, knowledge of environment comes about by mentally abstracting the parts, then grasping the relationships of the parts. Part means not all. Part means limited. A physical part of whatever dimensions is an entity. It may be smaller than an electron or larger than the earth, but limitation and difference is what defines an entity. Mind can mentally abstract an entity only by its limitation and difference. Ergo, an entity is finite. This is the foundation of all knowledge.
There is no such thing as an “infinite entity.” To express or imply otherwise is false. Any beliefs dependent upon the idea of an “infinite entity” are false – always. “Omnipotent God,” “Will of the people,” “national interest, or any other expression or implication of “infinite entity” is a lie. It represents in self delusion only the subjective personal preference of an individual. Since it is a lie, it is peculiar to each individual, therefore, without common objective referent. Again, conflict central.
There are infinite claims of truth, but any belief formulated in the absence of entity identity by limitation and difference is false. Test it once, or test it a trillion times and you will find that all demonstrated knowledge (not all beliefs) comes by this route. It makes no difference whether we’re talking about raising a finger, or building and launching a space shuttle, the same principle of entity identity as basis of knowledge applies. This fact emphatically and totally refutes the idea of non-corporeal “spiritual truth”; so it is no surprise to find no mention of it in Webster’s, nor textbooks, nor any popular publication.
In brief, the dictionary sets the idea of two kinds of truth, which in turn, goes to a dual reality with the “two realities” in conflict. Truth is fact and fact is truth. Tautological “definitions” are the norm in Webster’s. Observe, there is not a word in the dictionary about how fact is mentally separated from non-fact to establish actual knowledge. The idea of “spiritual truth” is merely asserted as a popular concept with no attempt to validate by any factual argument. It is implicitly alleged to be fact, yet logically unsupportable by any facts. This is admitted in the dictionary itself, but rarely noticed.
Since the dual reality idea and two kinds of truth calculate to sum zero, in finality, given Webster’s non-definition it leaves “truth” to be whatever one wishes it to be, or feels it to be. This is the psychological license to “create reality” that results in the endless conflicts of “mind worlds.” To put it bluntly, all ideas supporting the concepts, “gods and governments,” are false. Again, no exception.
The Mechanics of Mind
The erroneous multiple realities thinking and psychology can be remedied by unifying truth common to all. This common truth is denied in thought and language. Words being abstract in origin may be arranged in any order or disorder one chooses. However, an actual definition always has an objective referent; An (one) objective referent. This truth must be kept hidden to allow for the dual reality idea and the “two kinds of truth.”
The objective referent idea is utilized by every speaking and writing individual many times each day. What happens is that it is not seen as a principle of language necessary to communication; hence, upon (subconscious) emotional provocation, the objective referent requirement is simply dismissed with thinking going off into the dual reality fallacy with the person none the wiser. Mutual communication and mutual conclusions are dependent upon mutual identity. If a word, or use of a word or phrase does not conform to some aspect of the common objective reality, there is no common frame of reference by which to communicate and to peacefully resolve conflicting differences.
It is rather obvious that mind content of individuals are infinitely variable. Unfortunately, this observation is “interpreted” to mean an absence of commonality necessary to understand mind. What is once again denied is natural law. All minds work “mechanically” the same, ie, by the same principles. Pre-natal or post-natal brain damage may alter operative capacity, but the principles are always intact. As surely as two sound computers processing the same information will come up with the same answer, two minds processing the same information will come up with the same conclusion as to objective cause and effect though subjective valuations of the effect may vary. You witness this many times each day in interpersonal exchanges, market and otherwise, but probably do not see the natural law behind it.
Example 1. If you and another individual agree that a given object is a ten pound lead ball with further agreement as to the ball’s relationship to glass in regard to force and contact, you will agree that if the ball is dropped from a height of ten feet on a simple unprotected window pane lying on the floor, the glass will break. You may value the glass being broken while the other individual may not, but from common identity, you agree on cause and effect.
Example 2. Suppose that you and another individual see a ten quart bucket filled with a clear liquid. You believe the clear liquid is water. The other individual believes it is white gasoline. Unless and until this difference in identity is settled, you will disagree as to the effect if the liquid is poured on a fire.
Example 3. If you are sitting at a dinner table with others and say, “Please pass the biscuits,” by definition you communicate that which you wish to communicate with the subsequent effect of two individuals making the same objective identifications, then responding accordingly to accomplish the intended goal via cooperation.
As simplistic as these examples are, they are not only representative of natural laws governing cause and effect of physical quantities, they also represent natural laws of mind functions.
What does this have to do with “anarchism”? Everything. All the division and hostile conflict whether under the label religion, atheism, government or anarchism is directly derived from the failure of the participants to make an objective identity as a common frame of reference.
What is the common frame of reference at issue in the social/anti-social context? Each human individual, of course. “Everybody knows” what an individual is, so it is rather silly to suggest otherwise. Right?
Since what I am trying to communicate is outside the realm of prevailing beliefs, there are no directly corresponding words to serve in communication; therefore, I am obliged to use existing words in invented terminology.
There are three options of “identity:” “Is” individual? Or “ought” individual? Or both? Which do you believe is the real?
Is an individual a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity who creates and attributes value? Or is an individual a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity who “discovers” values? Or both?
Value subjective? Value objective? Both?
The “both” answer cancels to zero, yet is the common emotional operative premise within the mentality of a “dual reality.” This psychologically places individual in “another realm” excluding individual from subject to the natural laws governing other entities as previously mentioned.
If we identify the first option as the real, value is subjectively created and attributed by each individual and is infinitely variable between individuals and within the individual in time and circumstance. This means that value is subjective by virtue of the inherent characteristics of each individual mind, therefore, is immutable natural law.
On the other hand, if we “identify” an individual as an entity who discovers values outside of self, values not of his/her own creating, this means that values are objective and fixed. Which alleged identity is correct, if either?
Valuation (attributing value) is necessarily by a volitional, valuing entity. If not each human individual, what entity creates these “objective values”? Some say, “God.” It does not stop here. Our environment is saturated with “objective values.” “God intended,” “values of society,” “national interest,” “for the good of the country,” “will of the people,” “natural rights,” on and on and on with real (“is”) individual left out of the thinking equation. (Observe this denies the finite entity identity principle and embraces the contradiction, “infinite entity.”}
These “objective values” are held to be superior to subjective personal preferences. They express and imply an obligation to accept and abide by these “objective values.” “Should” and “ought” are very popular expressions of servitude derived from the objective value premise. As popular as the idea of objective value may be, it does not fit in the real world of real individual identity.
The real world is not “ought.” It is “if” and “must.” If you are to accomplish a goal, the goal must be achievable. If you are to accomplish a goal, means appropriate to the goal must be selected and applied. It is impossible to cook with ice and freeze by fire. It is no less impossible to create peace by means of war.
The Servitude of Self
Why do you suppose there is so much disagreement over the “objective values”? Objective means outside of mind and common to all, does it not? Where then and how then are all to discover these “objective values” as a common frame of reference by which to peacefully resolve conflicting differences?
How do you settle differences of “God’s will,” “national interest,” “for the good of the country,” “public welfare,” “community standards,” “will of the people” and “constitutional rights,” etc? Millions go here and there and adamantly claim they have the answer; but these “answers” are in conflict with no common frame of reference to peacefully resolve. The only “common ground” remaining is the battleground. Why?
Could it be there are no objective values, only subjective values paraded as objective and superior, meaning all “ought” to accept even if offensive force is needed to bring about compliance? What is the common “justification” for oppression if not the idea of objective values? A human individual who sees self as a finite and fallible entity with values neither inferior too, nor superior too the values of another individual cannot reach the psychological state to try to impose personal values upon another person. Imposition and oppression are always derived from the psychology of the fallacy, objective value.
What is the problem except the failure to recognize and accept “is” individual as the real identity. “ Is” individual is the one and only valid reference for determining interpersonal relationships? It is the one and only valid reference for defining terms involving interpersonal relationships. Anything other than this is not dealing with reality. It is pursuing illusion in conflict with reality.
Take a long hard look at past and present philosophical environment. To be born is to be born into servitude. Your value is “unit value” as property. By declaration and/or logical inference, you are the “property” of “God,” “nation,” “people,” “society,” “public,” etc. Individual as property in servitude to some “superior being” is the all-time prevailing mindset.
This is what thought and language are molded to fit in direct and indirect manner for the benefit of some monarch and/or other with the will to rule. By the natural law of logical mental integration, to accept any part of it is to accept it all in a never-ending battle with self and others. Truth + truth = truth. Fallacy + fallacy = fallacy. Truth + fallacy = fallacy. There is no compromise.
How about the concept, altruism, a popular anti-self con? “Selflessness” is praised as the ultimate “good.” It is incorporated in the legal system in the mandatory redistribution of wealth. It is a concept of subordination and servitude. It is a lie. By natural law, it is literally impossible for any individual to consciously act against what he/she regards as self interest.
It takes only a few minutes and a few questions to expose the fraud, yet it still prevails in the minds of nearly all. The altruism lie is not only preached and taught, it has official status backed up by coercive force. The directives of the false altruism concept are exactly opposite of what is claimed. It is not a concept of compassion and concern. It is (by official status) “justification” for unlimited initiation of force and coercion. It is not a concept of giving. It is a concept of taking by offensive force. Furthermore, behind every act of initiation of force and coercion, you will find a lie.
If you tend to doubt this all-encompassing declaration, think of the alternative. If all or some coercion is derived from truth, you cannot claim to seek truth and oppose coercion at the same time without being in contradiction, which is itself the negation of truth.
Knowing that all initiation of force and coercion is derived from fallacy tends to focus the search for means to end it. The task is to find and expose the directive fallacies. Technically, simple enough. Psychologically, a real problem in the context of thinking in terms of multiple realities with no dependable natural law reference by which to separate fact from fiction.
If you accept the Webster’s contradictions about truth, you also accept the language distortion and mode of thought. Your choice. The way out has already been marked: Entity identity via limitation and difference to the exclusion of the mythical “infinite entities,” “spiritual reality” and “spiritual truth.” Don’t take my word for it. Test it to the max. Recognizing entity identity as the sine qua non of knowledge won’t make you omniscient and assure no mistakes. What it will do is keep you out of the “spiritual reality” of “infinite entities” where error and conflict is an absolute certainty.
How one thinks determines in large part what one thinks. Without the thinking discipline of finite entity identity by limitations and difference, the alternate and false concept, “infinite entity” dominates in an oscillating, confused “mind world” of contradictions. There is no anchor, no starting point of validated objective reference to maintain a connection to the real with consistency necessary to ascertain truth.
Undefined words influencing thinking serve as an emotional starting point for “reasoning” with the thinker totally unaware that the starting premise is cut off from reality and is false. The programming is a literal shutdown of actual independent thinking. With no awareness via contrast, the illusion of independent thinking is the consequence. Worst of all, the programming leaves an individual feeling lost and totally incapable of examining and testing any counter idea to said programming. Evasion is the usual reaction; an apathy of status quo.
Anarchism and the Individual
Many labels can be made and many claims attached to the labels, but when push comes to shove, “reality is binary.” The issue is either/or. Definition reveals this truth, which is why Webster’s steers clear of it in “social matters.” The only options in interpersonal relationships whether involving only two persons or billions is the concept, self ownership and voluntary cooperation, or the concept external ownership backed up by initiation of force and coercion.
There is no compromise. There is no graduation between existence and non-existence. There is no partially pregnant, nor little bit dead, nor melding of self ownership and external ownership. One or the other exists no matter what one may feel from the confusion of a “dual reality.” Either/or is a singular objective fact that no number of subjective labels, nor subjective claims can ever change.
Theism, atheism, government, anarchism; four different words (labels) allegedly symbolizing four different sets of beliefs. This division into four labels is then respectively subdivided again and again until there are literally thousands of labels implying thousands of sets of beliefs with each label signifying conflict, yet all claimed to be based on truth.
I make no claim to having read or otherwise reviewed all offerings on “social matters,” but what I have encountered, which is substantial, whether history books, daily media, official documents, or “educational material” is lie, a continuous lie differing only in personal stamp on common fallacy. To be sure, here and there within this material, within any material, there are truths in isolation, but these serve only to deceive and self delude, not to enlighten. When fact and fiction are mentally mixed, the end conclusion, which directs actions, is false.
The common fallacy manifest under thousands of labels denies that at root level, there are only two options as explained above: Premise of self ownership, or the premise of external ownership. The one or other choice is denied by many “versions” pretending a fundamental difference where there is none.
The premise of external ownership is the chosen common. This truth is revealed in the commonality of violent conflict when application is attempted of all or any. The fiction exposed by definitive examination predicts the outcome, but it is precisely the denial of and ignorance of definition that allows the mind to construct such fallacies and believe they are true. The refusal to reexamine the beliefs and discard the fallacies assures perpetual violence.
The term, anarchism, is alleged to be a word denoting the premise of self ownership. How many “kinds” of self ownership are there?
“Collectivist” anarchist, individualist anarchists, atheist anarchist, Christian anarchists, communist anarchist, socialist anarchists, property abolitionist anarchist, on and on. This poses some serious questions.
If each of the propositions under each of the labels corresponds to the premise of self ownership, they are not in conflict with the premise of self ownership, nor in conflict with each other. If each is in conflict with each of the others, no more than one can correspond to the premise of self ownership, maybe none.
This confusion and conflict about “anarchism” is a classic example of what happens when a word is allegedly defined, but identifies no specific entity or specific relationship. This leaves the criteria of infinitely variable subjective feelings as “definition.”
What happens if the term, anarchism, is actually defined as the premise of self ownership? Of course, this presents the necessity of defining self ownership by objective reference. Absent one or both definitions, there remains only a string of non-definitive terminology that fails to identify a common objective referent leaving “meaning” up to the subjective feelings of each “anarchist” with the certain consequence of division and conflict.
If all “anarchist” agree to self ownership, meaning self determination, how can they be in conflict? Absent explanation of multiple “kinds” of self ownership. I am obliged to conclude they think, talk and write in contradiction. An adamant claim of self ownership is quickly canceled by espousing anti-self ownership ideas. They come full circle without realizing what is going on. Regrettably, they are doing nothing but promoting their preferred form of government under a deceptive label.
Socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy, etc, all presumably represent different forms of government. Root level definition is government is initiation of force and coercion. A dark alley mugging is no less government than any other initiation of force and coercion. The official government version may be politicized, organized, centralized and canonized and “socially approved,” but this does not dismiss the definitive commonality of the operative premise. If and when governmentalists see their kinship with a common robber, they may be a bit more inclined to reconsider their philosophy. Of course, this is not going to happen in an environment where distorted language provides a psychological means of hiding from self behind abstracts with nearly all playing the same self deluding word game.
Can there be different kinds of initiation and force and coercion? Obviously, yes. With self ownership the common, there are no “kinds” and no conflict. There is self determination, but not determination for other individuals. This is the singular “rule” and singularly applied. With the concept, external ownership, with initiation of force and coercion, “kinds” are a matter of who creates the rules, what rules to be imposed, and method of implementation. “Kinds” in conflict equate with the external ownership premise and rule, not self ownership.
Certainly, one may speculate as what might happen in certain circumstances under a social premise of self ownership, but without a crystal ball foretelling all circumstances, including the personal values of each individual, such speculation doesn’t count for much. Even if one does speculate, it does not call for different labels. Self determination is understood.
With only one possible exception, the many “types of anarchism” are not about speculation as to what others might do. They are “social blueprints” in direct denial of the premise of self ownership. They are formulated, propagated, promoted and discussed in conflict within a quagmire of non-definitive rhetoric where no proof is required and none is possible. They are concepts of government under a false banner and behind a façade of freedom hidden from self and others by non-definition.
The divisions in “anarchism” are from the same fundamental fallacy accounting for the many divisions in formal religion and government. Not being united upon the common objective identity, “is” individual, (subjective value) they are infinitely divided upon the fallacy, “ought” individual (objective value) with personal variations of the “ought.” This is not a rejection of rule; only disagreement as to what compulsion is to be carried out by whom and how it is to be implemented. It is conflict of real subjective values via the denial of this truth as nearly all claim discovery of objective values and imagine his/her personal preferences to be “superior.”
Certainly, this may be denied by distorted language usage, but definition exposes the flaws and reveals how such ideas would work in practice as coercion. The selling of any one of these versions requires convincing others that a particular version is based on fact. The ordeal of definition expose all such plans as illusion and self delusion. As expressed above, what you see is division into “ought” groups under different labels, not by facts and definition, but by emotional appeal.
The groundwork is already laid. With nearly all minds programmed with the notion of a dual reality and two kinds of truth, it is a take your pick situation. Since the dual reality, two kinds of truth thinking precludes awareness of the principles of epistemology, there is no immutable objective reference by which to consistently evaluate a claim as true or false. Along with this is the idea of definition as solely a matter of subjective determination. The consequence is an infinite variety of floating “mind worlds” disconnected from reality, but with each certain of the rightness and “righteousness” of his/her version. Conflict is a foregone conclusion.
Self Ownership and Property
Among the conflicting versions of “anarchism” is the idea opposing property. “Property is theft” is a Proudhon quote that has been around a long time and often used. What does it mean? How is this to work in practice? You can know by attempted application, or know by definition.
What is theft? How can there be theft if there is no property? What is theft except a non-voluntary exchange? How is it theft unless it is owned by someone? The term, property, has no meaning except in “property of.” To say “property is theft” is to use the word, property, as not only an object stolen, but as the act of stealing itself. Ergo, the “double definition” makes no differentiation between entities and relationships. No differentiation, no definition. No definition, no correspondence with reality. No correspondence with reality means false.
How about self ownership? A slave, by definition, is the property of another individual. Is not self ownership the property of self? Self ownership means little without sustenance, ie, property. The essence of ownership is control. Ergo, the issue is who does the controlling? Is it to be each individual controlling some property, or external control by some individual other than self?
This sticky wicket is circumvented by word games, by non-definition. One “explanation” is that if one has and uses a saw himself for himself, it is a “possession,” but is not property. However, if he hires someone to use the saw, the saw becomes “property.” An objective inanimate object is magically turned into a subjective philosophical concept though its real identity never changes. What’s going on? Confusion due to absence of definition.
Control equals ownership. Ownership means ownership of something. Ownership of something equates with property. A “possession” that is not property means it has no owner. However, possession equates with control meaning it is property; if not property of the person in immediate possession, property of the owner who allowed the possession, or if not allowed, it is theft of property. What it boils down to is the phrase, “Property is theft,” is self contradictory in that the concept property must exist for the word theft to have any meaning at all. On the truth scale “Property is theft” weighs in at sum zero.
After we sort through all the self contradictory confusion due to lack of definition, what Proudhon was driving at and trying to sell was the idea of no “private property.” Since individual is the real and mind is singular, property, by definition is private. There is no other kind. In confusion and denial comes the default proposition of “collective ownership.” The usual spiel is Spencer claiming that “God” gave the earth to all, or a similar pronouncement. This is the admitted, or unadmitted basis for the idea of “collective ownership.”
What is missing is a “universal collective entity” to put into practice what is put in words. The undefined words don’t conform to reality and neither does this “plan for man.” Another very large missing part is the fact that value is subjective. Since subjective value can not be quantified and objectively measured, what kind of math is to be used in calculating the “equal division” of resources? As “commune think” persistently promotes the idea of “equality,” it denies natural inequality as the identity of each individual.
Neither sympathy, empathy, nor “good intentions” have force to change reality. Proudhon’s idea of “anarchism” to “equalize” was an emotional reaction not to what did and does exist, but what he imagined to exist. Since there is no “collective entity,” nor universal mind, the idea of no private property translates in practice to each individual as property.
By no means am I suggesting a “plan for man.” There is no natural law dictating who owns what, how much, or for how long, nor do I propose to express or imply otherwise. I leave such things to the consequence of personal values and voluntary agreements. I say only that self ownership, ie, self control goes to personal property as the necessary means of survival as an “is” individual.
Just because recognition of “is” individual is my choice, does not mean that all will go along with the “is” individual idea. Whatever the choice, property is property, meaning some individual will control implying ownership. The only question is who? If some individuals choose to throw all in the pot with the premise “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs,” let them have at it. If they want to vote on production and distribution, I leave them to their choice. It is when they propose to compel me (or others) to join the arrangement that I offer objections. All I am saying is that property goes along with survival and the choice comes down to the choice of who is going to determine the use of property in survival--if survival is the choice.
I am very cognizant of the benefits I derive from the diversity of individual talents, desires and efforts. I have no desire to manufacture my own car, build my own house, nor perform a heart transplant on myself. How is this going to work without the concept of property? There is something else behind the “commune think” that is rarely, if ever, admitted: Envy and jealousy. In the prevailing philosophy and value system, wealth is equated with self worth via the evaluation and values of the “people.”
In “commune think,” it is not only how the wealthy became wealthy, but that they are wealthy at all. This is quite an incentive to find a lot of “reasons” that “property is theft,” even as such proponents seek to steal the property while denying it all via non-definition. Don’t you find it a bit strange there is no distinction made between property held by personal production and property held via stealing the production of another?
Proudhon saw the “inequities,” the misery of poverty in the face of plenty. He saw much wealth held by a few while the many went wanting. He wished to remedy the “inequality.” From non-definition thinking, he arrived at the conclusion that all the problems came from the concept, private property; so, he set out to abolish it. The problem was and is the reality of the scene then and now is exactly the opposite.
The dominant social/anti-social situation has been and still is no private property, no private ownership. During the days of the “divine right of kings,” all was said to be owned by “God” with the king as agent. In present day, the owner is “the people,” sometime called the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The centralized coercive force denying self ownership simultaneously denies the concept private property. How can someone who is property own property?
Remember, the essence of ownership is control. Private property means the owner has ultimate control as long as that control does not impose. Is that the situation now or in the past? Do you own “your house”? Other than taxation and other requirements to sustain your “ownership” is the matter of “right of eminent domain.” Private ownership? Hardly.
Dictatorial control is inherent in every governmental system with the “powers that be” at any given time being the de facto owners. What is a vote except an attempt to direct the dominant physical force to compel adherence by others to the voters’ preferences. A vote is a declaration of ownership not only of inanimate objects, but other human beings. If this “reciprocal slavery” is not insanity, what is?
What Proudhon witnessed, but did not understand was the illusion of collective ownership as manifested by real individuals. Ideas on paper with distorted language supporting contradiction is one thing. Definitive examination and/or attempted application is another matter. The only alternative to private property is collective ownership, which is a contradiction.
In practice, the collectivist ownership premise sets a certain person or persons as authority and control over all. What Proudhon regarded as private property was political privilege derived from the fallacy of communal ownership. Proudhon had it exactly backward. This means that Proudhon’s idea if put into practice would turn out the same as what he proposed to displace. (What are 30,000 lobbyists doing in Washington D.C. if not with intent to influence the distribution of “communal property” via the governmental system of coercion?)
As you know, arguments go on and on about what is or is not religion; there is much ado about the “kind of government.” As discussed above, the “anarchist camp” is likewise divided in conflict over the issue of the “true anarchism” on the same plane as the “true religion” conflict. It is all word games of illusion and self delusion, often quite deadly. The self delusion is accomplished only by “shifting definitions,” by non-definitive language usage that does not conform to reality. Speak and/or accept the language of coercion and you support oppression and battle against self.
All of my arguments are based on “is” individual as the real. All the definitions I use or accept as valid are connected to and anchored in “is” individual as the objective referent. This means I reject as false all versions of “ought” individual regardless of label.
“Government Think”
Different and undefined subjective labels do not alter common content. Any concept that expresses or implies a superior being to which individual is subordinated is denial of the actual identity, “is” individual.” “Is” individual is the real whether you or I like it or not. This is the only objective common frame of reference. When actual individual identity is denied, what remains is “ought” individual emotionally tied to infinitely variable subjective mental inventions (feelings) of superior being(s) and objective values.
This issue was actually addressed via the earlier examples showing the consequences of common identity and failure to make common identity. By natural law, common effect is by common cause. This applies to interpersonal conflict as well as all else. How do you wind up with conflict upon the premise of self ownership which provides no base for conflict? You don’t. The conflict between formal religionists is necessarily the same basis of conflict found under the label, anarchism, or any other. In short, the common error of failure to identity “is” individual as the real.
The philosophy, epistemology and psychology of “anarchists” who present a “plan for man” is the same as devout religionist and dedicated governmentalists. Among the commonalities is the much-evidenced fear of freedom. Freedom is self ownership with unrestricted non-imposing choice. This is precisely what every “plan for man” opposes. Declarations in denial mean nothing as they are refuted by the “plan for man” itself.
With minds set in the idea of government as absolute, the differential reference principle of mind precludes envisioning an opposite. There is a confused “mental mix” of external ownership and self ownership without defining and understanding either concept. With the subsequent mental integration with the god concept dominant, such minds carry forward into “anarchism” a version of government while imagining it to be removed from government. This precludes understanding that with self ownership as a base social premise, the belief system, exactly opposite of government, results in a value system also opposite of the value system set by “government think.”
The most obvious difference is the worship of and seeking of power in “government think.” In self ownership, power is not needed, nor desired. Ruling and being ruled are equally abhorrent. Power and rule have no place in a free social existence rooted in the concept self ownership. This concept, understood and practiced, eliminates not only direct coercion, but theft, fraud, and anything else of an imposing nature that would deny self ownership and voluntary cooperation. In other words, the concept self ownership if understood and practiced, ends all “crime”; something that a million laws and a thousand armies cannot do because they are part of the “crime.”
I do not worry about a free individual living upstream poisoning my water supply. This is taken care of by a whole different set of values not at all understood by governmentalists under whatever label. Not understanding is the root of the common fear and common idea of “plans for man.” Once the idea of government is put into practice with the inevitable conflicts and corresponding psychology, there is an atmosphere of hostility and distrust that tends to perpetuate the condition in seeking “security” via control.
I have lived too long and seen too much to imagine that self ownership and freedom is ever going to happen on a large scale, and very few small ones either. For sure, as long as governmentalist and “anarchists” remain stuck in “government think” and insist on bringing in concepts of government and calling them non-government, things are going nowhere.
Speaking of commonalities under different labels, but in the same vein of thought, a common claim among “anarchists” is the concept, “right of self ownership.” “Right”? What is a “right”? Entitlement? Allocated “privilege”? By whom or what? By what rationale? Based on what premise?
The reality is that any human individual can believe whatever he/she wishes and take any action within his/her capacity. “Right”? Permission? With permission comes command. With command is the external ownership premise. “Rights” are a contradiction of individual identity, hence, anti-individual and anti-freedom. This is why in practice, “rights” (a version of “God intended”) become “bestowed privilege” at the point of a gun.
The idea of self ownership is not a “bestowed right.” It is a matter of personal choice. The natural law of individual volition validates this. The premise of self ownership is my personal choice, but not necessarily the choice of another, others, or all. I wish it were, but my wishes do not create reality. “If” self ownership is the agreed-upon operative social premise, subordination to anyone or anything is logically excluded. That is really all there is to it. The fact that most choose anti-self existence does not change the principle and derivatives of the self ownership concept.
In the reality and psychology of self ownership and subjective value, there are no superior, nor inferior beings, therefore, no superior, nor inferior values. To put it another way, morality is a myth. “Morality” is necessarily derived from the fallacious notion of superior being in direct contradiction of the actual identity, autonomous individual.
This thought of “no morality” probably scares some “anarchist” no less that the thought of non-government scares a governmentalist; and for the same reason: It is ingrained that each individual left to his/her own devices without “moral guidance” will necessarily behave in an “evil” manner. “Morality” is equating potential with actual and assuming the “worst.” Sound familiar? Isn’t this exactly the same argument that every governmentalist presents?
What does Webster’s have to say about morality?
“1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.” By principles, does this mean objective natural law, or subjective preference? If the former, it exists without personal alteration. If the latter, it is a matter of personal preference without proof or disproof. To say “ought” is to say does not exist in objective reality. No one says that the law of gravity ought to exist because it already does exist in objective reality. This leaves “ought” as derived from and connected to the subjective; meaning that the source of “morality” is always subjective personal preference. Once again, a simple and highly visible truth much denied.
“MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong, the basic moral values of a community.” The last time I looked, “community” is not a thing, let alone a volitional thing which attributes value. The term, community, denotes a relationship, not an entity. Yet, with the “defining license” allowed by Webster’s, reification is “socially acceptable” and not to be questioned. Community is one of the many fallacious “abstract infinite entities” serving as a hiding place to deny personal responsibility.
Take a close look at all the pronouncements of “morality.” You will find that every one is predicated upon the notion of superior being and objective values. This is the source of the idea of universal good and universal bad. Surely, I do not need to remind you of all the conflict and bloodshed over disagreement on what is or is not moral.
“Good and Evil” and Reality
What is claimed to be a universal and common frame of reference is, in reality, infinitely divisive personal “mind worlds” believed to be discovered, therefore, compelling and “justifying” the “moral duty” to eradicate “evil.” “Evil” is whatever opposes a given moralist’s personal values. “Morality” is inherently intolerant of diversity in valuations, and dedicated to eradicating “is” individual.
Since these aberrations of “morality” have directed most minds for all known history, millions of volumes and trillions of words have been written on “good and evil. Even the “atheists/anarchists” talk about stamping out “evil” as if “evil” is a constant element which everybody recognizes. All ideas of morality are predicated upon the anti-individual notion of superior being and universal values. What do the concepts, good and bad, look like when brought down to the real world and real individual identity?
Entities are neither good nor bad. They exist independently of any value judgment. The terms good and bad refer to actions (or reactions). If a large bucket of water is dumped on a small wood fire, the fire will be extinguished. Is the act good, or is it bad? Same entities. Same action. Same end results. What determines the answer to the question of good or bad? If you want the fire to go out because it is threatening to burn down your valued house, the act is good. On the other hand, if you want and need the fire to cook food, the act is bad.
In the final analysis of down to earth meaning, ie, actual definition, the determination of good or bad is by the objective evaluation of means in respect of a subjectively chosen end. Upon real individual as objective referent, the terms good and bad can be easily defined in a few words. These few words of actual definition dismisses as fallacy millions of volumes and trillions of words of undefined rhetoric on the subject: Good is the means suited to the purpose. Value is subjective and purpose is infinitely variable. It is as simple as that.
Is the magnitude of the pronouncement such that you “feel” that it just can’t be? Is a few words of definition declaring as false all the “great works of many scholars of morality and ethics” too much to even consider? What is the alternative conclusion except that “ought” individual is the real and war is directed by truth? In quantity vs quality, which do you choose as basis of truth? (Truths in isolation do not make the end conclusion. It is the end conclusion that directs action.)
Do I hear a murmur of protest? Do you say that water and fire is not a “moral issue,” but other matters are? Thus do we once again evidence the “dual reality” mode of thought sanctioned by Webster’s and “consensus of opinion.” What about these other values to be regarded as “moral or immoral”? What are they and how does this dual reality work?
Suppose someone comes into my house with gun in hand with intent to rob me. If I have the wherewithal to do so, I will resist. Do you say that I have the “moral right” to resist the “immoral act” of the would-be robber? Obviously, my personal choice and choice of the would-be robber are at odds, but what makes one “moral” and the other “immoral”? Ah yes, the “standards” that “everybody knows.”
A common utterance is the “sanctity of life,” or “life as a standard.” Life is not a static condition. It is a matter of beliefs, values and ongoing action. Life as an abstract means nothing. When the concept, life as a standard, is addressed in the real world, life as a standard comes with a long list of “standards” called morality. In rejecting this notion, I logically reject the notion of life or any other “standard.” “Standards” are not objectively discovered. They are subjectively invented. The “standard of life” is the Open Sesame to other “standards” which you call oppression.
I resist not from some self-contradictory notion of standard, nor from permission called a “moral right.” I resist for no other reason that it goes against my personal choice. I can prove to the would-be robber that his actions provoke resistive violence, therefore, are death oriented. However, I can’t prove he “ought” to choose to live.
As I choose to resist an intrusion of my choice of self ownership, so can others; and can voluntarily join together to do so. The key term is voluntarily from subjective personal preference. Anything else in any form is the contrary and denial of individual identity. The contrary of which I speak is the common fallacy: “ought” individual.
Believing that personally created and subjective values are discovered outside of self means they are considered objective, therefore, universally applicable. Keep in mind that an individual by the natural laws of mind acts upon what said mind believes to be true whether it is true or not. Ergo, the “ought” individual (“morality”) belief is a mind mandate to act upon said beliefs no less than any real objective item that prompts and directs action. What happens is the myth encounters reality in the imposition upon the personal preferences of the “is” individual with the very predictable consequence of hostile reaction.
There is much talk about getting to the bottom of things, getting to root cause of all the social problems of hostility and conflict. Indeed, for many centuries millions of volumes and trillions of words have been spoken and written about this. Every day, more is being added, yet getting no closer to uncovering and understanding root cause. That has been declared off limits by the box thinking set by “sacred ideas.” These many efforts propose to find the answer without ever looking into the place where it must be: Mind.
I have tried to provide some insight into mind, but doubt that I have much succeeded. As a final effort in this writing, I repeat some earlier words:
Will of God, will of the people, public welfare, constitutional rights, natural rights, national interest, ought, should, gross national product, for the good of the country, the values of society, minority rights, morally right, immoral, race relations, community standards, freedom and democracy, altruism, selflessness, government does, majority rule, freedoms, fighting evil, on and on and on unto infinity.
This is but a partial list of concepts commonly accepted and frequently uttered. This is the vernacular of oppression with which our senses are inundated without let up from birth unto death. Where is or what is individual in these beliefs? What else but subservient with "unit value" only? The significance of the list above is that it excludes the real identity, “is” individual. In its stead is the “ought” individual as the director of thinking, the basis of beliefs, the determinant of values and the motivation for all actions. The “ought” individual is myth, does not exist, is illusion and aberration, not objectively real, and not common to all; to the contrary divides all in hostility.
Earlier I gave a couple of examples about making common identification and failure to make common identification that affected the issue of agreement or disagreement. In the example of disagreement of whether the clear liquid was water or white gasoline, the failure to make a common identification results in divided conclusions in regard to anticipating cause and effect. By natural law, the same is no less true in reference to “is” individual and “ought” individual. Unless and until there is a common identification of the real “is” individual, there will be perpetual division in hostility via the illusory “ought” individual.
It makes no difference if billions with gang mentality remain in denial of this truth. It makes no difference how deeply this truth is buried by distorted language usage, backward epistemology, or how it is denied, or how many suffer and die in protest of this truth, it is still natural law. You can subjectively deny natural laws of mind and matters, but natural law determines the consequence of objective actions. It is natural law that will determine the outcome and there is nothing you can do about it. Your only choice is to go with, or go against. It is literally the choice of life or death.
The common goal of “anarchists” is illusory. Most, if not all, are “united” on the common belief of “ought” individual, then infinitely divided by the fallacy of it no less than “God intended” and “national interest.” One could spend many decades pointing out the confusion and contradictions in the endless variations of “anarchism” only to have more follow and couched in the same self-deluding, non-definitive language usage which is the “norm.”
I do not propose to engage in such a futile effort. Suffice it to say, it is only by recognition of the truth of “is” individual without the subservient “ought” adornments of “morality” and “rights” that the real objective identity stands as a common frame of reference in unification, not division. In seeking freedom, peace and harmony, all else is folly. by Delmar England
The author has spent over 60 years questioning the system and what “everybody knows.” He is currently compiling a book on his experience and conclusions, which will be the most unpopular book ever written. This essay is an introduction to the ideas presented in this forthcoming book.
To get in touch with the author, please contact the Anarchism.net editorial team.
All content on Anarchism.net is carefully chosen and professionally edited by the editors of Anarchism.net to ensure the quality of the site. All contributions are highly appreciated, but the editors cannot guarantee your essay will be published unedited.
The founder and editor bears overall responsibility for choosing and publishing, as well as editing, all essays for publication. The authors are ultimately personally responsible for the content of signed essays. Unsigned essays are written and edited by the Anarchism.net editors.
 
|
|
|
|
Anarchism.net editors and authors.
