on theism and statism (August 2015)

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

theism is psychic imperialism.

Rather than events occurring due to the intent and intervention of elemental deities, there are only natural laws governing these elements that cause these events to occur as they do. Likewise, there is no successful, global "conpsiracy" comprised of individual members in a ruling elite. There is only the "psychic conspiracy" that writes the histories we believe in, that invents excuses for our behaviors, and that is a lie told to us by others who, like us, must, for survival, pretend and play "dumb" about the truth. We all know "god" is the "devil" - that tyrant that rules earth and that pits nations against one another, states against states, citizens against citizens and so forth. The "Truth" is simply what no one cares enough to risk admitting: "god is evil." The "god" of Judaism is "evil," the "god" of Christianity is "evil," the "god" of Islam is "evil." Western civilization is founded on the unifying belief in a deity being "good" when, in fact, it is "evil."

only when an individual human being not only awakens to the fact that we are all, subliminally and inadvertently, being controlled, but also rips from their mind the connections between their own individuality and all such super-systems of "control" that had attached themselves to one, only then may that person consider themselves "free" from "control" - at least, of psychic "control" by the minds of others. But this is only the first step for an individual discovering who was controlling them, how they were being controlled, and why. If belief in the biblical deity is thought of as a chord connecting our soul's core to the idea of such a deity, and by its feeding off us and using us like puppets, it brings itself into existence across all our minds in the form of such idea, then this monstrosity's true form may begin to appear. For it is not a localized idealized form that is "god," for so we would like to imagine and depict "him," but it is an uncertain and non-localizable, vaporous ghost that is the true form of this idea. it is this ghostly idea that may be "everywhere at once," because it exists simultaneously inside the minds of all its believers.

if the ideas of "god" and the "devil" as personifications of the moral polarities of "good" and "evil" are false beliefs, does this also discredit the facticity of the moral polarities of "good" and "evil" themselves? I would say, no. The ideas of "good" and "evil" may be examined as subjective qualifiers that organisms attach to "beneficial" or "harmful" things (objects, events or other organisms), respectively. Thus, these terms have "usefulness" as an objective scale of value measurement despite the falsity of their religious anthropomorphism. However, this being said, it should also be taken into account that "god" and the "devil" are ideas believed in by ~90% of the +7B human population right now, while "good" and "evil" are considered removed, unobtainable and alienated, extreme ideals, rarely (if ever) attained to by we mortals.

factually, even though we as a whole species may like to BELIEVE the opposite, "god" and the "devil" do NOT exist, while "good" and "evil" DO. The idea of "god" has been extended to the utmost of the empyrean repeatedly as this retreating horizon has been expanded. The idea of the "devil" has, likewise, taken on a series of forms that, in chronological order, present a decreasingly admirable character portrait. As "god" has been pushed away, so the "devil" seems to have grown empowered over the rulers of this earth. But these are only false beliefs, tearing apart the psychotic minds of would-be tyrants like snarling dogs contesting a favored morsel of fat slipped down from the king's table. They do not really exist. So, the question becomes, what do we choose to do with this obsessive oddity that has accrued in human perception? if "god" and the "devil" are not real, yet people believe in them, how may we transition to a global culture that is both open and honest about the lack of empirical evidence substantiating theology? If "good" and "evil" are subjective, but useful as a gauge for judging value, then why do people consider these only when played out as satirical characatures in fictional mythopoetic context?

the cataloguing of all hallucinations, considered "mystic visions," is the substance of almost all religious metaphysics from the "ancient" world. Whether these visions occurred in dreams, due to intoxication by natural or artificial means, spontaneous inspiration, a "near-death experience," a physical or mental illness, fever or delirium, all these were seen as "signs from the gods," and their exact nature noted down, along with every detail learned about them that could be shared in common to shed light on their universal cause. In short, the teachings of the "annunaki" (the alien deities of Sumer) to the so-called "nefilim" (or "titans," the "heroes" of early myths), consisting in metallurgy, music, face-paint, healing and weaponry, etc. (in short, all the arts of our so-called "modern" civilization) are all based on hallucinations being recorded and compared to one another by early scribes.

As long as the "powers that be," in whatever form(s), conspire together against independent thinking, humanity will continue to devolve.

whether you yet cling in ignorance of history to the "justice" and "ineffability" of an imaginary divinity, or think the State a more fair arbiter of interpersonal disputes, being plural in its resources rather than singular in its choice-making, it does not matter to the "deity" you are "creating" over yourself with your "beliefs." And if your worship earns you the reward of a lucky life, blessed by fiat capital, why ask if what you worship is truly a "just" though "ineffable," universal / cosmic intelligence, or simply a ghostly scape-goat you summon to take from others and provide to you?

I posit the premise (once extolled within the hallowed halls of the Cathari, at least, according to the Pope who purged them) that the "god" worshipped by the masses is actually the devil. He is not "disguised" as god, there is no "higher god" than this "great beast" whom the religious dream up and work to bring into reality. This UNJUST "god" is NOT "ineffable" - his nature can be known quite easily by the fruits of his deeds. He is the devil. Consider the hearsay of the Tanakh and Gospels: they describe their central characters from everyone else's point of view beside their own. So what would happen to, say, Catholicism, if an "Angel Scroll" written by Yeshua Ben Padiah is to be discovered? Will they readily and willingly share it, as they have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Thomas or that of Judas? It threatens the Christian religion of western civilization to question the divinity of the person of Christ. What then, would it do the foundations of monotheism in general to question the value of worshipping its "false god"?

The most novel approach to dispelling theism is to instruct the aspirant toward divinity to pray and ask their deity directly if it is real or not. If the deity says that, yes, it is a real entity, then the nature of this reality may be addressed directly; but if the deity responds in honesty and admits that, no, it is merely a hallucination, preserved as truth throughout history, then what about it is worthy of anyone's veneration or service? If the "deity" claims itself to be "real" but cannot define its own nature, it will be revealed as like a spider spinning a web of lies. But if the deity is truthful and accepts its own nature as dependent on our belief in it for it to exist, then why would we choose to believe in it, since it refuses to mature beyond the psychology of an adolescent?

the most novel approach to dispelling statism is to ask the aspirant toward such mortal, fallible pseudo-divinity to define, for themselves, on their own terms, their own idea of a "perfect form of government," and then ask them to compare and contrast this to the real forms of government around the world now and in humanity's past, to see if their ideal has ever been tried and accomplished, and if not, why is a state like their ideal not around today? Demonstrating that different people value different things (each of us imagines our own "ideal utopia" in our own, unique way) proves eye-opening to one limited in belief to vapid patriotism; not everyone shares our own ideas of what would be best for us all - even though NONE of them are "right."

Making judgments of the best exit strategy for someone else from their unpleasant situation is much easier than doing so for oneself in one's own situation. Therefore, the best judgments are dependent on objectivity from the outcomes affected by the given advice. If one cannot maintain objectivity from their advice, due to their having a personally vested interest in its outcomes, then they should be remanded from the authorities due to the position of someone capable of providing objective advice and just judgment.

this definitely applies to the American "justice system," where public defenders, police enforcement and the judge - who is the real final arbiter of sentencing, despite the jury's involvement - all represent the interests of the State, who also run the prisons and jails, so there is really no one there to represent the interests of the accused OTHER THAN themselves alone.

However, it manifests in this form only due to its being an innate possible trait in human nature. One inevitably gives others advice that is wiser than the advice they follow on their own, and likewise, no one who has any involvement with the person they are giving advice to can give a person "objective" advice; yet, if we are all involved in the same situation, then NO ONE is truly objective from the outcomes of their advice, and EVERYONE'S fate is inter-related to that of everyone else.

if, as it would be true to say, we ARE all in the same situation together - albeit one defined by competition against one another for the rarities of easier survival, then NO ONE IS "OBJECTIVE" in the end, and EVERYONE IS CULPABLE for the consequences of ALL their OWN advice. Thus, NO ONE can be trusted for "objective" advice in ANY personal, social or human matter who is a person, a part of society, or even only a human being. This, of course, does not prevent people from allowing the urge to give advice and / or to accept the advice of other people. It simply means that, howsoever long as there is even one person alive giving people advice, then there cannot be the unanimity requisite for true "objectivity" to prevail in human reasoning; so long as there is even ONE among us ALL who remains alone in thinking themselves the "wisest among all," then the remainder of us are held back from our natural evolution.

The implication of this reasoning is that the idea of the State, alike the idea of "god," is one humanity would be better off never having had; we grapple with it to find some beneficial, even useful meaning in it, but ultimately this struggle is "generational" only because it is futile and its goal impossible. The State, as an idea, and Statists, being those who believe in this idea alike "theists" believe in the idea of "deity," are detrimental to our natural evolution as a species. So long as they maintain a class structure of "leadership" above and "followers" below - the basis for the so-called "State," then there will be limits on free evolution by individuals. Even when a group or individual begins to write down "rules" for what "should be" possible for a human in a condition of "absolute" freedom, one will end up writing down what such a "free and independent" person "should not be" allowed to do, even though they may have the natural ability to do so. Thus, all formats of "State," no matter HOW well-intentioned in origin, are a danger, collectively and even if only as an idea, to the evolution of humanity.

So long as the "State" has no authority that can penetrate my mind directly to the extent of controlling my ability to make choices, then ALL the "artificial" laws of the "State" are NOT "unbreakable" nor, necessarily, even "ethical" and "just." Not only this, but because they cannot be enforced by natural laws alone, and thus require the creation of a "police" class to enforce them, thus all such "artificial" laws dictated by any "State" are ONLY SUGGESTIONS, attempts at advice and wise guidance, but ultimately moot, subject to interpretation and to personal choice. Thus, the authority of the "State" is ALSO a "legal fiction," which, in itself, is a redundancy of terminology. All laws of any "State" are "artificial," dependent on a "police" class to enforce, and run contrary to what natural law allows. The "State" is thus fake, brutal and unnatural. It can therefore as an idea be classed among those not worth dwelling on how to salvage, but better discarded from the contemplations of human thought.

However, "revolution" and "civil war" against this element of corruption within our kind is NOT a "final solution" for the philosophical problem it poses. We cannot purge by violence the urge toward violence, which - ultimately - is what the cancerous tumor of the "State" manifests - an entirely arbitrary "monopoly on violence." However, to attack violence with violence only profits violence. Violence does not lead to "successful communication" of a correct idea, but to the opposite - its rejection, no matter how accurate. Therefore no institution that commits or condones ANY act of violence can rationally and rightly be considered "just" nor worthy of any authority. However, the manner to explain this to the buffoons who constitute the "State" and its loyal following of "Statists" is NOT through the same tactics they would use against us; we must be peaceful. But this means, also, of unfortunate necessity, that we must be patient. The "State" will "wither away," and assume smaller and smaller forms as it disappears in its authority over the vast majority of the populated land-masses, until finally only one small "State" government will exist over the entire globe. Finally, no such "State" will have any authority over anybody, and the "psychotic" mind-state people who it attracts will cease to be a significant segment of the species populations. In situations predominately defined by stupidity, "patience is a virtue" and "revenge is a dish best served cold."

stubborn conservative-ism against "herd mentality" has evolved as a trait useful to individual survival, however for many such "objectivity" and "non-interference" extends also to "ignorance" and "isolationism." The more one ignores a reality, the more defensive they become about it; thus, the more "ignorant" one is, the more "arrogant" one becomes about it. This progression, quite the opposite from debunking its motivating premise, proves liberally embracing the "herd mentality" to be wrong, because eventually the majority of all people become "dumbed down" and "proud" about it.

It is demonstrable that in a situation where there are classes of "leaders" and "followers," wisdom, fairness, objectivity and true justice cannot exist; however it is not demonstrable that wisdom can exist in conditions without "leadership" and "followers" thereof, simply because such conditions do not pre-date the origin of human historical records. In short, all humanity has ever known has been "leaders" and "followers," and we have only so rarely achieved anything remotely resembling wisdom or truth that these occurrences appear as inexplicable aberrations against the standard average.

"wisdom" is NOT dependent on the "master/slave" (nor "leader/follower") relationship for its existence. The existence of this relationship precludes the possibility for wisdom to survive. Thus, there are no examples from history of what I would call "successful" communication of "wisdom." People from time to time spout truths; the majority will never listen. It is impossible to successfully "advise" a "slave" to prefer "freedom." Whether the advice is given objectively or not, the slave already knows to prefer freedom, but they cannot attain it, due to their situation of being a slave. People are not slaves by choice. They are therefore not able to escape slavery and liberate themselves through their own choice(s) alone. If it were that simple, then perhaps we would see examples of "successfully" communicated "wisdom." However, because of this being the case, we do not.

The "State" and the "Church," the institutions of "government" and "religion," as manifestations through human activity of the ideas of "good in groups" and in "god," respectively, are twins of one another; this much is considered an acceptable belief even among those who would consider themselves neither ignorant nor superstitious. But without admitting the existence of some "theological" manner of "deity" - even if an undefined "leviathan" present only as a vague "archetype" in the depths of the "collective unconscious" - then what manner of mental monster could have birthed such "twins," or, if they are not "twins" in the sense of being separate, perhaps they are conjoined and thus merely the "twin" heads on the single "body" of such an anthropomorphication? These ideas are only "twins" in the sense that both are "wrong" and both are "evil" and both are "lies." Thus, if they do act as proof of some earlier ideological entity, it would HAVE to be of such an equally "evil" nature, thus, such a "Leviathan" concept - combining both these elements in one - can only be conceived as alike the "devil," and NOT alike any form of just or worthy of worship "god." If, indeed, the "state" and the "church" CAN be argued as the "twin" heads of such a "Leviathan" concept so alien form the public good that it can only be compared to the embodiment of all sinfulness and corruption, the devil, then the "State" would be alike "Satan," the dominant face of this creature, while the "Church" would be alike "Maloch," his "evil eye."

However, I do not subscribe to the "deification" of abstract "ideas" by their anthropomorphication into identifiable constructs. Thus, I do not believe in it being either a "god" nor "devil" that united (and unites) the ideas of "state" and "church," but an idea, an urge, innate in human nature - the desire to give and receive advice. Both government and religion draw their authority from the well of belief that "giving and receiving advice" is "good," "wise," "beneficial," etc. for any and all parties involved, when, in fact, this benefits only a few (those who "rise to the top" to become the "leaders" and who give more advice than they receive) and NOT the majority (those who remain "at the bottom" of this ponzi scheme as the "followers" or people who ignore the advice given to them, and who advise others, but are only ever ignored).

Ultimately, "giving advice" amounts to "bossing other people around," regardless of their qualifications, or their innate equality to you as a human being. Whenever anyone gives advice to someone else, it can either be "successfully communicated" to them or not. In the form of an "order" backed up by the tactic of "coercion" (the "threat of violence," but falling short of use of violence itself), advice is usually the most "successfully communicated;" at least, from the "behaviorist" view-point, because the person so "ordered" will usually obey. However, this does not make the "idea" they are "obeying" a "just" or "right" one, and taints any idea that MAY begin as being "just and right" to make it more "unjust and wrong" in the end.

Because both the "State" and the "Church" depend on "giving advice" and ultimately "bossing other people around," and because they both, whenever they feel it would benefit themselves to do so, resort to the tactic of coercion in order to "successfully communicate" their advice in the form of "orders" one "must" obey (be these the divine assumption of a "deity's" existence, the divine dictates of papal bulls, or simply the artificial laws of varying "States" enforced by armed guards), then BOTH the ideas of "State" and "Church" are harmful to the natural evolution of humanity as a whole. These are both, mutually, "bad," "wrong," and "evil" ideas that are "lies" meant to misdirect from "truth," that are harmful, detrimental and retrogressive to all that is healthy and beneficial to survival and evolution.

Thus, it is the desire to "command and control" other people that is the unifying factor of both "church" and "state."

we should, at all times, question whether this urge to "command and control" is truly beneficial to ourselves or to other people.

If this urge to "command and control," to "boss other people around," and, in its most distilled form, to "give advice," is of NO benefit to ANYONE, as I would argue it has not been, according to the current and complete records of all human history, then it should serve as a perpetual warning sign against the ideas of "church" and "state," the ideas of "deity" and of "dictatorship," because these "twin" ideas spring forth and arise from the motive of simply "giving advice," elevated beyond just "bossing people around" to the extent of complete "command and control" of entire populations.

In short, because there is no such thing as "absolute objectivity" from any advice's outcomes, then no advice can be considered truly "wise" and "just," and, because of this, all human institutions claiming to provide or believe in "wise" and "just" advice are shams; in particular among these due to their scale of influence are the institutions of "a spiritual god" and "an earthly government." The Church and the State are NOT to be trusted nor believed in; they are human, fallible, changeable as wind, and for the most part attract to their institutions ONLY those willing to become "inmates" because they wish to "run the asylum."

When Absolute Objectivity Is Impossible, Only Bias Is Communicable.

When Absolute Objectivity Is Possible, No Bias Can Have True Value.

When Absolute Objectivity Is Attained, All Bias Becomes Meaningless.

Because Absolute Objectivity is a perspective of perception, it is necessary that it should change (the observer's point of view changes) even though the situational conditions being observed do not (the reality around the observer remains the same). Thus, "only bias is communicable," "no bias can have true value," and "all bias becomes meaningless" are always true descriptions of the same situational conditions, regardless of the fact that "absolute objectivity" is limited more or less in the three different cases. However, due to the subjectivity of perception, "absolute objectivity" seems to be associated only with a condition wherein "all bias becomes meaningless," and not at all with the condition wherein "only bias is communicable." However, these do not occur universally, nor in isolation from one another. Thus, simply because one attains "absolute objectivity" and perceives that "all bias becomes meaningless" doesn't mean the rest of the people, for whom "absolute objectivity is impossible," cease to communicate; and thus, for them, "only bias is communicable." This means that, for one who has attained absolute objectivity, all communication by those who have not appears as bias, and "no bias can have true value;" hence why, for such a person, "all bias becomes meaningless," even though it already always was, is and will be.

"Realism" doesn't have to be a synonym for "Pessimism." - Jonathan Barlow Gee

Remain Objective. Do not confuse "seeing the world as it is, not how we would want it to be," with its opposite. If you have either happiness or hatred toward the world, your emotions will tint your perceptions; you will lose objectivity and embrace bias.

Realism: Objective, material reality exists more solidly and more reliably than our, more intangible and more mercurial, subjective mental perception of it. The idea that solid, objective, material reality depends or relies on any form of perception to exist is false and easily disproven: when our ancestors died, the whole world did not cease existing; the world & all reality existed before and will exist after any form of life that exists within and perceives it.

Idealism: Inspiration, interior to the mind, can provide wise guidance and new tools, find and increase value in and thus improve on current conditions. However, in order to express an inspired idea, one must create a new material invention using existent resources obtainable given their environment, or else in some other way communicate their internal idea via an external medium to an audience for consideration of its influence on history.

Solipsism: The ultimate lie, belief in which terminates one's connection to solid, material reality. Once one adopts this position toward reality: that reality itself is purely a mental construct, one ceases all connection with their own unique electromagnetic aura, and the uniqueness of their electromagnetic aura immediately reverts to a simpler, standing wave-state. Without a unique aura, or individual "soul," one cannot preserve their mental essence after the death of their body.

why is solipsism the ultimate lie? Solipsism is the belief that "nothing exists," or, in a softer sense, that "nothing we sense is real." It expresses the idealized belief that "all we perceive is an illusion" and that "the reality beyond this illusion we cannot even imagine, and as it is utterly ineffable to us, we cannot even begin to comprehend anything about it." Solipsism is, thus, the "ultimate lie" because it contains a sad truth, wrapped within its poisonous falsehood: not ALL of reality IS a lie, but ALL of reality that IS a lie is evil, harmful and wrong. Therefore, the idea itself that "ALL Reality is a lie" is, itself, a lie, and thus part of Reality that is harmful to the rest.

Also, solipsism precedes the belief in theology, which is, arguably an even greater lie, though only because it is so much more common. Many claim they "believe in god," but few attempt to commune with "His True Presence." Those who do experience this first as a sudden mental shift toward solipsism and the belief that all they knew, all they experienced and all they think that is happening now is all wrong, false and a lie. Then begins the "clinging to deity" for guidance, support and justification, and this is truly the "psychotic break" from reality at the core of ALL major world religions. Their founders (Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha) all had a "peak transcendental experience" followed immediately by a psychotic break from reality, and their belief in conversing directly with the interior workings of nature on a sentient, conscious, self-aware basis.

Anarchism: The natural condition of all life-forms, sentient or not, is absolute freedom. This means the only "laws" limiting them are those defining their physical nature (as biological beings living in objective, material reality). Beyond natural laws, the only "law" one can define over one's own absolute freedom is whatever "law" one chooses to impose on oneself. The doctrine and dogma of anarchism dictates that all laws imposed on any individual by others without their consent or by coercion are unjust and thus void.

Statism: Conceptually opposed to "Anarchism" - which is the original dictate of the One True Law: "There is No Law" - and conceived of by its opponents as advocating bureaucracy and legalese. However this is not the case according to a strict adherence to the original intention of organizing governments voluntarily. In a direct democracy, all citizens have one vote each on ALL legislation: if a bill is passed and becomes a law that means that a majority of the entire citizenship of such a direct democracy voted to pass that bill into law, and if it fails, it is because a majority exercised their direct democracy to vote it down. This is the only acceptable format for a voluntary government, because anything short of this, including "representative democracy" and especially an "electoral college," is founded on hiring politicians as mere lawyers, petitioning the state for donations to the causes of special interest lobbyists.

Fiat Economics: Counterfeiting, or printing worthless exchange notes, creates a model of government that is entirely dependent on a big bank (either one central bank or else a conglomerate of international banks); the modern American federal government is a sufficient example: the US Federal Reserve (central bank) gives unlimited counterfeit funds to the US DOD (Department of Defense - the army) for them to use to pay for soldiers and guns. The federal "representative republic" is then rendered irrelevant besides this "military-industrial complex," and becomes merely a side-show, a form of entertainment, for which we are charged by taxation to support, whether we approve of its antics or not. The "American Republic" has become little more than a taxation-based welfare administration with dwindling access to the "unlimited money" the Fed provides the DOD. All of this would be impossible without the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, printing counterfeit money; it is this falsified form of value that is to blame for the equally farcical, modern use of government and laws.