Friday, February 27, 2015


I have seen many young men tragically ruined. They have been ruined by brutal fathers and ignorant mothers; by ignorant fathers and brutal mothers, but most of all, they have been ruined by dangerous friends. They have been ruined by insecurity, as their insecurity has been inherited. It would seem that our lack of education is killing us; our lack of seriousness suffocates the atmosphere of our progress. We are held in the chains of our ignorance. Bondage is the price of stupidity.

Young men need guidance; they need the love and wisdom of other men, without this they are lost.

Troubled youth always seem to find other troubled youth. We have failed to educate our young people; we have given them no initiation because we had none ourselves; in every vital sense we lacked the resources. 

Young men need communication. They need to be able to articulate their insecurities in an atmosphere that will not mock them for those insecurities, but above all, they need to be taken serious. They need to see that they have the capacity to ask good questions; that they have a voice; that violence is the illegitimate pathway to power. But before we can show them a better way we must first find our own way.

The trouble of youth is the trouble of confusion, and this confusion causes fear, and this fear causes violence as a means by which to make up for insecurity. Too often a young man's experience of life has been the act of smashing his fists against a wall. In the end only he is broken.  

When I say I have seen young men ruined. I mean they had the potential to go another way, to be something else, but due to a lack of resources, and every corrupt influence, the only thing they learned was how to survive. This stark reality breaks my heart, as it should break the heart of every noble man. 

The boy who has now become a hardened criminal was once a special and innocent child. And the reason for his loss was a rupture in his development. We made him what he is! 

A denial of our social conditions will get us nowhere. A denial of social conditioning will only rob us of the power we need to fight the lot we have received. So much of life is tragic; so much is wasted.

We owe it to our young people to educate ourselves; for we cannot give what we do not have. In order to be great communicators we must first have something great to communicate.

The key to making a better world is to create better social conditions, as social conditions are the key to the stability and security of the individual. It is imperative that we re-create ourselves in order that we might have the power to intercede.  Without first finding our way out of the abyss we can only pretend to show others. 

Quality people have the capacity to change lives. Mentors are not only for the young; they are something a wise man should intelligently pursue throughout the course of his life. A wise man is not only one who recognizes his needs, limitations, deficiencies, but he also seeks to remedy those deficiencies. A wise man is smart enough to ask for help! He is always seeking to better himself; to gain more mastery over his existence (not so he can exploit people) but so he can more effectively help people.
Our collision with young men must be a clash, but not a clash of brutality, a class of intelligence motivated by love. We challenge a young man not to break him, not to control him, but to free him from the confusion of himself; to liberate him from the dark influences that have the potential to destroy his life. We must become serious about education if we would become serious about helping those we love.               


Tuesday, February 24, 2015


Every now and then there comes along a serious man or woman. It is not so much that these people possess extraordinary powers, but they have a concise view of the world... these men and women are able to cut through the fodder that has weighed down many trained and learned minds... their greatness lies precisely in their ability to transcend and dispose of sophistry. They are immune to the confusion of politics; they are unfazed by authoritarian poets. They are masters of focus, carrying forth a singular vision; their eye does not divert from the glory of their prize. And because of this they learn to speak plain; they communicate in such a way that people everywhere can understand what they say, and they are effective in their communication because they do not practice the art of politics. The power of such men and women is that they are sincere, and this sincerity produces hope in those who hear them. 

I have seen powerful men and women [they are known for speaking plain].  But speaking plain is not enough. A great man or woman must have courage. They must be ready to walk through the fires of rejection and endure the cold indifference of the world. 

People are not ready or willing to take you serious, but you must not be concerned with their apathy, you must go forth and strike the match which is true to the voice of your heart. If you are serious then what does it matter if your seriousness is denied? In the end apathetic men and women don't count. They are forgotten, lost to the clutter of history; they are at the foundation of no movement, their actions serve to stifle progress. In short, their apathy stands against greatness. A great man or woman must overcome many such obstructions.  

When I think of a great man or woman I think of an individual, not that gives us something new (although this can be a criterion), but that shows us how to use the tools we already have. Where emphasis was lacking emphasis finds its place. When I think of greatness I think of clear-sightedness coupled with strength, which has the direct effect of eclipsing stagnation. Great men and women move the earth because they have the ability to stand, on what we might call, neglected common sense... philosophers in their vanity seek profundity, and as such, have missed truth; they are no longer effective in their philosophizing. 

The challenge before us is not merely to see these great men and women as distant relics, or demi-gods of imagination, untouchable and unreachable, but we have the duty and obligation to realize greatness in ourselves. We are these men and women! And as such we must takes responsibility for greatness. We must learn the vital art of clear-sightedness, or else be forever condemned to the theoretical playground of confusion. So much of our speech only serves to detract from productivity and clarity; it is nothing more than speech of confusion which causes disorientation, which produces suffocating stagnation.  

A prophet is one who can extract the vital proposition from the maze of plurality His words cut like a razor against the matrix of confusion.     

Great men and women make us aware of the simplicity we overlook. By trying to be profound we have only made ourselves fools.          

Monday, February 23, 2015


My experience with God is my experience with nothing, as God is the great nothing. All that is nothing is God, and all that is God is nothing.

God does not come to us because nothing is not a thing that comes. God does not speak to us because nothing does not speak. When I speak of nothing I speak of God. When I experience nothing I experience God. But how does one experience nothing? How can nothing ever be experienced? As has been said, nothing is that which nothings itself.

Nothing and God are of the same substance. 

Both are words [the experience of nothing is that which we speak of nothing]. 

Both are abstractions... but even so, one is left wondering if the idea of God has enough substance to make it to the level of abstraction?

Perhaps nothing comes to us in death; perhaps death is the very essence of the experience of God?

Can one truly be greater than nothing? For nothing is before all things and nothing is the end of all things. 

He that speaks of nothing speaks of God.  


Saturday, February 21, 2015

THE TRAP OF POWER- Jersey Flight

In many circles the flare of atheism will die out. This is what happens when a movement is intellectually superficial. What do we mean? 

A large part of the function of atheism is merely a juvenile emphasis of power; it is a reaction against the illegitimate moral structures of oppression. To be an atheist for the sake of power is to leave oneself open to the structures of power. A moral man must transcend the temptations of power; he must act for the sake of a higher purpose, which is the purpose of community (as community is the strength and ground of the individual; it is the genesis of genius).

I can gather power to myself; I can lord over other people by taking advantage of their ignorance, but this is not the kind of life I choose to live. These are not the kind of actions that lead to a better world. 

Formally we have disposed of theism; it has been shattered, even though a large portion of theists remain. This is because belief in God is not about evidence or reason; it's about faith as a means by which to overcome a contrived sense of despair; it's about occupying a position of moral authority. In short (and I suspect this has been said a thousand times before) religion is about making oneself feel better about the uncertainly of existence. 

Many religious men and women are needy for affirmation, and when they taste power in the form of theism, they have found an artificial crutch by which to pacify their need. The way they were subverted is the same way they seek to subvert, which is to say, by the declarations of authority. The God they embrace has made them authoritative, which is the same reason they believe in God. Remove the authority and the attraction of religion dies. In this sense religion appeals to a certain kind of person with a certain kind of psychology. The individual is too independent to succumb the assertions of religion. Instead of embracing authority he challenges authority (which is the same reason we call him an individual). But the needy man (the dependent man) has been searching his whole life for the affirmations of religion. Without this infrastructure he feels incomplete. He needs the illusion of religion in order to foster any sense of purpose. Having no root in himself (no inner strength) he must find himself in shallow declarations, which he takes to be universal truths. In short, such a man needs to be told what he is and what he can do; he is the opposite of a creator.
It is one thing to play sophistical games with sophistical theists; it is another thing to strike at the heart of theism. I fear we are too needy; we choose to take the inauthentic rout of power. But the free thinker must not mimic the insecurity of the theist. It is essential that we find root in ourselves; that we practice values we can stand on and be proud of. We must declare ourselves moral without becoming moralizers. 

The idea of having root in oneself is that one has character. We must be men and women of character (that from this strong and beautiful center) can proceed the quality of our protest, the effectiveness of our love and compassion. 

A humble man is not a stupid man, and neither is he a passive man. The best thing to be is a just man. A just woman is humble, but this does not mean she keeps silent in the face of injustice or abuse. Humility is not equivalent to quietism or piety.   

In order to avoid the trap of power we must rid ourselves of the need for power. When we speak, refute and exhort other people it must not be for the shallow reason of power; let us speak because we care; because we know we can be of help to other people. But make no mistake; there is a time to slay monsters; there is a time to break the mountain that stands in our way. There are many men and women who prey on the insecurity of other people [this takes from the world it does not give back to the world]. Let this not be our vocation. Let us strive to rid the world of insecurity. Let us strive to build up the needy individual, so in return, she can build up other people.

When we move let it not be for the shallow gain of person power, so as to squelch our own insecure, selfish needs, but let it be for the sake of love, which is to say, for the sake of promoting the health of other people. 

For it is only from the center of our strength that we can ever truly hope to help other people. And unless we have strength, which is to say, we are ready to give from the quality of our abundance, then we have no business helping other people. A man who is needy does not give, but takes the thing he needs. 

Our responsibility is to make ourselves so strong and so wise that we can be used by those who need us, that they may equally be full, thereby placing themselves on the altar for other people. 

We make the world a better place, not only by teaching ourselves, but by creating ourselves, and then taking this thing we have made into the center of a world with needs. 

At the end of the day it is only the power and beauty of our character that counts. 


Sunday, February 15, 2015


Friendly atheism as an ideology of theism by which to morally strike the courageous man who will not conform.  The friendly atheist puts himself in such a position as to claim that the bold man (who is also an honest man) is defective. In every case it would seem that the judgement against him is moral, but the question is whether or not the claims of theism warrant respect?

In the sense that atheism is a critique of theism it is also a kind of revolution against theism. Perhaps we should take the advice of those who have won revolutions. 

"...we always have to think over carefully all those things we do not fully understand. We must analyze what the enemy wants us to do and why they want us to do it. Then we must do the opposite." Che Guevara, Talks to Young People, pg. 76

In this case what does the enemy want us to do? Do they not demand the "right" of respect? I submit to you this is precisely because it gives them the advantage. The theist would have you work within his paradigm; for he knows that if he can control the presuppositions, which come before the subject, then he has already won the exchange. That is to say, he wants you to assume with him (as all friendly atheists do) that his topic is worthy of respect. 

So we are to pretend that the playing field is equal, but is this really the case? 

The commercial atheists tell us the problem is one of reason, but we have struck down this stupidity: the real problem is Authority! And unless the polemicist attacks this vital center he will make no progress in the blight of this war. 

Once again we are told that we must pretend that the claims of theism are something they are not, which ironically enough, is the bold advice of moral men.

Very seldom does an indoctrinated man recover from his indoctrination simply because a polemicist shows good manners. Nonsense! There must be a blow to the vital center. The indoctrinated man must feel as though he has come into contact with a cataclysmic event in the realm of his ideas... after such an exchange he should feel lucky to be alive; only then is the infrastructure in place that can alter his course.  Radical revolution requires radical confrontation.

We are not talking about a lack of intelligence. We are not talking about an angry confrontation, or superficial reactionaries; and we are surely not prescribing the same thing for all practitioners. Undoubtedly tact has its place.

I direct my prose to those that sit at the top of this superstitious pyramid; to those who hold the keys of Authority above the lowly masses. They must be chopped down; one must strike an intellectual blow that robs them of the image of their Authority. The public must see it; the men who reference them must see it. One must speak in such a way that this Authority, this moth-eaten, disingenuous, moral piety, loses the force of its power. The free thinker must show that he is immune, and thereby blaze a trail for others to follow. For we have found a way beyond the assertions of these men, and the people who need it most must see it.

Friendly atheism, in the worse sense, is a form of cowardice, in the best sense, it is a form of confusion; a misunderstanding of the psychology that keeps the disciple locked in place; of the Authority that made him a disciple in the first place!

"I am a friendly man, and therefore do I presume to condescend... go along with me while I play my disingenuous game."

But my dear friends the earth is not flat and we know it! 

Surely men of superstition did not get that way because of reason--- they got that way because of Authority! He that refuses to attack this Authority is a fool... but we can say more; does such a man or woman really care? Perhaps this approach, of equal opposites, is actually directed at the affirmation of the ego; it's all about retaining a specific social image; proving to oneself that one is superior. And yet this project is antithetical to life. There is no choice, at some point we must eventually drop the hammer.

What progress has this method really made? All the progress that comes by way of deconversion comes through shattering the image of Authority. It is not so much that a disciple discerns that his belief is refuted, as much as he discerns a vital loss of Authority. "The power of the statue was only a myth." Hence, if such a man does not tear it down at least he no longer worships it. In the best case he is done with all statue worship!

[But what if the friendly atheist has merely driven the theist to another statue? For he did not attack the foundation of Authority, and therefore, left the psychology of Authority intact. It is reasonable to believe that such a man or woman will still be susceptible to the illegitimate structures of Authority. How dare our commercial friends call this liberation!]         

The bold man; the courageous man (and we are not talking about undisciplined idiots who merely spout insults from their lips) is made the enemy of his own cause. The moralist, feeling his way to be superior, lambasts the direct man as being morally defective for exercising his directness. And yet this same moral man (a man who claims to be locked in an ideological war) never stops to ask himself the desire of his enemy. He never stops to consider the shallow nature of his own methodology. The friendly atheist and the theist are united in the cause of their moralism, but this is not a game the friendly atheist can win; for theism is the king of moral Authority.  

By agreeing to the rules of the game (which amounts to respect for theism) the friendly atheist, from the very outset, affirms the presuppositions of the supernaturalist. He will attempt to manipulate men out of their theism by the sheer power of his polite kindness. [Facetiously]: Everyone knows that a complaint of offense is proof that one has done something wrong. "Though shalt not offend!" And yet this moralism gets worse: "though shalt not offend the advocates of stupidity by speaking the truth!" 

But we have something better: the only thing that can make true progress in the diffusion of theism is to attack the Authority of theism, as Authority is the central agent of theism! He that fails to make contact, at this vital level, fails to deconstruct the machine of theism. Even the theist knows this, which is the same reason he rejects the method of the friendly atheist. And what does this say; the theist will not join in the methodological stupidity of the friendly atheist! But if he can get the friendly atheist to submit to this "mutual contract" of equality among friends... there will be no detection of his own violation. It matters not, either way the cordial method of theism wins. It wins by being polite, and it wins by getting the friendly atheist to submit to the presupposition of equal legitimacy.      

But can the friendly atheist comprehend this? By god even theism refutes his stupid method. The friendly atheist has been duped. By leaving the Authority of theism intact, all the friendly atheist does is make a statement about himself. But showing himself to be a "moral man" he equally shows himself to be a fool. Here the objective is not to win, not to destroy the illegitimate banners of theism, but merely to conduct oneself with the utmost moral integrity. And if the friendly atheist has done this then it simply doesn't matter if he should win or lose; for he has proven to himself and the world that he is a good, polite person. We might call this The Etiquette Argument for Atheism.     

The theist does not believe it is right for the skeptic to assault his Authority. But why does he believe this? Why does he value his Authority... no my friends, this is not the question, the question is why the skeptic would affirm the legitimacy of this belief? Are all beliefs equal? Are all claims worthy of respect? 

Mock the stupidity of the stupid, first so you do not partake in their stupidity, and secondly, to help rid them of it. 

"I believe Porter because he is a man of authority; because he has so often demonstrated his authority by asserting his authority. Therefore, when Porter tells me that (P) is true, I believe it because he said it. To expose and attack the false authority of Porter therefore, is to destroy my belief."    

I know the great evangelist wants to claim that this method only reinforces errant belief, but we are not talking about this prescription for all men, we are talking about those who hold the levers of Authority. It would seem that all stupidity, on some level, presupposes Authority; our aim is simply to attack (which means discredit) the claim of Authority.

To discredit something means that it must first have authority; and do you not see my friends, that this is the subtle maneuver of theism? It demands this Authority without warrant; it assumes the right and justification of respect, as though it were the default obligation of every human being. But what is this assumption based on? 

Shatter the empty script of theism by discrediting its assumption of Authority! This, and not polite manners, is what it means to dispose of theism.

In war one must go for the kill.  


Saturday, February 14, 2015


The first task of revolution, of a revolutionary, is to protect the voice of the people; is to ensure that the will of the people, operating for the good of the people, cannot be thwarted by the individual. A revolution must be that which secures the rights and freedom of the people. Every infrastructure which contradicts this task cannot be called an infrastructure of revolution. 

This means that a revolution must not only win liberation for the people, but it must also secure that freedom, in order to protect it from pretenders and tyrants, mechanical institutions. 

Freedom is the essence of revolution, while love is the engine that drives the revolutionary machine. 

Freedom won is easily lost if it is not continually protected and cherished by the people.


Monday, February 9, 2015

ON PRISON- Jersey Flight

"Prisons as places of detention and reformation were the creation of American idealism..."

Surely the idea of reform, most specifically in the context of prison, must be a myth? Is there not an economic component attached to the business of prison? Is business not the appropriate word to use when speaking of prison? One should consider "how much harm" prison does to society and the individual. We are not speaking of abolition, but of reforming the very concept of prison itself. It seems the logical place to start would be the interaction of prisoners. At present so much of our system is outdated, barbaric... there is no doubt that future men and women will look back and wonder at the absurdity of our reason. We still live like desperate scavengers, always ready to throw the violent spear.


Tuesday, February 3, 2015


If the justification of reason is itself circular then what is the analytical thinker really doing? 

Dry formalism, irrelevant formalism, academic technicality toward the display of superior proficiency?

The whole enterprise seems disingenuous: are analytical philosophers really doing what they claim to be doing? 

I suspect this is a cave for people with no imagination/ this is philosophy without creativity/ this is not philosophy, this is bondage, stagnation; this is what it looks like for a philosopher to stand in one place!

What does analytical philosophy really do (the word "really" being a reference to the world)?

Is this the secret path of wisdom? Is this the way of higher men? For here we multiply the questions of grammar; here philosophy is pushed back to bare syntax. This is no longer philosophy but the confusion of arbitrary linguistics, idealistic semantics. Men in search of control discuss the subjectivity of the symbol as though it were the secret path to objectivity. 

To be an analytical philosopher is to pretend that one is profound, precisely because one is amused.