24 min read

The Hateful Mother, The Absent Father

The Hateful Mother, The Absent Father

The Act of Justifying Coercion → Language Degradation → Indoctrination → Censorship

I hereby assert that a religion-in-all-but-name has corrupted the world's societies. Its infection has corrupted the way that we think, act, and the way that we communicate. Basic knowledge has been lost and language has degraded from a profound process into a hegemonic tool.

If I am to be branded "extreme" or "crazy" (labels that practitioners of logic have proudly worn for centuries) for expressing these views, then I guarantee that by the end of this essay, you will bear precisely the same brand of "extreme" and "crazy".

The Liberating Father | The Loving Mother

The fundamental dichotomy in free society is individualism vs collectivism, or more precisely, aspiration vs duty.

Individualism: The Morality of Aspiration

The component of morality that appeals to the individual is aspiration. This simply follows from every person's purposeful action to improve his circumstances, that he ought to be able to do so. Within the context of the morality of aspiration, any action that leads to a better circumstance is "good" and any action that leads further from it is "bad". This is the morality of the Good Life; of excellence; the fullest realization of human powers; etc.

The morality of aspiration begins at the top of humanity. When one person urges another to eat healthy, he is appealing to it. When one person picks up a difficult book to read, he does so out of a desire to improve.

A lack of aspiration is to be considered a failure, not a wrongdoing. One can fail to realize his potential but should not be criminalized for that failure. After all, no law that can compel a man to live up to his full potential. The morality of aspiration simply tells people to be better and pursue their interests, but it cannot tell them what their interests or the Good Life is. That must be discovered individually.

Collectivism: The Morality of Duty

Where the morality of aspiration begins at the top of human action or that which should be achieved, the morality of duty begins at the bottom or that which should be condemned.

The morality of duty emphasizes the basic requirements of social living, or the basic obligations people ought to have towards one another. A "duty" inherently obeys the principle of reciprocity; it is an exchange between people, but not always an explicit exchange. One has a duty to not steal my property despite never having explicitly come to an agreement with me that we would not steal from one another.

The morality of duty simply follows from us being social animals. Even male antelope obey some hidden rules when in combat for a mate. As an example, the act of honesty is an obligation (duty) towards one another, and anyone that is caught lying is criticized in terms of the morality of duty; in terms of their failure to uphold their end of an intrinsic bargain. To be criticized in term of the morality of duty is to be found

  1. negligent in one's duties:
So soon as it becomes perfectly clear that you have no intention whatever of treating me as you yourself would wish to be treated, then I shall consider myself as relieved from the obligation to treat you as I would wish to be treated. 1p.21

2. or to be accused of imposing obligations where they ought to not be imposed.

The Dangerous Father | The Overbearing Mother

If you are not convinced that (I) these moralities [should] exist, try imagining what it would mean if they didn't. If the morality of aspiration didn't exist, then that would be equivalent to claiming that people should not try to improve; that a person does not act purposefully. If the morality of duty didn't exist, then that would be the equivalent of claiming that humanity is not social and should not honor obligations.

If you are not convinced that (II) these moralities form a fundamental dichotomy, try imagining all possible criticisms of a person. I posit that every criticism of a person ever made can be categorized as a failure to aspire or a failure to fulfil an obligation (duty). I posit that every action in society is in terms of one or the other. Let's examine an example.

Tribes are just beginning to organize into a coherent society. Tribe A, who lives downstream, is at odds with Tribe B, who lives upstream and is dumping their waste into the river. The council of all tribes come together to discuss this issue, and quickly come to the conclusion that this issue is larger than the dispute between two tribes; that it will determine how broader society should behave in regard to the dumping of waste in rivers. This is a clear example where society has to devise a collective rule - an obligation. Society has to impose obligation on individuals because we cannot allow others to dump their waste upstream of us, which infringes upon the property of others (a form of theft).

Imagine another scenario where Tribe C is offended by the way in which Tribe D honors their dead. Tribe C calls the council of tribes together, hoping to enforce their own way of honoring the dead onto other tribes. In this scenario, Tribe C's petty need to control others is the true issue. We ought to be careful when others want the iron hand of forced obligation imposed where it ought to not be imposed.

Where do we draw the line between the individual and the collective? In other words, what is the relationship between the two?

If the line is drawn too high, or collective/individual, then the rigidity of duty smothers creativity and autonomy.

If the morality of duty reaches upward beyond its proper sphere the iron hand of imposed obligation may stifle experiment, inspiration, and spontaneity.1p. 27-28

If the line is drawn too low, or individual/collective, then the morality of aspiration encroaches upon the territory of the morality of duty and

men may begin to weigh and qualify their obligations by standards of their own and we may end with the poet tossing his wife into the river in the belief – perhaps quite justified – that he will be able to write better poetry in her absence.1p. 27-28

In other words, we have arrived at the definitions of "villainy".

What we refer to as "villains" are people who draw the line of morality too high or too low. Johnny Ringo (Tombstone. 1993), Prince/King Joffrey (A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin), The Joker (Batman franchise), and the perpetual-seeker-of-lawsuits are villains that draw the line too low; they tend to take from others without reciprocating. Professor Umbridge (Harry Potter), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) and the gatekeepers-of-acceptable-speech are villains that draw the line too high by imposing unfair obligation; they tend to punish others for failing to fulfil arbitrary or impossible standards.

The two moralities form a dichotomy because one has fixed or sacred points while the other does not.

The Trader's Dichotomy (Economics)

Human economics is perfectly analogous to this morality. Economics is the relationships of exchange (RoE) and the principle of marginal utility (PMU). The RoE is the collective component of economics. The PMU is the individual component of economics.

The relationships of exchange (collective economics) mirrors the morality of duty (collective morality). Both have fixed or 'sacred' points (obligations towards others) by relying on the principle of reciprocity. After all, without collective obligation, property rights would be meaningless. Neither the RoE in economics nor the Duty in morality can exist without people having these mutually agreed-upon sacred points of property rights or dignity.

The principle of marginal utility (individual economics) mirrors the morality of aspiration (individual morality). Neither hold anything to be sacred except for whatever higher state one is trying to achieve. We maximize the "utility" of our resources (PMU) to reach some economic state; it does not matter how we organize resources or time so long as their utility is maximized. The same can be said of the morality of aspiration to reach The Excellent life. The two are even similar in their shortcomings because neither can tell us what the "economic state" or "The Excellent Life" is. They simply tell us how to achieve it.

Since the relationships of exchange and the morality of duty form a dichotomy with the principle of marginal utility and the morality of aspiration, this is the fundamental dichotomy in a free society. If one is taken too far, we arrive at a form of villainy.

Though villainy seems bleak, the natural condition of free society is an emergying order of cooperation. The most complex social orders have resulted from the free market after all. Production and innovation happen there. Men can only "get ahead" by helping other men with the exception of the occasional villain, which is not a winning long-term strategy, and villainy is a problem that has never been efficiently addressed by the inverse of freedom – coercion.

In an unfree or coerced society, morality, economics, and language itself becomes so bizarrely incomprehensible that even the best of minds become handicapped. The free society dichotomy of individual vs collective is replaced with the coerced dichotomy of freedom vs coercion (or knowledge vs indoctrination). Coercion cannot occur unless language is degraded, large swaths of people are indoctrinated, and others censored.

The Coerced Society

When I identified the two programs that censor us;2 software that places state indoctrination (under the guise of leftist politics) in front of audiences;3 and techniques that could only be described as the high-tech creation of leftist NPCs,4 I was naively certain that the leftist would reconsider his loyalties. Instead, he unwittingly appealed to the morality of duty by exclaiming that these companies were private and that the relationship between platform and user is reciprocal in nature. This would have been a sound defense of these actions if it were true (since the free exchange means that both parties - internet users and tech platforms - are free to not engage in that exchange). Unfortunately, it is not a free exchange at all. Government grants - money taken from us by force - were issued out to the organizations involved, and government coercive powers were wielded against the competitors of the participating organizations.5

Censorship (to stop ideas) could never have occurred without indoctrination (to force ideas). There were the two censorship software programs, but each had to first be justified by propaganda (e.g. "extremists" need to be censored to protect society). There was also non-software censorship, or the use of the person as a censor, but that person also needed to be indoctrinated first, which is why the indoctrination software program came about. The purpose of every censorship technique is to (obviously) censor; the purpose of every indoctrination technique is to create future censorship. If indoctrination preludes censorship, what precludes indoctrination?

After I showed that the official government created a proxy government online to censor and indoctrinate,6 the leftist abandoned the "private company" argument for the "public interest" argument instead. He cried out that it was in the public's interest to protect us from extremists and racists. Once again, the leftist (statist) was wrong.

  • one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than attacked by a far-right group in North America,7
  • an enormous effort with considerable data advantages assembled such a meager dataset of white supremacists that their empirical approach was abandoned,8
  • the dominant methods to classify "racist" and "misogynist" were too arbitrary to rely on,9
  • America has extraordinarily high inter-ethnic and inter-racial relationship ratios which ironically resulted from the "racist" non-left.10

The censorship and indoctrination that Westerners have been observing is a result of coercion – of government intervention. Not only were certain ideas suppressed and other ideas forced, but language itself is being altered. This, by the way, is more fundamental than government's control in the digital market. I will show that language distortion happens in every government intervention in any market. If coercion is used, the distortion of language is necessary.

After exposing the insignificance of extremism, racism, and hate crime events, the leftist resorted to claiming that each were serious threats because various (selective and flawed) opinion polls say so. If we are going to base our arguments on how the public feels, then why not believe the right when they claim that "the elites are waging a war on small businesses"? Or conversely, why not believe the right when they claim that they are not racist and extreme?

Speaking of the other side of our political coin, despite being censored and slandered by the very entity they pay taxes to, the current "right" clearly outcompetes the left in

  • comedy (the left has bots, the right has memes);
  • the marketplace of ideas i.e. start-up news industry;
  • and even the primal market of relationships and sex by a staggering 11%.10

However, the rightist is guilty of flawed use of language.

When I ask the rightist about breaking up "big tech" with antitrust enforcement, he enthusiastically supports such State powers, despite (again) being slandered by that very State. Even after showing him that it was The State behind all of the information control measures that he despises. and the frightening nature of antitrust enforcement,11 convincing him is often futile as he ironically clings to the socialist's de facto definition of a "monopoly" rather than the more meaningful de jure definition.11 This is an example of language distortion that serves the interest of State expansion [an endeavor is not unethical or immoral because it is simply large; a business that is large may very well be unethical, but arbitrary metrics such as size are not adequate frameworks to make such judgments]. This reliance on fallacies is indicative of a broader flaw in the use of language.

As a further example of his flawed use of language, the rightist believes the leftist has abandoned "responsibility", but the evil of the left is that they want to impose oppressive obligations (responsibilities) where obligations ought to not belong, such as sexual preference which ought to remain in the hands of the individual; forced charity which ironically renders the act meaningless; uniformity in speech and tone; and a great deal of other examples. The leftist does not abandon responsibility contrary to what the rightist believes - the leftist abandons achievement, autonomy, individualism, and all of the suffering that accompanies it, which is why the leftist appears to have so little personality. The leftist abandons the morality of aspiration; he is the real-life version of Dolores Umbridge. Even when he appears to be abandoning social obligations, such as the 2020 "defund the police" narrative which was ostensibly a cry for a social organization (government police) to be disbanded, the intent was to indoctrinate the police by intimidation rather than disband them. The leftist wished to render government police not just bound by obligation fiscally but bound by a twisted morality as well.

If the leftist is manipulative in his use of language, the rightist is a failure. The rightist, despite his principles, has a hard time describing the nature of the left and more broadly, government. The leftist misuses language while the rightist's ineptness to use it renders him useless.

The Great Degradation of Language has a Name: "Coercion"

From our earlier examples, the leftist's concept of language is so damaged that he cannot distinguish between coercion (forced exchanges) and freedom (reciprocal exchanges), making him immensely useful to an entity that relies on coercion. He has even been led to believe that if a company is some arbitrary size (defined by the government official of course) then that company is coercive or exploitative and ought to be broken up by the (ironically, coercive) powers of the state. What he believes to be "coercive" and what he believes to not be coercive depends entirely upon the edicts passed down to him by (ironically) coercive authorities. Volumes could be filled on the words whose improper usage benefits the State, making our job of reaching the indoctrinated a task of breaching a semantic gap.


Coercion is a collective effort that is funded by forcefully taking resources from citizens within its jurisdiction. We call this "government". Since force is used, the morality of duty does not hold even in the best of circumstances. Citizens of democracy, for instance, have been fooled to believe that democratic voting is a reciprocal exchange because they vote for their representatives, yet once those candidates are voted in and become government officials, they receive a salary regardless of what they do for their voters. If that official's actions do not meet the voter's standards, the voter does not have the option to forego the services of the official like the economic trader does in the exchange. Whether the voter likes it or not, money will be taken from him to pay for the official's salary.

In other words, the government official is insulated from the principle of reciprocity (the morality of duty), which is a praxeologic statement that holds for all government officials.

It holds for unelected officials if we replace "voter" with "citizen". It holds for tax-funded teachers and policeman just as much as it holds for intelligence officers. Indeed, it holds for anyone who receives tax revenue, even if that revenue is called a "grant". The "proxy" government mentioned in previous sections is an example of government serving it's interest by indoctrinating and censoring audiences via "grants" awarded to select organizations.

In fact, in the digital markets, the act of giving these "Grants" out to select researchers was a threefold corruption of the principle of reciprocity: (i) opportunists were paid via coerced funds for a task that would have negatively affected them in a free society; (ii) dissenters (Parlor, for instance) were slandered as "extremist-infested"; and (iii) the government-narratives-disguised-as-empathetic-leftism were slander of the very users on those platforms. Regardless of one's status as an opportunist, dissenter, or user, each had to pay for it all via taxation. Clearly, this example is more akin to slavery than to mutually beneficial reciprocity.

People know of (though, not the specifics nor the targeting of the mentally ill in ad feeds) the State atrocities in the digital market, but neglect to ask basic questions: Does the digital market contain unique properties that attracts the corrupt State official, or are other markets similar? What is the nature of the State?

Do we simply have "too large" of a government?

All of these bad things are happening in society, and whenever we look close enough, government is both the catalyst and the origin. Information control, my magnum opus, originated from government intervention. The costly and wasteful safety protocol within the construction sector, and even the unproductive "wokeness" (left-statism) of corporations was a response to government intervention.15 Is it the unique property of a "large" government to degrade language and prosperity?

Well, if we are willing to toss out logic and embrace arbitrary ethics, then we can define "bad" by some specific size and anything above that size will be condemned while anything below will be acceptable. Clearly, bad behavior cannot be logically defined by such metrics.

Bad behavior justified by size:

  • It was only 29.3% of a lie!
  • She only stole 5/32 of your sandwich!
  • You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts!

Innocuous/good behavior condemned by size:

  • You make $1.602 more than I do?!!
  • You only gave away 1.5 kidneys to charity!?

Logically, the ethical argument that some collective endeavor is too large or too small is no less silly than the argument that "You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts". Rape is wrong - it is an infringement on another's body/property. While ethics can be complicated, it is never arbitrary.

The government problem is not quantifiable but instead categorical. Government is bad because it is coercive. It is bad because it decreases prosperity. It also has to lie about morality and economics in order to justify itself; so it is bad because it is dishonest and degrades language. None of these facts are determined by arbitrary calculation.

"Large" governments (whatever that means) do not possess some special unethical properties that "small" governments do not possess. No matter how we define "small government," it is bad for precisely the same reasons but on a smaller scale.

The profound truth is that:

There has never been a logically sound argument for the State; and the very act of trying to justify it necessarily degrades language.

The ways in which State powers is argued rely on the following fallacies in addition to relying on ad hoc fallacies:

All Statist Arguments are Fallacies

Externality management - Economic exchanges have consequences (an externality) for those not participating in the exchange and government ought to manage those various, small externalities in what will become a massive, unmanageable externality (government). As an example, a statist might argue that some mining company produces the externality of pollution and the State ought to intervene; yet coercion is more wasteful because it does not have to maximize the use of resources (in economics, the principle of marginal utility), so its intervention causes a greater externality of pollution.

Bad Men Theories - Man is too dangerous or too stupid or too weak, or too ___ to not be coerced by other men (government), which contains its own counterargument. If men possess some negative trait, then that is all the more reason not to have a collective endeavor that takes from people by force.

The Impossibility to ___ Theory - Some goods are allegedly impossible to dispense, or some people are allegedly impossible to exclude without government.

The Catastrophic Failure Theory - In order to prevent a catastrophic failure from a (de facto) monopoly, government must create a real (de jure) monopoly on another service to protect consumers from their own free will.

Collective Theories -
These are arguments that appeal to emotion, or pathos over logos.
Appeals to democracy, or the will of the people is to...
Appeals to socialism, or the good of society requires...
Appeals to nationalism, or the security of the nation requires...

The Broken Window Fallacy -
With its power to coerce, government can create special services that would criminalize other people had they participated in the same action.

Order over Chaos Fallacy -
A special 'order' or 'uniformity' is desirable and only government can create it. This neglects the fact that all of the most complex and productive processes have been created by free exchange. Coerced-based order hampers innovation by inhibiting points of comparison (competition), by inhibiting differing opinions opposed to the will of the politically powerful (at the moment), and by inhibiting necessary adjustments that only the free-market can provide. Government endeavors only damage the complex order that was initially established by free exchange.

Each statist argument contains an ad hoc fallacy as well. It is merely assumed that a government endeavor is specifically required to solve some problem rather than the near-infinite possibilities of collective efforts that the free market provides. In other words, the statist claims that some scenario or service contains some special properties and therefore must be addressed via coercion (he never proves the existence of these special properties). The statist assumes that his arguments are not universally true; he applies them only to specific scenarios. I challenge a reader to devise an argument for government that is free of this fallacy.

The statist must also selectively acknowledge the small good provided by a government action and excludes the net bad that results, distorting what the morality of duty represents.

Every government argument distorts the morality of duty and logic itself. Another reason for this is the universal truth that government decreases prosperity, or more precisely, inhibits the only known mechanisms that increase prosperity.

As Rothbard and many others have shown, the free market maximizes social utility, which means that coercion disrupts the price finding mechanisms of the free market, harming the prosperity of society. Furthermore, government intervention also hampers innovation by inhibiting points of comparison (competition), by inhibiting differing opinions opposed to the will of the politically powerful (at the moment), and by inhibiting necessary adjustments that only the free market can provide.

The unhampered market is free of self-created economic problems; it furnishes the greatest abundance consistent with man’s command over nature at any given time. But those who yearn for power over their fellows, or who wish to plunder others, as well as those who fail to comprehend the praxeological stability of the free market, may well push the society back on the hegemonic road   -Rothbard 13

As such, when the government official argues for a new government endeavor or attempts to justify the existence of a current government endeavor, that official has to lie or express ignorance in order to produce that argument. For instance, in the digital market, the more obvious cases of these lies were "extremism" and "racism" while the more subtle were "monopolistic power" or "disenfranchised" (in terms of educating the improverished youth). No amount of certification, formal protocols, or “official” licensing can change the fact that all government arguments are untrue, and all government actions are harmful.

In fact, let's examine what an honest argument would look like for government. I will choose a (current) rightist topic this time:

I want police. Now, I suspect that all of you do not want as much of this service that I want us to have. As a consequence, it is only fair that you are coerced into having this service to the extent to which I want it. Otherwise, you will not freely purchase as much police as I personally want society to have. Coercion-based policing will be more wasteful and less competent than private policing, but I cannot predict what the latter will be like, so I prefer society to be coerced for the former.
-statist Chase

Even an honest and informed argument for government must distort the principle of reciprocity.

The action of government results in oppression legally and inhibits growth economically.

The defense of government results in the loss of language and knowledge.

Back to our example above, society would certainly have private and charitable police if it had no State police; and it is worthwhile to examine some objective truths that we can define between the two.

  1. Private police would result from the free exchange so it would honor the principle of reciprocity (morality of duty) because people would freely buy or freely decline more policing services. State policing, based on coercion, cannot do this.
  2. We do not know to what extent private police would exist, except that it will obey the supply-and-demand principle. Since State policing cannot follow this principle, government policing will oscillate from being wasteful (too much Supply forced on the population) to being a shortage (too little Supply to meet Demand).
  3. We do not know what specific future forms private policing will take because competition and innovation is unpredictable. We only know that State policing will stifle innovation.
  4. Private policing will perform its function more competently than State policing as (empirical argument:) all private endeavors have been observed to perform more competently than State endeavors of a similar service, and (rational argument:) private policing would have the profit-and-loss incentive that State policing lacks.
  5. Private policing will be less wasteful because (empirical argument:) all private endeavors have been observed to be less wasteful than State endeavors of a similar service, and (rational argument:) because resources are maximized in their utility on the free exchange.
  6. State policing will hamper the ability of individuals to pursue the morality of aspiration (to improve themselves) since it takes from them by force; whereas they have an option in the private analogue.

And the most profound realization of all is that the argument above applies to all government endeavors vs private endeavors. It is quite a profound realization since we all grew up in societies with governments, that all government endeavors are necessarily bad economically. And since this is the truth of government, then it has an incentive to degrade language in an attempt to maintain its privileged position (taking resources without having to fairly work for it).

Then why do people defend government?

Coercion can only exist by lying about itself. Indoctrination does not work unless language is degraded, and censoring (to stop ideas) would have little utility on a population without the ability to indoctrinate (to force ideas) . In order to have coercion, the State has to (1) degrade language, (2) indoctrinate, and then (3) censor. Some people defend the State out of indoctrinated ignorance (a topic thoroughly analyzed in The ARKA Journal's censorship, indoctrination, and propaganda directories). Other people defend the State out of the belief that they will be the masters that benefit from the coercion of the slaves.

The opportunists that would benefit from some State intervention (like the Duck Duck Go official, recently)12 will profitably lobby for it and will be the first to believe their own lies since it is in their interests to do so. Duck Duck Go officials have participated in every step listed above by calling for State powers to be wielded against their natural competitors, ironically making Duck Duck Go the very entity that they believe their nemesis, Google, to be.

The lobbyist appears to be honoring the morality of aspiration since it is in his interests to do so. On the other hand, if some act requires dishonesty and/or a lack of critical thinking, which lobbying necessarily requires, then it may also be argued that lobbying is not the pursuit of the Good Life but is a twisted version of it. After all, the lobbyist is attempting to acquire success by wielding the force of the State rather than compete and reciprocate fairly for that success. Profit from lobbying comes at the expense of everyone else since government intervention harms society.

To highlight just how bizarre coercion is, let's examine which type of villain Duck Duck Go officials have become with our moral framework. On one hand, DDG officials are attempting to aspire at the cost of everyone else, making them the aspiration/duty villain – the Johnny Ringo, if you will. On the other hand, DDG officials are attempting to impose obligations (coercive powers of the state on the market) where they ought to not belong, making the DDG officials the duty/aspiration villain – the Professor Umbridge, if you will. Since the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty form a dichotomy and are mutually exclusive, a person can only appeal to one over the other. To simultaneously appeal to the former over the latter and the latter over the former is more than just villainy; it is paradoxical villainy, which is why the modern leftist (the current loyal subject to the State) is so consistently inconsistent.

Even the victims of government interventions/endeavors will propagate statist propaganda in the belief that it will benefit them. The State may take 10 coins unconditionally from citizens but give back 3 coins conditionally. The State will give those 3 coins back to those that satisfy the condition of compliant servitude. This happens in all forms of Statehood, but in democratic republicanism, that servitude is to vote for the representative that is promising to return those three coins to the loyal subject. This is what the welfare State is and democracy 101: loot society but give just enough back that you secure voters for the next election [the monarchist State is bad, but the democratic State is worse].

While the net interest of a citizen is to abolish the State intervention (and keep the 10 coins for all of society), the marginal interest of a citizen is to lobby for the conditional return of 3 coins. The marginal interest is still a net harm, but the subject often cannot conceive of another way and only sees the options of not receiving a portion of the conditional return or receiving a portion of the conditional return; the option of abolishing the intervention altogether is rarely considered. In other words, the loyal subject considers a "win" to be chosen by the coercive class for conditional returns and a "loss" to not be chosen by the coercive class for a conditional return.

As a result, the loyal subject gains "success" in life by believing logically flawed and manipulative arguments from his favorite State officials because it is in his marginal interests to do so. Stupidity and immorality, two traits that are punished on the free market, are incentivized in coerced society. The loyal subject is marginally rewarded for using language incorrectly. He is marginally rewarded for believing in the very propaganda that oppresses him.

This is why whenever a censorship technique is discovered, an indoctrination technique will be observed alongside it. The control of information is necessary for the existence of government – even a minarchist government.

If logic (rationalism) alone does not suffice, allow me to reveal (empiricism) the corruption in an entire subfield of psychology.

On my pursuit to expose how information is controlled, I came face-to-face with psychology organizations that were indoctrinating people with statist propaganda, mostly by targeting the traumatized and those that fancy themselves as traumatized. I decided to conduct a review of every independent scientific study produced over the psychology of trauma and resilience.14 Within a 65-year period, there have been just over 50 sound independent empirical studies within this subfield, and the findings are not at all what one would suspect if mainstream narratives were to be believed.

The unofficial propaganda posits that people are hyper-sensitive to trauma-related illnesses and require institutional care (or more precisely, "parenting"). But the reality is that the vast majority of people are not capable of developing chronic PTSD. Only a small minority (4-14%) of people who encounter war, death, rape, and other extremes will benefit from trauma-treatments; these are the people that can develop chronic levels of PTSD. All others are best left alone clinically, even if they suffer from some PTSD. In fact, of the resilient, half do not benefit from treatment and the other half regress from treatment; yet the highly state-subsidized field would rather harm more people than it helps if state pawns are the result.

If there are no logically sound arguments for government, then is the statist a religious prophet?

Recall my challenge to present an argument for the State that does not rely on the ad hoc or any of the other logical fallacies I listed. If all claims made by the statist are untrue, then the credibility of the State relies on the neo-religious rituals referred to as "certification"; the rites of "formal licensing"; neo-Shamanism in the form of suits and ties; and other visual appeals to credibility and respectability. If my challenge remains unfulfilled, then all statist claims are faith-based and therefore supernatural. Therefore, is the statist any better than a modern sorcerer participating in astrology or witchcraft? The only difference after all, is that one happens to wield powers of force.

A state-funded economist, with his convoluted mathematics that only he has the divine power to interpret (I have pointed out the mathematical errors across many neo-economists' formulas only to be met with hysterical outrage), is no more than a sorcerer of some supernatural experiment that has yet to be observed. He merely writes religious incantations that are meant to conjure up the prosperous government.

A state-funded lawyer, with his redefinition of words is no more than a spellcaster, perpetually mixing and convoluting the symbols we rely on in a futile attempt to conjure up the ethical government.

The difference between the statist and other religions is that most religions attempt to help humanity better understand their nature while statism attempts to distort human nature in an attempt to enslave humanity. Coercion necessarily distorts language, abuses morality, misinterprets economics, and there are no known examples to the contrary.

The true economists proved that:

Coercion → Loss of prosperity

The reality is much worse, because for us to reach that point, coercion had to have first been preached:

The Act of Justifying Coercion → Degradation of Language → Indoctrination → Censorship  … [repeat]

The Heretic's Dictionary

: rational thought in opposition to the Church of Government
: anti-state blasphemy; heresy
mistakenly referred by statists as: racism, extremism, terrorism, misogyny, etc.

: a sect of religious prophets within the Church of Government in America; ostensibly opposed to the Republican prophets

: a religious belief system; a special collective effort assumed to be the answer to a society's problems
: a neo-witchcraft that excludes all other collective efforts via a monopoly on force, 'certification' rituals, and 'licensing' rites

noun, verb
: a license to grant a subject formal approval for some act
: a certification awarded to Government Prophets
: a ceremony to pass authority from one prophet to another

: a sect of religious prophets within the Church of Government in America; ostensibly opposed to the Democrat prophets

: a holy prophet of the Government
: one who partakes in the rituals and rites of government witchcraft
: one who swears fealty to the Church of Government

If a heritic is clever, unruly, and blasphemous enough, I will accept edits and additions to The Heretic's Dictionary.

Do you have any villains you would like to suggest? I had a hard time with the meager list I provided.

How did you fare in my challenges? Were you able to think of a critique of a person or that cannot be categorized as the morality of aspiration or morality of duty? Were you able to think of a logically sound argument for government?

Do you have any blasphemous offerings to The Heretic's Dictionary?

*** [1] Fuller. "The Morality of Law." Storrs Lectures on Jurisprudence Yale Law School. 1963 print.

*** [13] Murray N. Rothbard. "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Markets". Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 2nd edition. 2009.

[2] Offield. "ShadowBanned". The ARKA Journal.

[3] Offield. "Indoctrination Mechanisms Online". The ARKA Journal.

[4] Offield. "An Indoctrination Technique on the World's Largest Platform." The ARKA Journal.

[5] Offield. "The Peers that Betrayed Us." The ARKA Journal.

[6] Offield. "America's Proxy Government." The ARKA Journal.

[7] Offield. "The False Agenda". The ARKA Journal.

[8] Offield. "A Hidden War on Free Speech: Google's Jigsaw". The ARKA Journal.

[9] Offield. "The World's Leading Brainwasher: Moonshot". The ARKA Journal.

[10] Offield. "America is not Racist". The ARKA Journal.

[11] Offield. "Information Control in America." The ARKA Journal.

[12] Offield. "Duck Duck Go's Unethical Strategy." The ARKA Journal.

[14] Offield. "A Tale of Suppressed Science: The Psychology of Trauma and Resilience". The ARKA Journal.

[15] Offield. "Why Corporate America is Woke." The ARKA Journal.