Part 2

Private Property or Possession: A Synthesis – Unknown, 2005

PROPERTY IS A TROUBLESOME issue. It is not only a matter of definition, but a matter of values. Some anarchists
value property as a guarantee for freedom and prosperity, whereas other anarchists see property as a means of
oppression and therefore wish to see it abolished completely. And there are other anarchists taking a “middle stance”
–both pro and con–through advocating only possession. There seems to be no way around this issue, but this essay
introduces a new theory combining the arguments put forward by anarchists in all three camps. Can this theory unite
the anarchist movement? Ownership, according to Immanuel Kant, is “the mode of having something external to myself
as my own.” As such, it is problematic, since ownership in effect means that someone has the exclusive right to control
a part of the physical world. Or, in other words, someone has the right to exclude others from that part of the world.
How does that fit with the ideas of the anarchism tradition? One answer is simply that it doesn’t. Both collectivist and
individualist anarchists usually agree on the importance of abolishing the privilege of private “bourgeois” property. But
in general they also identify the impossibility of a society where no one has the exclusive right to anything. It would be
a worldwide “tragedy of the commons,” where the natural resources soon would be exhausted simply because some
people are too greedy. But still, anarchists cannot advocate regulations to stop some from using “too much” of the
scarce resources. (Who would enforce such regulations?) One solution might be a version of anarcho-communism,
where everything is put under the “rule” of the communal collective. But that won’t do as a universal solution, unless
one takes for granted that all people will voluntarily join a communal collective. Or that everyone would be forced to.
Anarchism and Possession Instead, the anarchism tradition advocates possession rather than property. There is no
consensus as to what possession really is, but the main difference between possession and property is usually that
possession does not come with a never-ending right (as is the case with property). Possession is simply the right to
control a piece of nature which is already in your control, i.e. an object you currently use. As soon as you let go of the
object, your right to it is automatically abandoned.

These concepts might seem rather extreme versions of two opposing views on ownership. It is true that the meaning
of both property and possession might vary some depending on the discussion. But in essence, the possession
concept is a volatile ownership whereas property is a rather permanent, durable, and constant state of control. The
problem for anarchism is that not all anarchists agree on possession being justified, while some argue for the justification
of private property. Most anarchists find themselves somewhere between these “extremes,” however with varying
definitions of what is just ownership. Ownership, it must be concluded, is one of the reasons factions of anarchism
seem unable to cooperate. Common Ground It should be noted that virtually all anarchists, when arguing for or against
possession or property, share the same fundamental value as starting point: that the individual alone has the right to
his self and that the laborer has the natural right to enjoy the full benefit of his labor. The difference in opinion regarding
possession and property must consequently arise in the reasoning following this mutual anarchist standpoint. We have
an equal right to ourselves and our labor. Alternatively, other and differing values (perhaps community, redistribution,
egalitarianism…), considered of equal or superior importance, are taken into account when discussing the issue of
ownership. Anti-possession anarchists are likely to argue that property and possession alike necessarily exclude others,
meaning it causes inequalities that are not given in nature. What is important here is that all people have equal right
to the full physical world. From this, it is claimed, it does not necessarily follow that the world is used justly if part of it
is being used by one person. It might very well be that there are other uses for that specific part, so that the benefit to
the collective or people worse off is improved by taking it away from whomever is using it (i.e. redistribution). (Redistribution
by whom?) Pro-possession anarchists might argue that man’s right to his labor is severely violated if the unowned
and unclaimed piece of nature he currently uses is taken away from him.

He has the right to occupy and use this certain part of the world in producing something of value to him. Others will
simply have to use another spot or wait until he is finished. Pro-property anarchists claim that the value created through
labor is not separable from the physical object, and thus the first undisputed claim provides the claimant with a natural
right to the object as well as the value. When an object is used to achieve a value it is changed, meaning the person
must have the right to the outcome of his labor and the unclaimed piece of nature. There are other views as well, but
most anarchists would probably agree with (at least) one of these three. A Synthesis: Bringing the Views Together The
question is: how can one try to find common ground for anarchists when the tradition encompasses so completely
different views? The obvious solution is to keep the discussion going, to respectfully consider each other’s arguments,
to question the validity of one’s own and other’s values, to welcome and embrace new perspectives and solutions.
This is, however, not always the path chosen by anarchists. Instead, they tend to be rather dogmatic in their views,
more than willing to impose them on others. This essay proposes a solution to the conflicting views in anarchism through
a merger: by extracting the strong arguments and supported positions from each of the views and putting them together
in a new theory. The result should be a theory that could be adopted by most or all anarchists and that is harder to refute
by critics. The basis of this merger must be the common point of departure in the three views above, i.e. that each
individual has the full right to his own labor and the results thereof. Also, it should incorporate the equal right to nature and
the resources therein put forward by anti-possessionists as well as the right to unobstructed use of that nature as proposed
by pro-possessionists and the exclusive right to the fruit of one’s labor as championed by pro-property anarchists.

Nature of Values Starting form the axiom that each individual has the full right to self and to lead his life as he sees fit,
the right to labor and the values created is easily inferred. After all, man acts in order to achieve certain values. If it were
not for the purpose of those values, he would act differently (or not act at all). We can therefore state that the individual
voluntarily chooses to act a certain way in order to achieve a value. The value is thus the incentive behind the decision
-making and the action. It is subjective by nature, since it is formulated by and for the individual, but the physical outcome
of his labor might nevertheless be of value to others. One might argue that there is an objective use-value of the outcome,
but such a statement of value necessarily depends on what kind of use one chooses to analyze. Also, it needs to take
into account the situation in which the individual is, i.e. his need. The appreciated value, i.e. the assessment, is thus
subjective. Even though a value is subjective in how it is valued, it objectively exists. In other words, even though the
use-value is subjective, there is an objective reality in which values exist. For example, eating an apple provides energy
which supports life, so an apple has value as a source of sustenance. It is also of value for everybody to eat. But ask
yourself, how much is eating that apple worth? Try to establish an objective assessment. It is not possible. The values
guiding ones actions are not ever the same for any two individuals, and even if they were we could not find out. This
means that values cannot be compared, which is also an argument for equality. Nobody can claim their value of a
certain act is greater than someone else’s. John might be prepared to die if he cannot use that apple in his work of
art, whereas Jim will die if he can’t eat it. Here the theory faces the ultimate test: either John or Jim dies. Who should
use the apple, or more correctly: whose right is superior?

Anyone claiming John or Jim should have it because his need or value is greater or of greater importance is in trouble.
How can you tell? Who decided what value should be greater? In small communities one might be able to get together
and make an official value hierarchy for all situations, to which everybody agrees. But to use this method on a larger
scale requires the use of force, and the reason for this is that such rulings are artificial. Solution to Conflicting Claims
The only reasonable explanation is “first come, first served.” When John finds the apple there is no one else around, it
is unclaimed, so he claims it and starts pursuing his value. At a later point in time Jim, hungry as hell and with almost
no energy left, walks by and sees the same apple. One might argue that Jim should be able to take it and that John
can use another apple. But isn’t the opposite also true? Or perhaps one considers Jim’s need greater than John’s, or
vice versa. But we have already established that it isn’t possible to compare values, and who are you to say that John
is not allowed to use the apple for art? There is only one way of settling this unless John and Jim can agree on something.
(After all, it is possible that John feels sorry for Jim and therefore gives him the apple. Or that Jim feels he might be
able to find something else to eat nearby.) When John sees the apple, it is of no value to anyone, it is unclaimed,
but when Jim comes by it is already claimed. It should be fairly obvious that John has the right to use it, and that
Jim can only use it if John agrees. Use-Right Theory So John has the right to the use of the apple, but does he own
it? According to this theory, the answer would be both yes and no. Yes, since he has the right to use it to achieve
the value for which he claimed it. And no, since he cannot receive the full, permanent right to the apple–he can only
claim it as the means to achieve that specific value. That is, in any case, the reason he claimed it. Also, to gain the
full property right to the apple means in effect “stealing” it from the rest of mankind, since anyone could have claimed it.

This theory does not allow for an object to be someone’s full property; multiple people can have use rights to the same
object or, e.g., a piece of land. In the case of the apple, John has claimed the right to use it in his work of art, which
means anybody else has the right to claim other uses for it–as long as it does not affect the way John is using it. The
same rule applies equally to everybody–claims made prior to my claim have to be respected, but as long as they are
not affected I can claim the right to use the object in any way I wish. Thus, Phil can claim an unclaimed mountainside
for mining, but Paul can still claim it for hiking as long as his hiking does not impose any restrictions on Phil’s mining.
And at a later time Pam can claim the very same mountainside for mountain biking, and Paula for sun-bathing. As long
as no subsequent claim causes restrictions on any prior claims the mountainside can be claimed and used by hundreds
of people. When Phil, at a later time, is done mining he automatically abandons this claim thereby making it possible
for more people to claim the same mountainside. Also, a use right is never exclusive–others may claim the same
mountainside for hiking alongside Paul as long as their use do not restrict Paul’s previously made claim. What this all
means is that one claims temporarily the right to a certain use of an object. It is fundamentally different from private
property, since it is limited in both time and space. It is also very different from possession, since one cannot gain the
right to any use of an object simply through possession and that the right is not automatically abandoned when one
leaves. And, finally, it allows a certain kind of ownership right without withholding a piece of nature from others. At
the same time as it is fundamentally different from these three theories, it combines the strengths of all three. A use
-right theory might be the most equal and efficient way of using natural resources, with rights but without property.

Abstain From Beans – Unknown, 2006

ANARCHISTS OPPOSE THE STATE. But does that mean you have to avoid the state everywhere, anytime and in
any form? Can, for instance, anarchists vote? In this classic essay Robert LeFevre argues why anarchists should
“abstain from beans.” In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto:
“Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by
dropping various colored beans into a receptacle. To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil
in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services.
When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services
we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons
selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y. When we place voting into
the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so
precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and
extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes
right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be
desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong
or possibly immoral. But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only
conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will
coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the
necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a
monopoly in the hands of the state is basic. In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their
most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must
refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which
some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every
reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any
other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

To Anarchism We Must Go!

SOMETIMES TELLING THE TRUTH makes you seem like a moron or lunatic, at least people tend to think so. This is
perhaps the reason anarchists are thought of as lunatics. But the logic is clear: why would you need an army unless to
fight wars? Why do the police need guns unless to scare and intimidate the public? I carefully avoided using the word
“march” in the title, though I had thought of using it. Perhaps I have entered into a fallacy, now? But I didn’t want that
association with war. With “the troops”, with their horrible, official uniforms, arms, and incitement of murder. I hate war.
I hate governments, too. Governments are aggressors. An aggressor, we would all agree, is somebody who tries to
control the actions of another; and they do this through force, most often violent; only rarely is the threat of violence
not followed up upon. This is true of Governments; but Governments are far worse. Governments enforce their
aggressorship through the terrorist organization known as the police. A terrorist organization is a group of people whose
job it is to scare people into doing what they want. The policemen and policewomen do this by wearing guns to scare
you into obeying them. The police, being linked with Governments (the police is the terrorist arm of the aggressor
Governments; they are there merely to ensure that the will of Governments is carried out), are therefore aggressors,
too. People go to prison for minor things. Prison as an institution is as wrong, corrupt, and pointless as those of the
police and of Governments. Prison cannot and does not work for the simple fact that recidivism is at an all-time high;
in other words, people who come out of prison more often than not end up back there again shortly afterwards.
Prisons provide books and educational materials so that criminals can be smarter upon release. Prisons also
provide gyms and provide mandatory exercise, so that criminals can be bigger and stronger upon release.

Do you see something happening here? To return back to my point of people going to prison for minor things: for
example, if a poor man stole a loaf of bread, this would be seen as breaking “the law” (an act of rebellion against
the tight rules of Government). For breaking “the law”, he would go to prison. “The law” (I refuse to view it as anything
more than a temporary measure; this cannot surely last, for reasons I will go into later), made by Government, also
mentions that it is wrong to steal, wrong to kill. The man who stole a loaf of bread because he was poor is sitting
in prison. Yet the real criminals are enjoying trips all over the world; the real criminals work in Government, and they
sanction theft and extortion through taxes; they sanction murder through acts of war and the army. Some say that
the army is necessary to maintain the peace. But why should I continually believe in war to achieve peace? This
is wrong, and is self-apparent. Having an army is also likely to increase the likelihood of going to war, too; and it
is the countries with the biggest armies that wage the bloodiest wars. The army is nothing more than a factory
which trains once-ordinary people that it is okay for them to kill people. “To protect the peace,” or “To help others
who need it.” Even if there were no enemies, the army would have to invent some, because otherwise they’d
not be able to justify their existence. And, to me, it is by making up so-called threats that forces many people into
believing that an army is necessary. “They’ll protect me if we go to war.” But this sounds as if going to war is not
a prerogative taken by the army; when, in fact, it evidently is. The army is not interested in protecting citizens like
you or me. The army is interested only in protecting its cause, and as I said, does so by creating threats that make
people think they need to depend upon the army. Wrong! The law-making system is supposed to have a sense
of justice. Many people do have faith in their law systems, in their courts, in their bureaucracy of bullshit.

But, as we already know, governments are aggressors: they want to control all the people who live under their rule.
Governments don’t just make law; they are the law. And the police act out the will of Government, necessarily by
wearing guns to scare you into obeying them. It is clear, then, that “justice” in relation to Governments really means
a wanting to set up and rule over man; necessarily dividing them. This isn’t justice. Justice should be a thing between
equals: between those who do not have rulers, and those who do not rule. That the system of today involves rulers,
and that it involves those being ruled (the second class is far bigger than the first: a relatively tiny minority rule over
a huge majority), isn’t and can never be justice. Even if Governments (“the law”) say that it is what exists. If anarchism
is not on the increase, then party dealignment certainly is. For example, in the UK, in the decade 1950, voter turnout
of those eligible to vote in the General Election was higher than 85%. By 2001, 85% had plummeted to 56% turnout
of all of those eligible to vote in the General Election. This is just in the UK. Probably most countries that have had
for a long time the so-called “gift” of being able to vote have suffered a decline in voter turnout. As I said: anarchism
may not be on the increase (there are no statistics for this), but party dealignment certainly is (there are figures,
and plenty of them, for this; huge money is made by people who write books about General Elections, and they
have all of the statistics required for your knowledge in them). As for those countries where voting isn’t a “gift”, e.g.
where it is “forced” upon them, it’s a similar thing. And in any case, any vote for a Government is a vote for enslaving
yourself, if, indeed, you vote (or even if you don’t; it is inevitable that, somewhere, somebody will vote to enslave
you “on your behalf”; and they’ll call it “democracy”, not “slavery”, because “slavery”, they claim, has been abolished
in the West for many years, and is deemed unacceptable; we’ve just got a new system of slavery, which under the
guise of ballot-boxes and slips of paper and people rolling around in battle-busses, is apparently a thing that is okay).
Some people consider anarchism to be unrealistic–a “pipe dream”. Some people say that “Governments are
necessary”. And so they are!–if you believe it is necessary to make peaceful people do what they don’t want to. As
we know, laws exist to make them do so. But laws are pointless; as Ammon Hennacy said: “Oh, Judge, your damn
laws! The good people don’t need them, and the bad people don’t follow them, so what use are they?” How are
Governments necessary for freedom? They’re not.

They’re necessary to coerce, to make you do what you don’t want to. How can laws serve justice? They can’t, because
first of all, simply by there being laws, justice is killed and replaced with the same word: “justice” . . . and if the second
word sounds phoney, that’s exactly because it is. If anybody can persuade me otherwise, then I’ll give up my right to call
myself an anarchist. The truth is so simple that people tend to overlook it or miss it completely. Armies are pointless.
Simply by being in existence, they encourage war. When they’re actually doing something, they’re killing. Governments
coerce people into doing what they do not want to do; and they make sure you do it by having policemen and policewomen,
who wear guns to scare you into obeying them, enforce their will. People go to prison for minor things, while the biggest
criminals (the heads of State, Government) enjoy trips all over the world on chartered jets. These biggest criminals steal
from and extort people through taxes, and permit murder through war and having an army; and the voters tell them
through their vote that this is okay. I don’t think it is. I am a human being, and I want what is rightfully mine: freedom.
I wrote this essay because of that.

Insanity as the Social Norm – Delmar England, 2005

ANARCHISM IDENTIFIES the coercion of the State as the main hindrance to freedom and liberty. Yet most anarchists
fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth. How is this,
and what value is there to anarchism if it is simply a no-State hierarchical blueprint for society? The influence of the
corrupted mind and in-the-box thinking on anarchist theory, is the main target of analysis in this essay. How deep is
this corruption in our thinking and to what extent does it impinge on the way we see the world, anarchists and statists
alike? “No amount of scientific evidence will ever dispel a single religious notion. Until the mind is turned upon itself to
understand the cause of this insanity, the life of an individual will count for nothing.” I wrote that about 30 years ago. I
have seen nothing since to change the conclusion. Indeed, have seen the conclusion confirmed a thousand times over.
The term, insanity, is not used as figure of speech, nor as a pejorative. It is used definitively as is my practice with use
of language or examination of language usage by others. Setting aside arbitrary declarations such as “legally insane,”
insanity as defined and descriptive is the failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside.
Also, as you will see in what is to follow, the term, religion, does not refer only to a formalized version with churches and
rituals. It refers to all beliefs of a particular kind of like content regardless of the difference in subjective labels. There is
nearly a universal cry about the horror of war with a declared desire to end it. Yet, cause has not been determined and
eliminated with subsequent cessation. The absence of knowledge of the cause of the warring chaos of past and present
is not because of some deeply hidden complex secret. The answer lies right on the surface. The problem is a near
-universal psychological condition wherein simple truths are denied and discarded in emotional deference to confused
and complex lies. Contributing to the mental blank out of simple truth is also the matter of war being valued due to certain
beliefs held, but most often vehemently denied. Without studying and understanding mind (the director of all action) in
relation to these war-oriented beliefs, failure to change things and achieve peace and harmony is a foregone conclusion.

In the category of denial of simple truths, I, along with others, was taught in elementary school that everything that exists
is made up of something called matter. I was also taught energy is matter changing state. In conjunction is that whatever
happens and all that happens is determined by 100% consistent and 100% reliable natural laws. I had no reason to doubt
this; in fact was aware of the death and decay or plants and animals which corresponds to the teaching. Many decades
later, I still have no reason to doubt. All I have witnessed in my entire life is in correspondence with the declaration. As
for natural law, how else could truth be known except by constants for the basis of determining truth? Of course, in a
dynamic existence, change is ongoing, but it is natural law that determines the degree and rate of change enabling us
to discern fact from fiction by reference to said natural laws. Once again, in my entire life, I have never seen an exception,
nor been able to imagine how there could be. During the same time period of youth, in a place called a church, I was
taught the exact opposite. It was believed and taught that dying didn’t really happen; there was “life after death.” Material
decay was a bit too much to ignore in this particular sect, so the “life after death” thing was a matter of the “soul,” a non
-corporeal something that could experience “eternal bliss” though all sensory apparatus had returned to dust. No
explanation was given for how this is going to work. The most disturbing of all these religious teaching is the “explanation”
as to how all this comes about. It was believed and taught there is an omni god who created all and can change reality
at will. This directly contradicts the idea of immutable natural law of insentient nature. The religious scene set acquiring
“truth” on a different plane by a different method: “Revealed truth” known only by “communication with God.” What is
described above is mind divided against itself. At such an early age, I understood little, but still could not reconcile
the opposites. I could not “respect” these beliefs and not question. By much mental effort over a very long period of
time, I came to know much of what was and is going on.

To put in capsule form what underlies all the effects, this is the situation: With the insertion of the omni god idea, reality
is mentally reversed. At the same time immutable natural laws which do exist are dismissed as absolutes by the omni
will concept, by the same omni will idea, there is inserted the idea of philosophical absolutes which do not exist. Of all
the realizations, the most critical was and is understanding a mind divided against itself and how it adversely affects all
areas of an individual’s life from global warfare through the most personal matters. This mind division has been in past
and is in the present the condition of at least 99.9999% of the population of the world. At the aforementioned early age,
I became haunted by two questions: How does the mind work? How do you know what you know? Finding the answers
has been my most demanding passion for over 60 years. I still have questions, but did find some answers. You will not
find these answers in official documents, nor in textbooks, nor any popular publications, nor any material created and/or
used by the “mental health experts.” I do not propose to go into infinite detail about the “mechanics of mind,” but will point
out some critical principles with abbreviated explanation. To understand the what and why of a belief, it is necessary to
understand the mental how of processing information. A core principle of mind operation is that it works by differential
reference. This is a natural law of mind with a 100% consistency. This mind principle operates on both the conscious
and subconscious level. The conscious level operation is very easy to see. The subconscious level is not so easy to
see, but can be known to exist and function by observing the consequent cause and effect. The subconscious function
parallels the conscious differential reference principle in all respects. If you hold a particular belief to be true, you will by
natural law hold its opposite to be false. You can rethink and change your conclusion, but the principle always applies.
You cannot simultaneously hold opposites to be true. You can mentally oscillate between contrary beliefs, but even so,
one or the other will dominate and direct thinking whether you realize it or not. Natural law means mental integration of
all beliefs held with end result reflecting the primary premise. The mind dominant beliefs set the parameters of thought
to the exclusion of all outside of these beliefs.

This brings us to the subconscious. A swift emotional response is derived from an almost instant subconscious evaluation
and valuation of an entity and/or relationship. This emotional response will be derived from and consistent what you hold
to be true whether the belief is true or not. By the “logic circuit” of mind, a conclusion is always logically consistent with
the directive premise whether the premise is true or false. By an if/then back trace via the “logic circuit,” a directive premise
can be identified. It is literally mind reading by natural law process. The “logic circuit” which directs mental integration
of beliefs makes no evaluation of the beliefs as true or false. This is the function of conscious mind. Since the “logic
circuit” is natural mind principle of operation, detection of error is not within its function. It simply integrates premises
given. Since it performs in this manner by natural law, it is “infallible.” If understood, it is the greatest error detector
available to any and every individual. It is used by all for this purpose, but not always in a consistent manner. Mind
dominant fallacies often deny and set aside what the “logic circuit” reveals as true if such revelations oppose false,
but “unquestionable sacred ideas.” If a derived conclusion is in conflict with any other conclusion held, one must be
in error. Both may be in error. This is a red flag announcing loud and clear there is at least one error in the premises
integrated with the possibility of more. A contradiction is the equivalent of a large neon sign reading: “You have failed
to correctly identify.” You may heed or disregard, but if disregarded, the error will come back in compound measure
with a compound price to be paid. Even though this is highly visible and irrefutable, consistent adherence is not the
usual. The prevailing philosophy of subservience creates a disvaluing of self with a constant effort to avoid anything
that further diminishes sense of self value. Within this philosophy, there is a premium put on “being right” as a mark
of intelligence, hence, measure of high self value. This tends to motivate evasion and denial of error. This, in turn,
leads to compounding of error with resistance to recognition of said error. This attitude is a direct consequence of the
mental reversal of reality and derivative concepts by which one evaluates self and others. The reality is that a discovery
of error in one’s thinking, if by seeing a truth in contrast, is an asset.

The fallacy is dismissed by the discovery of the opposing truth, therefore, a gain from every realistic perspective.
Acceptance of self as a fallible being with making mistakes a certainty puts one on guard with an attitude that
discovery of error is the primary thinking goal and the means to “being right.” An error per se is devastating only
in denial of fallible self with a “standard of perfection” as the criteria of self measurement. This resistance to recognition
of error although somewhat noticeable on the conscious level is mainly manifested on the subconscious level.
Just like on the conscious level, beliefs held in subconscious work by differential reference and are mentally
integrated by the “logic circuit.” A belief held in subconscious may not be known to the holder. In fact, it is not
uncommon for conscious mind to deny the holding of such a belief. Nevertheless, the differential reference
principle reveals its existence by the inclusion/exclusion principle along with the results of logical integration.
In all probability, the information provided and to be provided is completely foreign to you. The reason for the
brief explanation above is to try to provide a bit of insight into mind so that what is to follow won’t seem so strange.
If you test the differential reference principle and the “logic circuit” on the conscious level, you will see it in operation.
This may incline you a bit more to considering the possibility of a parallel subconscious operation as well. Mind is
not a physical quantity, but is part of an objective reality. Being part of an objective reality, the operations of mind
are necessarily governed by natural laws. Since mind is the director of all individual actions, would you not consider
it of ultimate importance to understand the natural laws of mind functions in order for a mind to control itself as
opposed to perhaps unknown programming from external source? If you and most others agree with the importance
of knowledge of the mind in terms of natural laws, why is there not a single article, book, or popular publication from
any source including the NIMH that even mentions principles of mind, let alone enumerates and explains? Next
question: How do you know what you know? How is knowledge acquired? Is it by some mystical, random and
incomprehensible means? Or is it by natural law process? If not the latter, how does the “other” work? If the latter,
why is there not a single article, book, or popular publication that enumerates and explains the natural laws of
learning? The point of the above is to illustrate conscious and/or subconscious exclusion via mind-dominant beliefs
held in the subconscious.

When a lost and dying desert wanderer “sees” a pool of water, the actual sand in the area cannot be seen. It is mentally
displaced by the mental invention of the pool which is projected upon this area of reality blanking out the real. This natural
law of displacement is a corollary of the differential reference principle. It applies not only to the physical realm, but the
mental as well. Since the mind-dominant beliefs of which I speak are held to near-universal degree in past and present,
it is no surprise to find opposing beliefs excluded in the prevailing belief system; which is to say excluded from the
prevailing thinking system as well. Truth is continuous and consistent. This reveals by the exclusion that the mind
-dominant beliefs of which I speak are false. The primary requirement of survival and reaching any goal is mentally
separating the real from illusion. There are many illusions other than those of water and sand type. An illusion is any
belief held to be true which does not conform to reality. I hope this helps a bit in grasping what is to follow. One more
thing before we get into the nitty gritty of detailed analysis. The scope of war and oppression of past and present is
necessarily equaled by the type and scope of the beliefs directing the action. If these beliefs are true, war and oppression
is a natural condition. There is nothing anyone can do about it. It is only from a perspective of the directive belief being
false that examination is warranted. It you tend to emotionally lean toward “so many could not be so wrong for so long,”
you might want to think about the above statement. Also, you might keep in mind that consensus of opinion did not
make the earth flat, nor ever made fact out of fiction in any circumstance. The prevailing (global) philosophy is saturated
with popular fallacies so large in scope, so varied in surface type, so nearly universally accepted, they emotionally
appear as unquestionable truth, as absolutes without alternative and not to be questioned. This is the atmosphere
into which you were born and now live. You have been informed by historical record, contemporary media and personal
observation that the assignment of each individual is as property, as expendable means to a lofty universal goal
such as “God’s purpose” and/or “for the good of the country.” With few exceptions, there is not only subservient
acceptance of the assigned role, but minds programmed in such bizarre conflict that most see this as their “destiny”
and actively seek to fulfill the assignment.

The Mind Dichotomy: To Be or Not To Be This creates an ongoing conflict problem. In this setting of servitude,
the reality of the identity, the autonomous individual, is denied in thought, theory and practice. What remains as
director of thinking is reification inclusive of the illusion of categorical identity. The programming is such that one
is left with the conclusion that without “categorical identity,” (“race,” “nationality,” etc) one has no identity at all.
The psychological attraction of “being” as opposed to “not being” is a powerful incentive to cling to the “being”
beliefs when mind can envision no alternative except “not being.” The exclusion of each independent individual
as the real sets the base and course of the anti-individual philosophy which has prevailed throughout all known
history. With these beliefs set in mind as absolutes and entwined with self interest and sense of self value, the
natural laws of mind functions process the fallacies to the effect of perpetual self conflict. In the emotional conflict
between independent self and servitude self, the latter concept dominates the mind. The psychology becomes
sense of self value via servitude. This creates the contradiction, the highest value of self is also the lowest value
of self. The psychological/emotional effects of the mind dichotomy is everpresent. When you see a mother grieving
for a child killed in war, she is sad from the loss, but proud that her child “gave his/her life for the country.” The
same is true of suffering as redemption and “passport to heaven.” She is happy to be unhappy. This “paradox”
(contradiction) is nearly universally accepted without question. This situation is not seen as mind being divided
against itself due to holding false premises as absolute truth. The mind dichotomy is accepted as a natural condition
precluding any thought of remedy of the conflict. Make no mistake about it, there is a psychological wall of such
resistance against truth opposing the revered fallacies, breaching the wall is just barely short of impossible. When
centuries of war fail to prompt reexamination of the underlying directive beliefs, there is little hope for words to
initiate serious reconsideration. In fact, it is by word usage bent to sustain illusion in denial of the real that stands
as a nearly impenetrable barrier against communication necessary to dispel the myths. There is a constant call for
proof of this or that. For the most part, it is just a string of meaningless words.

What good is proof if there is no knowledge of what constitutes proof? How do you prove a conclusion to someone
when that person has no viable reference by which to decide true or false. I do not speak hypothetically, but lament
the encompassing reality of the situation. There is indisputable proof of death in the finality of the “cycle of life,” yet,
billions simply refuse to accept the proof. Were there a widespread understanding of truth and proof, there would be
the issue of freedom vs non-freedom with choice clear. The current situation is the psychology of rule as an absolute
and freedom as an impossibility. The consequence is rule with the pretense of freedom via non-definitive language
usage. As indicated, the root problem is in and of the mind and only this understanding will effect resolution. Alas,
knowledge about the mind has been excluded as well by the false, mind-dominant, “sacred ideas” ie, mental inventions
thought to be real. The failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside is often referred
to as insanity. This is the past and current saturate condition. Unpopular as this notion may be, this mental malady is
what has established and sustained the past and present philosophical, epistemological, psychological, death-oriented,
anti-individual environment. The evidence is abundant and clear: Beliefs direct actions. Actions cause effects. If the
effects are not as consciously intended, it is indisputable that the actions (means) are not suited to the purpose. It is
just as indisputable that the beliefs directing the selecting and application of means are false. Isn’t this proven a trillion
times over? Is there anything complex and hard to understand about this? If so, what? If not, why the perpetual rejection
of this proof if not a mental malady? If an individual were building a house, repairing a car, cooking a meal, or pursuing
any one of a thousand purposes, this elementary logic would prompt one to look for cause if intent and actions failed to
produce what was consciously desired. In the social realm dealing with interpersonal relationships, this simple dictate
is totally ignored. The perspective mentality is of a separate realm for human beings as if they belong to “another reality.”
There are two modes of thought: One reality-oriented mode for the general technical area, and another fallacy-oriented
mode applied to the social area.

The former area has advanced in leaps and bounds while the latter has stagnated in caveman mentality and violent
conflict. This dichotomy is the philosophical, epistemological and psychological theme of the environment. It is established
as the criteria for evaluation and valuation of self and others. With mind divided against itself, there is no escape from
the conflict, external and internal. As surely as mind is the director of all action, the mind must be unified (consistent)
in reference to immutable natural law as a prerequisite to unification of human beings in peace and harmony. The Jungle
Mentality Rationale: The Leader of the Tribe The relationship between entities (cause and effect) is determined by the
characteristics of the entities involved. This is no less true of human entities than any other. Even a cursory look quickly
reveals that imposition upon personal preference by initiation of force and/or coercion produces the effect of resentment
and hostility. It logically follows that if peace and harmony is the objective, refraining from initiation of force and coercion
is the natural law means to achieve and sustain this end. How can any truth be more visible and irrefutable? In spite of this
simple and irrefutable truth, nearly all engage in the initiation of force and coercion by direct and/or indirect means. In denial
of the character of their beliefs and actions, they purport to bring about peace by means of war. This refusal to see the
highly visible and elementary reveals a widespread mental problem of the first magnitude. The “gods and governments”
idea along with corollary oppression has existed throughout all known history and probably beyond. There has never been
a war to establish or sustain freedom. It is all about who shall dominate. Propaganda to the contrary serves to “justify” the
will to rule. “Service to the country” definitively translates to the “sacrifice” of some human individuals for the benefit of the
person or persons already in the position of “authority,” or seeking to be. Indeed, the concept, nation, itself necessarily
incorporates initiation of force and coercion, therefore, is anti-freedom. “Free country” is a contradiction from every angle.
“Country” is an abstract, a subjective idea, not a corporeal thing to be free or not free. “Citizens of a country” are regarded
as subordinate to “national interest,” hence, are not free. “Citizens of a country” presupposes a “national identity,” ie the
illusion of categorical identity based on arbitrarily selected similarities in direct contradiction of the actual objective identity
of each individual by a differing set of characteristics.

The truth about the philosophy and psychology of rule is denied and kept hidden by word games of illusion and self
delusions played by nearly all. One example of the millions available is that two imposing upon one is not freedom. Yet,
millions go about proclaiming democracy and freedom as if it were an unquestionable equation. The adamant claim of
desire for peace is contradicted not only by the mind dichotomy and “value of sacrifice,” but by perpetual war and
unconscionable atrocities, genocides and cruelty beyond description. No matter, the “sacred ideas” dominate minds
and the same destructive effect telling of the same cause is simply ignored with a pretense of change by different
labels and variants of superficial trappings. The task at hand is not only to expose the fallacies underlying war and
other assorted violent conflicts, but expose the fallacious method by which they were and are established and sustained.
At the deepest level, this requires understanding how the mind works, but much can be understood without pursuing
this to the max. The overall condition that exists today, technical advancements aside, is the same that existed for all
known centuries. In all probability, the earliest earth dwellers lived in groups such as family, extended family, clan, tribe,
etc. Side by side with the technical progress of the “civilized world,” the gang mentality exist as much today as it did
any time in the past. Nation is the most visible of the gang labels with the idea manifested in hierarchal “authority.” The
jungle mentality rationale behind the gang concept, all else being equal, is there is “safety in numbers.” The “safety”
idea comes from physical force by combination. This in turn requires unidirection which translates to gang leader.
This is the basis for the hierarchal social structure with the corollary concept of individual with “unit value” only as
long as said individual contributes to sustaining the anti-individual social structure. The high praise for “powerful
country,” “powerful politician,” “powerful man,” “powerful woman” etc, leaves no evidentiary doubt the worship of
power environment places intellect as handmaiden to coercive physical force. No matter how it may be dressed
up in “noble terms” and “civilized settings,” truth is, “the law” is the law of the jungle.

The physical aspect of what is described above is highly visible. The mental aspect and its significance in the scheme
of things is not so easily and quickly discerned. The physically manifested follower philosophy is necessarily preceded
by a corresponding mentality. As evidenced, the subservient mentality has prevailed in all known generations. What this
means is that this prevailing mentality shapes every aspect of existence including mode of thought and equivalent language
usage. A critical element is the psychology of leader. This in turn goes to the idea of follower philosophies. This translates
into a psychology of choosing not what to believe, but who to believe. This results in a subconscious reaction that one
presenting arguments is looking for followers. It is difficult for most to grasp that following or being followed are both
rejected as anti-individual, ie, anti-reality. Do I seek agreement with the arguments herein? If they are true, indeed, I
do; but only from independent thought reaching the same conclusions. If I tell you a thousand things and by independent
thinking you agree, that is all well and good. If after the thousand, you decide to believe without independent thinking,
if I tell you something false and you accept it rather than discover the error and call it to my attention, you do us both
a disservice. I seek truth, not followers. I need no external validation for my existence. Following is the problem, not
the solution. The follower idea is the philosophical and psychological situation in literal saturation in perpetuity with
revered fallacies creating the impression of reality not to be questioned; hence, is for the most part “absorbed” without
resistance. It has created a mental condition of “box thinking” excluding awareness of truths critical to exposing the
directive fallacies. This sets a singular objective. Since by natural law, each individual acts upon what he or she believes
to be true, exposing and convincing holders of the falsity of the war-oriented beliefs is the only remedy. Easy to say.
Not so easy to do. Exposing the fallacies is a cake walk, but mass rejection of truth by the mind-dominant fallacies is
pretty much a foregone conclusion as shown by all of history. Nevertheless, I shall have a go at penetrating the
“impenetrable.”

If the war-oriented beliefs are false, they do not conform to reality. If they do not conform to reality, the language usage
utilized to promote these fallacies cannot conform to reality either. Again, as simple and irrefutable as it is, within the “box
thinking,” it goes unnoticed. The undetected distorted language usage influences thinking; thinking in a self-contradictory,
anti-individual manner with said thinkers completely oblivious to what is really going on. Observe the speaking and writing
of devout religionist, avowed atheists, governmentalists and “anarchists.” You will for the most part find the language usage
common to all; namely, positing abstracts as the real in denial of individual identity and individual responsibility. Although
the words of an “anarchist” may declare opposition to “government,” with rare exception, the arguments reflect the same
anti-individual premises as “government” couched in the same distorted language usage. The Lies of Language One often
hears, “Government initiates force,” or something similar. “Government” does not initiate force. “Government” is the initiation
of force. It is each governmentalist who does the initiating of force. Positing “government” as a godhead, as an acting entity
is a psychological escapism to deny the fact of individual coercive actions. Among other denials, it hides the fact that voting
in a political election is an act of violence. The language usage is literally saturated with “abstract entities” to psychologically
shield the actor from self. Any agreement with and/or use of the language of disassociation is denial of real individual as
the actor. It is the language of lies. Such concurrence with distorted language by word or deed serves to maintain the base
philosophy and psychology of oppression. Let it be further understood that those who volunteer for the system are not being
coerced. They have agreed to the outcome; an outcome of certain conflict, conflict with other gangs and conflict within each
gang as each seeks to rule via the centralized offensive force. The coerced are those who want no part of the insanity, but
are compelled by “law” to participate upon penalty of punishment and/or death. Do not take the language matter lightly. Its
influence in supporting offensive force is of monumental importance. It is not just fallacies by language that constitutes a
problem. It is the undetected and influencing fallacies in language that is the most destructive. What is revealed in language
usage is the mode of thought behind it: Identity, or no identity, reality, or illusion.

Will of God, will of the people, public welfare, constitutional rights, natural rights, national interest, ought, should, gross
national product, for the good of the country, the values of society, minority rights, morally right, immoral, race relations,
community standards, freedom and democracy, altruism, selflessness, government does, majority rule, freedoms, fighting
evil, on and on and on unto infinity. This is but a partial list of concepts commonly accepted and frequently uttered. This
is the vernacular of oppression with which our senses are inundated without let up. Where is or what is individual in these
beliefs? What else but subservient with “unit value” only? They are also lies. Each presumes a subjective mental invention
to be objective discovery. Yet, these concepts are accepted to a near-universal degree with no thought of questioning. It
is Bedlam without bars with the inmates actually believing they are making sense, therefore, are at a loss to understand
the inevitable violent conflict when it comes. There is no better place to begin the exposure of commonly held fallacies
than the “common usage” dictionary. The “dictionary of definitions” does not even define the term, definition, to provide a
reference by which to determine if a word has actually been defined, or is just distortion to promote the status quo “gods
and governments” idea. This issue is never brought up because “everybody knows” what a definition is. A common refrain
is, “Anyone can define his/her terms anyway he/she chooses.” “A word means whatever I say it means.” Upon this premise,
the “meaning” of a term or phrase is by subjective choice infinitely variable. It can “mean” one thing one minute and something
else in the next. It can “mean” and “not mean” in self contradiction in the same sentence without raising an eyebrow questioning
the usage. This belief and language usage is indicative of, and sanctioned by, the dictionary itself. If such a practice of
infinite “meanings” is viable with said “definitions” corresponding to objective reality and communicating truth, objective
reality must change in step with personal preference to validate the alleged ever-changing definition. Of course, if one
does not “feel” the need of correspondence between definition and objective reality, one does not even think of such a
thing. This brief observation shows the contradiction of the claim of totally arbitrary “definitions.” Most would readily agree
with it when looking at it from this perspective.

Yet, this concept of arbitrary “definitions” is practiced in thinking and writing to a near universal degree. Why is there more
than one word in a language system? Follow the logical inference of needed differentiation and you will find that “shifting
definitions” are a contradiction of the purpose and principles of language usage. What remains in default is undefined,
provocative sounds prompting emotional response with no actual communication as intended and believed. We all claim
to be seekers of truth. What is it that we seek? What is truth? Suppose we look to Webster’s in search of the answer: “2
A (1): the state of being the case; FACT (2): the body of Real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized:
a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. Even though the alleged definition of truth is self contradictory, few ever
question it. To accept this alleged definition of truth is to accept the anti-individual concepts that underlie the distortion.
In turn, it directs thinking unintentionally supporting that which is ostensibly opposed. Much lip service is paid to truth as
consistent with admonition to think in principles. Lip service is all it is as revealed by Webster’s alleged definition of truth;
“truth” divided in contradiction and not at all consistent. Sadly, this is the thinking “guideline” for nearly all who have no
idea they are being guided, or how they are being guided. If you think I am nit picking, dealing in unimportant semantics
and word games, you think wrongly. Mind programming via word games is a major part of the problem. What I’m exposing
as fallacy is that the non-definition and word games is the literal lifeline of the anti-individual beliefs and actions. Take away
this resource and governmentalist will have nothing to say. An individual who would not think of directly stealing a neighbor’s
property does so indirectly by the “right of eminent domain” and does not see self as involved or responsible. The same is
true of the entire governmental operation as “national interest” and other abstracts are posited as actors and beneficiaries
with real causal individuals psychologically removed from their actions and effects. There is no better formula for disaster
than the will to rule in conjunction with the absence of sense of responsibility. Distorted language usage is the central
means to evade truth and hold onto a false, but preferred self image. Stop invalid reification and other claims of “volitional,
valuing abstracts” along with insistence that all other terminology be connected to the actual as well and the linguistics
of coercion are gone.

Once gone, real acting individual is compelled to see self as cause and it is a whole new ball game. Definition brings front
and center unwelcome truth they must keep hidden to practice oppression while holding onto a contrary preferred self image.
Because it is so trusted and goes unquestioned, there is no worse anti-individual, anti-freedom propaganda book in the
world than the dictionary. The errors of commission and omission lie as the root of it all. “Anarchists” are divided for no
other reason than they buy into these errors no less than the governmentalists. Language usage tells the story. Definitive
examination reveals the common fallacies obscured and denied. The dictionary does have many valid definitions in the
non-controversial areas of the mundane or technical, but when it comes to terminology regarding the social scene and
components of same, the dictionary defines not at all. Look long and hard at this alleged definition of truth. It is the key
to seeing insanity as the social norm. “2 A (1): the state of being the case; FACT (2): the body of Real things, events, and
facts: ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. One “type of truth” is called fact,
“Real things: actuality.” The other “type of truth” is called “spiritual reality.” Since the term, fact, is not verbally associated
with “spiritual reality,” it is logically opposed. What then is “spiritual reality” if not fact, yet is truth? “Non-factual truth”? If
it is fact, why does not the “definition” make a singular inclusion? The dictionary proposes “two kinds of truth” in direct
contradiction of the claim of truth as consistent. Acceptance of the two kinds of truth idea makes it impossible to regard
truth as consistent. Self delusion to the contrary is allowed by the two truths idea itself since it denies a singular objective
reference as basis for knowing truth. Denial, Distortion, and Dual Reality Perhaps, what this does to a mind and what is
going on in mind can be made a bit more clear by a rough analogy. Since it is derived from mind, it is not surprising to
find that a computer operation often resembles mind function. However, a computer program has no emotional bias to
alter functions. What if it did have a bias directing operation? Suppose we write a simple math calculator program with
a “master circuit:” All threes are ignored. All nines are converted to sixes. As long as the data processed does not contain
threes or nines, the conclusions are consistent and correct. They conform to reality. When applied, they will produce end
results as consciously intended and expected. On the other hand, data containing threes and sixes will invariably result
in false conclusions that do not conform to reality, hence, when applied will not produce end results as consciously intended
and expected.

Suppose you have 1,000 computers with math calculator programs and all with a different “master circuits.” Suppose some
ignore fours as well as making threes out of fives, or divides sevens by two, or other such variations. This discloses two
conditions: Not only will none of the conclusions conform to reality; they will be in conflict with each other. Suppose each
of the programmers and users have absolute trust in his/her computer program and do not even think of examining the
program to find out why end results are not always as consciously intended and expected, or the why of disagreement
with other computers. Can you imagine the conflict and chaos of attempted application with the certainty of error no matter
which of the flawed programs is used at any given time? In crude, but telling parallel, false “sacred ideas” constitute a
“master circuit” in the mind. It is a “priority interrupt circuit.” It is a flawed program that denies or distorts any and all
incoming data opposing the fallacious “sacred ideas.” It is reality cut off. The “master circuit” diverting unwelcome truth
prohibits continuity of thought and consistent mental connection to the real. Conclusions are in conflict with reality and
in conflict with the conclusions of all other “master circuits” of individual minds. Add to this the situation of each individual
firmly believing (without question) that his/her “sacred ideas” are the only true ones and you are looking at the general
mental condition and situation of past and present. This is conflict central. Without an everpresent immutable objective
reference, there is no way to know whether thinking is true and consistent or not. The unadmitted, but practiced alternative
is that “if it feels right, it must be right.” Of course, there is adamant denial of feelings as the criteria of truth, but without
an objective reference, how does the thinker know the difference between fact as fact or feelings as “fact”? A violent future
the same as the past is foretold by Webster’s dictionary. No crystal ball needed. What is the truth about truth that Webster’s
denies by commission and omission? How do you know what you know? Actually, you look at the answer many thousands
of times a day, but have been programmed to distrust your own mind and deny your own conclusions. In the process of
acquiring information about your environment, by what do you gather primary information to be processed into knowledge?
By sensory apparatus, of course.

No matter how much knowledge you gain by abstract calculation knowing of things far beyond the limit of sensory apparatus,
that knowledge is always connected to the physical world via entity identity enabled by awareness of limitation and difference.
The same principle of identity by difference applies in discovering entities and relationships of whatever scope and type
beyond the range of sensory apparatus. It is the natural law of mind function. No exceptions. By nature, it is literally impossible
for a mind to grasp infinity except as an abstract concept. Although all of objective reality is continuous, knowledge of
environment comes about by mentally abstracting the parts, then grasping the relationships of the parts. Part means not
all. Part means limited. A physical part of whatever dimensions is an entity. It may be smaller than an electron or larger
than the earth, but limitation and difference is what defines an entity. Mind can mentally abstract an entity only by its
limitation and difference. Ergo, an entity is finite. This is the foundation of all knowledge. There is no such thing as an
“infinite entity.” To express or imply otherwise is false. Any beliefs dependent upon the idea of an “infinite entity” are false
– always. “Omnipotent God,” “Will of the people,” “national interest, or any other expression or implication of “infinite
entity” is a lie. It represents in self delusion only the subjective personal preference of an individual. Since it is a lie, it
is peculiar to each individual, therefore, without common objective referent. Again, conflict central. There are infinite claims
of truth, but any belief formulated in the absence of entity identity by limitation and difference is false. Test it once, or test
it a trillion times and you will find that all demonstrated knowledge (not all beliefs) comes by this route. It makes no difference
whether we’re talking about raising a finger, or building and launching a space shuttle, the same principle of entity identity
as basis of knowledge applies. This fact emphatically and totally refutes the idea of non-corporeal “spiritual truth”; so it is
no surprise to find no mention of it in Webster’s, nor textbooks, nor any popular publication. In brief, the dictionary sets the
idea of two kinds of truth, which in turn, goes to a dual reality with the “two realities” in conflict. Truth is fact and fact is truth.

Tautological “definitions” are the norm in Webster’s. Observe, there is not a word in the dictionary about how fact is
mentally separated from non-fact to establish actual knowledge. The idea of “spiritual truth” is merely asserted as a popular concept
with no attempt to validate by any factual argument. It is implicitly alleged to be fact, yet logically unsupportable by any
facts. This is admitted in the dictionary itself, but rarely noticed. Since the dual reality idea and two kinds of truth calculate
to sum zero, in finality, given Webster’s non-definition it leaves “truth” to be whatever one wishes it to be, or feels it to
be. This is the psychological license to “create reality” that results in the endless conflicts of “mind worlds.” To put it
bluntly, all ideas supporting the concepts, “gods and governments,” are false. Again, no exception. The Mechanics of
Mind The erroneous multiple realities thinking and psychology can be remedied by unifying truth common to all. This
common truth is denied in thought and language. Words being abstract in origin may be arranged in any order or disorder
one chooses. However, an actual definition always has an objective referent; An (one) objective referent. This truth
must be kept hidden to allow for the dual reality idea and the “two kinds of truth.” The objective referent idea is utilized
by every speaking and writing individual many times each day. What happens is that it is not seen as a principle of
language necessary to communication; hence, upon (subconscious) emotional provocation, the objective referent
requirement is simply dismissed with thinking going off into the dual reality fallacy with the person none the wiser.
Mutual communication and mutual conclusions are dependent upon mutual identity. If a word, or use of a word or
phrase does not conform to some aspect of the common objective reality, there is no common frame of reference
by which to communicate and to peacefully resolve conflicting differences. It is rather obvious that mind content of
individuals are infinitely variable. Unfortunately, this observation is “interpreted” to mean an absence of commonality
necessary to understand mind. What is once again denied is natural law.

All minds work “mechanically” the same, ie, by the same principles. Pre-natal or post-natal brain damage may alter
operative capacity, but the principles are always intact. As surely as two sound computers processing the same
information will come up with the same answer, two minds processing the same information will come up with the
same conclusion as to objective cause and effect though subjective valuations of the effect may vary. You witness
this many times each day in interpersonal exchanges, market and otherwise, but probably do not see the natural
law behind it. Example 1. If you and another individual agree that a given object is a ten pound lead ball with further
agreement as to the ball’s relationship to glass in regard to force and contact, you will agree that if the ball is dropped
from a height of ten feet on a simple unprotected window pane lying on the floor, the glass will break. You may value
the glass being broken while the other individual may not, but from common identity, you agree on cause and effect.
Example 2. Suppose that you and another individual see a ten quart bucket filled with a clear liquid. You believe the
clear liquid is water. The other individual believes it is white gasoline. Unless and until this difference in identity is
settled, you will disagree as to the effect if the liquid is poured on a fire. Example 3. If you are sitting at a dinner table
with others and say, “Please pass the biscuits,” by definition you communicate that which you wish to communicate
with the subsequent effect of two individuals making the same objective identifications, then responding accordingly
to accomplish the intended goal via cooperation. As simplistic as these examples are, they are not only representative
of natural laws governing cause and effect of physical quantities, they also represent natural laws of mind functions.
What does this have to do with “anarchism”? Everything. All the division and hostile conflict whether under the label
religion, atheism, government or anarchism is directly derived from the failure of the participants to make an objective
identity as a common frame of reference.

What is the common frame of reference at issue in the social/anti-social context? Each human individual, of
course. “Everybody knows” what an individual is, so it is rather silly to suggest otherwise. Right? Since what
I am trying to communicate is outside the realm of prevailing beliefs, there are no directly corresponding
words to serve in communication; therefore, I am obliged to use existing words in invented terminology.
There are three options of “identity:” “Is” individual? Or “ought” individual? Or both? Which do you believe
is the real? Is an individual a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity who creates and attributes value? Or
is an individual a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity who “discovers” values? Or both? Value subjective?
Value objective? Both? The “both” answer cancels to zero, yet is the common emotional operative premise
within the mentality of a “dual reality.” This psychologically places individual in “another realm” excluding
individual from subject to the natural laws governing other entities as previously mentioned. If we identify
the first option as the real, value is subjectively created and attributed by each individual and is infinitely
variable between individuals and within the individual in time and circumstance. This means that value is
subjective by virtue of the inherent characteristics of each individual mind, therefore, is immutable natural
law. On the other hand, if we “identify” an individual as an entity who discovers values outside of self,
values not of his/her own creating, this means that values are objective and fixed. Which alleged identity
is correct, if either? Valuation (attributing value) is necessarily by a volitional, valuing entity. If not each
human individual, what entity creates these “objective values”? Some say, “God.” It does not stop here.
Our environment is saturated with “objective values.” “God intended,” “values of society,” “national interest,”
“for the good of the country,” “will of the people,” “natural rights,” on and on and on with real (“is”) individual
left out of the thinking equation. (Observe this denies the finite entity identity principle and embraces the
contradiction, “infinite entity.”} These “objective values” are held to be superior to subjective personal
preferences. They express and imply an obligation to accept and abide by these “objective values.”
“Should” and “ought” are very popular expressions of servitude derived from the objective value premise.
As popular as the idea of objective value may be, it does not fit in the real world of real individual identity.

The real world is not “ought.” It is “if” and “must.” If you are to accomplish a goal, the goal must be achievable. If you
are to accomplish a goal, means appropriate to the goal must be selected and applied. It is impossible to cook with
ice and freeze by fire. It is no less impossible to create peace by means of war. The Servitude of Self Why do you
suppose there is so much disagreement over the “objective values”? Objective means outside of mind and common
to all, does it not? Where then and how then are all to discover these “objective values” as a common frame of
reference by which to peacefully resolve conflicting differences? How do you settle differences of “God’s will,” “national
interest,” “for the good of the country,” “public welfare,” “community standards,” “will of the people” and “constitutional
rights,” etc? Millions go here and there and adamantly claim they have the answer; but these “answers” are in conflict
with no common frame of reference to peacefully resolve. The only “common ground” remaining is the battleground.
Why? Could it be there are no objective values, only subjective values paraded as objective and superior, meaning
all “ought” to accept even if offensive force is needed to bring about compliance? What is the common “justification”
for oppression if not the idea of objective values? A human individual who sees self as a finite and fallible entity with
values neither inferior too, nor superior too the values of another individual cannot reach the psychological state to try
to impose personal values upon another person. Imposition and oppression are always derived from the psychology
of the fallacy, objective value. What is the problem except the failure to recognize and accept “is” individual as the
real identity. “ Is” individual is the one and only valid reference for determining interpersonal relationships? It is the
one and only valid reference for defining terms involving interpersonal relationships. Anything other than this is not
dealing with reality. It is pursuing illusion in conflict with reality. Take a long hard look at past and present philosophical
environment. To be born is to be born into servitude. Your value is “unit value” as property. By declaration and/or logical
inference, you are the “property” of “God,” “nation,” “people,” “society,” “public,” etc. Individual as property in servitude
to some “superior being” is the all-time prevailing mindset.

This is what thought and language are molded to fit in direct and indirect manner for the benefit of some monarch and/or
other with the will to rule. By the natural law of logical mental integration, to accept any part of it is to accept it all in a never
-ending battle with self and others. Truth + truth = truth. Fallacy + fallacy = fallacy. Truth + fallacy = fallacy. There is no
compromise. How about the concept, altruism, a popular anti-self con? “Selflessness” is praised as the ultimate “good.”
It is incorporated in the legal system in the mandatory redistribution of wealth. It is a concept of subordination and servitude.
It is a lie. By natural law, it is literally impossible for any individual to consciously act against what he/she regards as self
interest. It takes only a few minutes and a few questions to expose the fraud, yet it still prevails in the minds of nearly all.
The altruism lie is not only preached and taught, it has official status backed up by coercive force. The directives of the
false altruism concept are exactly opposite of what is claimed. It is not a concept of compassion and concern. It is (by
official status) “justification” for unlimited initiation of force and coercion. It is not a concept of giving. It is a concept of
taking by offensive force. Furthermore, behind every act of initiation of force and coercion, you will find a lie. If you tend to
doubt this all-encompassing declaration, think of the alternative. If all or some coercion is derived from truth, you cannot
claim to seek truth and oppose coercion at the same time without being in contradiction, which is itself the negation of truth.
Knowing that all initiation of force and coercion is derived from fallacy tends to focus the search for means to end it.
The task is to find and expose the directive fallacies. Technically, simple enough. Psychologically, a real problem in the
context of thinking in terms of multiple realities with no dependable natural law reference by which to separate fact from
fiction. If you accept the Webster’s contradictions about truth, you also accept the language distortion and mode of thought.
Your choice. The way out has already been marked: Entity identity via limitation and difference to the exclusion of the mythical “infinite
entities,” “spiritual reality” and “spiritual truth.” Don’t take my word for it. Test it to the max. Recognizing entity identity
as the sine qua non of knowledge won’t make you omniscient and assure no mistakes. What it will do is keep you out of
the “spiritual reality” of “infinite entities” where error and conflict is an absolute certainty. How one thinks determines in large
part what one thinks. Without the thinking discipline of finite entity identity by limitations and difference, the alternate and
false concept, “infinite entity” dominates in an oscillating, confused “mind world” of contradictions.

There is no anchor, no starting point of validated objective reference to maintain a connection to the real with consistency
necessary to ascertain truth. Undefined words influencing thinking serve as an emotional starting point for “reasoning” with
the thinker totally unaware that the starting premise is cut off from reality and is false. The programming is a literal shutdown
of actual independent thinking. With no awareness via contrast, the illusion of independent thinking is the consequence.
Worst of all, the programming leaves an individual feeling lost and totally incapable of examining and testing any counter
idea to said programming. Evasion is the usual reaction; an apathy of status quo. Anarchism and the Individual Many labels
can be made and many claims attached to the labels, but when push comes to shove, “reality is binary.” The issue is either
/or. Definition reveals this truth, which is why Webster’s steers clear of it in “social matters.” The only options in interpersonal
relationships whether involving only two persons or billions is the concept, self ownership and voluntary cooperation, or the
concept external ownership backed up by initiation of force and coercion. There is no compromise. There is no graduation
between existence and non-existence. There is no partially pregnant, nor little bit dead, nor melding of self ownership and
external ownership. One or the other exists no matter what one may feel from the confusion of a “dual reality.” Either/or is
a singular objective fact that no number of subjective labels, nor subjective claims can ever change. Theism, atheism,
government, anarchism; four different words (labels) allegedly symbolizing four different sets of beliefs. This division into
four labels is then respectively subdivided again and again until there are literally thousands of labels implying thousands
of sets of beliefs with each label signifying conflict, yet all claimed to be based on truth. I make no claim to having read or
otherwise reviewed all offerings on “social matters,” but what I have encountered, which is substantial, whether history
books, daily media, official documents, or “educational material” is lie, a continuous lie differing only in personal stamp
on common fallacy. To be sure, here and there within this material, within any material, there are truths in isolation, but
these serve only to deceive and self delude, not to enlighten. When fact and fiction are mentally mixed, the end conclusion,
which directs actions, is false.

The common fallacy manifest under thousands of labels denies that at root level, there are only two options as explained
above: Premise of self ownership, or the premise of external ownership. The one or other choice is denied by many
“versions” pretending a fundamental difference where there is none. The premise of external ownership is the chosen
common. This truth is revealed in the commonality of violent conflict when application is attempted of all or any. The
fiction exposed by definitive examination predicts the outcome, but it is precisely the denial of and ignorance of definition
that allows the mind to construct such fallacies and believe they are true. The refusal to reexamine the beliefs and
discard the fallacies assures perpetual violence. The term, anarchism, is alleged to be a word denoting the premise
of self ownership. How many “kinds” of self ownership are there? “Collectivist” anarchist, individualist anarchists,
atheist anarchist, Christian anarchists, communist anarchist, socialist anarchists, property abolitionist anarchist, on
and on. This poses some serious questions. If each of the propositions under each of the labels corresponds to the
premise of self ownership, they are not in conflict with the premise of self ownership, nor in conflict with each other.
If each is in conflict with each of the others, no more than one can correspond to the premise of self ownership,
maybe none. This confusion and conflict about “anarchism” is a classic example of what happens when a word is
allegedly defined, but identifies no specific entity or specific relationship. This leaves the criteria of infinitely variable
subjective feelings as “definition.” What happens if the term, anarchism, is actually defined as the premise of self
ownership? Of course, this presents the necessity of defining self ownership by objective reference. Absent one or
both definitions, there remains only a string of non-definitive terminology that fails to identify a common objective
referent leaving “meaning” up to the subjective feelings of each “anarchist” with the certain consequence of division
and conflict. If all “anarchist” agree to self ownership, meaning self determination, how can they be in conflict?

Absent explanation of multiple “kinds” of self ownership. I am obliged to conclude they think, talk and write in contradiction.
An adamant claim of self ownership is quickly canceled by espousing anti-self ownership ideas. They come full circle
without realizing what is going on. Regrettably, they are doing nothing but promoting their preferred form of government
under a deceptive label. Socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy, etc, all presumably represent different forms
of government. Root level definition is government is initiation of force and coercion. A dark alley mugging is no less
government than any other initiation of force and coercion. The official government version may be politicized, organized,
centralized and canonized and “socially approved,” but this does not dismiss the definitive commonality of the operative
premise. If and when governmentalists see their kinship with a common robber, they may be a bit more inclined to
reconsider their philosophy. Of course, this is not going to happen in an environment where distorted language provides
a psychological means of hiding from self behind abstracts with nearly all playing the same self deluding word game.
Can there be different kinds of initiation and force and coercion? Obviously, yes. With self ownership the common,
there are no “kinds” and no conflict. There is self determination, but not determination for other individuals. This is the
singular “rule” and singularly applied. With the concept, external ownership, with initiation of force and coercion, “kinds”
are a matter of who creates the rules, what rules to be imposed, and method of implementation. “Kinds” in conflict
equate with the external ownership premise and rule, not self ownership. Certainly, one may speculate as what might
happen in certain circumstances under a social premise of self ownership, but without a crystal ball foretelling all
circumstances, including the personal values of each individual, such speculation doesn’t count for much. Even if
one does speculate, it does not call for different labels. Self determination is understood. With only one possible
exception, the many “types of anarchism” are not about speculation as to what others might do. They are “social
blueprints” in direct denial of the premise of self ownership.

They are formulated, propagated, promoted and discussed in conflict within a quagmire of non-definitive rhetoric where
no proof is required and none is possible. They are concepts of government under a false banner and behind a façade
of freedom hidden from self and others by non-definition. The divisions in “anarchism” are from the same fundamental
fallacy accounting for the many divisions in formal religion and government. Not being united upon the common objective
identity, “is” individual, (subjective value) they are infinitely divided upon the fallacy, “ought” individual (objective value)
with personal variations of the “ought.” This is not a rejection of rule; only disagreement as to what compulsion is to be
carried out by whom and how it is to be implemented. It is conflict of real subjective values via the denial of this truth
as nearly all claim discovery of objective values and imagine his/her personal preferences to be “superior.” Certainly,
this may be denied by distorted language usage, but definition exposes the flaws and reveals how such ideas would
work in practice as coercion. The selling of any one of these versions requires convincing others that a particular version
is based on fact. The ordeal of definition expose all such plans as illusion and self delusion. As expressed above, what
you see is division into “ought” groups under different labels, not by facts and definition, but by emotional appeal. The
groundwork is already laid. With nearly all minds programmed with the notion of a dual reality and two kinds of truth, it
is a take your pick situation. Since the dual reality, two kinds of truth thinking precludes awareness of the principles of
epistemology, there is no immutable objective reference by which to consistently evaluate a claim as true or false. Along
with this is the idea of definition as solely a matter of subjective determination. The consequence is an infinite variety
of floating “mind worlds” disconnected from reality, but with each certain of the rightness and “righteousness” of his/her
version. Conflict is a foregone conclusion. Self Ownership and Property Among the conflicting versions of “anarchism”
is the idea opposing property. “Property is theft” is a Proudhon quote that has been around a long time and often used.
What does it mean? How is this to work in practice? You can know by attempted application, or know by definition.

What is theft? How can there be theft if there is no property? What is theft except a non-voluntary exchange?
How is it theft unless it is owned by someone? The term, property, has no meaning except in “property of.”
To say “property is theft” is to use the word, property, as not only an object stolen, but as the act of stealing
itself. Ergo, the “double definition” makes no differentiation between entities and relationships. No differentiation,
no definition. No definition, no correspondence with reality. No correspondence with reality means false.
How about self ownership? A slave, by definition, is the property of another individual. Is not self ownership
the property of self? Self ownership means little without sustenance, ie, property. The essence of ownership
is control. Ergo, the issue is who does the controlling? Is it to be each individual controlling some property,
or external control by some individual other than self? This sticky wicket is circumvented by word games, by
non-definition. One “explanation” is that if one has and uses a saw himself for himself, it is a “possession,”
but is not property. However, if he hires someone to use the saw, the saw becomes “property.” An objective
inanimate object is magically turned into a subjective philosophical concept though its real identity never
changes. What’s going on? Confusion due to absence of definition. Control equals ownership. Ownership
means ownership of something. Ownership of something equates with property. A “possession” that is not
property means it has no owner. However, possession equates with control meaning it is property; if not
property of the person in immediate possession, property of the owner who allowed the possession, or if
not allowed, it is theft of property. What it boils down to is the phrase, “Property is theft,” is self contradictory
in that the concept property must exist for the word theft to have any meaning at all. On the truth scale
“Property is theft” weighs in at sum zero. After we sort through all the self contradictory confusion due
to lack of definition, what Proudhon was driving at and trying to sell was the idea of no “private property.”
Since individual is the real and mind is singular, property, by definition is private. There is no other kind.
In confusion and denial comes the default proposition of “collective ownership.” The usual spiel is
Spencer claiming that “God” gave the earth to all, or a similar pronouncement. This is the admitted,
or unadmitted basis for the idea of “collective ownership.”

What is missing is a “universal collective entity” to put into practice what is put in words. The undefined words don’t conform
to reality and neither does this “plan for man.” Another very large missing part is the fact that value is subjective. Since
subjective value can not be quantified and objectively measured, what kind of math is to be used in calculating the “equal
division” of resources? As “commune think” persistently promotes the idea of “equality,” it denies natural inequality as the
identity of each individual. Neither sympathy, empathy, nor “good intentions” have force to change reality. Proudhon’s
idea of “anarchism” to “equalize” was an emotional reaction not to what did and does exist, but what he imagined to exist.
Since there is no “collective entity,” nor universal mind, the idea of no private property translates in practice to each
individual as property. By no means am I suggesting a “plan for man.” There is no natural law dictating who owns what,
how much, or for how long, nor do I propose to express or imply otherwise. I leave such things to the consequence of
personal values and voluntary agreements. I say only that self ownership, ie, self control goes to personal property as
the necessary means of survival as an “is” individual. Just because recognition of “is” individual is my choice, does not
mean that all will go along with the “is” individual idea. Whatever the choice, property is property, meaning some individual
will control implying ownership. The only question is who? If some individuals choose to throw all in the pot with the premise
“From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs,” let them have at it. If they want to vote on production
and distribution, I leave them to their choice. It is when they propose to compel me (or others) to join the arrangement
that I offer objections. All I am saying is that property goes along with survival and the choice comes down to the choice
of who is going to determine the use of property in survival–if survival is the choice. I am very cognizant of the benefits I
derive from the diversity of individual talents, desires and efforts. I have no desire to manufacture my own car, build my
own house, nor perform a heart transplant on myself. How is this going to work without the concept of property?

There is something else behind the “commune think” that is rarely, if ever, admitted: Envy and jealousy. In the prevailing
philosophy and value system, wealth is equated with self worth via the evaluation and values of the “people.” In “commune
think,” it is not only how the wealthy became wealthy, but that they are wealthy at all. This is quite an incentive to find a lot
of “reasons” that “property is theft,” even as such proponents seek to steal the property while denying it all via non-definition.
Don’t you find it a bit strange there is no distinction made between property held by personal production and property
held via stealing the production of another? Proudhon saw the “inequities,” the misery of poverty in the face of plenty. He
saw much wealth held by a few while the many went wanting. He wished to remedy the “inequality.” From non-definition
thinking, he arrived at the conclusion that all the problems came from the concept, private property; so, he set out to
abolish it. The problem was and is the reality of the scene then and now is exactly the opposite. The dominant social
/anti-social situation has been and still is no private property, no private ownership. During the days of the “divine right of
kings,” all was said to be owned by “God” with the king as agent. In present day, the owner is “the people,” sometime
called the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The centralized coercive force denying self ownership simultaneously denies
the concept private property. How can someone who is property own property? Remember, the essence of ownership
is control. Private property means the owner has ultimate control as long as that control does not impose. Is that the
situation now or in the past? Do you own “your house”? Other than taxation and other requirements to sustain your
“ownership” is the matter of “right of eminent domain.” Private ownership? Hardly. Dictatorial control is inherent in every
governmental system with the “powers that be” at any given time being the de facto owners. What is a vote except an
attempt to direct the dominant physical force to compel adherence by others to the voters’ preferences. A vote is a
declaration of ownership not only of inanimate objects, but other human beings. If this “reciprocal slavery” is not insanity,
what is? What Proudhon witnessed, but did not understand was the illusion of collective ownership as manifested by
real individuals. Ideas on paper with distorted language supporting contradiction is one thing.

Definitive examination and/or attempted application is another matter. The only alternative to private property is collective
ownership, which is a contradiction. In practice, the collectivist ownership premise sets a certain person or persons as
authority and control over all. What Proudhon regarded as private property was political privilege derived from the fallacy
of communal ownership. Proudhon had it exactly backward. This means that Proudhon’s idea if put into practice would
turn out the same as what he proposed to displace. (What are 30,000 lobbyists doing in Washington D.C. if not with intent
to influence the distribution of “communal property” via the governmental system of coercion?) As you know, arguments
go on and on about what is or is not religion; there is much ado about the “kind of government.” As discussed above, the
“anarchist camp” is likewise divided in conflict over the issue of the “true anarchism” on the same plane as the “true religion”
conflict. It is all word games of illusion and self delusion, often quite deadly. The self delusion is accomplished only by
“shifting definitions,” by non-definitive language usage that does not conform to reality. Speak and/or accept the language
of coercion and you support oppression and battle against self. All of my arguments are based on “is” individual as the
real. All the definitions I use or accept as valid are connected to and anchored in “is” individual as the objective referent.
This means I reject as false all versions of “ought” individual regardless of label. “Government Think” Different and undefined subjective
labels do not alter common content. Any concept that expresses or implies a superior being to which individual
is subordinated is denial of the actual identity, “is” individual.” “Is” individual is the real whether you or I like it or not.
This is the only objective common frame of reference. When actual individual identity is denied, what remains is “ought”
individual emotionally tied to infinitely variable subjective mental inventions (feelings) of superior being(s) and objective
values. This issue was actually addressed via the earlier examples showing the consequences of common identity and
failure to make common identity. By natural law, common effect is by common cause. This applies to interpersonal conflict
as well as all else. How do you wind up with conflict upon the premise of self ownership which provides no base for conflict?

You don’t. The conflict between formal religionists is necessarily the same basis of conflict found under the label, anarchism,
or any other. In short, the common error of failure to identity “is” individual as the real. The philosophy, epistemology and
psychology of “anarchists” who present a “plan for man” is the same as devout religionist and dedicated governmentalists.
Among the commonalities is the much-evidenced fear of freedom. Freedom is self ownership with unrestricted non
-imposing choice. This is precisely what every “plan for man” opposes. Declarations in denial mean nothing as they are
refuted by the “plan for man” itself. With minds set in the idea of government as absolute, the differential reference
principle of mind precludes envisioning an opposite. There is a confused “mental mix” of external ownership and self
ownership without defining and understanding either concept. With the subsequent mental integration with the god
concept dominant, such minds carry forward into “anarchism” a version of government while imagining it to be removed
from government. This precludes understanding that with self ownership as a base social premise, the belief system,
exactly opposite of government, results in a value system also opposite of the value system set by “government think.”
The most obvious difference is the worship of and seeking of power in “government think.” In self ownership, power is
not needed, nor desired. Ruling and being ruled are equally abhorrent. Power and rule have no place in a free social
existence rooted in the concept self ownership. This concept, understood and practiced, eliminates not only direct
coercion, but theft, fraud, and anything else of an imposing nature that would deny self ownership and voluntary
cooperation. In other words, the concept self ownership if understood and practiced, ends all “crime”; something that
a million laws and a thousand armies cannot do because they are part of the “crime.” I do not worry about a free individual
living upstream poisoning my water supply. This is taken care of by a whole different set of values not at all understood
by governmentalists under whatever label. Not understanding is the root of the common fear and common idea of “plans
for man.” Once the idea of government is put into practice with the inevitable conflicts and corresponding psychology,
there is an atmosphere of hostility and distrust that tends to perpetuate the condition in seeking “security” via control.

I have lived too long and seen too much to imagine that self ownership and freedom is ever going to happen on a large
scale, and very few small ones either. For sure, as long as governmentalist and “anarchists” remain stuck in “government
think” and insist on bringing in concepts of government and calling them non-government, things are going nowhere.
Speaking of commonalities under different labels, but in the same vein of thought, a common claim among “anarchists”
is the concept, “right of self ownership.” “Right”? What is a “right”? Entitlement? Allocated “privilege”? By whom or what?
By what rationale? Based on what premise? The reality is that any human individual can believe whatever he/she wishes
and take any action within his/her capacity. “Right”? Permission? With permission comes command. With command is
the external ownership premise. “Rights” are a contradiction of individual identity, hence, anti-individual and anti-freedom.
This is why in practice, “rights” (a version of “God intended”) become “bestowed privilege” at the point of a gun. The idea
of self ownership is not a “bestowed right.” It is a matter of personal choice. The natural law of individual volition validates
this. The premise of self ownership is my personal choice, but not necessarily the choice of another, others, or all. I wish
it were, but my wishes do not create reality. “If” self ownership is the agreed-upon operative social premise, subordination
to anyone or anything is logically excluded. That is really all there is to it. The fact that most choose anti-self existence
does not change the principle and derivatives of the self ownership concept. In the reality and psychology of self ownership
and subjective value, there are no superior, nor inferior beings, therefore, no superior, nor inferior values. To put it another
way, morality is a myth. “Morality” is necessarily derived from the fallacious notion of superior being in direct contradiction
of the actual identity, autonomous individual. This thought of “no morality” probably scares some “anarchist” no less that
the thought of non-government scares a governmentalist; and for the same reason: It is ingrained that each individual left
to his/her own devices without “moral guidance” will necessarily behave in an “evil” manner. “Morality” is equating potential
with actual and assuming the “worst.” Sound familiar? Isn’t this exactly the same argument that every governmentalist
presents? What does Webster’s have to say about morality? “1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.”

By principles, does this mean objective natural law, or subjective preference? If the former, it exists without personal
alteration. If the latter, it is a matter of personal preference without proof or disproof. To say “ought” is to say does not
exist in objective reality. No one says that the law of gravity ought to exist because it already does exist in objective
reality. This leaves “ought” as derived from and connected to the subjective; meaning that the source of “morality” is
always subjective personal preference. Once again, a simple and highly visible truth much denied. “MORAL implies
conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong, the basic moral values of a community.”
The last time I looked, “community” is not a thing, let alone a volitional thing which attributes value. The term, community,
denotes a relationship, not an entity. Yet, with the “defining license” allowed by Webster’s, reification is “socially acceptable”
and not to be questioned. Community is one of the many fallacious “abstract infinite entities” serving as a hiding place
to deny personal responsibility. Take a close look at all the pronouncements of “morality.” You will find that every one
is predicated upon the notion of superior being and objective values. This is the source of the idea of universal good
and universal bad. Surely, I do not need to remind you of all the conflict and bloodshed over disagreement on what is
or is not moral. “Good and Evil” and Reality What is claimed to be a universal and common frame of reference is, in
reality, infinitely divisive personal “mind worlds” believed to be discovered, therefore, compelling and “justifying” the
“moral duty” to eradicate “evil.” “Evil” is whatever opposes a given moralist’s personal values. “Morality” is inherently
intolerant of diversity in valuations, and dedicated to eradicating “is” individual. Since these aberrations of “morality”
have directed most minds for all known history, millions of volumes and trillions of words have been written on “good
and evil. Even the “atheists/anarchists” talk about stamping out “evil” as if “evil” is a constant element which everybody
recognizes. All ideas of morality are predicated upon the anti-individual notion of superior being and universal values.
What do the concepts, good and bad, look like when brought down to the real world and real individual identity?

Entities are neither good nor bad. They exist independently of any value judgment. The terms good and bad refer to
actions (or reactions). If a large bucket of water is dumped on a small wood fire, the fire will be extinguished. Is the act
good, or is it bad? Same entities. Same action. Same end results. What determines the answer to the question of good
or bad? If you want the fire to go out because it is threatening to burn down your valued house, the act is good. On the
other hand, if you want and need the fire to cook food, the act is bad. In the final analysis of down to earth meaning, ie,
actual definition, the determination of good or bad is by the objective evaluation of means in respect of a subjectively
chosen end. Upon real individual as objective referent, the terms good and bad can be easily defined in a few words.
These few words of actual definition dismisses as fallacy millions of volumes and trillions of words of undefined rhetoric
on the subject: Good is the means suited to the purpose. Value is subjective and purpose is infinitely variable. It is as
simple as that. Is the magnitude of the pronouncement such that you “feel” that it just can’t be? Is a few words of
definition declaring as false all the “great works of many scholars of morality and ethics” too much to even consider?
What is the alternative conclusion except that “ought” individual is the real and war is directed by truth? In quantity
vs quality, which do you choose as basis of truth? (Truths in isolation do not make the end conclusion. It is the end
conclusion that directs action.) Do I hear a murmur of protest? Do you say that water and fire is not a “moral issue,”
but other matters are? Thus do we once again evidence the “dual reality” mode of thought sanctioned by Webster’s
and “consensus of opinion.” What about these other values to be regarded as “moral or immoral”? What are they
and how does this dual reality work? Suppose someone comes into my house with gun in hand with intent to rob me.
If I have the wherewithal to do so, I will resist. Do you say that I have the “moral right” to resist the “immoral act” of
the would-be robber? Obviously, my personal choice and choice of the would-be robber are at odds, but what makes
one “moral” and the other “immoral”? Ah yes, the “standards” that “everybody knows.” A common utterance is the “sanctity
of life,” or “life as a standard.” Life is not a static condition. It is a matter of beliefs, values and ongoing action.

Life as an abstract means nothing. When the concept, life as a standard, is addressed in the real world, life
as a standard comes with a long list of “standards” called morality. In rejecting this notion, I logically reject
the notion of life or any other “standard.” “Standards” are not objectively discovered. They are subjectively
invented. The “standard of life” is the Open Sesame to other “standards” which you call oppression. I resist
not from some self-contradictory notion of standard, nor from permission called a “moral right.” I resist for
no other reason that it goes against my personal choice. I can prove to the would-be robber that his actions
provoke resistive violence, therefore, are death oriented. However, I can’t prove he “ought” to choose to
live. As I choose to resist an intrusion of my choice of self ownership, so can others; and can voluntarily
join together to do so. The key term is voluntarily from subjective personal preference. Anything else in
any form is the contrary and denial of individual identity. The contrary of which I speak is the common fallacy:
“ought” individual. Believing that personally created and subjective values are discovered outside of self
means they are considered objective, therefore, universally applicable. Keep in mind that an individual by
the natural laws of mind acts upon what said mind believes to be true whether it is true or not. Ergo, the
“ought” individual (“morality”) belief is a mind mandate to act upon said beliefs no less than any real objective
item that prompts and directs action. What happens is the myth encounters reality in the imposition upon
the personal preferences of the “is” individual with the very predictable consequence of hostile reaction.
There is much talk about getting to the bottom of things, getting to root cause of all the social problems of
hostility and conflict. Indeed, for many centuries millions of volumes and trillions of words have been spoken
and written about this. Every day, more is being added, yet getting no closer to uncovering and understanding
root cause. That has been declared off limits by the box thinking set by “sacred ideas.” These many efforts
propose to find the answer without ever looking into the place where it must be: Mind. I have tried to provide
some insight into mind, but doubt that I have much succeeded. As a final effort in this writing, I repeat some
earlier words: Will of God, will of the people, public welfare, constitutional rights, natural rights, national
interest, ought, should, gross national product, for the good of the country, the values of society, minority
rights, morally right, immoral, race relations, community standards, freedom and democracy, altruism,
selflessness, government does, majority rule, freedoms, fighting evil, on and on and on unto infinity.

This is but a partial list of concepts commonly accepted and frequently uttered. This is the vernacular of oppression
with which our senses are inundated without let up from birth unto death. Where is or what is individual in these
beliefs? What else but subservient with “unit value” only? The significance of the list above is that it excludes the
real identity, “is” individual. In its stead is the “ought” individual as the director of thinking, the basis of beliefs, the
determinant of values and the motivation for all actions. The “ought” individual is myth, does not exist, is illusion
and aberration, not objectively real, and not common to all; to the contrary divides all in hostility. Earlier I gave a
couple of examples about making common identification and failure to make common identification that affected
the issue of agreement or disagreement. In the example of disagreement of whether the clear liquid was water or
white gasoline, the failure to make a common identification results in divided conclusions in regard to anticipating
cause and effect. By natural law, the same is no less true in reference to “is” individual and “ought” individual. Unless
and until there is a common identification of the real “is” individual, there will be perpetual division in hostility via the
illusory “ought” individual. It makes no difference if billions with gang mentality remain in denial of this truth. It makes
no difference how deeply this truth is buried by distorted language usage, backward epistemology, or how it is denied,
or how many suffer and die in protest of this truth, it is still natural law. You can subjectively deny natural laws of mind
and matters, but natural law determines the consequence of objective actions. It is natural law that will determine the
outcome and there is nothing you can do about it. Your only choice is to go with, or go against. It is literally the choice
of life or death. The common goal of “anarchists” is illusory. Most, if not all, are “united” on the common belief of “ought”
individual, then infinitely divided by the fallacy of it no less than “God intended” and “national interest.” One could
spend many decades pointing out the confusion and contradictions in the endless variations of “anarchism” only to
have more follow and couched in the same self-deluding, non-definitive language usage which is the “norm.” I do
not propose to engage in such a futile effort. Suffice it to say, it is only by recognition of the truth of “is” individual
without the subservient “ought” adornments of “morality” and “rights” that the real objective identity stands as a
common frame of reference in unification, not division. In seeking freedom, peace and harmony, all else is folly.