Ash Tha God & His Politics Volume 1

"My accusers, then, as I maintain, have said little or nothing that is true, but from me you shall hear the whole truth- not, I can assure you, gentlemen, in flowery language like theirs, decked out with fine words and phrases. No, what you will hear will be a straightforward speech in the first words that occur to me, confident as I am in the justice of my cause, and I do not want any of you to expect anything different." - Socrates


And that my friends is what I, Ash tha God, promise to you. Truth! Political, social, economic, philosophical, spiritual and personal truth! Not merely cynical polemic dressed up with existentialist and Marxist abstractions and literary metaphors that sound good but say little. I will tell you in a straightforward manner what I think about anything and everything. Now, as the title indicates, let's discuss politics. First, what is political thought and political philosophy?


"By political thought we understand the reflection on, or the exposition of, political ideas; and by a political idea we may understand any politically significant 'phantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is about which the mind can be employed in thinking' concerning the political fundamentals. Hence, all political philosophy is political thought but not all political thought is political philosophy. Political thought is, as such, indifferent to the distinction bewteen opinion and knowledge; but political philosophy is the conscious, coherent, and relentless effort to replace opinions about the political fundamentals by knowledge regarding them... A political thinker who is not a philosopher is primarily interested in, or attached to, a specific order or policy; the political philosopher is primarily interested in, or attached to, the truth." -Leo Strauss

An interesting comment by one of the founders of Neo-conservatism, Leo Strauss. His distinction between political philosopher and political thinker is still alittle unclear. What political thinker would admit that he/she was not primarily interested in the truth? And don't all political philosophers (e.g. Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, John Locke) have a specific policy or order that they would like to see manifested in society? Which they also endorse through their philosophy? Anyone, whether philosopher, thinker or charlatan, will claim that their primary interest is truth! I say Strauss' idea of philosophy is much too narrow. Because, all thought is philosophy! All thought is the pondering of and reflection upon what is truth. Therefore, all political thought is political philosophy! Let's stop putting the label of political philosopher on a pedestal which can only be reached by academic intellectuals. Even Sean Hannity, with all that is wrong with his political views, could be considered a political philosopher. His beliefs on "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East, his belief in (Christian) religion as a benevolent institution in society, his use of the word "socialist" to describe Democratic policies such as universal health care. These are all aspects of his brand of political philosophy and truth.


“Man is by nature a political animal”- Aristotle


And such is the catalyst and driving force for my interest in politics. All of social life derives from the political. The commodities we consume, the make-up of our communities, the quality of our lives, and the rules and laws we are forced to obey. All these are the products of our political system. So many aspects of our lives are affected by politics. Our very consciousness and weltanschauung derives from and is continuously affected by the political environment of our society (whether we support or are antagonistic towards it). Even with the abolition of the state, there will still be politics. (But instead of politics which aims to maintain and strengthen the state and the use of force, it will be a politics of how to do without a state and how to distribute power and resources without the use of coercion and force!) If you’re apathetic about politics, you’re ultimately apathetic about your life.

"Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"-Jean-Jacques Rouseeau

This is one of the pillars of my worldview and view of society. When we are born, we know nothing of the oppression of religion and morality. The concept of law is meaningless to us, and the only limits to freedom we experience are those regulated by natural law. Initially, our consciousness is free of the oppressors, hypocrites, and slave-drivers known as religion, morality, and law. But once the rules for both the socio-political and the spiritual plane of existence are properly indoctrinated into us, we learn that we cannot ecape them and they imprison us and restricts our actions. This is why everywhere, man is in chains. As long as man is subject to a "justice", which is defined and handed out by "God", the policeman, the judge, or the politician.

"In all societies- from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies- two classes of people appear- a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and ejoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent, and supplies the first, in appearance at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism."-Gaetano Mosca

And nothing could be more true than this comment by Gaetano Mosca. Every society has been comprised of two basic classes: the ruling class and the ruled. And in all these societies, the ruling class has used the state as its instrument of maintaining power and oppressing the ruled masses. This is one of my basic reasons for my support of the abolition of the state. The ruled class is defenseless against a state, which draws its strength from draining the energy and resources of the very class that it oppresses. Also, the state uses "education", the media, and sometimes outright force in order to manipulate the ruled class into supporting their oppressors. So what I propose is, the overthrow of the ruling class via the smashing the of the state. We must fight the growth and strengthening of the state, especially in regards to the state's police powers. The state's ability to use violence and coercion must be diminished and ultimately annihilated.

"Socialism with regards to its means.- Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be; thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires an abundance of executive power, as only despotism ever had; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, who it sees as an unauthorized luxury of nature, and who it intends to improve into a useful organ of the community. It crops up in the vicinity of all excessive displays of power because of its relation to it, like the typical old socialist Plato, at the court of the Sicilian tyrant; it desires (and in certain circumstances, furthers) the Caesarean power state of this century, because, as we said, it would like to be its heir. But even this inheritance would not suffice for its purposes, it needs the most submissive subjugation of all citizens to the absolute state, the like of which has never existed; and since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state, having rather always to work automatically to eliminate piety- because it works on the elimination of all existing states-, it can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for the reigns of terror, and drives the word "justice" like a nail into the heads of the half-educated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its half-education), and to create in them a good conscience for the vil game that they are to play.- Socialism can serve as a rather brutal and forceful way to teach the danger of all accumulations of state power, and to that extent instill one with distrust of the state itself. When its harsh voice chimes in with the battle cry "as much state as possible," it will at first make the cry noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater: "as little state as possible". " - Friedrich Nietzsche

The brilliant Existentialist philsopher Nietzsche could not have put my dissatisfaction with Socialism and its use of the state in any better words than these. Socialism and Communism, which both claim to be revolutionary and humanistic, are both actually deeply reactionary and inhumane in their practice. Collectivism is their religion. They stand up for the slavery of the individual to "the rabble" or, even worse, to those who proclaim to speak for "the rabble". Tyranny of the collective. How could any healthy individual, with any pride or belief in the strength of his own individuality, raise the flag of socialism/communist as his cause? Only those who see no strength in themselves, as individuals, scream and shout for the collective to be their guardian. This collectivist social attitude, which socialism and communism instill within a society, gives the state more reason to portray itself as an instrument of "the working people", "the community", "the greater good", the collective, society, or "the people". Any of these nice-sounding, abstract terms is sufficiently heart-warming to "half-educated" listeners and they are greeted into the listeners' ears, hearts and minds with open arms. "My country is not just an ordinary republic. It is a People's republic." says the individual brainwashed by collectivist ideology. And what makes these spectres, which have haunted the world since before Karl Marx released his manifesto, even more dangerous is their willingness to use the state apparatus, often violently and without regards to human rights, in order to achieve their "revolution". What kind of revolution bequeaths power over individual liberty to the state? Any revolution which has the goal of limiting my freedom as a single, unique individual is not worthy of the name "revolution". AS LITTLE STATE AS POSSIBLE! Such is the true battle cry of lovers of freedom!

"The properties of money are my own properties and faculties. What I am and can do is, therefore, not at all determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy the most beautiful woman for myself. Consequently, I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its power to repel, is annulled by money... I am a detestable, unscrupulous, and stupid man, but money is honored and so also is its possessor." -Karl Marx

Despite my intense anti-communism and anti-collectivist attitude, I am certainly not the hardcore disciple and supporter of bougeois ideology that I may seem to be. Many leftist critiques of capitalism are completely valid and should be addressed and changed. The incredible social power and influence that money has is an unattractive aspect of capitalism to say the least. Money comes to surpass the strength of people themselves to influence and change things in society. Money arbitrarily endows individuals and corporations, who tend to possess a large amount of it, with an unjust amount of political and social influence. Pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists influence drug policy. Presidential nominees with bigger campaign funds are more likely to win races than their more financially humble opponents. Art, in its various forms, loses all its emotional and aesthetic value and becomes merely a commodity. Art becomes a product to be formulaically created, watered down, standardized, de-radicalized, and transformed into mere, socially sedating "entertainment". And this sub-standard yet standardized, mediocre pseudo-art is promoted and marketed to the public to the point where the public is fooled into thinking that this artistic mediocrity is artistic genius. The political and social dominance of capital must be put to an end.

More Ash & His Politics to come...