Saturday, April 21, 2018

An atelatheist exposes the religion of statism

Is belief in government-- The State-- a religion?
Of course it is. Let's hear it from one of the true believers himself.

But first-- this has nothing to do with your religion, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you like the implications of anarchy. Those are separate issues completely. Just evaluate this on its merits and don't worry about other things for now.

According to outspoken "atheist" activist AronRa (whose videos on science education and evolution I absolutely love!) a religion is "a faith-based belief system, including the notion that some element of self, be it memories or consciousness ...a soul, perhaps... continues beyond the death of the physical body; transcends and survives that..."

Belief in the State certainly is "faith-based". Statists believe, through faith, that something which has no physical existence and never has, nevertheless exists. No one can point to The State and show it to you.

Yes, belief in the State results in buildings being built, people molested due to "laws", and other physical effects in the real world, but those are no more proof of the existence of the State than churches, inquisitions, martyrs, or charities are proof of the existence of God. People who believe something do things based on that belief. Such is the nature of belief. Beliefs have effects on the behavior of people who believe, even when the belief is in something imaginary.

What about survival beyond death? Statism claims some element of self will continue beyond death if you participate in the system. You can write a constitution or a "law" binding future generations in slavery. You can have a "legacy" that depends on who you were more than what you really did. Thus "Abraham Lincoln saved the Union" as if by magic. Ignore the fact that he started a war that killed multitudes of people, and didn't actually free anyone from slavery, but extended slavery to encompass everyone in his "United States". But you, too, can be a part of this eternity. You are told you must "v*te right", for the children. To give them a world worth living in. In this way you attain some sort of immortality, transcending death with an element of your self. Yes, the law pollution you soil the world with will live beyond your physical existence. That's not a positive thing.

Belief in The State is a belief system. AronRa says a religion is a system of beliefs which has required beliefs and forbidden beliefs. Such as the required belief that the State is necessary? The forbidden belief that "taxation" is theft? The required belief that democracy somehow differs from mob rule/"might makes right"? Yep. Statism is a system of beliefs, including beliefs which are required and beliefs which are forbidden. But so what? If the required beliefs can be shown to be true, and the forbidden beliefs false, then it's just an acceptance of reality. Right? So, how valid are those beliefs?

Let's turn back to AronRa's own words yet again. A religion is "...the idea of having to believe impossible nonsense for no good reason, and all of the absurdities, atrocities and ridiculous barbaric practices that often are associated with that."

Impossible nonsense? What impossible nonsense do statists have to believe in? Well, that could be a very long list!

Perhaps their belief that you can delegate a right you don't have to someone else, and suddenly they have this right which has never existed? That's the very foundation of government belief.

That you can make something right become wrong, or the other way around, just by writing some magic incantations ("law").

Is there "good reason" to believe this impossible nonsense, and if so, does that excuse it? I certainly don't think so. I can't believe it even if I tried. I can find no good reason to believe it, even when faced with the fact that the believers excuse killing those of us who don't believe as they do.

Almost no one would dispute that this belief can result in absurdities (shoelaces are machine guns, the wishes of the majority can override the rights of the minority, theft is ethical if you call it something else, plants can be "wrong" to own or consume, that things can be wrong unless licensed, etc.), atrocities and ridiculous barbaric practices (torture by police and the military, murder in the name of "officer safety", imprisonment, war, pledging allegiance, etc.). Yet statists believe some or all of those... and more. How very religious of them.

They constantly preach that The State can be good, if only the competing religions' believers can be kept from taking control. They want you to be robbed for their religion; to fund the parts of their religion they like. They believe their religion can save the world, fix the climate, make everyone safe, and change reality when reality is unpleasant. I believe the dangers in relying on their god outweigh any possible benefits.

Beyond that, I don't believe anyone has a right to impose their religious beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs, under threat of death-- and this is my biggest issue with statists. Because they evidently and enthusiastically DO believe they have this right.

I believe in one fewer god than most so-called "atheists". Because they aren't atheists, they are atelatheists; almost atheists, except for that one pesky god. They believe in the God of The State, and because of this belief, they honor it. I don't.

The atelatheists got their feelings hurt over this. "But it's NOT a religion, because..."

Yeah, I know. And Christians are always trying to tell me Christianity isn't a religion, because "religion is man's search for god, while Christianity is God reaching out to man". Nonsense. People always try to find a way their religion is somehow special (or even somehow not a religion).

Then they claim statism can't be a religion, because while the government may be like church, there is nothing in statism that is like a god. So, at best, statism is a religion without a god. (Obviously, they are so very wrong about this, and I can show you why.) But, since I see no evidence anywhere that any religion's god actually exists, they are ALL religions without a god. Including statism. But that excuse doesn't really hold water anyway: refer back to the description of what makes a belief system a religion, in AronRa's own words, above.

Maybe their feelings would be hurt less if I dropped the word "religion" and just let them have their "system of belief". It is a system with many mandatory and prohibited beliefs, centered on the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. But, then, it may be dishonest to differentiate between a religion and a system of beliefs. The way to have no religion is to have an absence of those beliefs, rather than a different type. So, just as atheism is supposed to be the absence of belief in a god, anarchy is the lack of belief in the "authority" of Rulers. An absence of that system. If you believe in the superstition of "authority", you don't qualify as an atheist. Sorry.

Statism is the world's most popular religion. Even people who claim another religion usually follow statism-- even when it conflicts with the religion they claim to follow. Atelatheists are no different from other believers in that respect.

They are going to believe what they believe, and justify what they want to justify.

Thank you for helping support
Follow me on Steemit and Medium


  1. I hate organized religion. Religion produces more evil, more violence, than any other type of social institution.

    Statism is a particularly violent religion, historically only rivaled by the Abrahamic faiths in it's capacity to abuse people.

    Kill 'em all, and their gods. Never mind sorting.

  2. Shal kek nem ron.

    1. Had to seek a translation for that. I agree... but I prefer LIVING free, first.

    2. How ya gonna do that? Ya movin' er sumthin'? ...which planet? Where is it? How ya getin' there?

      ...or do you have WMD's?

    3. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
      ― Robert A. Heinlein

    4. Or, I could make myself miserable wishing for improbable what-ifs and hating everyone.

    5. Heinlein is full of shit if you ask me. That's like saying "I choose to be incarcerated for a nonviolent harmless act because I really like shitty prison food" It sounds like a coping mechanism, a rationalization.

      No. Prison sucks because it's not free. Earth is a state prison. Believing you can be free here only works until you act on it. Then the state violates you in some way and you get a reality check and have to decide between licking boots, running and/or defense/suicide.

      Shouldn't the question be more productive,; how can we free ourselves from statist tyranny? The ultimate answer, of course, is to kill everyone on earth because they're stupid and cannot be reasoned away from systematic violence and into peaceful coexistence, as thousands of years of history has shown, and in spite of our technological and sociological 'development'.

      The question then becomes how to kill almost everyone. Sorry that I do not have any WMD's to contribute. I wish I had a few thousand megatons of H-bombs.

      If there a way to get the fuck outta here, to go elsewhere where people like us can mind our own business without being bothered, then I would vote we simply do that instead. But I don't know of anything like that available.

    6. I didn't ask you, but tend to agree that Heinlein is not correct on this. Yes, it's more a coping mechanism than a statement of fact.

      But your solution seems to me far worse; to "kill everyone"? Really? That is about as far from libertarian principles as one could get. Self defense is one thing, but nuking everyone is quite another.

      There's a third way, however: convert everyone. No trivial task, obviously. nor a fast one; but it can be done. Check "The Fix", at

    7. "But your solution seems to me far worse; to "kill everyone"? Really? That is about as far from libertarian principles as one could get. Self defense is one thing, but nuking everyone is quite another."

      Yes, really. You are seeing an ethical boundary where I am not, ultimately dependent upon responsibility. You are thinking like a Libertarian while I am thinking like a problem solver and weighing in ethics based on Libertarian values.

      I am a natural problem solver. I am thinking utilitarian and coming up with the most correct efficient and effective answer, then weighing it against ethical standards based on the value of life, rights and responsibility.

      The answer is to kill and destroy enough of modern 'civilization' to break it to the degree that it cannot and will not function in the same violent capacity for at least another thousand years.

      It is not unethical because it is defense against state terms. Full responsibility is on the governments of the world. Governments violate everyone on behalf of voters and nonvoters alike. It says; everyone in this land is subject of the state, therefore taking full responsibility for everyone within it's claim of jurisdiction.

      In other words; the states are putting the nonviolent in harm's way by assimilating them in combination with violating, creating the need for defense. Again, it is no different than a combatant using a hostage as a body shield while they fire rounds at innocent people in an enclosed area. You cannot run, and you cannot shoot back without killing the hostage. If you do nothing you all die, probably the hostage too.

      The answer; Kill the combatant anyway, NOW. The ultimate outcome is a lesser evil whether you kill the hostage in the process or not. If you refrain on account of avoiding violating the hostage, everyone dies.

      So who's fault is it that a hostage (or anyone) was put into that situation?

    8. Something else to consider; I think you're all doing the apples/oranges thing.

      You aren't dealing with reason and ethics here, but rather broad based large scale belligerence. Reason is somewhat inapplicable.

      The answer to obey or punished or murdered is not answered with please or that's not nice. It is answered with defense, either in the form of circumvention or retaliation. When circumvention is unavailable, a retaliatory response is the only appropriate answer.

      A retard wants to bash you over the head with a club because he likes the splatter pattern of blood. He cares not for your rights, nor does he have any understanding of them, nor can he understand. He only understands that it's funny to watch blood splatter from your skull and how to make it happen with a club. He perceives it as entertainment or learning a new trick.

      You can reason with him all you want to. You can put it in the simplest terms, and he is still going to bash you over the head so he can laugh at the funny splatter.

      Your answer is to plead with him and get your head bashed in. My answer is to do whatever I have to in order to survive, which starts with kicking him in the balls a few times.

    9. Take Waco Texas for example;

      A group of people decide they want to exercise their right to be free humans. They go out in the middle of nowhere where they will not bother anyone or be bothered by anyone. They agree upon a set of principles and guidelines to live by and peaceably assemble to live happy.

      They harm no one.

      Government discovers they are in possession of property(firearms) it does not approve of, that teenage girls are marrying and breeding with 30 something men(with ful support of their parents/family), and that they are essentially a religious 'cult' excluding themselves from society, peacefully.

      So they tell them to obey. When they don't, they get sieged and tortured to death, women children and all.

      It was Janet Reno and the ATF being retards a club. If someone had simply got in touch with her and explained to her that she's doing great evil with her violent solution, what difference do you think it would have made?

      If you had contacted the people who produced or managed the law that allowed the legal framework for such an atrocity, and explained to them that it is evil, fundamentally wrong, what difference do you think it would have made?

      Lawmakers are retards with clubs.

      If you had explained to the whole world, all the voters and citizens everywhere, that it is just plain wrong, that these nonviolent people are being violated, harassed tortured and abused, murdered, what difference do you think it would have made?

      Well, the whole world watched it happen and did absolutely nothing, just like they do when a little girl is being abducted right n front of them, or when someone lays in the middle of the street dying. Then they voted to express their approval and support.

      All of humanity were retards with clubs.

      People being clubbed have been pleading and bitching about it for as long as people have been retards with clubs. Nothing has changed except to worsen. It's not going to get any better.

      Kill them all(most). Rebuild correctly until they fuck it up again in another thousand years and kill them 'all' again.

    10. "Pretty fire on TV, YAY!" - clap clap


    12. I have many times presented the question of what is the value of life. I have yet to get any real answer, as it seems to stump people or dismissed as rhetorical. Rarely does someone even attempt to answer. I am not sure there is an answer, except to understand that it does have value.

      I would personally say that it is priceless with no specified value, and can only be determined by the individual, and perhaps only rightfully influenced by those who have a responsibility to them such as family/friends.

      To value life is to value all that comes with it, hence the concept of rights. We live in a world where this is an abstract and perplexing concept to the average man when it should be the cornerstone of our civilization, and where many mistake or pretend it to be as such.

      What does that say? What is the value of the lives of those who refuse to understand or acknowledge this basic idea and thus create a system based on violence?

  3. Kent, this is one superb blog. Thank you!

  4. Read the comments.

    1. If it happened, I would yawn. Then I would worry that someone would think "They nuked us! Kill 'em all!" and it would get out of hand.

  5. Do americans really like the military industrial complex? From what I have gathered, no, not really. Anyone who understands the concept of killing foreign babies for profit doesn't really approve of it being done and/or on their behalf.

    So why do so many people repeatedly demand it or otherwise support it? That's kind of stupid.

    How does addressing social issues like infrastructure resources and health standards require the murder of countless babies on the other side of the planet?

    It doesn't. So why do people demand it or even tolerate it? That is like saying; I need a new garage, I think I'll get a foundation poured, then order some cinder blocks and mortar mix and kill the kid across the street before going to the lumber yard with the truck for roofing materials. Once I have everything there on site, I can start the neighborhood down the road on fire, mix some mortar and start placing blocks.

    ...or is it more like hiring the contractor who kills children in the process of building your garage? - "It'll take this much time and labor, and I'll need to order X amount of concrete and Y number of cinder blocks, Z number of re-bar, and a case of .22 shells for the three babies and their mothers in the neighborhood down the road."

  6. Anonymous: As I have said before, I understand your reasoning. Honestly, that scares me a bit.
    But as I have also said, if liberty requires killing off most of the population, I'll suffer along without it. I can't become what I hate without hating myself.

    I understand that they are archating against someone, and that this makes defensive violence right. But, if a guy comes and robs me, I can't feel OK about going to his house and killing his kids, even if they don't mind that he robbed me. Even if they asked for something knowing he couldn't provide it without robbing someone.

    If that makes me weak, so be it. I have no problem with anyone killing a cop or tax collector who is coming after him personally. I can't get on board with someone killing a random government employee or v*ter, just because. Yes, they are guilty to some extent. Yes, they probably deserve whatever happens to them. But I couldn't do it, even if I probably wouldn't lift a finger to save them, either.

    It's a rough thing to think about, but you do make me think. A lot. Hard. And I almost feel ashamed that I can't support your argument. But I would feel ashamed if I did. So I'm stuck.

    1. "Anonymous: As I have said before, I understand your reasoning. Honestly, that scares me a bit."

      Me too.

      What does it say about our existence when such positions can be considered even remotely reasonable? How is it that the position of the devil's advocate can be argued as such?

      You know something is very wrong when a hostage situation or layman bashing your head in analogy applies to the popular means of social organization.

      Why do I feel guilty about wanting to bring children into this world?

      I'm not going to use statists as target practice or blow up the world. I am not even a credible threat. I merely entertain the reasoning of it as if I were in the position of a god or had a death star weapon or nukes or whatever. Give me the death star and I might use it, but am more apt to go elsewhere leaving the world to wallow in it's own shit.

      "I understand that they are archating against someone, and that this makes defensive violence right. But, if a guy comes and robs me, I can't feel OK about going to his house and killing his kids, even if they don't mind that he robbed me. Even if they asked for something knowing he couldn't provide it without robbing someone."

      If he robs you, you have a right to take back whatever he owes you, whatever that is. I am not sure how that applies to his children unless it applies to your children, unless they made it on those terms.

      For example; Say child welfare people stole your kids or something awful like that. If getting your kid back means abducting theirs and demanding an exchange, so be it, it is fair play, their terms by force. I won't judge you. Fuck them and their children. If they don't want their children abducted, they shouldn't force those terms onto people.

      "If that makes me weak, so be it."

      Not at all. Quite the contrary. You are peaceful, nothing wrong with that, and it is not what I consider weakness. You are a good model libertarian in many respects. You've taught me a few things, given me some things to consider. Thank you.

      "I have no problem with anyone killing a cop or tax collector who is coming after him personally. I can't get on board with someone killing a random government employee or v*ter, just because. Yes, they are guilty to some extent. Yes, they probably deserve whatever happens to them. But I couldn't do it, even if I probably wouldn't lift a finger to save them, either."

      I hate cops. That is the one group of people whom I honestly hate. When I say it about cops, I am not meaning it loosely as I may with other groups. I really do hate them, every last one of them. They should all be executed, NOW. They deserve absolutely no consideration whatsoever other than how to deal with a threat. Fuck the police. If you see one, please kill it.

      I won't judge someone for killing other statists either. When I hear about a state judge getting shot up or something, I say good riddance and thank the killer.

      "It's a rough thing to think about, but you do make me think. A lot. Hard."

      That's the whole idea.

      "And I almost feel ashamed that I can't support your argument. But I would feel ashamed if I did. So I'm stuck."

      You're trusting your nature and basic sense of right/wrong to not support my arguments that are intentionally presented in a way as to test exactly that. You consistently choose a strong ethical position in spite of whatever logic I may present in order to justify force, whether it be ethical justified or not.

      It's not about wining a debate or justifying killing someone or whatever. It's about processing it all. What are we getting from that?