Are forces such as gravity, light, electricity and general relativity the values of the political right?
I can see how they may appear like that, but the political right/left dichotomy is a Napoleonic and very rough approximation at the then politics. Whereas the laws of physics are real [and yet still representative in that nature doesn’t know the difference between gravity and say momentum – though physicists don’t make it sound like that, so I take your point].
On the other hand I think what went before science [Christianity etc] was much worse, and it needed that kind of rigidity to defeat them philosophically.
I don’t know shelly, but you can be my right-wing, the wing-girl to keep me afloat.
I’m male, Shelly just being an arbitrary name.
Even so, you can be my wing man.
Lot’s of hot males these days thanks to the wonders of modern medicine.
you could ocmpare right to gravity and left to light
contraction and expansion
but the axes are dead
Before The Light
‘Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.’
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsProfileYou have no new messagesLog out [ Fixed Cross ]
Post new topic Reply to topic Before The Light :: Tree :: The World Share | Actions
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
On racism specifically, I don’t buy into the whole political correctness of today where no one can even talk seriously or “naturally” about race at all, how it’s so awkward now to even bring it up unless one just repeats the empty mainline statements of the PC expectation. I like how Fixed put it a while back when he was saying that a certain degree of racism is natural and even healthy, that one race should be able to poke fun at another in a kind of half joking half serious way, like a release of tensions arising from the obvious fact that different races are indeed different in many was from each other. That is my interpretation of what he said anyway; Zizek has said more or less the same thing.
But there is also on top of that a certain “line” that should not be crossed when it comes to really hatefully targeting people based on racial groups; it all comes down to motivation I think, which also goes deep into one’s subjective philosophical content and how one thinks and emotes, how one values. Point is that we should not be so hyper-sensitive that a light hearted racial joke or observation of differences between races would cause us to be so deeply offended and uncomfortable, certainly not for people to lose their jobs over it or get publically shamed on social media, which often happens now. “Racism” in its light form is very natural and normal, even healthy; the dangerous two paths are the extremes of 1) real hardcore hateful racism or 2) politically correct “anti-racism” which amounts to a closure of real human natural spaces.
I read another point somewhere that when white people/society imposes these politically correct forms upon everyone it is actually more degrading to the minorities that PC is supposed to “protect”. That’s because PC makes the assumption that a minority is both defined by their racial (or gender or religious or sexual orientation) group, which may not even be the case, as well as the assumption that the person is so insecure in themselves as to be hurt by someone else merely talking about race in a normal way. Of course some level of mild PC is always good because it just reflects natural limits on civil social discourse that prevent the kind of radical hardcore hateful racism that should definitely be opposed. This kind of “true racism” is much less common, and is highly irrational as based on false assumptions, misinformation and deep pathological issues that such “real racists” have, but again this kind of racism is very uncommon and the danger of modern PC is that it treats natural mild “racism” exactly the same real hardcore racism. Such an equation of the two is entirely false, and indeed dangerous.
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Your association of racism and nationalism is a result of the distortion of the current dying political axis. In the new axis, beyond the left-right divide, racism has no meaning anymore.
The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay. The ideas that defined your position in that axis like rather or not you agreed that faggots could get married or there was inequality between the races- were always the myth of ideology, a false politics. Because of this: in US constitutional philosophy, things like that, or rather or not pot is legal, all of those liberal secular humanist principles are simply things to be decided by individual communities, ie:
[ The Left, this new Melos, has no vision for America or for the human species in general. That's why the democratic platform is essentially about nothing more than meaningless social issues that don't even have a place in the larger politics that any bid for the presidency should be focused on. Rather or not faggots can get married isn't even political, it's a social issue. I don't care who marries who, I don't care what bathroom people use. That kind of shit should be something figured out at the level of local communities and individual states within the US, not federally mandated and imposed from the top down. That is how it was envisioned by the federalists. Why? Because if you take a consensus vote by the country as whole, and come out with a majority wanting gay marriage, that does not take account of the fact that ideologies are not homogeneously spread out across the nation, and there will be many communities or even states where that is not supported by a majority: so you have to leave shit like that to individual communities and states to settle, [from the bottom up] and if someone who wants gay marriage lives in a state where it turns out the majority does not want it and the state votes to disallow it, well then that person should move to a different state with a community he would get a long with better. The federal government has no business deciding on what marriage is or isn't, the only task of the federal government is international policy and our money. The Democrats talk about nothing other than these meaningless apolitical social issues because they don't have any answer for the larger problems- for the truly political, nor do they possess any vision for the nation-state, for the US. ]
I would add that the institution of marriage was never one of the State and had to do with religion not politics. The state became involved with it in order to create a binding contract between couples for the sake of their children's wellbeing.
The real politics was always hiding in rather or not you thought the federal centralized government could impose things like this from the top onto the local communities and the will of the people, rather or not you were a statist.
The new political axis has three poles: statism, (top down centralized government) globalism, nationalism. (ethic or cultural nationalism, the ethos, the will of the people from the bottom up through the emancipatory potential of communities instead of institutions.)
I would, in this new axis, be an anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist- the true meaning of American constitutional philosophy; you would be exactly my polar opposite, a pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalist, the European way; The Nazis were and Russia is a pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist type, and then Plato's Republic and Fixed with the idea of philosophic rule but no tyranny from the top down government would be a kind of anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism. The obverse to this final term would be all positives, which is logically nonsensical. A pro-statist pro-globalist pro-nationalist doesn't make sense and is a contradiction in terms. If you're for statism and globalism you can't be a nationalist; if you're a nationalist you can't be for both statism and globalism. Because of this logical termination point, this political axis is truly centered and self-consistent: it is centered on nationalism, with pro and anti nationalism replacing left and right, liberal/conservative.
The way I described racism with respect to its connection to nationalism is that racism shares a form of thought with nationalism. I don’t have a good word for that form of thought; if we had a good word and clear concept for it then racism and nationalism wouldn’t be tenable ideas anymore, but they still are considered tenable because, again, there is no way to articulate very well the error at the deeper level of thought. Philosophy (should) naturally remove such errors in thinking, but does not always do so. The closest I can come to explaining the error is to bring up my working definition of “morality” in the social-political sense: treating and valuing human beings first as individuals and only second as members of groups. You would certainly agree, I think, that group membership or status does not define an individual, since I know that you recognize high value to the category of the individual, as do I. Individualism is the basis for rejecting primarily classifying people based on their race or nationality, which is precisely what racism and nationalism are (they are valuing in a primary way human beings based first on their race or nationality and only second, if at all, on who and what they are at the level of individual person), which is why it is so surprising to me that my rejection of racism and nationalism seems to be something you deeply oppose.
I am not against pride in one’s nation, but I am against extreme pride and radical patriotism. It isn’t black and white for me, there is plenty of room to enjoy and value one’s nation for many different reasons without that turning into a kind of pathology and de-valuing of others based on the fact they aren’t in one’s own “in group”. I’ve already elaborated my “core values of reason”, the values I think are necessarily the case to be asserted given a self-valuing self-conscious species; the value of equal rights and human rights generally rests on a universalizing of value to the species proper, not intended to wipe out differences and assume all humans are the same but quite the opposite: to propose a level ground of equal default valuation as expectation of a commonly held standard so that real differences and inequalities can be noticed and addressed. But racism and nationalism in their “hard extreme” forms (again I have no issue with what I would call mild racism or mild nationalism) literally prevent any such common ground-standard from emerging and thus sink actual differences between people into unrecognizability, because one cannot think past the group-classification level.
Your new categories are interesting, but again I am not a “statist” (totalitarian or fascist in my view) unless by statist you simply mean that I think we should have a (federal) state. Yes, I do think we should have a federal state, and more than simply to give us money and national defense or sign foreign treaties. Life is far too complex to think that a kind of libertarian quasi-anarchic “localism” with a barely existent federal level could actually work. Maybe I’m cynical here, but I detest the idea of anarchy in any form, and I see the ideal of near-absolute localism and “states rights” as little different from anarchy; yes to have state level local governments is not the same as anarchy, I agree, nor is it philosophically the same as federal level government, I also agree, but my subtler point is that 1) we already have states rights and local governance, and municipalities and states are very very different from each other from one corner of the US to another, and 2) there are simply some issues that are proper for a federal level to determine. If we have everything run by popular vote only then slavery would still exist, and homosexuals would still be going to prison.
I value states rights but I also value the balance of this with the federal level. I agree that on some issues the federal level over-reaches, but in general I think it is fairly well balanced; if literally everything were left up to the states except maybe coining money and negotiating to foreign governments then we might as well disband the US as a single nation as every state will effectively becomes its own micro-nation. This idea was proposed and fought over, that was the primary impetus behind the American Civil War. I also see a large degree of hyperbole and unjustified paranoia in most libertarian conservative people (not you, I don’t throw you into that group) who champion anti-federal government, pro-states rights causes in the extreme form. These people seem literally insane to me. I’ve been to tea party rallies, I’ve listened to conservative talk radio plenty, and I’ve talked to these people in person and read their books and studies their ideas… I just don’t see much there except a kind of weird paranoid fear and strongly ideological clinging to the simplistic concept of “federal bad, state good”. Again I am not lumping you into that group at all, but I can’t seem to find any huge differences between the kind of ideology these people spew and your own view of states rights that you just laid out (the implication that “social issues” should be entirely determined at the state or local levels by popular vote). I just don’t buy it. I think it’s more of a negotiation between various levels which includes the federal one, and there is a negotiation also between the level of public opinion, subject matter experts and scientists, and the various branches of government; I like this division of thinking when it comes to social policy. I simply do not trust public opinion alone to be setting policy in any absolute way.
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do like the axis you propose with statism, globalism and nationalism to replace left and right, but since you and I mean very different things when we say “statism”, “globalism” or “nationalism” we are still a long way away from being able to use your new system to compare each of our respective positions in that way. We need to iron out the definitions of the terms and what each of us really means when we use those terms. I think we’re already well on our way to doing that.
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I like true federalism as a system because it properly subdivides the entity of a society and nation into different self-valuing regions: city and county levels, state level, and federal level. Each of these three levels has within it the division of executive, legislative and judicial functions. I like this setup very much. It allows public opinion a strong input through various channels but does not allow public opinion to govern directly, which would be a disaster.
Edit: in other words, I see right-wing bashing of the federal government as mostly a way to score political points while being deliberately obstructionist and petulant in one’s unrealistic demands. I want more compromise and finding common values between people and parties rather than people and parties radicalizing to the polar extremes and refusing to compromise like a bunch of little spoiled children. Fuck that. Politics and social policy are nowhere near exact sciences, every “side” has valid things to bring to the table and no one is ever going to get exactly what they want in the entirety. To me that’s just an irrefutable requirement as just a basic starting point for getting anything done at all. I also like to emphasize that I want each individual issue or subject or policy given rational treatment and careful objective examination without the intrusion of ideological presuppositions such as what “the federal government ought to be doing”. That is up for the courts and legislators to decide, and only reflects a false conflation when that is evoked in response to real issues and policy debates. Yes we can and should debate on what each level of government ought to be doing, but when we have real problems that need working out it is irrelevant to “address” the problem by simply taking about how the federal government is too big, intruding on the states, etc. And again I don’t give that view, so common today as a kind of manufactured populism, any serious weight; I used to give it weight, but I just no longer see it as anything but a largely useless series of excuses for not wanting to think through issues directly and impartially. But again, that’s just my position on it. I understand many people seriously worry about the size of the federal government. I would worry about it too if it really affected me in any adverse way (it doesn’t) or if I thought that the size of the federal government is such a serious issue and problem that we should effective push aside nearly all other issues and problems in order to debate on this and try to cut down the federal government first (I don’t think that).
The federal level of government is just a tool, and like any tool we should try to use it wisely and as effectively as possible. The fact that a hammer can hit my finger as I’m using it isn’t going to make me demand that we remove all hammers from existence (bad analogy I know, but I’m sure you get my point).
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A few specific things in politics that I would probably support, just laying all the cards on the table: we should abolish the electoral college and have direct vote by majority count for all elections; we should remove gerrymandering of districts and assess districts objectively based on clear criteria meant to maximize political local influence on those voting districts; we should repeal Obamacare and work on instituting some kind of single payer healthcare system and abolish health insurance companies; we should increase funding for arts and sciences, reform education by ending teach to the test and common core and getting rid of vouchers; we should raise taxes slightly on the upper income bracket (5% or less) to reduce deficits and increase funding to cities and states so they don’t have to keep upping property taxes to cover costs; we should repeal corporate personhood and “money as speech” and have serious limits on personal spending requirements in elections, replaced with public financing of elections; selling private student loans should either be illegal or regulated and the inability of students to discharge sudh debts in bankruptcy should be abolished, and debt restructuring and lower interest should be enforced on any existing private loans; government should loan for student aid only at zero interest or very low interest just to cover admin costs and inflation; we should make teaching religion to children illegal (haha just kidding… sort of); civilians buying military weaponry should be illegal; bans on flavored cigarettes and excessively high vice taxes should be removed; increase funding for carbon capture tech and solar and other renewables, including ending bans on people collecting their own solar power on their property; computerized micro-trades on the stock market seem insane and should probably be banned; hm what else?
I don’t know, that’s a decent place to start.
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Posts : 344
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To phrase my anti-statism and anti-globalism as positively as possible:
We can have all of this, all of this civilization- and more, without any centralization- without the State. That was the whole point behind the grand political experiment began by the forefathers. That is the glorious risk. To risk it all on the chance of having a world- without any masters. A true equality, in a world without masters, without kings, and without imposition of any kind, where law itself is transformed, where law means the will of the people not the will of the government; a world where no man has any more power than any other man. Through the masses, not through the top-down, imposed vision of a bunch of elites, the will of humanity rather than the will of the few can express its emancipatory potential and realize the true values you want; a communal spirit emerging from the bottom up through the dialogue of independent prides, independent nationalistic sovereignties- (this communality is what I mean when I say nationalism- forget that “American pride” bullshit) a spirit emerging not from racial ties and petty bonds, but from the ethos working through the instruments outlined in our constitutional philosophy, from the collective will of local communities bubbling up into larger statehoods and further still into political virtu. The idea of America- and our constitution was only the first brick in the edifice that posterity was meant to continue building but has abandoned, was to continue working out the political tools to allow this process of bubbling up from the bottom to the top to occur. I mourn the fact that this great vision has been lost, and the work began with our founding- aborted.
It is because this vision behind our form of government was so different from any other, that our founders urged us to embrace the ocean separating us from the rest of the world, realize economic independence, and opt out of all international alliances- so that we could develop these tools I am talking about. We were geographically, economically, and culturally- lacking a history, in the unique position to set about the task of constructing this stateless state. This continent could have slowly become the stateless state, the world without masters, that way. Then, after having built this independent world, other regions on the earth could take the tools we had built and use them to make their own master-less kingdoms, and eventually the bubbling up of the human spirit could take place on a planetary scale.
This is why I am so vehemently contemptuous of Europe and liberal secular humanism, of the old axis, of the left; I judge them as having robbed this new world of the great vision, of our destiny at constructing the first masterless kingdom, of fulfilling the emancipation of the human spirit itself, in order to bankrupt us for their own pathetic and petty bid for world power, in order to turn us into a walking brand name, into a Mcdonalds. I despise them and everything they stand for, this globalism.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
Posts : 901
Join date : 2011-11-03
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I also would welcome this kind of society that you envision. But I have a hard time imagining what it would look like in a practical sense. The requirements of managing economy, law, infrastructure, development and progress seem dauntingly complex and it seems inevitable that people need to organize in some “top down” structures to be able to work and produce at a high level. Work needs to be divided, expertise needs to be divided, and if anything is complex it is reconciling different people and situations to each other practically, namely administering human rights and conflicts. Then there must be guiding visions overarching progress at the societal levels, in other words I can’t see how we could really make society work without “administrators” of some kind. I think the scope of a problem needs to have solutions on par with that scope; if a problem is truly global in nature (such as an epidemic, global warming, asteroid impact, nuclear proliferation, etc.) then such problems seems to mandate global level solutions. I would like to see a benevolent globalism focused on human rights for all people, with rational vision for the future.
The fate of whole swathes of society and sometimes even of whole countries can be decided by the speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability with a blessed indifference to how its movements will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: its violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals with their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective”, systemic, anonymous–quite literally a conceptual violence, the violence of a Concept whose self-deployment rules and regulates social reality. --Zizek, ‘Absolute Recoil’
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Posts : 344
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And I cannot see how a global institution could be given the power to effectively combat climate change without being also given the power to commit great tyranny against the populace. The administrative capacity to effectively combat something like climate change would logically also bestow the capacity for great tyranny. I’ll level with you and say: both my and your politics have great risks and great possible gains. In the new political axis perhaps we need each other’s polar, opposing politics, as the Left once needed the Right, in order to define the new dynamics of this next era in Western civilization.
One other thought, going off what I said in the post that starts “The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay.”
I would add:
The alt-right doesn’t even really exist. The left has come up with that term and they are unconsciously naming a group of people (increasing rapidly in size) who have woken up to the reality that the old political axis is becoming nonsensical and disintegrating as the basic asymmetry that marked its defect from the inception, its foundational lack of any true center, has enlarged to the point of pushing the Left so far out that it has no conceptual space left to fill- in other words, the Left is so far left that any opposition to it must be immediately reformulated as far-right, as racist and sexist and all that, (hence sjws and neofeminists) because the Left is unable to reformulate itself, there is no space left conceptually for them to retreat to in order to claim some higher moral ground, which is what they used to do: (this is why Bernie was unable to break the Dems on the left but Trump was able to break the Republicans on the right and relaunch the party) “alt right” is their spooky boogieman term for this disparate, diverse, disconnected group of people who may not have anything in common with one another save for the fact that their ideas simply cannot be categorized or made sense of in the limited terms of the left-right paradigm which the establishment and the majority of people are still operating in.
Also, because the new axis has three instead of two polarizations, I see a stabilization coming in three parties rather than a two party system. Our two party system is Hegelian and dialectical: a thesis and antithesis, two poles, Rep and Dem, battle it out and come to a synthesis through the vote. But this new axis I conceptualize expresses my own anti-dialectic, as two poles (like my anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism and your pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalism) reify their polarity and conceptual tension by going through a third pole (anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism) via reproducing the negative core of this tension for itself, reproducing it continually as a new datum in third open slot which negates the terms in the others, like Fixed’s Platonic republic style anti-statist anti-globalist anti-nationalist position, leading to the creation of new concepts, new possibilities of political praxis, rather than synthesizing given terms and giving us a middle road.
So the logical processions:
pole 1/ + anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism (American)
- Pure negation: anti-statist anti-globalist anti-nationalist (Platonic)
pole 2/ + pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalism (European)
– Reification: pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalism (Russian)
As I mentioned before, the center in this axis is the nationalism, as one cannot both be a nationalist and for the other two poles simultaneously, statism and globalism. The center is self-consistent unlike the center in the old axis, as globalism implies statism, but statism does not imply globalism- hence the Russian project which is based in statism but rejects globalism does not have a polar opposite (signifying its status as the reification) in a possible anti-statist pro-globalist nationalism, as globalism implies statism and statism does not imply globalism.
So the category of pure negation, the reproduction of the negative core of the conceptual tension as its own object, (through the triple negation in Fixed’s style politics, what I call Platonic in this) synthetically insoluble conceptual tension, the category of reification, etc.- all my own concepts for the anti-dialectic come to life to describe the functioning of the new axis.
All four of these politics are needed to define the new dynamics of civilization, so I abate at realizing your politics is necessary as mine is; as the Left once needed the Right.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Posts : 344
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And as matter of definition, statism just means: you think the State should… exist. It takes many forms, from the simple statism most people hold to; that the State exists to organize roads and collect taxes and administer the military, to the extreme statism of communists, Russians, and the Nazis. Obviously you’re not the later; globalism is simply the belief that it is necessary to sacrifice some or all national sovereignty and boundaries in order to form international alliances to combat climate change, poverty, refugee crises, etc. I understand that you’re not endorsing the current globalist regime, in its corruption, though my essential criticism is that the kind of power necessary for globalist institutions to combat these things will inevitably also bestow on them the capacity for tyranny. Nationalism in this new axis as I said is an ethic or cultural nationalism, the basis of the American project, where the masses realize their emancipatory potential by utilizing certain tools to bubble up political virtu from small communities to larger, to states, etc, so that a communal spirit emerges without imposition by foreign agents or the state.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Posts : 1278
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nationalism is indeed the answer to the very problem nationalism created. The EU was built on the rubble left by the square-off between two titanic spirits of war; Napoleon Bonaparte and Otto Von Bismarck. The latter was a response to the former, and the former a response to so very much that is too complex to define, other than French Nationalism surviving the Revolution and the enemy it made out of old Europe.
Nationalism was quenched by the EU, that was its purpose. But since nationalism is simply the spirit of appreciation of ones own people and gratitude for ones language (depth) and place on Earth, to condemn it is to condemn valuing, which is indeed what the EU is, a condemnation of existence itself. I tell you, my friends, that Europe is already flatlining, and that any violence erupting could only bring back valuing. Having my family there, it is strange for me to speak like this - my parents live at a Teutonic mooring place, my family is East Sea Jewish Russian and North Sea Teuton Dutch. I look forward to proving that we havent exactly given up on nationalism up there.
All things are born of war. War is born of the negation of values. All things are self-valuings.
My government of muses is not so much Platonic, i.e. metaphysical, as it is a kind of chtonicism of the soul; I take muses to be women, surely, but also nations, peoples, languages, holy trees for which we so happily kill Christian priests… drives, if you will. But by the name muse, these drives become liberated and beautified.
Next I will go into Russia and the USA.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Posts : 1278
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Some more thoughts on Europe
As European forces regroup, which hopefully will be in the form of two unions, a northern and a southern one, the latter including all sorts of Mediterranean nations willing to break free from the Islamic straitjacket, the first being ruled from the Amsterdam “Zuid-As” in an initially evil alliance with all economically ruthless nations. This South-Axis is where at this point the weapons manufacturers that for example produced the notorious BUK missile that shot down the Malaysian Airliner which they are still trying to pin on Russia - the ironies run deep in Europe and convex in Amsterdam, Rotterdam (the largest port of Europe, crucial to all German industries) and Den Haag / The Hague, where the most powerful dimplomatic house of the world resides, the Nassau Family, which during WWII bridged by sheer aristocracy the abyss between German and Briths weapon manufacturers, and arose after the war as the main hand of global trade lubrication. Dirty business executed with the class that queen Beatrix epitomed in the 90’s. Dutch and English peoples are cool headed enough to endure queens; they withstand storms shifts with glee, as they are natural sailors - and of those the Dutch have no morals only sentiment; their ambitions are childish and generous, therefore they can rule in this age. Amsterdam becomes the center of the EU, because it can endure it; even I, who avoids people in general, would know how to contact a dozen organized crime organizations inside a few city blocks. Society and crime is quite understood to be of the same fabric, the penal system is extremely mild, give or take a few radical exceptions being made to push back civil unrest - and the links between politicians and lawyers and lawyers and crime-family heads are both extremely familiar and widely published. We have no morals, truly. So we will survive.
France will go through much similar turmoil as always, I trust fully in the resilience of their tastes, which is all that matters in their case; this is where they are unconquerable, their tongue. It is what they have taken from the ontic; they took the body of Christ and made it of flesh. The french language came to me as a poetic erotic revolt against the virgin cult. All of it is blood, and it will endure many wars and only grow deeper.
Germany is another story. Germany is fucked, unless they become rational rapidly… I think it has been proven now that a female leader is a dangerous thing. Under Merkels leadership, the EU has become an absolute disaster. But the Germans still think that they are the part that works properly. Their leadership is virtual; they rely for everything on Holland. They lack the finesse to do logistics on a global scale.
For Europe, which has Germany, France and Italy at its heart thus will never not produce the worlds most desired goods, it becomes a matter of pure logistics, which gives Dutch and Italian nationalism a boost.
Austria is a nice special case - it produces money presses for the US and EU, it is home to Glock and all sorts of arms industries, it builds American firetrucks - Ive been marveling at this before here - when I was in Austria - Vienna, a city that seems as far from dying as death itself.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Posts : 344
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
One other thing about anti-statism. The founding fathers explicitly told us not to even form a standing army under the control of the federal government, of the State. They didn’t even want the state to have control of military administration, let alone as much as it has control of now. Instead of a standing army, we were supposed to have “well regulated militias.” That way, it would be basically impossible to go around invading other nations or entangling ourselves in foreign affairs, but we would be just as capable if not more capable of defending ourselves, if we had to, from outside attack. Having control of nukes at the level of private society may be scary, but we would have never made as many nukes as we did in the first place if we had held to this course. A couple heads of some private tech companies that would be in control of things like this aren’t any more likely to press the button than some heads of state as I see it. Maybe they would be even less likely.
And yes,“Nationalism is the solution to the problem nationalism created”, is a good way of saying it.
Your faith that Europe will recover may not be misplaced, but I have my biases. I am still awaiting the stalling of the third stage of the absorption of capital, the tertiary era of late-capitalism, to take place, and initiate a third world conflict as the two other stages did when they failed. Then the myth of ideology will be broken through on a larger scale, and the new political axis and its function that I describe will take precedence over any other theoretics of the 21st century political landscape.
The current globalist regime emerged out of this tertiary stage, at which an international banking system emerges, and when I talk about the myth of ideology, I mean that the current politics, the politics of the dying axis we are now leaving, the politics about culture and race and all that, is just “ideological subversion” without any real political underpinning intended to convince the masses to empower the globalist order, hence the immigration and multicultures, the migrant crisis, hence the opening of the borders, and the rise of Islam- all of which empower the political elites, especially economically.
I only call your philosophic rule “Platonic” in the sense of Plato’s republic, not in terms of it being metaphysical. I recognize all four of the types I’ve described as being necessary now, for a global process, for a grand politics.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Posts : 344
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Yesterday at 4:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t think about race, don’t give a shit about someone’s race, it has no relevance to my politics whatsoever. But as a philosopher- I cannot help but wonder why there is an obvious difference in the cultures surrounding the races, why there is a difference in apparent IQ, why even the different races exist at all. And this is my own theory that’s probably completely wrong, it’s truthfulness is irrelevant to me, I wouldn’t care either way if it turned out wrong or right. I just have to abstract things and understand why. This is the “why” I have arrived at about race through researching and thinking about it for some time:
The original humans were black Africans. That much is pretty certain. But at some point a small group of these original homo sapiens left Africa, and migrated north, where they encountered a completely different species of upright walking intelligent monkey-creatures: the Neanderthals. The Neanderthal was of course not merely a different race of human- it was a completely separate species; it had a different brain and bone structure, looked physically different, had different behavioral patterns, had a different form of society and culture. When most people think of “caveman” they recall an image of something like the Neanderthal- very strong, just stupid. But that’s only half true. Neanderthals were indeed very strong, their bones were several times denser than our own- but they were’t stupid. In fact, they were smarter than humans. They had much larger brains, even after accounting for differences in their larger body mass. You see, the original humans had a highly evolved linguistic capacity the Neanderthal lacked, a capacity which also contributed to the Africans’ very gregarious society, high birth rate, etc. Humans don’t need to be geniuses down to the last man- one genius can write a book, a million others can read it, then gain the same knowledge: and there’s always a million others waiting to disseminate the knowledge rapidly, because we fuck a lot, unlike the Neanderthal. The Neanderthal was xenophobic, highly tribal, lacked a religious instinct, (no evidence has been found of their worship) and did not possess a linguistic faculty as evolved as our own. So they compensated for this deficient by quite simply being all geniuses. Every neanderthal individual had to be able to rediscover everything all on its own, hence their larger brain. Every Neanderthal had to carry the race. But when the African migrants crossed far enough North and encountered them, they did what humans are often wont to do, and fucked them. They created a hybrid species that inherited the linguistic gift from the original human Africans as well as the higher IQ of the neanderthal: as well as its white skin, which, adapted to the Northern climate, absorbed the rays from the sun, and also its xenophobia and tribalism, its more warlike, conquering nature, all of which manifests today in psychiatric ailments like autism, psychosis and psychopathy, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc. (people with those illnesses often have high concentrations of N. dna.) Black Africans, through genetic testing, are shown to have 0 percent Neanderthal DNA. “White people” have anywhere from 10-12 percent. And then a small faction from this new race of human, the crackers, moved even further north and experienced a secondary inter-species breeding episode with other Neanderthals, giving us the Asian races, which have as much as 15 percent Neanderthal DNA. This is why the average IQ of an Asian is only 2-5 points higher than a white, but a white’s IQ is on average a whopping 15-20 points above a black guy. We have much more N. dna in relation to the African than the Asian has in relation to us. And then those Asians eventually found their way to North America, crossed the Bering Strait, experienced a third and final breeding episode with Neanderthal when they were probably on their way out as an evolutionary dead end, giving us the Native Americans, who have as much as 20 percent N. dna. (They were ferociously tribal, at war with one another for century upon century, developing the most diverse language group, innumerable isolated religions, ritual systems, etc.)
I just took a couple findings from completely mainstream science sources and put them together: a study that shown segments of N. dna might be related to autism and bipolar disorder, anthropological findings that Neanderthals had larger brains but less connected societies and didn’t have any evidence of religious activity, the fact that Africans have zero percent N. dna and the other races have varying concentrations of it, evidence of human migration events, etc.
Now a black guy can still have a high IQ, a white guy can not be a psychotic mentally deranged school-shooting freak, an asian can still have a low iq, a native american can still integrate into a western society- but this is the reason that, on average, there is a glaring difference in the average IQ of the races as well as the cultures based around them.
The human “races” are actually differing concentrations of Neanderthal DNA spliced into the original human genome. Genetic testing has confirmed that Africans have 0 percent, whites 10-12, Asians 15, and N. Americans 20.
Like I said this has no effect on my politics. This is just a completely inconsequential, abstract conclusion I arrived at for myself to settle the reason for genetic differences in the races. I’d welcome being shown wrong on this, it doesn’t matter to me.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Posts : 1278
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Yesterday at 6:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very interesting thoughts, Ive often tried to fit in the Neanderthals in the evolutionary narratives - there were a lot of them where Im from. I always feel related. Very funny story about the brain types and geniuses. Funny because it evokes images of very awkward, but noble and honest situations regarding thought. This in combination with the traditional image of a Neanderthal is refreshing.
I was going to go into the ideas about Russia and the US. I like your classification using the criteria of statism, nationalism and globalism and agree that Russia is a reification of the nationalist-statist angle. Putins rise to power itself speaks to this, out of the system, completely systemically, under all radars, and very cleanly sanitizing the entire power structure that had him float up because it underestimated his nationalism.
The tertiary phase then. It is the phase of technocratic orders of capital, right? One of the points Id like to go over is CERN, and everything Swiss. Switzerland has been intact since sat least as long as the Romans tried to conquer it. It hosted the nazis but didnt surrender to them. Now it has Cern, a funnel for so much tertiary stage capital. I dont feel its about to be excluded from a tertiary capitalist phase - then again its elides are evidently well prepared for any type of war, nuclear holocaust not in the least. All those things bunker complexes are good for… imagine the cities running underneath the alps.
Of course none of this is of any guarantee to the cultural and social integrity of the continent - but as I say, that integrity will not dissolve much further than it has now - at this point the regrouping, the revaluation of values in social terms, has already begun. We have the disposable corporate workforces, what Nietzsche called the malleable, educated mass of democratic Europe that to his mind would serve as putty in the hands of the artist tyrants - a class of hypothetical humans that hasn’t been attained in the heights - because we philosophers are here, not there. Nietzsche overlooked much of the implications of his political methods… which is for the best, as had he made keener observations here, our completely fresh and independent position here would not be possible. It is a blessing of literally cosmic depth that we began as utterly ‘outcast’ - the center of power that we have gradually become is utterly self-valuing, a proper center of a world. Because these elites havent happened like he hoped, the ground forces (human individuals and sheep) will be directed differently and not quite fit into his artistic plans… as Odins rise indicates - as the nature of Odins re-rising indicates. Not quite what the Odin-infatuated fascists had aimed for.
You have calculated the consequences of things using a method that appears thoroughly sound - I ask you to collide with the idea of Switzerland as a starkly sovereign center of global technocracy, home to globalist molochs like Nestle, the company that is working to privatize water across the globe.
It is a very possible outcome that Europe will become a large warzone around the untouchable Alps, from within which the elites are watching… with armies of drones… of course these elites are international, travel safely across the oceans, using Europe as a forge, a fire forming new types of hardened humans must emerge like the US prison system might be suspected, by someone who has thinks about conditioning like Nietzsche, to be aimed at - and yet it will be different. What will rise will be pure soil-magic, which is anarchic to the bone.
The othe thing is - whatever the fuckers at Cern do, they will need value ontology. Ive resolved what the Higgs Boson is with it, and Im able to resolve most any matters of nuclear physics, especially when Capable throws his weight into it, there is no scientific force more powerful than we are. Ive known this since the inception of VO theorizing, because Ive been starkly aware of the epistemic contradictions 's that govern modern materialism, starkly aware of how similarly it works to religion, and how slim the chance is of anyone besides ourselves figuring out what theyve been missing. Perhaps it literally requires a neanderthal-heavy brain… haha.
Anyway, so how do you figure Cern into the Russia/US order that is positioning to reify itself?
I take the US military complex to have originated in nazi hands, in fact - Eisenhower (Eisenhauer, a German name meaning iron-rammer) gave as much indication directly after the war. The whole cold war is a result of Bismarckian tactics. I dont see the Germanic wolves disappear from the picture as swiftly as you suggest - nor the north Italians - northern Italy is fortified and made subterranean much like Switzerland, and it is home to the lions share of pharmaceuticals - the entire northern land is littered with chemical manufacturing plants there - etcetera etcetrera. Not surprisingly, these nations, Swizerland, Italy, Germany, are the nazi strongolds. Austria, as I mentioned, is also heavily leveraged. A Time magazine article of 2011 spent eight pages com