State of the World Address.

A Nietzschean “Creation myth” might be: existence began with an act of divine Destruction.

::

The Word, seen in its true Sense, is itself Force, itself Deed. For the Word is a Verb rather than a Noun–a Name for a Work, a Doing–an Act… Must a Writer not be an Actor, a Pretender? Unto the Real World Stage, then!

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE. AND LOWER CASE, WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION… BUT NO, I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT I’M ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION, EVEN AS I WON’T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK. THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING. LIKE MY SELF-IMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC–AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION!–, THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW.*

• 'TIS A SUBTLETY THAT I’VE BEEN WRITING IN ALL-CAPS FOR YEARS: NAMELY, WHEN WRITING AS OPPOSED TO TYPING–LITERALLY WRITING! MY HANDWRITING WAS JUST TOO BAD. KALLIGRAPHY BE DAMED!–SOMETHING FOR DAMES…

IF MY CAPITALIZATION MAKES ME “SOUND” LIKE I’M SHOUTING, MY “BORINGNESS” MAY SERVE TO COMPENSATE. MY PASSION DEMANDS IT. BUT I’VE BEEN THINKING THIS MAY NOW FINALLY IMPEL ME TO EMBRACE THE ILLUSION OF NEGATIVITY: DARKNESS, DEATH, UGLINESS… I’VE ALWAYS DRAWN THE LINE AT UGLINESS, AND THEREBY AT DEATH. TO ME, DARKNESS, DEEPEST BLACKNESS ITSELF WAS A MOST ATTRACTIVE FORCE EVEN IN THE MOST BEATIFUL COLOUR SPECTRUM. THE SHADOW OF NIGHT… [TYPO IN “BEAUTIFUL” NOTED.]

I JUST INDULGED–WELL, ALMOST COMPLETELY INDULGED–IN A POEM ON THE UNDERGROUND WALL. BUT THOUGH I MAY FLY STRAIGHT BACK TO MODAL MUSIC, I MAY NOT DENY SUCH ROOTS. EVEN NOW I’M LISTENING TO UMA MOHAN, WHOSE WAS THE FIRST MODAL MUSIC THAT MIGHT HAVE MOVED ME TO TEARS. I WILL NOT DENY THAT PASSION, BUT NOR THAT SUCH PASSION IS FOR RELATIVE BEGINNERS. IN THE SENSE OF A HIGH CULTURE ETC…

I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, BUT THERE’S A PASSION THAT HAS LIVED ALL THE PASSION OF DEATH AND CAN ONLY LIVE THE PASSION FOR THE DEATH OF THAT PASSION NOW… AND WHEN THIS PASSION HAS DIED… ONE WITH RELIEF–THOUGH WITHOUT BREATHING A SIGH–WELCOMES SUBTLETY OF PASSION, THE SEEMING ABSENCE OF PASSION… SEEMING ONLY TO COARSE EARS, TO AMBITIOUS HEARTS. BUT IT’S ONLY WHEN THE FOOL PERSISTS IN HIS FOLLY THAT HE BECOMES WISE; AND IT’S ONLY WHEN HE’S THOUGHT WISE THAT HE BECOMES A ROD… BUT THIS FOOL, THIS ONCE PURE FOOL WHO WENT THE PATH OF THE MAGUS WILL NOW BE A ROD BY EMBRACING EVERYTHING THOUGHT NEGATIVE. HE WILL INSIST ON BEING AN IPSISSIMUS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ONLY BEING A MAGUS TO THE IPSISSIMOSITY CALLED NIETZSCHE. IT’S A PREJUDICE THAT ALL THE NEGATIVE VALUES BELONG TOGETHER, BY THE WAY. EVIL AND BAD ARE NOT THE SAME. BUT POPULARLY, THEY ARE THOUGHT THE SAME: THEREFORE I MUST ALSO EMBRACE THE BAD. YES, “MUST”! AND NOT JUST “WILL”. NEED, THE NEGATIVE COUNTERPART OF WILL, MUST ALSO BE WILLED. THAT THE WORLD IS A COLD AND EMPTY PLACE: THAT ABSENCE IS THE GREAT INSPIRER OF THE GREAT FIRE THAT IS THIS UNIVERSE. FEAR: THAT IS THE AWFUL FEELING INFLAMING ALL OF US. THE HORROR OF THE REAL. BUT WAIT, DIDN’T I JUST DESCRIBE THE REAL AS THAT GREAT FIRE, AS OPPOSED TO THE COLD DARKNESS WHICH IS IDEAL [AN IDEA]? HELL IS OTHER BEINGS. IT ONLY BECOMES HEAVENLY WHEN YOU EMBRACE YOURSELF AS ONE OF THESE HELL-BEINGS. THEN YOU ARE INDEED ONE OF THE SATYRS.

I think you need to go much further with this transfiguration of writing, namely also becoming entirely metrical in the classical sense.

Doesn’t that only go for poetry, though? I mean, I’m always very aware of the rhythm of what I write, but that doesn’t require meter.

Perhaps then it is the small connecting words that we have and the Romans did not.
No I have it. Let me make a suggestion about how to pull this off without punctuation.

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE
AND LOWER CASE WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION
BUT NO I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT I’M ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION
EVEN AS I WON’T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK
THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING
LIKE MY SELF-IMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC
AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION
THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW

this works perfectly well, reads better than a large block with ongoing text in caps with punctuation, which quite simply is too much information per square centimeter for my brain to find pleasant reading.

Your rhythms are indeed the ground, and I say just break up all phrases and let them stand alone.
This way, it breathes like rhetoric wants to breathe. All phrases can be called out in a loud voice over a big square.

HAND WRITING IS RUNIC
A MAN THAT WRITES WITHOUT COCKSLEGS IS NO ROMAN

THREE WOLVES GREET YOU

FC’s changes are huge improvements. Go with his advice.

FCS CHANGES ARE HUGE
IMPROVEMENTS GO
WITH HIS ADVICE

BASICALLY I DO NOT
RECOGNIZE THE
DISTINCTION

BETWEEN POETRY AND PROSE

ONLY BETWEEN FORM AND FORM DO I SEE DISTINCTION
RHYME OR NO RHYME
IS OF NO CONCERN

WORD FOR WORD EACH WORD
IS METAPHOR

Fixed Cross

I have said book, but found it to be of an arcane language and generally without substance or root at a fundamental level ~ or nonsense generally. I might have it all wrong, but even if Nietzsche was a genius he failed to get that across. Not to mention that his philosophy is basically modern capitalism in a nutshell – which sucks really badly. Maybe I got it wrong, but historical and contemporary examples haven’t made a very good case for its missed eloquence, nor et al. I do think Hitler was a Nietzschean, and the jews aren’t far behind him, if we consider how they think they are better than everyone else, and are generally ruling the world, and promoting his ‘stronger than’ philosophy.

Sauwelios

Given that there was some manner of perfection to begin with, or a oneness, then to make anything from that could be seen as an act of destruction yes. However, that oneness contains its seed, no? Ergo the duality is inherent within the fundamental nature of existence. There is no perfect God or perfection et al, then if everything is imperfect at root then nothing was destroyed.

Dear lord don’t you see what this means!? Just like Nietzsche viewed others as degenerate intellectually, you are doing the same, dividing the world into the worthy and the unworthy. Did you create yourself and make yourself more intelligent? No, you make an assumption that others are failing, and I suspect you believe there is a ‘divine integer’ seed, or ‘value’ which denotes whether or not some are low and some are high case as you put it. So let me get this right; you think that a divinity or you yourself decided that you or your ‘value’ is or should be better than others. Then in contrast some people would have shit intellects and shit lives, because they must suck.

I don’t get it!? In this fucking shit world where people have to suffer and die, you think a supreme intellect decided to make things worse for some than others. If I got the whole thing wrong please educate me, because as I see it, it is Nietzsche and Nietzschean’s who require an education.

Indeed, I think the Greeks and Romans had even more (subtle) such words: consider Professor Ruijg’s Autour de “τε épique”. τε is etymologically the same as Latin -que and the ch in Dutch noch (compare και and et to German auch). I’m reminded of ende in Medieval Dutch literature.

I must say that the first time I read your post the whole thing sounded good, but actually it already stops making sense here, as it stops in mid-sentence with no indication as to why. There’s a difference between the end of the first sentence and that of the second. I also miss the comma, it just doesn’t flow the same way.

Here there’s just no alternative for punctuation: this last sentence is neither entirely new nor simply a continuation of the preceding one. Also, the preceding one is now completely cut off from the succeeding one, which is its continuation…

I don’t see how it’s more information than if it was in lower case. I think the same goes for Nietzsche’s aphorisms (as distinct from mere maxims): you’re supposed to ponder every period. By the way, the Greeks and Romans would rather print it like this:

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE AND LOWER CASE WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION BUT NO I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT IM ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION EVEN AS I WON’T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING LIKE MY SELFIMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW

or even like this:

A T T H I S P O I N T I C A N N O L O N G E R S T A N D M Y C A P I T A L S A M O N G A L O W E R C A S E A U D I E N C E A N D L O W E R C A S E W I T H A L L T H E S U B T L E T Y O F P U N C T U A T I O N B U T N O I W I L L N O T P R E T E N D T H A T I M A D V A N C E D E N O U G H T O D O W I T H O U T P U N C T U A T I O N E V E N A S I W O N T P R E T E N D T O B E A B L E T O W R I T E L A T I N O R G R E E K T H I S N I E T Z S C H E A N A G E I S T O O M U C H S T I L L A B E G I N N I N G L I K E M Y S E L F I M P O S E D E X I L E F R O M T H E W O R L D O F T O N A L M U S I C A N D M Y T O N A L F A V O U R I T E S W E R E A L R E A D Y A N O D D S E L E C T I O N T H I S W A Y O F W R I T I N G I S A N E X P E R I E N T I N T A K I N G T H I N G S C O L D A N D S L O W

But precisely that will break the rhythm, or at least make it much more difficult to decipher (to interpret the writing the way it was intended in that regard).

Another reason I still prefer punctuation is, as I meant to convey, that I don’t know whether Greek and Latin writers intended ambiguity with regard to where one sentenced ended and the next began (compare Aristotle’s chiding Heraclitus for leaving it unclear whether an adverb belonged to one part of speech or another or both)–and that I certainly don’t consider myself capable of such esotericism at this point.

Yeah, but this is not marketplace (forum, agora) material at all. It’s perfectly in order if the form discourages “the public”.

::

This works fine, indeed. What’s the meaning of “cock’s legs” in this context, though? I assume it connects the second sentence to the first.

::

MVLIER·TACEAT·IN·LITERARIIS

::

This shows how parsing sentences like this is really of a kind with punctuation: MM never said your changes were huge; minor changes may be major improvents…

::

Well, I think this ironically supports that distinction: for in my opinion, parsing your prose like this does not make it poetry; just bad prose. It’s how the masses who have no talent and no strong inspiration write “poetry”.

I never said anything about rhyme here. I wholly agree with Milton about rhyme, except perhaps that it may serve as a restriction of the kind Nietzsche praises in BGE 188. It turns out, by the way, that the difference between poetry and prose is indeed the presence or absence of meter, respectively–just as I thought it was. Even in my teenage songs I was a master of rhythm, so much so that supposedly more advanced musicians (read: Vincent) could not understand or appreciate my rhythms.

::

One last thing to consider: the Greeks and Romans may not have needed punctuation because, rather than emphasis, they had long and short vowels–unlike us moderns.

My truncating was meant precisely to show how much power there is in that - to force a beautiful new sentence out of another simply by truncating. I do not need to show you that, obviously - but I took the liberty of showing it in general.

I have merely shown the raw potential of your style somewhat.

I still like my own manner of ‘marblizing’ English better - but most of all I prefer what you exampled as pure raw text without spaces. That is truly noble.

I will humbly withdraw.

Yes, what you say about Greek is entirely correct. pos gar ou!!

RIDET ET AFFIRMAT CRUX
But strangers to masculine values in general. As many men as women - some women tend to have an inkling about masculinity, as it is their highest value. But these are value-creating women: women that stand by the man that they have chosen as worthy of their favors, and (sparse and necessary) wisdom.

I do think MM has a good eye (and ear) - but women can simply not understand rank among free spirits.
They are thus in the dark as to how freedom is forged.

That it is forged. Women like to see it treated as a given, so they can give themselves to it with abandon. This is their prerogative qua their own existence. This is the war of the sexes.

L O V E L E T T E R S O H S O R R Y C A R R Y O N

Yes, that primordial act of destruction was then a self-destruction, a “self-sacrifice”. (By the way, I originally wrote “ORIGINAL” instead of “PRIMORDIAL” and would like to restore that.)

Yes: God is more than perfect, excessively perfect.

Actually, though I am, like Nietzsche, an aristocratic radicalist, I did not mean to spurn the whole lower case audience here. I myself am very much still part of that audience, in part; this is why I could tell that my capitalizing initial letters might sound theatrical to some. It had started to sound theatrical to me, and this is why I could no longer stand it. I did not want to revert to conventional lower case writing, though; that’s restricted to my non-high self now. I want to help prepare a new Classical age, in the true sense of the word. Lower case (Greek) was invented in Renaissance Italy, which confirms my intuition (which I only sprouted ears for a couple of years ago) that the Renaissance was at root a tremendous stock-taking (a coming to one’s senses) after the overboldness of the Middle Ages (with their “supra-sensual” nonsensicality). 'Tis no accident that the Renaissance culminated in Machiavelli and thereby led to Modernity. Consider this list of “antitheses” I compiled in 2008:

Masculine--------------------Feminine
Classical----------------------Modern
Strengthening---------------Weakening
Will to be terrible-----------Will to please
Positive ugliness------------Negative beauty
Phobos----------------------- Eros
Great passion----------------Small passion
Shame (“disgrace”)----------Shame (“modesty”)
Flow-------------------------- Ebb
Much force-------------------Little force
Aryan-------------------------Semitic
Prometheus (serpent)-------Eve
Giver--------------------------Receiver
Awe--------------------------- Contempt
Hubris------------------------ Sin
Active-------------------------Passive
Pride-------------------------- Vanity

http://sauwelios.forumotion.com/t16-the-masculine-and-the-feminine-the-beautiful-and-the-ugly

“What I’m trying to say here is that the beauty of the powerful one does not consist in his ascending to an even greater height than positive ugliness, but in descending into the sphere of negative beauty. His will to descend there is terrible, though[.]”

In other words: Patriarchal Feminism!!

“Would any link at all be missing in the chain of art and science if woman, if the work of woman were missing? Admitting exceptions–they prove the rule–woman attains perfection in everything that is not a work: in letters, in memoirs, even in the most delicate handiwork, in short in everything that is not a métier—precisely because in these things she perfects herself, because she here obeys the only artistic impulse she has–she wants to please…” (Nietzsche, WP 817.)

Don’t worry, Solly, I still find you pleasing.

Oookay Eugene. Better put down that book now.

Sauwelios

Point I was making is that nothing changes form the inside to the outside, what is within is without. Ergo no ‘>destruction<’, and no requirement for some notion of chaos – just to add to that.

Can I make the assumption here and in Nietzsche’s work generally, that at the core, you are attempting to establish an unequal foundation, one which makes you better than others by default. This would explain why an intelligent being could consider others as degenerate. or did I miss something.

Ok, interesting that you believe in God, …so you think God didn’t make all his children equal? God thinks you are better! that what is in here is not the same as what is in there and absolutely everyone else. In terms of causality, if you were born into another’s body, had their information set and entered into their situations in life, that same something would be exactly like what they are. So now I hear you thinking that you are NOT that other person though! And that there is a seed or value [iteration et al] at root, by which you are you and they are them. But you need to establish a foundation for that, not just state; this is this flying spaghetti monster who says I am better than others because of something I didn’t do, which made my seed superior ~ of such a thing.

On the God is perfect issue, I give you my foundations; that a perfection cannot create an imperfection. There exists what exists because reality is what reality is like, it is infinite and undefinable, now any definition of God you care to give me is not going to represent the undefinable is it! In an infinity a mixing of ingredients or aspects multiplied by infinity, will equal a oneness which contains all things but all definition has been stripped away.

Your effort at rising to your most salient features is a noble one, I have no doubt of that, but as I see it, you push in one direction and you get an equal and opposite in the other direction. you place. to place yourself high, you have to place others low. How that appears to the observer, is that for every benefit there is a deficit, for every brave warrior there is someone punkt, for an intellectual elite there will be morons. Your ‘force’ pushing out, will inevitably manifest a force coming in, which is never usually good and usually involves an internal chess game. However you come to terms with that, by telling yourself you [and ‘it’] are natural, and that to be great you must have that presence to yourself and to others. Yet with all the intellect and wit you can show, this intellect is reading right past that. So what is the optimum thinker? Have I just described the ‘Prometheus principle’ – as i’d put it, and its inevitable flaws if seen through dualistic glasses.

Cool. Don’t know about all that democracy with cows on the roads and what have you lol. Or were you more thinking ‘the Spartans’ or some such vision ~ a meritocracy?

Thing about meritocracies is that skills and knowledge are learned things, the same kinds of people who are thick working class types, can be well educated upper class politicians. So now its basis is all about positioning, …hmm my guess is the whole thing just falls apart quite quickly upon inspection of any of its facets.

Really? whole bunch of rudimentary duality at work in all that. ‘classical’ is feminine to barbarian [stone age e.g.], then that to hunter-gatherer, no, – if we go by the same logic. Feminine is strong in giving birth various species e.g. preying mantis. Not to mention that there is no such actual thing as ‘feminine’, it is a classification of a given strata, and changes respectively. Nature just uses what it needs where it needs it, and in whatever manner it needs to do that i.e. in the third party, as like math, laws and principles generally.

_

Yes, that’s why I said that’s what a Nietzschean Creation myth might say. There can ultimately be no Nietzschean Creation myth.

Apparently you miss the experience of what it’s like to be an intelligent being. Inequality is everywhere, not just in the foundation (and, like I just said, ultimately there can be no Nietzschean foundation myth). It appears that everything changes all the time. In fact, I would reverse David Icke’s position and state that whatever does not vibrate is an illusion!

I was just speaking as a theologian.

There is no difference between God and his children. God himself is unequal to himself.

“Q: What’s the difference between a dead bird?
A: The other leg is slightly longer.” (Dutch joke.)

I don’t subscribe to such substance dualism. To me, “if you were born into another’s body” etc. simply means “if you were them”. And yes, if I were them, I would be exactly like what they are…

Not at all!

If they were me and I were them, they would be superior, because their dasein would be superior; they would be a superior bodying life (they’d be part of the longer leg of God, so to speak).

I think of the All as an infinite variety. However, it’s apparently characterized by the fact that all its parts “break away” from the rest, even denying that rest (thus the big bang, for example, can be understood as our universe’s breaking away from the rest).

“Reality is what reality is like” explains nothing. At least Value Philosophy “explains” reality as a self-creation out of “nothing” (an absurdity). At least it gives us internal relatability, a logic by which we make sense to ourselves. It describes the way in which reality “just is”.

You say, “which is never usually good”. But how can you distinguish between good and not good? In order to be consistent, I think you’d have to hold everything to be equally good or hold everything to be unequal.

Bred as well as learned, i.e., not just learned in a single generation. Other than that, you’re right; but that doesn’t change anything, as we can’t all be well-educated upper class politicians!

The female preying mantis is female, but not feminine. In fact, human females would not be feminine if it wasn’t for the fact that human males impose their will on them! Thus no heterosexual man likes the idea of actual lesbian sex, and yet so-called “lesbian” porn is immensely popular among men (there is even, and especially, “lesbian” Hentai!). The Classical is masculine compared to the barbarian with its untamed Goddesses. Even the “wild” goddess Diana was tamed in Graeco-Roman mythology, in that she was no longer the Many-Breasted but now solely the Chaste Virgin.

One could say that the God is Purusha who with his frightening nihilation spurs Prakriti to self-preservation.

Sauwelios

Ha, we’ll see. …but the serious side of that is suggesting the experience of being an intelligent being makes one consciousness above another ~ one with 90billion neurons different and above another entity which is the same kind of thing or being. Answer me this in a non-evasive manner; are not all things transferable? For example you could augment or educate a given brain/person. Some intellects are car mechanics, now does that job title change who they are? Would the world be greater if there were no people other than the preferred given intellectually type? Doesn’t nature put what it needs where it needs it? Failure to answer correctly will place outside said category lol.

There exists inequality because there is change, difference, and they exist because EVERYTHING IS TRANSFERRABLE.

The term ‘dasein’ has no meaning I can find, it appears to allude to something which is then never actually defined. Go ahead define it! Again though, you are stating that God in all his >omni<potence, would produce one leg bigger or better than another, and not all equal [where that means placing each of us into a world we don’t make or create ourselves?].

Harm of which there are many examples in crime, is bad and not good, there are balances and a general weightedness to things. Killing someone or taking away the freedoms we give to ourselves, are examples where such balance occurs e.g. a soldier can defend the children of God/the people, and kill someone, and that is a noble thing. If another kills someone out of malice or are driven by something that is not them [instincts, psychopathic genes or whathaveyou], the acceptance of that drive as being what they are is an illusion. What you inherit is not what you are, what you do with it, is.
As I see it there is nothing in crime apart from an acceptance of being natural beings, then that that is somehow who you are and/or what your subculture is. As we didn’t create ourselves, and consciousness is the product of and yet not the same as the machine which substantiates its existence, then instinct is not who we are.

like a composer who makes symphonies at age 7, …breed for enough generations then? .also, if you create enough competition in education systems [like what’s happening globally], the levels will even out. Now take away all the low skilled labour and replace them with machines [about to happen over the next few years], and you got yourself a much more equal society. It will increasingly make no sense to pursue ideologies which are wearing blinkers, when change is going to rip out its foundations. Also, I don’t know how any of that was a foundation to your philosophy? You are better because your dasein is better, and yet you agree its all a matter of how many dumb but clever politicians the system can generate lol.?

That concurs with the notion that its subjective and relative – as I thought I was suggesting?

_

A GREAT CRITICISM LEVELLED BY SOME IN THE TRUMP CAMP SAYS: THE HILLARY CAMP IS SO DESPICABLY WEAK IT MUST NEEDS CLOSE ITS EYES TO THE INHUMAN IMPLICATIONS OF ITS FAITH!

BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE WITHIN THE HILLARY CAMP WHO FORCE THEMSELVES TO CHAMPION THAT FAITH WITH OPEN EYES, DEEPLY AWARE OF THOSE IMPLICATIONS? THE MEN, NOT OF FAITH, BUT OF WILL?

THEY ARE THOSE WHO KNOW THE HEART OF THE TRUMP CAMP’S VALUES: WHICH, NEGATIVELY PUT, IS FEAR OF PRECISELY THOSE IMPLICATIONS, THE INHUMANITY OF THE VOID, THE FLATNESS OF THE LOGICALLY INFINITE VARIETY.

WE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHERS HOWEVER ALSO HAVE A CORE FEAR: FEAR PRECISELY FOR WHAT THE TRUMP CAMP POINTS TO—POINTS BACK TO. HORROR OF THE MORALITY OF CUSTOM, THE FOLLOWING OUT OF HABIT OF WHATEVER IS CUSTOM, NO MATTER FOR WHAT REASON OR UNREASON IT WAS FIRST PRACTICED.

THE POSITIVE COUNTERPART TO THAT HORROR IS SO GREAT THAT IT HAS ENABLED US TO WELCOME WITH A STRAIGHT BACK THE POSSIBLE RECURRENCE OF THAT PREHISTORIC GROUND OF ALL MORALITY.

IT IS THEREFORE WITH THE SAME DEFIANCE THAT WE WELCOME THE PRESIDENCY OF TRUMP—HIS PRESIDING OVER THE AMERICAN UNION’S ENDEAVORS TO COPE WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE WORLD.

THAT STATE IS CHARACTERIZED BY ADVANCED VULGARIZATION COMBINED WITH ADVANCED ALIENATION: PEOPLE RESORT TO BLATANT PETTY SELFISHNESS BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEY DON’T MATTER MUCH, DON’T DIFFER MUCH FROM MOST EVERYBODY ELSE, ANYWAY. IF THEY DON’T TAKE JUSTICE IN THEIR OWN HANDS, THEY WON’T RECEIVE WHAT THEY THINK THEY DESERVE.

THE BELIEF THAT THEY DESERVE MORE HAS BEEN INCULCATED IN THEM BY THE SO-CALLED TRUTHS OF THE DECLARATION, THE NOTION THAT A HUMAN ENTITY HAS SIGNIFICANT RIGHTS AND DIGNITY SIMPLY FOR EXISTING.

ADVANCED VULGARIZATION AND ALIENATION: IN ONE WORD, THE ADVANCED DEVALUATION OF MAN. NO BEING HAS RIGHTS OR DIGNITY SIMPLY FOR EXISTING!!

EVEN IF EXISTING MEANS STRUGGLING FOR EXISTENCE, THERE IS ONLY DIGNITY INSOFAR AS IT IS DONE NOBLY, GRACEFULLY, VIRTUALLY EFFORTLESSLY. AND LIES LIKE THOSE OF THE DECLARATION HAVE ENABLED MANY PEOPLE TO DO SO QUITE EFFORTLESSLY. THEY HAVE ENJOYED GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.

NOW THERE ARE BASICALLY TOO MANY PEOPLE FOR THE NATURALLY AVAILABLE JOBS. JOBS HAVE TO BE “CREATED”… BUT THE SAME PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED BY “DESTROYING” PEOPLE INSTEAD. NOT DESTROYING THEM IN A MONSTER-MYTH SENSE, BUT IN THE SENSE OF NOT HAVING THEM PROCREATE. MANDATORY STERILIZATION IS MUCH LESS MORALLY AMBIGUOUS THAN VOLUNTARY ABORTION!

THIS IDIOCRACY IS BEGGING FOR AN ARISTOCRACY.