"Parodites wrote:
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it’s involuntary, it’s tyrannical. I’m opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.
But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a “will” even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don’t think they do.
This will isn’t one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:57 pm
Capable wrote:
Parodites wrote:
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it’s involuntary, it’s tyrannical. I’m opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.
But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a “will” even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don’t think they do.
This will isn’t one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.
The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we’ve done.
As to affirmation:
Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder?
Schelling had a vision of man returning the remainder of the divine to the divine through the vehicle of matter; he buried his will in the under-will of the universe in order to return it to god, though he based that on Jewish theology. In this case the whole point of the creation of the world itself and human history literally was just that: to self-enclose the divine and return the remainder, to allow god to absorb himself in his own divine radiance without remainder.
And my idea of the transcendent episteme is about absorbing the contents of the dialectic within itself by reproducing its own negative core as positive objectification. This will take place through the drama of Christianity, going back to Christ representing the psychic incorporation of death, in a positive orientation of man to nonbeing.
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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:07 pm
And by my own admission, my views on Europe’s eventual collapse and the idea that we should just bid it farewell into the dustbin of history- that’s a radicalization to my thought I don’t expect you to accept, it’s just my personal feeling about it. I favor America’s rise over all other powers of the world. The generalized point is simply that the torch of the West is passing to the Americas because Europe gave up the tools of its liberation with the globalist centralization and repudiation of Christianity in lieu of liberal secular humanism. Perhaps it can save itself, limp on and join the Masonic brotherhood too one day if only in spirit. At least the British brex’d themselves before they wrecked themselves.
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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:44 pm
And basically, this election is couched in two paradigm shifts that are occurring: one is political, the other cultural.
First: the left-right paradigm itself is collapsing. There is no left-right anymore. The underpinning of liberal secular humanism on which that political axis of the left-right is based is demonstrating itself to be the product of mere social conditioning and manipulation, of the tertiary stage of late capitalism I keep talking about, and an instrument of the alliance between the media, the military, and science (Think of that bullshit Michio Kaku type global civilization nonsense) with globalism. Think of this: why is there an “alt right” and not an “alt left” right now as well? It’s because the liberal secular humanist basis of the left-right paradigm is itself collapsing, and because it is itself based in values the left claims to advance as its very identity in the name of social progress, with its degeneration there is nowhere remaining for the left to “alternate” to, the left has no more conceptual space to fill- there is nowhere further left for there to be. The alt-right isn’t really right, it’s a symptom of this asymmetry built into the political axis that is only now becoming obvious. There was never a center in the dying political axis; it was the result of social conditioning and never a proper ideological structure. It was a grand conspiracy set up to guide us into the globalist superstate and away from the fulfillment of the social forms dominant at its inception, hence Europe’s repudiation of Christianity, the collapse of marriage as an institution, the destruction of the nuclear family, and on and on.
Second: A cultural revitalization that takes the form of Russia piercing together a national identity with the shards of Christian orthodoxy, and the rediscovery of the emancipatory potential of the masses in America, with rising calls to decentralization and a return to true constitutional philosophy. A new political axis is evolving based around pro statism/anti statism and pro nationalism/pro globalism. There is no left-right anymore, now there is nationalist-globalist and statist-antistatist axis. Instead of center, moderate right, hard left and all that, you can now only be described in terms of a nationalist statist or a nationalist antistatist; a statist antinationalist, a globalist statist (the kind of globalism espoused by both neocons and neolibs, by the Bushes and the Clintons, its an international alliance) or a globalist antistatist. (the kind of globalism where you erase the borders between nations and deprive all national sovereignty- rather than an international alliance, you have an actual superstate like what the EU wants to become.)
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
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:34 pm
Quick point on Trump: Fixed raised the great point that at least Trump lies like a human, and not like an “institution” or I would say, as a robot (as Hillary and most politicians lie, Obama included).
This is a fantastic insight. This really captures the essence of his appeal perfectly. This is why his supporters do not care that he is lying, and this is also why his opponents do not care that he is also telling truths as well (he is by default “always telling the truth” even when he openly lies, simply because he lies like a human being; and from the other side he is also by default “always lying” even when he speaks truths, simply because of how he refuses to employ the standard robotic lying of the “systemic violence” of institutional psychology).
But my real question to all this is: yes, but do we really need such broken personalities in order to galvanize a mass political attempt at speaking truth to power? If so, what does this tell us about politics and humanity today?
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:47 am
It’s more about the fact that the social complex in late tertiary capitalism- it’s hold on our political machine, is too strong to simply speak them out of power. Trump is simply the only person with enough pre-existing media presence and monetary resources to do this, to challenge the political establishment and open the way for a new order to emerge. He also has been planning for 30 years to do this, waiting for the opportunity when the current political paradigm was at its weakest to put his plan into action. I’d rather it have been someone else, there’s people who could do this better than Trump, maybe not the actual winning of the election because like I said he has a skill at this apparently but people that could allow the real philosophic undercurrent enabling all this to happen to speak through them more eloquently and completely, people more knowledgeable about politics and the like, but Trump happens to be the person who had both the physical ability to win and the will to do so. More than anything else he is a mouthpiece or avatar for these paradigm shifts, not the actual origination to them, he’s the muscle not the brain behind it.
About affirmation: My system of topos, dialectic, and episteme, is in essence the philosophy of how Being’s original affirmation becomes self-enclosed without remainder. So the three epistemes- the ontic, immanent, and transcendent, correspond with the rise of post Hellenistic Greece, the Judaic religion, and Christianity. But each of these three epochs has an ontic, immanent, and transcendent episteme subdivided in it. That’s what I mean by enfoldment. Christianity was latently enfolded all the way back before even the Jews arose. So there was an ontic, immanent, and transcendent revelation in post-Hellenistic culture, that last bringing about the transition to Judaic enlightenment about the immanent, faceless God of Abraham. And each of those subdivisions has its own further sub-sub division of ontic, immanent, and trasc. episteme. And so on and so forth, down into seconds and microseconds and the Planck scale. History- time itself, is this intellectual structure of enfoldment. Every moment in the dialectic of history can be unfolded into one of the epistemes or re-enfolded. This is what I mean by cycles of time. And with each transition, from the Greeks to the Jews to Christianity, these cycles get tighter; the enfoldment more severe, the subdivisions more interconnected, and the last transition that will soon come will allow us to escape from time from within time as we reproduce the whole residual theophany of the transcendent object behind history, which will cast no further shadow into the physis of nature, the bound monad. The enfoldment will become self-enclosed entirely in its severity and the pure affirmation of Being realized, without remainder, without the shadow of the real, breaking the diamond of the world-ontos on a beam of light without imperfection, without the negation fueling the dialectic of human history as a distortion of the affirmation, of Being. Technology will serve to facilitate the expression of transcendence and preserve it, a tool the ancient Doric tribes did not possess.
While I’m against the technocratic Messianic ideal aligned with the pseudo-politics behind the globalist superstate and planetary government, unlike Heidegger I’m not against technology itself. Our technology will serve to engrave the transcendent revelation of Being upon the Anthropocene, whereas the ancient Doric tribes only had writing and oral traditions.
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
Last edited by Parodites on Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:40 am
About the Zizek quote in your signature- this speculative dance of capital I am going to briefly talk about after I restate what I said a long time ago about the three stages of capital:
[ The problem is that the surplus wealth must be centralized in the hands of a few, otherwise it will become too evenly distributed for any re-investment to be made in a kind of two stage process I will describe, whereby capital is being moved around, from a first stage in which free labor is converted into capital, and a second at which capital is re-converted into labor- specifically working, or utilized labor. This equation is very important, because if we as a species fail to work out the balancing act implicit in it between free and working labor, between expansive and contractive/centralized or monopolized capital, then a lot of us die; this is the structure that keeps society from falling apart. And we’ve gotten it incorrect on our first two attempts at it, the world wars.
You can see this movement of the surplus wealth in two recurrent stages. Capitalism in the early phase is marked by the emergence of free trade and the rising of innumerable small businesses and entrepreneurs- this is where the world was before WW1. At this stage the surplus wealth created by all these little businesses is fairly well distributed. Marx theorized a point of no further expansion possible, “State Capitalism,” in which these small businesses- the little Bourgeoisie, will be absorbed over time by the proper bourgeoisie out of which the elite class precipitates as the bearers of centralized wealth; this centralization takes the form of Mcdonalds, Apple, Microsoft. Monopolies absorb the small businesses, that is, the little-middle-class of successful smaller scale entrepeneurs who have done well for themselves, and re-concentrate the much more distributed surplus wealth created in the early explosive stage of capitalism. Now, in this later stage, in state capitalism, a very small number- the proper elites, have gained enough control over surplus wealth to simply charge people for rent and make money without expending much if any labor. This is the necessary step that leads to all the surplus wealth and therefor power being stripped from the common masses and handed to the select few, that it may be re-invested in the next cycle of innovations. This next cycle creates within itself a kind of pseudo-controlled mini first phase capitalism again, that acts explosively as many smaller businesses crop up over night to take advantage of the various new avenues that have opened up with the new tech produced in that cycle, ie. everyone going after domain names in the dot com thing in the 90’s, or the profusion of more different kinds of cellphone than you could count in all shapes and sizes before the Iphone appeared. This bubbles out for awhile and then pops, the surplus wealth is reabsorbed, and so on, ad infinitum, each time strengthening and further concentrating the surplus wealth in the last cycle into fewer and fewer hands, a smaller and smaller “elite” class, the designated 1 percent. Now, because this didn’t happen when free trade was first established, before WW1, the surplus wealth was too evenly distributed and dried up; the products of this failed first phase however were not iphones and web domains and sneakers with lights- they were bullets, bombs, and machine guns, and all of the surplus wealth, now in the hands of the people- an unemployed and impoverished people after the failure to reincorporate the surplus, used it to create the first war of the people rather than of small trained armies: they used the wealth surplus and the means of production to manufacture the necessary agents to kill themselves instead of recentralizing and investing it in a new cycle of innovations.
This is why, as you say, pure capitalism is impossible- pure capitalism meaning an infinitely distributive and unencumbered period of first phase free trading and small businesses. Socialism simply aborts the second phase and replaces it with government intervention on the economy, and that has the effect only of drying up the surplus wealth created in the first phase, as the democratic and governmental modification on the economy, the workers controlling the means of production- for all taxation and government intervention has that effect of shifting control over productive capacity to the people if only indirectly, cannot properly mobilize the surplus wealth toward the development of the next cycle of technology. So socialism is not viable for that reason as well.
If you collect taxes and use it to build a road, through governmental intervention on the economy, then you also have a bunch of businesses and innovation that was not created and could have been created with the same money- but only if society is in a state of economic equilibrium, because if there are a bunch of unemployed people at the time, then now their unused labor capacity is being utilized to construct the road, and labor is not being diverted from anything that would have been getting done otherwise. That is one justification for socialist policies. Yet it actually is being diverted from expansion, for the following reason. Through this tax, money is collected from workers operating in an expansive state of the movement of capital, in that mini unencumbered free trading bubble reproduced within the second phase, and then redistributed to those currently unemployed and converts their unused labor capacity into public goods like a road, so that as I said, what is happening is power and productive capacity is being re-bestowed to the people, aborting the second phase or state-capitalism from completing itself in the movement of capital that would redistribute the wealth surplus to an elite class who would be able to reinvest it properly and create tech and sector bubbles which mobilize a fury of human labor toward new innovations and maintain equilibrium. As the first phase converts free labor into capital, the second phase must convert capital into working labor: this socialist intervention converts free labor into “nothing”, ie. as opposed to working labor, my concept of working-labor meaning more or less capitalistic expansion: it converts a previously unemployed guy in a state of unused free labor now building a road into an invisible piece of fiat currency- for unless the wealth surplus is centralized at the end of the second phase in the cycle then it dissipates, and each piece of free-labor that is being taxed by a construction job for a road is just that- a dissipation of the wealth surplus. Obviously we need roads, but this is the effect of acquiring it and anything else through taxation. Taxation is simply a dissipation of wealth surplus, a prevention of its being centralized in preparation for its reinvestment by the elite class. Taxation and socialist policy prevents the formation of the little-middle class, so that the middle class proper spreads its cumulative wealth so much that the elites have no way to siphon off surplus wealth into their monopoly, and thus no capital concentrates anywhere, and cannot be reinvested. In short: working-labor must be kept equal to free-labor with reference to the third term of capital; working-labor (or expansive trade) minus free-labor (potential trading, ie. my work for your money) must equal capital, (the material that can be expansively traded, which includes human beings in a state of free-labor) and this equation is accomplished by centralizing surplus wealth and reinvesting it in new technologies at the end of each of these two-phase cycles. Socialism is basically adding free-labor to capital and saying it equals working-labor, but it does not, because free-labor is already contained implicitly in the value of capital.
This two phase recurrence is the problem for both a pure capitalism- the first phase without the second, as well as socialism, and I’m not aware of any solution. If the first phase is pushed too far, then countless small businesses distribute all surplus wealth to the extent that it can no longer be collected in one place and reinvested in new technologies, and capitalism hits a dead end and regresses- that is what happened to bring on the first world war, as, in the fascination of the human species with the new free trade idea, we were finally woke up from its dream into its nightmare; if the second phase is replaced by a governmental intervention, if taxes are utilized to give control over productive capacity to the people, then the surplus wealth from the first phase gets starved and dried up- the attempts to shift this productive control to the people on a large scale amounted to the failed communistic regimes, and ended in the second world war. Now in the US at the present time and in other places in the world we are attempting to apply a very small amount of intervention or socialist policy, not completely aborting the second phase, and modern socialists like Sanders want to accomplish that by laying taxes on the elite class, the 1 percent in particular, and this has and will have only the consequence of making the starvation of surplus wealth much more slow than it would be in an overtly socialistic or communist state, and through attrition will take us into another war, as we will find this method works as badly as the other two. A small business can get by on balancing costs with revenues whereas a large business that tries to do that will simply get bought out or out-competed by a more ambitious large business producing more total surplus value. The only real solution I can see to the problem is that a large enough field of capital and economic agents exists such that both processes, stages 1 and 2 can co-occur alongside each other at all times; therefore limited bubbles coming into existence and collapsing without disturbing the entire society and economy as a whole, but also being effective at spurring expansions and bubble-based inflations to such a degree that productive increases produce society-wide significance. "
Indeed this has led to a third stage which I haven’t mentioned yet. The rise of the banking system.
I found out yesterday that Lenin had a similar analysis of the cause of WW1 as mine. The surplus value created in what I call the first stage of expansive free-trade he called a product of colonial imperialism and said that this surplus could not successfully be exported from one nation to another, and this led to war.
So the first stage, that of expansive free trade, creates a large surplus capital value but it is so widely distributed among competing small businesses that it cannot be centralized and that is the reason why, as Lenin said, it cannot be exported; because it cannot be exported, it is instead concentrated in monopoly companies and re-invested in new technological enterprises, while these monopolies recreate expansive bubbles of free trade and smaller businesses within themselves in order to re-absorb and further concentrate any wealth still external to them, creating the “1 percent” class; the third stage appears as international banking systems, which coordinate transfers of this concentrated wealth on a larger scale and deal with the exportation problem between nations. This banking system is supported by alliances in general and unites the various capitalist countries through tenuous relations of debt- ie we owe a lot of money to China, therefor China can continue manufacturing because it knows we will buy its products, and the global economy can keep functioning with the US as the center of the debt and the international bank system. This third stage leads to the US, as the center of this debt, losing its own manufacturing capabilities, as the companies move their means of production to other nations and the globalist EU becomes empowered more and more. ]
So you see that the “speculative dance of capital” or the volatility of the stock market exchange is actually just a corollary to this tertiary function of late-stage capitalism where the international banking integration emerges: with less integration, (countries can manipulate their currency to intentionally provoke this difficulty in integrating) the stock becomes more volatile, as the smaller economic excitations in the second stage become more easily manipulated as they fail to produce exportable capital.
- Free trade. Explosion of small businesses and creation of a large amount of homogeneous distributed nonexportable surplus capital.
- Larger businesses absorb the smaller ones and concentrate wealth so that it can be reinvested in creating new tech. and exportable capital.
- The international banking system emerges, which negotiates this transfer of wealth. Wealth not transferred in this stage through the global economy is easily manipulated, leading to a volatile stock market, the “dance of capital”. This manipulated wealth is a residual defect in this system and only exists on paper. Hence the danger in getting rich by playing stocks. When the integration in the tertiary stage starts occurring again and concentrated surplus capital becomes exportable, all that imaginary wealth evaporates. That’s what an economic bubble or crash actually is, it’s the tertiary stage kicking in again. But each bubble has just been venting the super-volcano so that it can all go on a bit longer- the true bubble will pop soon.
That first stage was pushed as far as it could go and failed, hence WW1 like I said in the repaste. Then the second stage was developed and pushed as far as it could go, failed, WW2 occured, and then the third stage emerged with the globalist superstate taking form around it. And now this third stage is being pushed as far as it can go, it’s going to fail, WW3 will take place, and then we’ll see what happens going forward.
America’s geographic and economic independence is what led the globalists to corrupt our politics and turn us into their primary instrument: grounding the tertiary stage in America ensured that the system could always recover from any crashes, as America’s independence would protect the greater hub of global capital from diffusion. But America is now waking up to the parasite, and that the globalists only wanted to push us out of the world stage as a sovereign state and make use of our power and advantages for their own ends. They turned America into simply their protective shield around global capital, hence they are the ones that replaced our culture with a Big Mac.
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
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:28 am
Here is my take on these important issues:
Wealth concentrates upward simply because this is the nature of capital to be inherently organized toward increasingly totalitarian status. Most people either do not act on a totalitarian impulse or simply cannot act on it meaningfully, but the small number that do have that impulse and act on it end up drawing capital to themselves like a gravity well. Before modern capitalism wealth was always in the hands or held at the behest of the political-military aristocracy, totalitarian form-as-such; this is simply because force is used to compel capital transfers to those who have the use of force on their side. The genius of capitalism was to find a second mechanism for how large scale mobilizations of capitalism could occur, namely through strictly economic (inherently non-political-military) exchanges, and thus led to a rise of new powerful entities in society, the wealthy business owners and eventually large corporations. Ostensibly these are separate from political-military powers, of course that isn’t absolutely the case but capitalism did create this counter-object of the economic-as-such against the historical object of political-military-as-such, when it came to how large scale mobilizations of capital might occur.
Capitalism separates out economy from politics, again it does this regardless of the obvious fact that economics and politics are still highly entangled; the separation is still very real.
WWI was caused by many things, most notably by strong nationalistic sentiment and colonial ambitions, basically by a misplaced sense of pride that could be easily damaged. German “weltpolitik”, British imperialism, Austrian racism against Serbs, Russian meddling in the Balkans, entangled national defense alliances, German provocations in colonial territories (Morocco, Congo), naval arms race between Britain and Germany, and the slow spread of the idea of socialism throughout Germany, Russia, Italy, France and Austria. But basically it was a hell of a lot of “national pride” that created the situation of tense buildup of hostilities and political minefields to where the assassination of the archduke to Austria by a Serbian nationalist, in Serbia, was enough to spark the fire.
Plus, in the typical blindness of nationalistic fervor, most countries and people felt like a war would be quickly over, with their side winning obviously.
The beauty of NATO and the EU is that it is meant to solidify such a large bloc of European powers together that this kind of complex, nationalistic, racist, rivalry and entangled alliances situation wouldn’t occur again. If one opposes such large blocs of economic and military cooperation and wants instead a return to 19th and early 20th century isolated nationalism then one simply calls for another major land war in Europe. The real problem isn’t these new blocs themselves, the problem is that they aren’t strong enough and may break down: EU is already having serious problems and if other countries withdraw it could collapse, and NATO is a target of Trump’s and other disaffected American nationalist conservatives who think we should go back to the good old days of isolationist protectionism, not realizing that any large land war in Europe is something that affects America just as must as it affects the Europeans.
This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. If one’s beliefs are implicitly nationalist oriented like that, then it would become impossible to psychologically value any other national and cultural group except for one’s own, and thus in today’s system of large cooperative blocs like EU and NATO it would further be required to feel strong antipathy for other nations and cultures, in order to defend oneself against what seems to be a personal threat against one’s diehard nationalist fervor.
I’m speaking objectively here about the beliefs and paradigms of these various ideas, and not about anyone in particular. I always separate out ideas from the people who “believe” them, and I want to direct philosophy at ideas themselves so as to provide better opportunities for individuals to adopt and work with ideas.
Now, all that was the cause for WWI. WWII was basically caused by a failure to rethink the playing field and the logic of the “only game in town” after WWI was finished; namely, extreme nationalism still existed and Germany had been decimated and not allowed any chance for serious economic recovery after WWI. Colonial aspirations still existed in the Middle East, N Africa and Asia with western powers fighting over who would effectively control these developing or undeveloped areas. Germany had been cut out of the game, and wounded pride had nowhere to go except into desire for a Fuhrer. Just imagine, Germany had been the philosophical powerhouse in the 19th century, it’s philosophers fundamentally altering the world with new ideas and ways of thinking, yet now Germany is reduced to almost nothing after WWI. You always need to give people a way out for their wounded pride, and a means to recover their self-valuing after it has been damaged, otherwise you feed radicalism, spite and irrationality. Nationalism itself is a mild form of this very same axis of radicalism-spite-irrationality, created by how societies by default fuck with and suppress people’s self-valuing. Just as, which I’ve written about recently, ideology is the general more mild case of “schizophrenia” (paranoid delusions, also at times hallucinations) just as schizophrenia is a specific more severe case of “ideology”.
Back to capitalism, yes I agree that these cycles of boom and bust end up concentrating wealth further upward, again I see this as basically the totalitarian tendency of capital: capital is itself neutral so will be used to potentiate anything at all, which means that the wider aspirations for employing larger reservoirs of capital will naturally create that very possibility by virtue of what capital already is; namely, average people who do not aspire to totalitarian mobilizations of capital for their gain of person power of force-use will only mobilize small amounts of capital, while people who want that kind of totalitarian status will mobilize larger amounts of capital. What was needed was what capitalism brought, a new way of motivating the desire to mobilize large amounts of capital other than for personal political-military power of use of force. But eventually even this “free” system of “pure” economic mobilizations of capital becomes political-military in nature because of how, at the upper levels, the political and military mobilizations of capital further the economic mobilizations of capital (think neocolonialist global capitalism, outsourcing, etc.). So even as capitalism introduced a great new dimension into how social and labor capital can be organized, at the upper echelons this sill merges with the old systems of political-military mobilizations of capital. Thus as wealth “naturally” concentrates upward it also naturally tends to become more totalitarian in nature and even “free capital” ends up feeding the existing political-military orders.
Specific to the UN, EU and NATO: the only reason to reject these sort of blocs is that one thinks large scale warfare is preferable to inter-state and inter-personal tensions sublimated into economic activity. By “economic” here I also mean scientific, cultural-artistic, and ostensibly humanitarian activities. When a situation of large scale war is absent then the people of various nations are free to cooperate with each other across national borders for enhanced economic, scientific, cultural, and humanitarian work; when war is the case this kind of cooperation dries up or is restricted to certain peoples who happen to be in alliance with each other at the moment. “Peace” (from large scale military mobilization and warfare) is a basic condition of a rational, sane world of self-conscious beings; warfare is not some kind of necessity of cleansing of the tensions but rather a low form of catharsis for those tensions, a catharsis that only indirectly addresses those tensions themselves and the real causes for them. War had been necessary, yes, but only because humanity is still so many apes fighting over pieces of the ground and fighting to defend their petty wounded prides. The necessity for war is a symptom of a relatively low stage of self-conscious species evolution, although only philosophy can really understand this because of course we have no other self-conscious species to compare ourselves to or draw from to see what that kind of evolution really looks like over eons. Philosophy must derive this curve of the evolution of the self-conscious species in general. This is an absolutely necessary task that only philosophy can accomplish.
I would rather work toward that task than capitulate to low-stage (in that overall evolution of the self-conscious species in general) logics that see war as inherently necessary or good and global cooperative blocs as inherently unnecessary or bad. Yes global blocs and organizations also serve to instantiate old-style political-military capital mobilization at a higher level of subtly totalitarian power, but a good tool can be used equally for noble or ignoble ends: we should not abandon the nascent projects of forming collective will, ideas and action amongst people and nations simply because it takes a lot of work to push back against that tyranny, we should be trying harder in our pushback, we should reaffirm the value of the evolution of the human species toward better ideas and larger capacities to cooperate and operate at “global” (nationally cooperative without the presence of war) levels. Otherwise we are going to return to a WWI and II state except this time the advent of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, drones, probably military tech we don’t even know about, all of that would raze humanity to the ground and simply lead to a collapse of civilization on the worldwide scale, a return to isolated tribalisms, petty local dictators, a loss of the ideas and cultural and scientific products of civilization that have been accumulated for the last 2500 years. No amount of American or Russian “national pride” could ever justify that.
We should be working to improve globally-oriented systems, by bolstering national-level incentives for cooperation and economic activity that is outside the sphere of the political-military, to bring out the best and most civilized, rational instincts in humanity. I will never work for a tyrannical fascist globalism, but neither will I stop working for the idea of a true globalism, one founded on the absence of war and the presence of those core rational values of a self-conscious species that I mentioned in a former post. Those values hold and are grounded in the necessary logic of what self-consciousness means and requires. Self-valuing at the level we humans are at and can ascend to requires asserting such values; we can debate the specific forms of the values and which should be included or given greater priority, and how to translate those values into the world practically and continently, but we must accept the existence of such “primary values” as a basic condition of our philosophizing at this critical stage of attempting to philosophize toward the political.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Last edited by Capable on Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:33 am
We should give people and nations better, higher means of defending their pride and asserting their self-valuing then simply through recourse to political-military outlets. But that will require an enforceable suspension of warfare amongst nations, enforceable until such time as the ideas have evolved to the point where human beings no longer see any interest in asserting their self-valuing physically against others in displays of brutal use of force and violence.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:54 am
Your causes for the world wars I simply do not accept. As I’ve been writing, there was no ideological reality behind the world conflicts- there was never any real politics, politics was just an illusion following the decay of Christianity (and the loss of any potential fulfillment of the transcendent episteme) into liberal secular humanism and the false political axis now being broken apart predominantly in America, and virtually the entire logic behind the wars was economic in nature, culminating in capital’s tertiary function and the rise of the global superstate. My explanation of capital’s various stages of transfer explains both the impetus for the wars, what enabled the wars, and the mechanisms by which the wars were fought. I am not championing a third war, but it will inevitably follow the third stage of capitalism that we’re in as the other two wars followed the first and second stage- because like the first two, it doesn’t work, at least in the long term.
As for this: "This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. "
What, am I racist against other white dudes in Europe? Their model as I’ve been saying has closed the transcendent episteme to the dialectic of history at the philosophic level, and at the level of the world stage their model- globalism, has bankrupted my country, hijacked our politics and eroded our original constitutional philosophy that guarded us against tyranny, destroyed our culture and turned us into a fucking brand name, a big bank, a Big Mac, among many other ills, so fuck Europe. This country was founded by people who despised European culture- a culture of monarchs and rituals and moralisms, to such an extent that they were willing to risk death crossing an ocean and put up with savage natives in order to start a new world. And the globalist system has done nothing but strip away American sovereignty and power as well as the sovereignty of the very nations it comprises in order to give political power to a bunch of shit-eating unelected beaurocrats. That this superstate was formed in order to prevent escalating war is a myth; it was created merely to bring capital into its tertiary function. And predictably from that model I am proposing, it has deprived the masses of all emancipatory potential and empowered a useless political class of bureaucratic administrators. Britain left the Eu for that reason- they were being oppressed, by tyrants. Not because they were racists.
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
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:31 am
No I am not at all saying you are racist. Even if I thought that, which I don’t, that isn’t at all my point. My point is that the idea of nationalism itself inherent includes the extended idea of racism ether in overt or covert form, and that the idea of racism is a stupid and non-philosophical idea.
Belief in one’s nation’s superiority could theoretically not include any kind of beliefs about the superiority of one race over another, but in practice the way of thinking that the idea of nationalism represents perpetuates other kinds of ideas; racism, sexism, inability to rise above contingent biases, this is as I see it a form of thinking that manifests in different ways. I am not saying that in a practical sense one race, culture, gender, nation cannot be more accomplished in certain areas at any given time, but I am saying that the form of thinking that treats such differences as essential and essentially meaningful as within the sphere of a larger reason, is itself a bad form of thinking. I know you probably disagree with that, but it’s fine for us to disagree on this point. Of course I do realize that real differences exist, for example I am on board with your idea that intelligence is somewhat heritable just as I am on board with your idea that males and females have somewhat different innate desires and find different sort of things pleasurable and rewarding. But philosophy requires that we universalize ideation and think from the higher position of reason-- not in order to deny those differences but to sublimate them into higher ideas and meaning. Also it is required to do this for the secondary reason that human pathology and low-quality (non-philosophical) thinking naturally thrives within the form of thought of which racism etc. is a part.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:49 pm
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.
A sik þau trûðu"