The Philosophers

"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 complaining that Austria is an annoying exception to the rule that all nations need the US more than the US needs them - theyve been building their industry to this end, evidently, and they are the wisest people about high culture there are on the planet, Ive become convinced of this after waking up for two years to Austrian radio - always philosophical and/or classical. With that radio on the background I wrote my first couple of hundred posts here.

I guess what Im saying is that the European nations have some cards up their sleeves that they never meant to reveal until it is time to cash out. I just dont know. I do know that I want Amsterdam to be the capital of a new northern European financial alliance where it bridges, like it has always done, the abyss of valuing between Germany and Britain.

If the collapse you predict happens entirely, northern Europe will fall in the hands of the old criminal strata, which are not that different from the governmental strata - noting even that religion-wise, the criminal strata are possibly preferable, since government in Europe has never been anything other than primordial crime - in this sense it is an absolute fact that the USA is superior, with its very sound philosophy as its spine.

All we have to do with our philosophies to benefit the USA is wait until the USA stops listening to outside noises and takes a look inside. VO especially ties in flawlessly with the original philosophy - and it will be a nice task to make an adaption of sorts. Ive astrologically placed task, as I conceived of it in 2011, as a thing to be completed after the coming presidential term. As this term is approaching we can see the correctness of my placement - whoever wins, the 4 years to come now will rearrange everything, and convince everyone with power that they need new logic.

Summarizing - Ive been preparing for the war on two fronts; the ground, commanding by rune magic, and the technocratic apex, where the lionic self-valuing logic is knocking at the door of the weasels.


" 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
    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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:43 pm
What separates Trump from a typically anti-political fascist opportunist? And if little or nothing separates him from similar figures in the past, then why do we expect the results to be different this time?

"The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.

Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.

This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.

To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox Dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.

In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.

A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to be brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.

What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will likely comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that lay down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him."
-Washington Post

Why, of all people, would a philosopher desire a Fuhrer?


“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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:58 pm
Because he’s said nothing fascistic. That whole Washington Post article is jerking off.

Lol. Imagine the power he would wield? … As much as any president of the US has…

Why aren’t you worried about Clinton taking undue control of our government? Did you worry about Bush becoming a dictator? Why of all the people in office or pursuing political office- who have proven records of corruption and atrocity, are you worried about the big orange guy with the funny hair?

I explained the Trump phenomena with the left-right breakdown and what I said about the alt-right. That article is meaningless. Nothing about it is accurate. At no point in its meandering stilted shit-prose did the author even come close to touching upon the current spacetime we’re occupying.

It’s a collection of readings my own reading surpasses by being more explanatory, (there’s isn’t explanatory at all in fact) a bunch of armchair psychology, accusations, ad hominems, and straw men.


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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:53 pm; edited 3 times 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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:02 pm
Jesus Christ what do you want me to say? His followers don’t care about the gay bashing old Republican party of Bush, as the article laments? So? Do you want the Republican party to go back to being neoconservative?


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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:47 pm; 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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:04 pm
[ Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” ]

Yeah, by founders they mean one founder, namely Hamilton.

And also- no. I explained what the alt right (which they are referring to by mobocracy) is and why it exists in the posts above. It’s definitely “something different from the usual politics” though. Which is what we need. With the breakdown of the left-right axis, a new politics is inevitable. Why are you posting an article lamenting the revision of the two parties as if it was bad? Where is the fascism in anything Trump said? Is it because he wants to prevent mass migration from fucking the middle east? It is well within the power of the presidency to bar the entry of peoples from specific regions in the world.

Last edited by Parodites on Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:48 pm; 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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:12 pm
I can’t even really argue against the thing because there’s no argument, it’s just the accusation that Trump’s a psychotic ego-maniacal fascist who is going to magically take over a democracy in a country whose government was intentionally designed to prevent that, (though the excesses of statism have done wonders at getting around that design) without any evidence or quotations or examples.

[And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does.]

Wrong again. Again, the source of his allegiance is the political transition taking place into a new axis, which is responsible for creating the alt right which is feeding his rise. The political transition into a new era, a new axis entirely, which most people simply aren’t seeing because they’re fucking dumbshit media hacks. They predicted Trump would fall on his face immediately. They predicted he would burn out. Predicted he had a ceiling. Predicted he wouldn’t get the necessary delegates. Fucking wrong on every prediction they’ve made since this election started. That’s because they are analyzing this from the perspective of a political axis, a conceptual scheme, that is defunct and unable to make any more sense of the present world we are inhabiting.


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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:51 pm; edited 2 times 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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:33 pm
" that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms."

Freedom is not created. Freedom is willed. Freedom is not given- it is taken.

It certainly isn’t given by the State. No institution, no power of the State, can preserve, create, or improve- freedom. All it can do is take freedom away and then convince the masses it’s good for them.

And the article quotes Hamilton. Fuck Hamilton, I prefer Thomas Jefferson. There is nothing else to argue with in the article because the article doesn’t advance any argument of its own. Of all the founders give it to the Washington Post to use that one. Jefferson’s vision- one he shared generally with the rest of the founders, was that the federal government should be limited in its power as much as possible. Hamilton was obsessed with increasing its power. Hamilton read the Constitution in terms of “implied powers.” I believe me and you are having much the same argument as Hamilton and Jefferson did.

You can’t advance a view based around enlarging the scope of the State’s powers and international institutions and then claim to be worried about one guy, funny hair or not, misusing his powers. He’s said nothing fascistic. He’s done nothing that would indicate he’s more corrupt than any other politician, and the reality is he’s likely much less corrupt.


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 Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:07 pm
All the material I just spent typing out and we go right back to, nah it’s just because Trump is Hitler and he’s rallying a bunch of angry dudes.

Even Hitler didn’t arise just by rallying a bunch of angry dudes. I explained how the Nazis fit into this whole system, why the great wars occurred, why fascism and communism appeared to challenge capitalism, * how the present political landscape emerged from them, etc. Putting your hands up and saying “bunch of angry people” doesn’t explain anything, it’s useless and never explained anything that ever happened in human history.

And “Putinism” isn’t a correct reading of Russia. They are reiterating the Nazi project by salvaging a national ethos with what remains of orthodox Christianity and its symbolism, by imposition of the state- statism, rather than the emancipatory potential of the masses like what I envision for America.


National socialism is not inherently worse than the other two. It borrows some insight from communism and gives the government the ability to divert capital resources to what it sees fit, particular technological sectors or entire industries, but it takes insight from capitalism and allows the market and competition to coordinate that capital at the level of individual businesses. It has the foresight of a top down vision imposed by the few heads of government as well as some of the hindsight of nature, ie. forces of competition in the market. However, this makes national socialism incredibly statist, which is no good if you wish to separate culture and government like I do. The national socialist government has direct control over the culture because it can divert capital to industries it values and take it away from those it does not, and they easily foisted a hyper racial supremacist pseudo-mystical vision on their populace.

" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia,
identity, and affirmative content… "

The Nazis and Heidegger (and Russia) sought the later, [everyone is always surprised by Heid. endorsement of the Nazis] thinking they could salvage from the decaying dreams of Europe a new racial identity from behind the history of the Aryan people which was hijacked first by the Asiatics in Greece then corrupted and twisted even more by the Jews in the Roman era, and inaugurate a new political regime as a dispensation from Ousia itself to dasein, which would assume the form of a pure Aryan reborn, freed from the distorted history imposed on it by the other races of the earth. Obviously the communists and socialists and now our Leftists seek the former. Neither will win against the spiritually emaciated and philosophically brain dead spirit of liberal American-European secularism, which has no positive meaning, which has no future vision for humanity, nothing with which to establish a human identity in our postmodern techno-apocalypse. Its destruction will come from within, not from without. And as it falls so will the globalist paradigm, which has been the only thing holding us back from nuclear war, a shadow that still looms as much as it did during the cold war.

Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form.


So fascism absolutely did have a coherent ideology. [inasmuch as it, like the other systems, preserved the myth of ideology] This article you posted is so empty it’s laughable.

And yes Fixed this technocratic social complex around capitalism enables the international banking system to evolve, and that empowers globalist policy, bringing the absorption of capital into its tertiary stage and ending the myth of ideology, out of which the postmodernist state developed. The degeneration of the political axis itself which we are all experiencing now is the next inevitable consequence in this chain of events- as a response to the myth of ideology and its hypnosis plaid out in the great wars.

  1. Myth of idealogy. Fascism, Communism, and Capitalism, all emerge as responses to the breakdown of Christianity- the death of God, and the consequent development of liberal secular humanism. Heid. read that death as the loss of Being to forgetfulness in the forms of history imposed on the original Western soul, the Aryan (I call them the Doric tribes of pre-Hellenes) by foreign peoples, imported first from the East then the corruption was taken up by the Jews and modified further by the Nazarenes. (I have a different understanding of this, ie. the epistemes and topos) Fascism in the Reich did what Russia is doing now, salvaging from behind history a dispensation to dasein, on which to base and preserve a national ethos, a nationalism. Communism went in another direction, but both emerged in order to try and fight back against the death of God- not to restore Christianity, but to find a replacement for the dead deity. Communism in essence subverts the populace in order to enlarge the power of the State, it takes statism to its furthest height as a solution. How did they accomplish this subversion? Well our far left, our liberal progressivism, copies their technique. They took the principles of liberal secular humanism and simply credited them to the beneficence of the State. This core axis divides the left-right paradigm with a false center I have been talking about- that false center lies in things like equality, equality of people, cultures, etc. If you read the texts of every religion, especially the Bible, you will notice that the very idea of equality is never even mentioned. Christianity, unlike liberal secular humanism, has a completely different idea: you escape sin by being reborn in Christ, and as long as you are so reborn, it doesn’t matter if you’re a saint or a murderer, white or black, etc. The idea of equality is just an empty expression there. Without that Christian basis that gives equality meaning, how can equality be provided to the masses? Through the State. This subversion benefits the globalist regime, hence the need to import migrants and form a multiculture.

And capitalism? Capitalism simply embraced it, the death of Christianity. Capitalism put the left-right axis based in liberal secular humanism into action.

  1. This is why capitalism won: it did not win in a conflict of ideology, on a truly political basis, it won on an economic one. It was the conclusion to the dream of human history, to the myth of ideology. A complex of science, military, media, etc. formed around it, and this enabled an international bank to emerge on top of a technocratic model of society in order to bring capital into its tertiary stage of absorption. The technocracy is one aspect to this complex, another is the military industrial complex, another is the mass media.

  2. Globalism finally becomes a coherent force through the power bestowed on those statehoods entering into this international capital relation, the global bank.

4.) With the end of the myth of ideology proper, our current left-right political axis loses its center and begins a process of disintegration. This is postmodernity. There are no real political debates anymore. It’s all gay marriage and the like, and rep. and democrats have identical foreign policies- all globalism. Neocon and Neolib are the same because of that. Postmodernity is itself the process of this disintegration. We see that the same thing is happening all over the world that is happening here with Trump; Brexit, the re-emergence of the Right in Europe, all mirror images of what we call the alt-right here. The reason it’s all happening at the same time all over the world is because it is the one process driving it, this breakdown of the old left-right axis.

5.) Now that the old axis is dead and that disintegration is complete, a new era is beginning. I believe I have understood the new political axis taking shape. I predict that the tertiary stage of late capital absorption will stall like the other two stages did, and a third world conflict will begin.

So in my theory, you see that every single thing that has happened since WW1 has fallen like a domino after a domino after a domino, including the rise of Trump and the alt-right. And the next logical domino to fall in this scheme is a third global conflict.

I will consider Switzerland.

Here’s the two ways this goes:

Clinton wins. Well the government is about out of cash and will have to cut benefits soon, before interest rates increase too much and China quits repurchasing bonds. But the the dependent class who uses those benefits are the one’s that would be responsible for Clinton’s election. [90 percent of Muslim migrants are in this class] So you think the BLM protesters are asswhipes, well just wait. In response, the alt-right, pissed about Trump’s defeat, will start engaging in protests of their own. Then we have a kind of civil war. What the communists called the “destabilization” of the target nation on which to host the ideological parasite. America eats itself alive and we lose our standing in the world-stage, and the base of operations for the tertiary capital is relocated abroad. The globalists are now preparing this transfer of tertiary capital (they don’t give a shit if the US eats itself, they have no true national bond and they will go wherever the money is) because they expect to defeat Trump. Perhaps their arrogance can be used against them. One example, ICANN passed and the US has given away a large amount of influence it had over the internet, opening it up to the influence of foreign governments. Brilliant move by the globalists. It could allow multiple separate Internets to emerge in control of different governments, dramatically impacting our economy in the US. Excellent way to prepare the transfer of tertiary capital from the US, which is presently the hub in the international banking system. The only reason they would be making these drastic preparations is that they actually do expect to defeat Trump- it’s not a bluff, it’s not Leftist posturing, which should be alarming to those who like me oppose them, and they expect the civil war-esque scenario to play out over pulling the legs from underneath the dependent class. It’s the end of the US.

Trump wins. The transition into the new political axis is completed, the absorption of capital stalls, global conflict. A true war of ideologies will begin: the three poles of the new axis, embodied by the US, Europe, and Russia. The possibility for a new world.

America is the last ground to defend. If it goes, there is nowhere left to defect to, to escape the globalist regime and mount a defense. Unless you want to go live in Antarctica. Therefor Trump must win.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:27 am
Hillary is far closer to being a fascist than Trump, but she is something worse, as fascism wasn’t ever aimed to exalt the deformed.
Trump has indeed said nothing fascist. He is only a nationalist entrepreneur. Probably the sanest candidate since JFK, who might have ended Vietnam if it wasnt for that Van Buren shit.

The narrative the Hillary machine is spinning is, as always, to blame the other of ones own sins. When she gets elected, we will see such repression as Hitler would not have dreamed of, in all continents that US does not suffer; anyone voting for Hillary is complicit in such atrocious crimes as never have seen the light of day - don’t. Just fucking vote for Trump, he is a sane American egoist. The best type of person to rule a world full of horrible creatures.

Trump and Putin are friendly, which speaks for Trump, as Putin is the worlds leading rationalist. Hillary is antagonizing Putin like there is no tomorrow, and I wish that was just a metaphor.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:38 am
Point blank, the truth is that Trump cannot be avoided. The people will be heard.

It is bad politics to throw an evil politics monster at him. Best to work with the man.

Take it from me, we tried to fight our own popular voice president, and it just made everything a million shades darker. We should have worked with the man.

That’s just me. Plus, I like Trump. In politics, it isn’t abut how smart you sound, it is how smart you can get away with being while sounding as stupid as you have to. And by stupid, I only mean not yet smart. So does ol’ Trump.


dionisius against the cross…
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 Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:45 am
I obviously like him too.

Many great leaders in the past were “buffoonish” or a bit of a clown, as Trump admittedly comes off as sometimes. It’s almost intentional on his part, with the hair and everything.

And about his “Muslim” ban- it’s actually a bar from migration coming from key regions in the world. It’s a power covered in the Alien and Sedition Acts and its recodification. (in 1918) This document was made under a similar situation, as we were compelled to assume the allegiance of the many French staying in the US during the war was to France, and reserved the right to deport them in the interest of preserving national security. Not fascism. We do not have to assume the allegiance of many of these Muslim migrants, because they openly proclaim hostility to the US and its principles of government. We should not allow a bunch of migrants hostile to us into our country, clothe and feed them at our own expense, then give them a voice and political power to act on their hostilities. That’s stupid. If a US citizen wants to subvert our government and national ethos, that’s fine, we have freedom of speech. But to allow foreign nations to send us their populace and in masse and allow them to dramatically alter the course of our elections: no.

Jefferson repealed this act in its original form, one thing I disagreed with him on.

The recodification of 1918 is still legally in effect: this is what Trump intends to use to accomplish his ban. This is not fascistic. It’s a perfectly sound application of executive power under existing law.

Now, Trump has also enigmatically talked about “going after the media.” In the original Alien and Sedition Acts it was illegal to publish statements critical of the US government: if they were provably false. And talking provably false nonsense about people is all the media does now, as they continuously evidence with regard to Trump himself.

It also made it very hard to become a US citizen- which is as it should be. If US citizenship and ethos is to mean anything, it must be hard to obtain. Anything easily obtained isn’t usually worth very much. These Muslims should have to prove to us that they don’t think Sharia should trump (pardon the pun) the US constitution in priority, that they don’t intend on having a daughter and surgically removing her clitoris to discourage sexual activity, that they haven’t participated in honor killings or the like, that they have no history of terrorist activity, etc.

As far as Trump sounding as dumb as he has to while being as smart as he can: he could have got on stage and explained all this reasoning and authority for the ban he wants. But he didn’t. It was more conducive to his winning the primary to be bombastic about it. And the point of this tactic Pezer alludes to is not to rally the passions of the masses: because Trump supporters all know about this legal basis for the ban, the only people who don’t know are the ones against Trump. The point of it is to allow him to fly under the radar of the media and the establishment figures, who will only start taking him seriously right around now, when he is close to winning.

“His proposals change daily.”

He was saying the same thing he is now 20-30 years ago in interviews. Clinton’s change daily.
Trump’s program as I said is not “machismo”, it is a reflection of a political transition into a new axis and the fact that new terms must be advanced to address a world vastly different from the one we were left with after the world wars. From another post:

Trump and what his supporters believe is very clear. (1) All utopian and Marxist thought is base and dysfunctional, for the Government must be diminished in the scope of its power, not given more power like the dems want: (2) the two parties are essentially the same when it comes to important issues like globalism- (Bush and Obama’s foreign policies and economics are essentially identical) they only diverge on completely apolitical and meaningless social issues that should be determined from the bottom up by individual communities and states not top down with federal imposition, like rather or not faggots can get married or the legality of pot, plus both parties have sold out their own voter bases and have enshrined outdated and masturbatory doxa that have nothing to do with America and have everything to do with their insular moral visions of what America should be. (3) Globalism is a paradigm that has done nothing but bankrupt our country and precipitate endless wars across the middle east, killing innumerable lives on all sides and must be stopped: it has fucked everyone over save for the corporatist vampires that feed on our political machinery and it has also, by upsetting the balance of power in the middle east, unleashed on the world a form of Islamicism that had been subdued and remained dormant for hundreds of years. (4) The nation state has historically proved the only thing capable of soothing the tendency of man toward war: nationalism has also proved that politics can go beyond mere economics and see through the binary party system and party politics in general and unite a people by a shared ethos. (5) The media and the whole political correctness movement mixed with the multiculturalism thing has changed our culture in the West in a negative way and it is basically just the newest incarnation of slave morality or moralism. These issues are very specific and Trump’s standing on them is very clear. On these issues there’s no middle ground, you either accept their validity or not: and on these points I see Trump as perfectly and completely- correct. The ideal of the West, of western civilization, is the highest ideal yet attained by humanity, and I will not see it destroyed by pathetic spineless moral tyrants and the Muslims whose sand covered nutcases they can’t keep their useless mouths off of.


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 Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:32 am
As I said in the two scenarios, if Clinton wins then the world economic crisis will not arrive, a US one will, tertiary capital will be reabsorbed and the US will fall out of its central position in the world economy, the dying political era and axis will be zombified and put in place as the mask for a hyper statist regime, (as Fixed indicated) and globalism will continue its march over the world- only with nowhere left to retreat to this time. That eventuality cannot be allowed, otherwise this will be the lamentation for future ages looking back on the opportunity we had right now to bring Western civilization into its next stage of evolution:

youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0heBdYF04

TOPKEK

" This really tickles my snozzberries. A great memeological sermon for the post-apocalypse; something to gather the masses in metapolitical prayer around."

The course of human history is being altered in the next 37 days: days.to/election-day-in-us/2016

And really about Trump’s bombastic behavior: look at previous elections. Adams railed about Jefferson’s use of prostitutes, Jefferson published pamphlets claiming that Adams was a hermaphrodite in order to mock his idea that publishing provably false information against the federal government should be illegal. Fucking hilarious. Then Adams comes back and does the same thing but more extreme in order to mock Jefferson’s mocking of the idea, by publishing material stating Jefferson had died so that’s a good reason not to vote for him.

Trump’s behavior isn’t anything we haven’t seen before- in fact by comparison it’s modest."

"And for my own convenience, I wanted to note that my description of the second stage of capital absorption where monpolization begins, mirrors Braudel’s understanding.

[Braudel argued that capitalists have typically been monopolists and not, as is usually assumed, entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets. He argued that capitalists did not specialize and did not use free markets, thus diverging from both liberal (Adam Smith) and Marxian interpretations. In Braudel’s view, the state in capitalist countries has served as a guarantor of monopolists rather than a protector of competition, as it is usually portrayed. He asserted that capitalists have had power and cunning on their side as they have arrayed themselves against the majority of the population.[22] ]

This second stage I will then start calling “Braudelian capitalism”. The first is as I pointed out similar to Lenin’s view of it.

The state gets involved in the second stage in a way similar to what Braudel describes, then in the third stage states enter into the international banking system based on debt, with the US at the center, allowing the current globalist regime to put itself in place. The understanding of capital going through certain definite stages of state-absorption is integral.

This three-stage mechanism is on top of a centuries long process in which capitalism got to the point that the first stage could be initiated. European feudal society was based in a redistribution of wealth and resources, but in America a transformation took place: the central redistribution involved, not “capital” generally conceived, not goods and resources in the abstract, but rather, surplus-value. Hence our slave plantations; the idea was to get more value than is required to feed the given industry. But this surplus-value thereby produced tends to only pass through social strata in the respective society producing it, creating a wealth disparity between not so much classes of people as geographical regions, until it can no longer be exported in order to generate value from the host society’s true capital: (hence the capital is lost to the process of state-absorption) slave labor created certain things, then those things were transferred to the North where slaves could not prove profitable, where the surplus-value could not be created. Eventually, the surplus-value accumulates in the form of a wealth disparity between, in this case, the Northern and Southern US: that caused the civil war. But leading up to WW1, this stalling of the capital-absorption took place on a much larger scale, as I’ve gone over: in Lenin’s language, the surplus-value could not be effectively exported, and from that economic destabilization, WW1 began. Then the second stage, Braudelian capitalism, took effect, stalled, and brought on WW2.

In this second stage, the State gets involved as Braudel says. But for a different reason. The State must make sure that surplus-value does not stagnate in a disparity between social strata and remains exportable. Monpolization begins. Once that failed, an international banking system was created in order to ensure the exportability of surplus-value: through egregious unpayable national debts between those countries participating in the globalized system. As long as the terrific debts hold, surplus-value keeps being created and exported between nations, thereby generating value from the true capital holdings of those states, preventing the capital from being lost to the ongoing state-absorption. And it is this third stage that is now ending, or stalling rather.

So you really have to clearly separate certain ideas in this: value, surplus-value, [began in the first stage in America, ie. slave-labor and plantations] exportable value, [what is needed to generate value from a state’s actual capital- without it, capital becomes useless and economic destabilization begins] capital, [land, resources, etc.] capital-absorption, [began in the second stage with Braudelian monopolization] and state-absorption of capital. [ie. tertiary capital proper, also the fundamental mechanism driving the three stages from behind: the process whereby the State gains utilization over actual capital, a nation’s resources. Reaches its peak in the globalist banking system around national debts.]

This is the force behind the global-state, behind globalism, the full relinquishing of the world’s capital to the State’s control. This process can be broken right now, when it is weakest. If Clinton loses anyway.
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 Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:40 pm
Also, how did the State intervene to help monopolization in the second stage?

Taxation. Complicate the tax codes and make it so that very rich people at the head of companies alone can afford to hire the legions of lawyers necessary to negotiate a lesser tax burden with the State, while the common man cannot do so, he can’t afford to pay for the legal expertise. The common man will continue to lose out while the companies concentrate more wealth. That is a big way this monopolization is given assistance by 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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:25 pm
The tertiary stage will finally rearrange the whole human scheme into a pyramid, if we give it a few nudges at the pressure points you identify. VO can provide the means to the means of applying the pressure, Capable may be able to produce the direct means, the math that the Germans must come to adopt. The thing to replace nano banking, which is the ionosphere that keeps the globalist molecule together, is a system of growth of wealth that exceeds the old slow Saturnian harvest cycles and allows for the turbo charged profiting that our times titan Uranus requires - the technocratic fruit-squeezer in service of which the third world operates, but instead of expanding that third world by producing essentially worthless products, reducing it by producing worthy items. In the purest most Greek sense, new architecture, new cities.

Human deserts are the philosophers gold mine.

Hence the funk.

Meditate on this ideal Cultivation of the ‘earth-molecule’, a term Pezer haphazardly produced last year, and now rejects somewhat - it is however the self-creative poesis-genius identified by value ontology that forges such concepts. The earth molecule, to which the blood wants to stick.

[…T]he cauldron that Europe is, has been, and likely will continue to be. The continent was never intended as a whole like the US is, and for it to become a whole it would have to be entirely free in its diversity, whole upholding a few basic common values, which I reckon must be values of ‘madness’; look for fucks sake at all the Europeans of some worth; have not all of them been violently mad, and madly violent?

We will reseek and refind ourselves instinctually in Rome; many of us hope for a full scale attack from the muslims. The fundamental right of a European thus far has been to fight to the death for his values. The way the wars were ended put a stop to that, but not to the instinct.

Instinct is what always determines the outcomes of war. Why the naxis lost, is because they did not have instinct, but only intellect. The French had instinct, De Gaulle ws purely instinctive. Churchill acted on instinct and so did Stalin. FDR swooped in at the right moment and claimed victory, but it wasnt balls on his part, but calculation. That is not European.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:56 pm
Also properly consider this force.
youtube.com/watch?v=uOS1SFt2VbM

Incidentally, this was shot during the second month of BTL - the first one I was in Vienna.

But I consider all of my travels in an ontological light.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:27 pm
What I expect is that Europe is actually the locus of the tertiary stage, the axis Italy - Scandinavia, running through Switzerland, France, Germany the Netherlands, England and Scotland. A rather inscrutable axis of industrial property has embedded itself there in the geography, and at the plexus of it is CERN.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:47 am
What I’m expressing or trying to, Parodites, is that by the very act of identifying this dynamic as you have, which is an astonishing feat, you have created or at least identified the possibility of anticipating such collapse in a philosophical framework - which I do in all fairness happen to have ready just for such a crisis point.
Sauwelios and I have long been speculating on the collapse of Europe, and some very fertile ideas have come up. But I am most interested now in seeing more of this triadic dynamic explicated.

I am almost tempted to go and read Plato with a greater seriousness -


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:06 am
Parodites wrote:

youtube.com/watch?v=Xl0heBdYF04

TOPKEK

Breathtaking actually. A new thing.

Does this reconcile in any way with what you once titled speculative ethics?


" 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
    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 Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:47 am
This whole system I am outlining, it’s not completely abstract. It is happening right now. Over the course of weeks and days, so my abstraction is responding in real time rather than to something written 1,000 years ago. So bringing my own philosophy, anti-dialectic, speculative ethics, the daemon, into the system is a gradual process.

Indeed as I pointed out, the current regime is preparing to transfer the tertiary capital from the US to Europe, before they sink America and Clinton wins, bringing us into the same statist order that reigns in Europe. They will enlarge the left voter base by immigration also, crushing all possible peaceful rebellion to the global state going forward. Then the current system can endure, with the hub of the tertiary stage reorganized somewhere in Europe, their Cern project among other things would help.

If Trump wins, this transfer will not be allowed to happen, and the third stage will stall as the former two did, bringing on the world conflict I envision, along with the transition from the current political axis into the entirely new one I have conceived.

This election is the last one that matters: if you want the last man, vote Clinton; rebirth, vote Trump. I don’t think many truly understand the gravity of this election, what is at risk. Trump is an expression of the political breakdown in the old axis- he himself is an avatar pushed on top of all the bubbles. He was in the right place at the right time to seize this movement that he himself did not create. A centuries long process, this tertiary mechanism that has brought us into the great wars and the myth of ideology, which has governed the formation of nations and society for generations- is culminating in its victory over the human spirit or in its defeat, in a matter of weeks.
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 Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:04 am
Today marks the new Hebrew year, the year of all this culmination: 5,777.

Obvious playground for numerologists.

Check em trips: youtube.com/watch?v=4sYFj8SnG98

Triple digits is a sign of good luck.

kek, I just realized I was viewer number 7,555 of that video.

KEK VULT; SIC ERIT.

On 4chan with posts related to Donald Trump and KEK, the cases of double and triple digit post numbers (randomly assigned) started skyrocketing, dubs and trips being a sought after prestige there indicating good tidings.


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 Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:46 am
Those in power who are now trying to intentionally sink the US economy and vote in Clinton, preparing for the transfer of tertiary capital to Europe and counting on Trump’s defeat, are making a big mistake- even if Trump fails. Even with what you said about Europe, I doubt that Europe will be able to sustain the tertiary stage and become the new hegemon after the US self destructs under Clinton. I don’t think China or Russia can. Obviously the fucking Middle East can’t. So if Trump fails, we will actually have something worse than the victory of the global state over human spirit and merely the last man: what will happen is, the tertiary capital will not merely stall but collapse entirely, hegemonization will reverse, the world conflict will continue to escalate until it reaches nuclear war, and humanity will face a 1000 year dark age taking us back to feudal society only with nuclear fallout. If we do not succeed, if Trump fails, then the third war will be the last, and the three stage mechanism does not stall- it reverses, and human history with it. Humanity cannot survive in a feudal arrangement with nuclear fallout.


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 Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:30 pm
And one thing about everyone’s favorite, good ol’ Dolfy.

The people using the image of Hitler in memes and whatnot- they are not actually Nazis. They are using his image the same way that Satanists use Satan’s image, that is, ironically; they are using him as a kind of archetypal rebel figure, who stood up against the de-humanization of machine and technology, but also against the dehumanization through the Church, drawing on older more purely “Aryan” religions in the pre-history before the rise of Christianity, and fought both the communists and the capitalists, and who, in the end, was struck down by a kind of grand conspiracy of world powers and thrown into the abyss of historical condemnation like God disposed of Satan. The idea that Hitler was simply a psychotic maniac who wanted to kill Jews and a lot of the German population were also psychotic maniacs who brought him into power- is stupid. Hitler fulfilled a historical function, namely- attempting a third political project to compete with communism and capitalism: the third path opened and he quite simply- walked down it. That path went nowhere. He lost. He lost, and after the German population was decimated by war (that our own country helped initiate) and were cannibalizing themselves to escape starvation, after he had a nervous breakdown and ordered the destruction of all his own factories and industry to deny them to the enemy, he had the Jews he imprisoned originally for deportation physically exterminated and thus committed the atrocities that we now foolishly take were the cause of the Reich’s formation- they were actually the result of its defeat. Hitler tried to unplug Germany from the globalization of the world (because it was having a disastrous impact on Germany’s economy and sovereign rights as a nation-state, the same way it’s having a disastrous impact on America, the Treaty being one of many damages incurred) and re-create an independent state neither communistic or capitalistic: he was, as the Russians are now, in my axis- an anti-globalist pro-statist nationalist. He tried to unplug Germany from the spider-web of world powers, and those world powers, including the US, attacked. I’m as anti-statist as they come and reject the political intention behind the Reich, (not the anti-globalism though) plus I reject its theoretical underpinning in the Heideggarian de-struktion of Christianity, but I analyze historical figures and events, not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of what function they fulfilled. I don’t give a shit if he was evil or good, that doesn’t help us understand anything. All I want to know is what his historical function was.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:32 pm
I started out, as grandson to a butchered Jewess, my Nietzschean studies by trying to identify with the nazis as deeply as I felt I needed to to see where it all came from. The factors you describe were dominant, and Hitler did first make numerous attempts to deport the Jews to Madagascar and other far away places, and even considered Palestine. But none of these lands would take them.

The result of WWII was that the Jews, after thousands of years, got their country back. As a Nietzschean, I am compelled to say that the sacrifice at least is very far from having been for nothing - unlike most genocidal sacrifices. The advantsage of Israel over a great Ottoman-Saudi-Persian world is obviously not entirely unambiguous, but I believe in the historical arc that the Jews carried is of vital philosophical importance; I want that the temple be rebuilt - so as to include the Mosque on its main plateau.

Kissinger and Brzezinski

I’m interested in the reason why Kissinger, about four years back, predicted that Israel would no longer exist ten or twenty years from then. I recommend his book World Order, he has grown subtle, and always ways the most subtle statesman. He is the opposite of the Obama/Hillary camp, is the one who has restored contact with China under Nixon, is the sovereign advocate of a balance of power, rather than globalism. Kissinger is, I think, very much a Jeffersonian of the Nuclear age; that is to say a Jeffersonian forced to think in terms of preemptive interventions. The other East-European high up in DC is Brzezinski, the essential Globalist, whose strategy is destabilization, destruction, scorched Earth method. He has been the dominant force of the Clinton/Bush/Obama line. That is to say the post-cold war US. He got this power by creating the Taliban and so having a large stake in ending the USSR. He could definitely be praised for this on some terms - he should be affirmed at least, as much as Hitler and any butcher that can not be undone - we have to work with the consequences.

Nietzsche and the USA

We have to affirm that we are standing on the shoulders of genocidal men - we have to affirm this precisely because we want the mass-killing to end. There is a machine, of which Clinton is a function, that she can not help but obey, that needs to be brought under control. Trump can do this. Only a man with very many legitimate and illegitimate powers in his pocket can influence the course of this machine.

When this process, which is the alternative to the global political meltdown that Parodites identifies, sets off, it will be all hands on deck; consider now Anglosaxon power as philosophical in the baser, but still proper sense. Hobbes, Locke - in their rhetoric, the most spineless philosophers of all time, yet in their effect the most directly obeyed ones. Diplomacy versus the powers; five philosophers must now attempt to produce a document that can aid Trump and his successors in designing a Constitution that is entirely sufficient to the principle behind the Declaration, which is obviously nothing other than self-valuing logic.

Nietzsche had to appear before the US could be fully ratified as human. Nietzsche has no authority over the US, as the loftiness of its rich soil, vast skies and fresh, vigorous, shaman-rich bloodlines fully exceeds the joys of the Europe that gave birth to him. This is his uncontested nobility; from the dark cauldron of Europe, a vision appeared that does justice to the concept of a higher man.

It makes sense that this man has to be birthed far away from the old smells. The first smelling of an infants - consider that smell is carried by light electricity, by ionic fields, and consider that these fields pervade all the circumferences of our star; the sun is actually in all living scents; when something stinks, it means the sun isnt in it.

Stank - funk - to bring to sun deeper into the Earth. But all that is for Europe!

It is telling that N wrote as little about the US as he did because of what he did write. Most significantly Ive always found an entry in his notebooks that I must paraphrase - The requirement of creating difficult conditions bring about high men; man must suffer danger in the streets and in the heart.

That’s what Jefferson didn’t mention, but damned well knew, on some level - all of these men were, after all, jurists - so they knew the consequences of their legalistic designs, the very consequences that Parodites mentioned.

Inequality has been implicit in the US code because the conditions on which the equality was superimposed had the shape of a mountainrange; what was considered a system of equal rights was a system of radical wealth differences, within which one was free to continue as one pleased. There never was a beginning; there was only restraint from wealthy men.

That, in kabalistic terms, is Chesed, Mercy, the sphere of Jupiter.


" 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
    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 Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:52 pm
I too believe in fulfilling the Judaeo-Christian arc. As I wrote here:

The complete European [Aryan] was looked for behind the distortion imposed on it by the foreign races- first distorted by the Asians through Plato, then the Jews in Rome, and finally Christianity, by Heidegger and the Nazis. Nietzsche got an intimation of it. Indeed that distortion took place, as I have been talking about recently in the threads on globalism. But Christianity became a necessary dream in which the original intuition by the Doric tribes of pre-Hellenes, the true original soul of Europe, was matured in secrecy: secrecy from itself. But with liberal secular humanism and the two great wars, Christianity has been lost to a rabble of disjointed sects, and to atheism. And the current liberal political schema, with the collapse of Christianity, has taken us into the myth of ideology fully, and the false politics of globalization and statism, which has led to the cultural annihilation of Europe.

So to get back to the original Doric intuition- Being’s revelation to dasein in Heidegger’s language, one must go through Christianity, rather than behind with something like his de-struktion of historical forms of being and metaphysic, or Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values.

I do not know exactly where Islam fits in, but I do not take Islam as the consummation or fulfillment of Judaeo-Christianity. It seems to be a regression into more ancient Judaic forms with some Christian appropriations applied to an imperialistic expansionist theocratic structure that never existed in Judaism itself.

And by the way, Trump could be a lot more coherent and presidential- if he wanted to or felt it was necessary to win. As in this:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rksd80-FCAw


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:48 am
Yes, the beauty of the Doric is unsurpassed. The nobility of whatever men they were is unfathomable, only through a curtain of tears does one approach the stone, it is physiological, stronger than man as he is now. All that came from it was justified in Alexander, his conquest of the playground, setting fires of knowledge here and there throughout the wild Earth, how far he surpassed his ‘master’, the naive Aristotle who knew the Ram would run into a sea - no but the Ram ran into something vaster, a limit much more treacherous and final; India. The depth of the Earth continues there undisputed, regardless of conflict between East and West - Alexander actually reached India with an army out of Greece to perish of pure spirit. I think this is our only example, the only bravery that counts; to go into the wild. Whatever is the wild to each of us. And none of us will ever forsake that call.

Hail The Anger of Zeus and the Plague Sending Apollon; because this is the good, as the ancients understood it, as they let it erode them, into this doric order, which takes on more splendor as forces smash and grind their souls into it.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:52 am
Indeed the Doric tribes conquered the other Hellenes and replaced their culture with what we now call “classical” Greece. Scholars cannot properly explain how this “invasion” by the Heracleidae took place, (it is described not as an invasion but as a return from exile) who claimed descent from Herakles himself, though I ascribe it to the Doric Greeks experiencing a direct intimation of Being’s affirmative content, the transcendent. From this first transcendent revelation, the first philosophers emerged, each with a fully formed, unique, spontaneous episteme or guiding image of thought, ie. Parmenides, Heraclitus, all the pre-Socratics; they each advanced a perfectly independent philosophos from seemingly, nowhere. Then that revelation was lost with dissolution into foreign ways of thinking, then all the Platonizing began and the Judaeo-Christian arc took off, though not merely as a forgetfulness of the original revelation as in Heidegger, but as a protective womb.

At the first revelation of the transcendent order, each philosopher intuited a unique image of Being, and this intuition became the mythos, the original, infinitely fertile and creative mythic consciousness in which the human Word grounds itself in its own operative capacity. Schelling says that Nature “stupified” the Doric mind, and from this induced silence or passivity of thought, the Gods appeared: the mythos in essence arises as an autofiguration of man’s place in nature and nature’s place in man- as cosmos. That is what the Gods are, living symbols: the gods are liminal boundaries upon which the sensible crosses over into imaginative, and the transcendent crosses over into the immanent.

[As limen to the transcendent, human thought is its own illusory center and
boundary, self-evaporating at the margin of experience, whereon it is drawn up through
the scale from nihility to Being as Jean Wahl indicated, gaining if no real content about
the world in which it is estranged, then at least the words with which to pronounce its
solitude, namely as the very Law whose commandment should constitute our
intersubjective medium.]

Levi-Strauss calls this the break in consciousness needed to bring about representative power or logic- the logos, the complimentary faculty to the mythos. The mythos, through which man recognizes his own creative potential and infinitude in the order of Nature, while simultaneously recognizing within himself the power-active of the natural world, when bound to the logos, inaugurates the mythologos or mythology in its self-grounding: the first basic episteme emerges, the Ontos, as man hypostatizes his own essence as the essence of nature and vice versa, and with that episteme a true image of Being was formed, that is, a philosophy.

[The world, that is, being-in-time
or the ontos, is merely a self-nullifying tension of Being within Becoming,
constituted precisely as the movement of the daemon through
corporeal birth-death, never attaining to Being itself, or rising from the erotic premonition
of Being’s revelation to transcendence. This never-attaining is the silence in response to
which man created myth, as in Vico, pairing it by means of the reflective mytho-logos to
the tragic poeticism of Holderlin’s imagination which he mistakenly ascribed to
subjectivity: here this tragic language is ascribed to Nature itself, a nature without unity- a
nature in which sadness and horror have their register in the philosophic canon, just as it
is presented in Schelling’s universe, while man, fathoming within himself the internal
division which characterizes all things and breaks up the scaffold of beings in nature, ie.
the principle of death and life, has gained the possibility of transcendence and reification,
of reinvesting the Ground of nothingness with a positive content. Nature itself is then
given as the primordial text of the Myth, and this myth of nature, that of Being and time,
is written in the language of tragic poeticism, the language of this self-defeating struggle
for Being from out of the void, the language of this never-attaining silence. ]

Given this, why was it necessary for the Doric revelation to protectively hide itself from itself in the arc of Judaeo-Christianity? So that one day we might accomplish

[
the task of fully developing the concatenation and combination of the inner
and outer worlds of man and nature, involuting and extro-verting the original image of
Being into the multitude of created forms, until at last, as Levi-Strauss said, the whole
symphony of combinations stands abrupted at the pinnacle of those combinatorial
resources and collapses into silence. Human speech does not name anything, it verbalizes
or speaks itself into existence and asserts the ground of its own genesis, which is silence:
in the beginning was the word and the word was god and the word was with god. The first
model or image of Being to which man awoke from out of the animal paradise, namely
the model of civilization itself as told by the Sumerians upon the mount Eridu- the image
of creation, which became the sight of our first city, afforded an initial break with nature
and organo-affective unity into mythic consciousness as Levi-Strauss called it, and we
may consider our language to have developed so as to reconstitute the intrapsychical
dimension after this Fall, after this reflective silence as lies both before and behind us,
after the ecstasis, as within a new medium unaccounted for by the natural world- that is,
within the medium of language itself. In summa: the discontiguity of techne and
language, of being and time, of the symbol and the symbolized, of the mythos and the
logos, of the model and the descriptive sign-system, is not the barrier to thought but the
very engine of consciousness and of concept-creation. ]

The silence following the death of God on the Cross, this has not been understood yet.

[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound
to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word
about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has
to happen: he or she must expect.” This expectation, this passivity which is transformed
in activity back into passivity and vice versa, is precisely mythic consciousness, which
through the closed circle of the logos is opened up to Being. Giambattista Vico draws
attention to the semantic discontiguity built into the very concept of mythology, insofar as
it combines two antithetical words- myth and logos, the structure of narrative and that of
truth, mimesis and reason, the poetic and the rational, the fiction and the reckoning. His
thesis is that logos cannot ground itself, a thoroughly modern problem that only
reappeared in the light of Nietzsche and Heidegger: the problem of philosophy’s self-grounding,
its immanent locus, the point of departure for the vicious circle of the logos.
This is why the logos must enter into relation with myth, for the fictive or mimetic
genesis of what I call the techne or model of the cosmos provides the logos and language
with a point of departure upon which to begin verbalizing or announcing itself. Vico
asserts that the primordial silence of man becomes explicable by the logos from the
standpoint of the mythic model, such that language can begin to evolve as the
externalization of the structure of logos in relation to its mythic foundation in techne.
When language first appeared it was, as Vico points out through the lens of Egypt, in the
form of hieroglyphics, still bound to the natural imagery around whose silence it had been
first inaugurated, enclothed in this way by the shadow of the object, or, in Kantian
language, as so many empirical images not yet configured by transcendental imagination
in a schematism of non-sensible images, in a state more or less of sur-reflection as
Merleau-Ponty phenomenologically designated it- that is, an account of the effects of
reflection in passivity to the spectacle. The specifying and identity forming power of
language- the general language of Being established by logos, when first confronting the
domain of mythic silence before the model of creation- before the cosmic image of Being
itself, spoke the lesser images of beings, of the hieroglyphy, into existence through the
medium of human consciousness. The heiroglyphic stage is the mimetic stage of language
and is the one that most fascinated Mallarme, who identified the mimetic act as a
perpetual allusion that does not shatter the mirror, or one which installs a space of pure
fiction- that is, myth. Within the immanent plane of language so it happened that the
logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual
beings within one another, through a concatenation of the natural world, producing men
with the heads of dogs and so on, with the sign-symbol emerging as the discontiguous
threshold of transition between techne and logos, myth and reason, the model and the
word, and all the gods themselves upon the first pronouncement of the mystic syllable
EL.]

And thus the anti-dialectic I outlined is my formalization of this “Within the immanent plane of language [mythologos] so it happened that the logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual beings within one another…[this submergence is what myth became within the circle of the logos, the mythos on its own was a pure affirmation of Being in innumerable unconnected forms]” In essence: a logic in which Being does not contain the seed of its conceptual opposite or negation as it does in Hegel, where Being has an entirely affirmative content.


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"

"C -
Quote :
As a matter of pure taste, Trump is lower than low. No serious thinker, no one with any shred of heart left, could ever cultivate any sort of taste for him. Nor am I interested in petty utilitarian ideological (religious) moralizing and metaphysical prophesizing about “what will happen if so and so is elected”, like we’re some sort of fucking partisan news commentator on CNN.

I have developed a strong taste for him, so I am forced to disregard this as false. Everything is about taste to me. The basic valuing - I don’t rely on anything other than that anymore.

Quote :
Philosophy used to be about taste. I have no idea what it is anymore, but certainly it hasn’t been about taste ever since Trump and nationalism came onto the docket.

I’ll explain a bit - Trump ‘tastes like’ organic life to me, Hillary tastes to me like rotting corpses.
That is not some rhetorical trick Im trying to play to bend this to taste where it isnt about it - it is.

My absolute rejection of Hillary is purely taste; she is purely degenerate, pure human rot.

If that isn’t a matter of taste, nothing is.

Life is about taste. Not just philosophy. Taste is basic organic valuing. I never say anything here that isnt a direct expression of my tastes. That is the main ethics.

Quote :
Trump isn’t a solution to anything, he is a fake populist anti-intellectual puppet and empty sour of brainless reactionary meme-speak with zero political knowledge or experience, and he caters to the absolute worst impulses in people. He is a cheap religious demagogue type, and not only that but he represents the very problems that he is supposedly wanting to fix. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing, plain and simple. There is no magical golden age going to be ushered in yet because a loudmouth bigot with no experience except in business (ending in multiple massive failures and culminating in him bragging that it is smart to cheat the very system he wants to run), and yes as I said in my post but which went unremarked on Trump is little different from the type of fascist totalitarian dictator personality that we already know so well. It’s all there in how these people think, or rather how they do not think. The guy is a fucking walking caricature of himself, and he does not at all represent any serious attempt to solve any of our problems, from globalism and immigration on down the line. As I said also in post and which here also went unremarked on as far as I can tell, Trump is the wet dream desire of the globalists. He plays right into their hands, only this kind of monumental ignorance and will to stupidity and low-level thinking and emoting could serve narrow ends of those already in power.

Trump is deeply intelligent, just look at the hearing Parodites posted last, plus no one is proposing a “golden age”, but rather two types of crisis.

The US problems as I see them are only financial clutzery, spending too much on shit that causes only death and bankrupcy. Since Bush Sr. this has been the structural policy. Trump has already proven to be a massive genius compared to all these morons, Bush. Clinton, Bush, Obama - what fucking witless butchershop clerks. Unbelievable. You guys should throw them all out of the country. Human waste.

Quote :
To be quite clear, I have literally zero interest in ideology. None whatsoever. As for Hegel, I find it amusing the trepidation he inspires, the loathing and dismissal. From where does this come, I wonder? Well I don’t really need to wonder, I happen to know.

I only said that I too have read him (some) and found him impressive.

Quote :
which I usually refer to as “pathologies”, I am inclined, by my taste, to turn away.

Ive respected that, this is why I didn’t press you to address Trump in the light I see him. But my tastes have found in this place, as always, the one sane and clean place in the world.

Quote :
My hope is that after the election psyches can calm down a little bit, make some space for serious philosophy again.

Ive always said that my aim for my philosophy is to be implemented into politics - that is also the title of this thread - thus in every election season I will heat up, and ‘get my hands dirty’ - I respect that this is not appropriate to all of our inclinations - and I certainly never meant to suggest you actually value Hillary. It’s just, youve been forceful in expressing your disdain for anyones taste for Trump - I had no choice to respect that, as taste can not be argued.

My tastes are so strong, produce such strong reactions, that I am always restraining my output by 90 percent, regardless where I am. But if I am allowed to speak slightly on taste, Hillary makes Hitler smell like fresh apple pie to me. The way she stood there incredulously grinning in the debate - Ive never seen anything quite as disgusting. There is no animal that I would consider lower, and no shit I would regard as more abject, than her and her running mate.

I can almost literally smell the corpses she makes and the shit in the pants of these corpses. Ive seen her work everywhere since I was a kid. Death, death, death, death, death, and sanctimonious grinning. It’s hard to endure.

I don’t smell death on Trump. Obama at this point is just a greying, decaying skeleton with some shreds of other peoples caramelized meat on him. A terminator whose only virtue is that he has a better taste in style than Hillary - which is actually a disadvantage to me, as it convinced me and so many that he actually had taste of character, and we all got him into power. All of it is taste, politics and all things that are of nature.

I see in Trump the opposite - no taste in style (look at the Trump Tower) but definitely taste in Character (look at him spending his life as a builder in New York).

The following statement pertains strictly to what I experienced during my life as US foreign policy; post Vietnam US presidency has been a matter of fundamentally bad taste. Most of them have been butchers of a genocidal order, and all of them have been using the word “peace” and “freedom” and “human dignity” while sending whole peoples into the darkest deathfate.

Trump is the first one Ive witnessed that does not use this language. He is the first USA president to emerge from below that surface of death and appear human.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:01 pm; edited 1 time 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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:57 am
Yes this does somewhat come down to taste, however I think taste can and should be argued.

I see no need to defend, or even attack Hillary very much. We know exactly what she is, a piece of the neoliberal school of thought currently running things. A vote for her is a vote for status quo. I am working on an analysis of this neoliberal model and as I said, it at least must make its pretenses to truth even when it is lying, especially when it is lying. Of course no philosopher could support this model. But in my view Trump is far worse. He is onlt an outsider in the sense he doesn’t know what he is doing, and that is even more terrifying because we would entrust him to a task for which he is entirely unprepared both in experience and intellectually, namely we would trust him to dismantle the neoliberal global state. I don’t think he can do that nor would he want to (why would he, he is heavily leveraged in international business already.)

He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. That is demagoguery fascism 101, to scapegoat certain groups like that. The Right in US always tries to blame the poor, minorities for the country’s problems, culminating in the kind of anti-decadence moralism that gripped Heidegger with his support of Hitler. I see similar logic a thing work here. “Things would be great if we could just get all those (Mexicans, Chinese, Muslims, poor people, Jews…) out of the way.” Its just not realistic to look a thing things like that.

I choose not to supporr either candidate because either one violates basic principle values of what I see as fundamental to western civilization and reason proper. I absolutely reject the false dichotomy of EITHER Clinton OR Trump. This false dichotomy itself is precisely the problem: trump and clinton as the two only serious candidates IS the problem, or rather represents the deeper problem. Neither is a solution.


“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:14 pm
Quote :

I see no need to defend, or even attack Hillary very much. We know exactly what she is, a piece of the neoliberal school of thought currently running things. A vote for her is a vote for status quo. I am working on an analysis of this neoliberal model and as I said, it at least must make its pretenses to truth even when it is lying, especially when it is lying. Of course no philosopher could support this model. But in my view Trump is far worse. He is onlt an outsider in the sense he doesn't know what he is doing, and that is even more terrifying because we would entrust him to a task for which he is entirely unprepared both in experience and intellectually, namely we would trust him to dismantle the neoliberal global state. I don't think he can do that nor would he want to (why would he, he is heavily leveraged in international business already.)

I disagree. Trump has made his fortune himself (with far less of a starting capital than a US president gets to spend) and Im sure all the presidents that came before since pre-war presidents have known less about what they were doing with money. All of them have been gigantic fuckups. All good things in the US have been set up before WWII, except the computer, which was built to construct the H bomb.

Not a single post FDR president has given the appearance of knowing what they were doing in the least. All of them have many pointless deaths on their conscience. Eisenhower had some idea - but no power to address what he saw - and Nixon was the least bad of the rest. But Trump is in a unique position as a non-bureaucrat, non insider-to-failure to break this ghastly status quo that has been going on since before JFK thought he was running the country.

Quote :
He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. That is demagoguery fascism 101, to scapegoat certain groups like that. The Right in US always tries to blame the poor, minorities for the country’s problems, culminating in the kind of anti-decadence moralism that gripped Heidegger with his support of Hitler. I see similar logic a thing work here. “Things would be great if we could just get all those (Mexicans, Chinese, Muslims, poor people, Jews…) out of the way.” Its just not realistic to look a thing things like that.

Without wanting to be annoying, I haven’t heard him say any of these things. He says things about many nations and several ideologies, but all of these are pertinent to some concrete problem he perceives. It is true what he says about Chinese politics, that they are outplaying the us. He is openly calling them geniuses for that, because he understands that is what they are.

Also be careful mentioning the Jews here correctly- Trump is very supportive of them and of Israel.

I did hear Hillary say these things about all the groups I am part of. (Whites, men, Trump supporters, etc).

Quote :
I choose not to supporr either candidate because either one violates basic principle values of what I see as fundamental to western civilization and reason proper. I absolutely reject the false dichotomy of EITHER Clinton OR Trump. This false dichotomy itself is precisely the problem: trump and clinton as the two only serious candidates IS the problem, or rather represents the deeper problem. Neither is a solution.

This moves into territory where we can find agreement.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:30 pm
When I talk about the form of demagoguery fascism I mean something specific. This is a certain kind of appeal that has very little to do with actual policies. The contents are irrelevant to the form, the contents (specified issues, policies, real problems) are just a means to the end of (fake) populist appeal. Trump changes his mind on issues not just because he doesn’t have a clear grasp on them (his brand of radical right wing Limbaugh Sean Hannity talk radio nonsense ideology, and trust me I’ve heard him on Hannity many times) but because he doesn’t really care about those specific issues. He seriously thinks that we just need to “be tough” and things will get better.

Many of these following points still stand:

"We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. "

The function of The Will of the People in a democracy is not to know the answers to the many complexities and problems of modern society; the function is precisely negative in general and positive in specific: 1) Negative: to serve as a check on those already in power, that if they screw up too badly the people will toss them out on their asses, and 2) Positive: to ground those who are in power in at least a baseline state of representing the people in general through popular vote. The fact that people in democracy vote isn’t because the people should or do know what is best or how best to solve problems, it is precisely formal, to instantiate ground-level Representation of leadership to that society which it leads. But again the other and only primary function of the democratic people is simply to act as a check against severe abuses of power.

This fake populism and nationalism of believing that “the people” somehow know what is best and how to solve society’a problems is just not true at all, it is even a perversion of the true function of the people to their political system. Most Trump supporters only care about one issue, bringing back unskilled labor jobs such as manufacturing. Anxiety about job losses in unskilled labor is prettt much the only serious concern for most Trump voters, and all of his pandering on issues like scapegoating certain groups is aimed decidedly at stoking that anxiety.

Btw my comment about Jews on that list of “undesirables” was in reference to Hitler, not to Trump.


“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:45 pm
I have addressed many of theses issues in my own terms - we need to respect here that we all have our terms.

Here is what I see; Trump is catering to a traditional conservative ‘right wing’ segment of the electorate to get them to vote for him. I have seen dozens of lengthy interviews with him from decades back, where he very evidently is a deeply competent and rational man. Very impressive.

If he would act as intelligent as he is, no American would vote for him. Americans structurally vote for morons or fascists.

The other issues you raise are also perceived differently by me; I have left Europe because mass import of sick ideologies made it impossible to live there as a human being without getting your throat slit. Granted, the US is larger than Holland and would not get so clogged, people could still do what they want in deep backlands. But in general it’s a bad idea to import nazis, muslims, or other people aborted in their humanity by some non-human ideology, into a country that has many unemployed people. It is just sick and murderous.

I dont know what is wrong with addressing the very basis of American freedom and prosperity; low entry construction jobs.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:52 pm
Regarding Islam.

I showed my film, that I made in Amsterdam with a muslim kid, which launched a profitable tv career until I quit in disgust, to Pezer.

Before that, he had always been pressing me on how much he found human in Islam and identified with it - when he saw this film, he was silent.

It is not possible for Americans to know the extent to which Islam has absorbed our homeland.

Watch this, especially from 5:30 on.

I, as the filmmaker, saw only beauty at the time. I might be the least ‘racist’ person there is in this world.

youtube.com/watch?v=i8tD8Jo6b50

The film is meant as a manifesto for religious freedom. Because I gave the muslims all the freedom in the world to express themselves, they end yup revealing much more than any anti-muslim propaganda could.

The guy is still my friend, though it is evidently strained now - his brother went to join IS because he was forbidden a girlfriend by his family, as I understand it. That is all very normal, day to day stuff in Amsterdam, let alone in Brussels or Paris or Cologne.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:55 pm; edited 1 time 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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:54 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Well the thing is that Trumps lies can be counted and listed - I looked at them, found no grave crimes against humanity in them. Whereas during the debate, Hillary has only told lies. She started lying, and never actually stopped. Plus her lies were importantly genocidal lies. She has already the blood of innumerable children on her hands, has already caused chaos for the next 1000 years for many millions. That has not really been addressed at all, I think.

I talk about being the tough and strong guy, that is a big part of Fixed Cross strategy. I disagree vehemently with tha attribution of strongman rhetoric to fascism. I think in fact that strongnman rhetoric is entirely anti-fascit in this time.

Fasicsm is just absolute tyranny of the corporation. That is its definition. Right now Hillary is literally fascist, as is Obama. There is no real argument here - fascism is the ruling form of state. That is is defended with democratic rhetoric makes it all the more typically fascist.

I hope it’s ok to post this and my reply in the topic.

Yes and in this sense modern society is already fascist at heart simple due to the intertwining of government and corporate-capitalist interests. But that definition of fascism is to only simplistic, for one thing because this intertwining of interests is inevitable and not necessarily bad. This is another deep contradiction in the Right populist position today: they are implicitly and openly on the side of corporations and private interests, associating that with freedom and success of the individual in the marketplace, but they are against corporations in so far as corporations “represent capitalism as such” which simply means the companies are TOO successful, they use outsourcing or get special deals in their favor, don’t pay taxes, etc: the very same stuff Trump already does and brags about.

As to what you just posted above, there is nothing wrong with low skill labor, I happen to like that kind of work myself. But here is another contradiction at the heart of the modern Right: the conflict between their value of Capital growth and corporate progress to profits such as with Ford for example making streetcars and trains largely obsolete, this kind of progress is always defended by conservatives in the US Right, and in the other hand being deeply protectionist and anti-progress when it comes to labor and unskilled work. If we can replace many unskilled jobs with robots or technological efficiency removing many workers, that is seen as bad from the Right’s perspective yet in general the Right supports the advances of technology and capital toward expanding business profits and power. The reason for this difference is simply because many of the Right’s voters are those in the very same low skilled labor jobs that are in decline.

I have nothing against labor at all. But I do have a problem with this kind of hypocritical “labor protectionism” (which has traditionally been the prerogative of the Left in the form of unions and worker rights) being elevated to basically the single issue of importance around which the entire modern Right turns.

Edit: for clarity sake, which lies and grave crimes of Hillary are you talking about? It would be good to make a side by side list of Trump and Hillary when it comes to lies told and crimes committed. But here we need to be pretty specific.


“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:09 pm
Quote :
I hope it’s ok to post this and my reply in the topic.

Certainly.

Quote :
Yes and in this sense modern society is already fascist at heart simple due to the intertwining of government and corporate-capitalist interests. But that definition of fascism is to only simplistic, for one thing because this intertwining of interests is inevitable and not necessarily bad. This is another deep contradiction in the Right populist position today: they are implicitly and openly on the side of corporations and private interests, associating that with freedom and success of the individual in the marketplace, but they are against corporations in so far as corporations “represent capitalism as such” which simply means the companies are TOO successful, they use outsourcing or get special deals in their favor, don’t pay taxes, etc: the very same stuff Trump already does and brags about.

Now we’re talking - here is where I clearly see deceit as well. It’s just that all politicians deceive this way - it’s still deceit that needs to be addressed. It is not genocidal deceit, but mere misleading.

The issue here is whether or not a corporation should be granted, as they are now, citizen rights. That is where the disparity was solidified.

Profit sand wealth and success have to be redefined in terms of a better understanding of value and gain. And companies cannot be granted citizens rights.

Quote :
As to what you just posted above, there is nothing wrong with low skill labor, I happen to like that kind of work myself. But here is another contradiction at the heart of the modern Right: the conflict between their value of Capital growth and corporate progress to profits such as with Ford for example making streetcars and trains largely obsolete, this kind of progress is always defended by conservatives in the US Right, and in the other hand being deeply protectionist and anti-progress when it comes to labor and unskilled work. If we can replace many unskilled jobs with robots or technological efficiency removing many workers, that is seen as bad from the Right’s perspective yet in general the Right supports the advances of technology and capital toward expanding business profits and power. The reason for this difference is simply becausea many of the Right’s voters are those in the very same low skilled labor jobs that are in decline.

This goes into Parodites’ tertiary stage model, I think- how we should be dealing with the rise of an entirely technocratic system - on the other hand, the jobs right now are being outsourced to humans, not robots, who are simply paid less. Before robots replace these foreign children, I think we will have the chance of bringing back some of the work… but I dont know. I just know that it is a real issue he is talking about and that no politician has ever had a simple solution for such issues… but that fact that he is essentially a buillder speaks very well for him. As I see it, he’d be the first philosophical presidential choice in that sense, given how much importance I place on the physicality of rulership, its essence as building and managing growth.

Quote :
I have nothing against labor at all. But I do have a problem with this kind of hypocritical “labor protectionism” (which has traditionally been the prerogative of the Left in the form of unions and worker rights) being elevated to basically the single issue of importance around which the entire modern Right turns.

A lot of people are going do be disappointed in any scenario, granted.

Quote :

Edit: for clarity sake, which lies and grave crimes of Hillary are you talking about? It would be good to make a side by side list of Trump and Hillary when it comes to lies told and crimes committed. But here we need to be pretty specific.

Lybia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, are some prominent countries she and her clan ravaged. Ukraine is her fault, and 2004’s NATO expansion which is a direct act of war against Russia and will probably be paid for still with much life, is her clans doing. She always speaks about freedom and human rights, and that is all vicious lying, as per the above. Of course Syria is directly her responsibility.

She is a figure in a political sect, that began effectively after Reagan and the USSR, that has determined the global military and social economic landscape. She and her people have brought global misery for three decades now.

Since bringing death, famine, disease and war is the only thing that she has ever done for the world, and since she never mentions any of these accomplishments of hers, all she says is deception.

all except the occasional slip of the tongue, like here.
youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:20 pm
The beauty of it is that at the very moment that the carnage she set off is at its peak, she gets invited to Oslo to receive a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I could see this as the ‘end times’, if ever such a word should apply, the time of the greatest imaginable injustice. Politics has entered its ugliest stage.

I imagine being part of one of these families that have been decimated by her, and seeing her ascend that stage… there is no greater dishonor that can be done to the human species; this brings to the lowest level of disgrace both humanity’s heart, and the institutions of our intellect and arts.

At least Hitlers Olympics were real enough that a black athlete was able to win.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:31 pm
I think we seriously need to consider severing the latest 4 presidencies from what is technically the US of A. Since the USSR fell, US presidents have not be compelled to obey to any sort of law or agreement, and far from being lofty creators, they turned out to have been a robber-clan of sorts; the Bush and Clin ton families in central positions, with people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Brzezinski, Wolfowitz, Albright, Rice to organize the big theft of the state from the people;

they are ordinary savages, they have nothing in common with the USA narrative or values - sheer murderers and plunderers that happen to have stolen a country. Hillary is a part of a robber clan that now owns the USA - she is no politician, no government, just a very sinister creep that came into possession of a lot of human fates."

"I highly recommend this in depth article on the ME and the Arab spring. Edit: if you find any inaccuracies or lies in this article please call attention to them.

nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … pe=article

From what I can tell, Gaddafi was in the running to be replaced for a long time, at least since 2003 in the Iraq invasion. Bush Jr really started this off. Of course he was just continuing the Bush Sr and Clinton program. We need look no further than Yugoslavia to see what Clinton creates as a precedent for NATO being the bitch of western corporate imperialism.

Again, I have no love for the Clintons. I’m just saying that Trump is a false flag. Hell, he has been friends with the Clintons. And Trump is surely on the side of pro-Bush Jr just like the modern US Right mostly is, remember these are the same “conservative” voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words.

The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west. There is bo real government there, just arbitrarily lines drawn around older colonialist demarcations. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator of a totalitarian state, yet he had socialism like Saudi Arabia today so we are supposed to assume he was “ok”, ha-- no, socialism in that sense is just buying the relative complicity of the people so you can go about with executing and imprisoning anyone who steps out of line. The concept of human rights is non-existent in these places. NATO backed Arab spring uprisings against Gaddafi due to his brutal crackdowns on protesters and of course because the west wanted to see him go, just like Saddam he was a petty tyrant who got big ideas about biting the hand that feeds. If you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman you’ll see how the west manipulates and forces compliance out of these cheap petty dictators-- or removes them. Clinton is just as guilty here of supporting this fake system that props up sham governments and dictators and then removes them when it seee fit to do so. Again, I’m not supporting Clinton.

But I have to ask: you despise Islam, and in general you seem to adhere to the principle of western power and of the will to power as idea; what is, very clearly, the basis for your rejection of this kind of western neo-imperialism that makes the ME the bitch of the west? I understand that you do hold some regard for the Arabs in general and the Kurdish fighters specifically. I am just curious on hat basis do you oppose western new imperialism such as seen by the west supporting people like Saddam and Gaddafi for a while and then overthrowing them when they step too far out of line?

I certainly oppose this kind of neo-colonialism, I oppose it largely on moral and rational grounds. I don’t have the same antipathy you do for Islam, however I would never support islam directly and I understand that teaching archaic old world ideology to children by the billions is not a good thing. In general the west’s position toward ME certainly post-Jimmy Carter but going even further back has been to sublimate global colonial ambitions to capitalist intrusions and prop up fake regimes for westerners gain. That all seems very “Nietzschean” to me, I would have a hard time finding anything in Nietzsche that would have much of a problem with any of that, certainly when you factor in the extremely adverse sentiment toward modern Islam that you and I am sure Nietzsche would also have felt. My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral “humanist” sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don’t think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian “amoral” grounds alone.

Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I’m sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind.

In the issue of corporations, I agree they should be held to a standard of social beneficience in general and all other things being equal. Corporations are not persons, and money is not speech. Perhaps we can all come together here around our opposition to the corporate oligarchy state. But note that the idea that corporations should be held to a standard of social beneficence and should not be given individual rights is inherently a Leftist position. The Right here supports the Citizens United ruling and opposes the EPA and other means of making sure corporations are not fucking up the common social spaces too much.


“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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:45 pm
Parodites -
I agree with your breakdown. I have much to say to that specific nature of the gods you describe, too much at this point. That is always the case with such thoughts - they address the things that I have had kept silent for twenty years precisely now, because there was no language to express them in.

It leads up to the following, which crosses over a field of possibility I had out of prudence not yet considered.

Quote :
the task of fully developing the concatenation and combination of the inner
and outer worlds of man and nature, involuting and extro-verting the original image of
Being into the multitude of created forms, until at last, as Levi-Strauss said, the whole
symphony of combinations stands abrupted at the pinnacle of those combinatorial
resources and collapses into silence.

Ah! This is a perfect reflection on a higher arc of how I see the periodic table to have come into being; as a final result of a symphony of (an endless array of dimensions of) combinations of the self-valuing principle.

Yes, this is the aim. This is the very aim of creating the just-human-enough-human, that Nietzsche perhaps sought to circumvent in disgust with the all-too-human.

Quote :
Human speech does not name anything, it verbalizes or speaks itself into existence and asserts the ground of its own genesis, which is silence: in the beginning was the word and the word was god and the word was with god. The first model or image of Being to which man awoke from out of the animal paradise, namely the model of civilization itself as told by the Sumerians upon the mount Eridu- the image of creation, which became the sight of our first city, afforded an initial break with nature and organo-affective unity into mythic consciousness as Levi-Strauss called it, and we may consider our language to have developed so as to reconstitute the intrapsychical dimension after this Fall, after this reflective silence as lies both before and behind us, after the ecstasis, as within a new medium unaccounted for by the natural world- that is, within the medium of language itself. In summa: the discontiguity of techne and language, of being and time, of the symbol and the symbolized, of the mythos and the logos, of the model and the descriptive sign-system, is not the barrier to thought but the very engine of consciousness and of concept-creation. ]

Correct, I think - I treated the word and the idea in the same way, so as to arrive at the word “valuing” as being the most comprehensive reflection of that very beginning. It is as a full reflection, thus as a basic asymmetry, thus as a proper phenomenon, that it works; therefore it calls into being its own logic, i.e. its own grammar.

Ive found the word that can commands the entire logos, and logoocized it to perform that task.

Quote :
The silence following the death of God on the Cross, this has not been understood yet.

Therefore there hasn’t been a resurrection.

Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”

Indeed, language is the self-valuing non-human being in which terms all humans that arent of pure poesis value themselves, thereby being less than fully human, or ‘all-too-human’ - what N aimed for as the Superman is, I am beginning to think, the man of logoic poesis who cures mankind of its pale and lethargic conceptual grammar, allowing a fully fledged species of joy to come into being; a need this to reinterpret the Superman, perhaps more into what Sauwelios has been aiming for - himself. Ourselves. And thus, the Superman as a means rather than an end; all ends must become means for either good or ill.

Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”

Precisely. Therefore we who have been expecting and finally received a fully fledged ontos, can never trust any operative terms but those very ones we forged the heat we were personally able to generate in our expectation.

Quote :
This expectation, this passivity which is transformed in activity back into passivity and vice versa, is precisely mythic consciousness, which through the closed circle of the logos is opened up to Being. Giambattista Vico draws attention to the semantic discontiguity built into the very concept of mythology, insofar as it combines two antithetical words- myth and logos, the structure of narrative and that of truth, mimesis and reason, the poetic and the rational, the fiction and the reckoning. His thesis is that logos cannot ground itself, a thoroughly modern problem that only reappeared in the light of Nietzsche and Heidegger: the problem of philosophy’s self-grounding, its immanent locus, the point of departure for the vicious circle of the logos.

Precisely. Hence the fact that only the term valuing is suitable. Only this term refers directly to the objective groundlessness of objectifying identification, as well as to the objective ground of subjective iodentification; it is a proper ground to build. Not to “existence” - obviously any ground of existence would also have to exist - thus can not exist.

Quote :
This is why the logos must enter into relation with myth, for the fictive or mimetic
genesis of what I call the techne or model of the cosmos provides the logos and language
with a point of departure upon which to begin verbalizing or announcing itself. Vico
asserts that the primordial silence of man becomes explicable by the logos from the
standpoint of the mythic model, such that language can begin to evolve as the
externalization of the structure of logos in relation to its mythic foundation in techne.
When language first appeared it was, as Vico points out through the lens of Egypt, in the
form of hieroglyphics, still bound to the natural imagery around whose silence it had been
first inaugurated, enclothed in this way by the shadow of the object, or, in Kantian
language, as so many empirical images not yet configured by transcendental imagination
in a schematism of non-sensible images, in a state more or less of sur-reflection as
Merleau-Ponty phenomenologically designated it- that is, an account of the effects of
reflection in passivity to the spectacle. The specifying and identity forming power of
language- the general language of Being established by logos, when first confronting the
domain of mythic silence before the model of creation- before the cosmic image of Being
itself, spoke the lesser images of beings, of the hieroglyphy, into existence through the
medium of human consciousness. The heiroglyphic stage is the mimetic stage of language
and is the one that most fascinated Mallarme, who identified the mimetic act as a
perpetual allusion that does not shatter the mirror, or one which installs a space of pure
fiction- that is, myth. Within the immanent plane of language so it happened that the
logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual
beings within one another, through a concatenation of the natural world, producing men
with the heads of dogs and so on, with the sign-symbol emerging as the discontiguous
threshold of transition between techne and logos, myth and reason, the model and the
word, and all the gods themselves upon the first pronouncement of the mystic syllable
EL.]

I go to the end in agreeing here, as this is the path that I have followed to end up at self-valuing logic. I need only say this to you, I think; the first thought that entered the realization of the logic was: then all the myths and gods I have, in full irony, chosen to fully believe (where my smile was thus forever private, a painful affair), are just as fucking real as I thought I had to imagine them. Then I fully understood the nature of the imagination. Instantly, of course, I nodded to Schopenhauer, who is truly Nietzsche’s begetter.

change, from:
EL.
Elohim,
etc

to
Val - (root)
Valor (prime identifier)
Valuing (concept)
Valency (application)
Value (Universal)

etc

Quote :
And thus the anti-dialectic I outlined is my formalization of this “Within the immanent plane of language [mythologos] so it happened that the logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual beings within one another…[this submergence is what myth became within the circle of the logos, the mythos on its own was a pure affirmation of Being in innumerable unconnected forms]” In essence: a logic in which Being does not contain the seed of its conceptual opposite or negation as it does in Hegel, where Being has an entirely affirmative content.

Yes, pure negation -
One pillar against the two by his sides. Difference and repetition; but with the consideration of the vertical plane as a result.

Tectonic pile-ups, mountain-ranges; this is the human being. The inward negation by necessity of its own conditions as it confronts itself as time, refined into what we call excellence, or beauty, or culture, or intellectual hygiene.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:49 pm
Capable wrote:
The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west.

I will be back to address your post in the full, I have to meet someone -
but yes - this is the issue. The death of the Ottoman Empire has not been absorbed at all. Two world wars did very little to discharge that order of violence.

As to regards my valuing of Islam, in the terms you put it - please, watch my document, It is a year of my life, one fully dedicated to Islam, in the midst of muslims. I have been among the religion all my life, It is incomparably more powerful here than Christianity. It holds sway.

I dont loathe it. I loathe its imposition on my own values - and it is largely if not purely come to think of it the school of which Clinton is the spearhead now that that is responsible for this.

I had friends and girlfriends form muslim families since I was 2 years old.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:23 pm
Everything I am saying, I say respecting the honesty of your intentions, without any feeling of maliciousness. Sorry if I sound otherwise, I’m attacking your politics, because I have to, not you.

"remember these are the same “conservative” voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words. "

He did oppose the Iraq war. And your claim that it’s the typical conservative Bush voter that’s voting for Trump is objectively incorrect. Trump has pulled in a record number of voters to the Rep. party in the primaries: obviously it’s not the typical Republican that’s giving him all the votes. A lot of people who voted for him admit to never having voted before in their life. He’s getting more of the minority vote than Bush or Romney, even blacks. This statement is not true. Pretty funny that he’s the most racist bigoted guy to run under the Republican party yet he’s gotten extremely impressive percentages of the minority vote.

Capable, your entire dismissal or Trump as well as the Washington Post article is a baseless accusation and a reflection of a defensive reaction to your not wanting to be lumped in with the lowly “rabble rousing Trump supporters”. I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with them for the same reason I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with drug addicts: when one is above something, one can indulge it freely. Your dismissal of Trump is accusatory and psychological: my support of him is objective and logical, as I provide reasons not insults. I pecked at that article you posted for a bit and moved on because there is nothing to respond to. I have outlined my own politics and reasons for backing Trump, I’ve specified the historical role he is fulfilling, (all men who have come to political power have simply fulfilled a historical role, they themselves are of lesser importance- that’s why Trump himself doesn’t really matter, his external character is a fabrication anyway) and I have modified my own position in relation to your own throughout these exchanges, but you have not budged and it always comes back down to, quite simply: He’s Hitler, he’s a liar, he’s a racist, he hates women, because that’s all the stuff I heard about him and I don’t want to be associated with any of that. I cannot argue with it. You say he’s a racist bigot, I advise you that he’s said nothing racist, and then you specify that you’re using the word racist in an entirely different sense, etc.

You do a similar thing with fascism as you do racism- it’s not an actual political scheme, it’s just “an attitude.” No, it’s a very definite political schema that Trump has nothing to do with. I don’t use words to draw and quarter those who offend my taste, or neutralize other people’s lines of thought until I can shuffle them away into a little box, as those who use words like racist, misogynist, etc do.

" Trump isn’t a solution to anything, he is a fake populist anti-intellectual puppet and empty sour of brainless reactionary meme-speak with zero political knowledge or experience…"

You request an argument to that? I can only argue with an argument, not an insult.

" As for Hegel, I find it amusing the trepidation he inspires, the loathing and dismissal. From where does this come, I wonder? Well I don’t really need to wonder, I happen to know."

What are you talking about? The dialectic has been utilized by philosophers since Hegel developed it, I don’t see a bunch of Hegel-hate when I look around. Not that I hate him: I take him as having schematized a degenerate way of thinking about the question of Being that was waiting to fully burst through for a long time. I don’t hate him. The reason I dislike Hegel is not malicious, it’s because I reject the fundamental premise of Hegelian philosophy. His system does not make sense. I hate his prose style though, I’ll give you that. The basic premise of Hegelian philosophy (And Western philosophy in general right now) is that Being contains within itself the seed of its own negation, and the fundamental premise of my own philosophy is incompatible with that. I cannot logically accept him as anything but an example of my “antipode” as Nietzsche would say. It is good to know where one’s antipodes are though. Even the quote in your sig now, “clings to finitude and thus to contradiction,” becomes instantly translated for me, “clings to love and thus to death,” “clings to earth and thus to sin,” “clings to Being and thus to Nothing.”

" He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. "

People aren’t really apprehensive about more terror attacks (perhaps some pretend to be) by Muslims- that cannot really be stopped, it’s going to continue happening. The reality is, Muslims do not integrate into our society. Multiple studies have show that the second generation of a Muslim migrant is even more “extremist” that his parents were, and they get more and more extremist as the generations pass. Want to know why? Because Muslims are alienated in our society, and the first person that comes along with words that can stir his racial sentiment and make him feel like he has a voice again, a connection to his fraternal spirit- he takes that person as a master. He becomes “radical.” Because the first person he encounters with those words if often a radical, preying on his sense of isolation. And the Islamic faith is unique in how powerfully it can tap into this, while also being far more expansionist and theocratic than the other Abrahamic faiths. Trump is not attempting to deport a bunch of Muslims who are already citizens here- that would be illegal. But it is within his power to bar the entry (without extensive interviewing) of people coming from certain areas in the world where we know they kill women to save their honor, circumcise females, and have a history of sponsoring terrorism. A nation-state has an immortal right to self-determination. If a nation-state cannot determine what kinds of people and values it wants to be freely brought into it: then the nation-state does not exist. The fucking Chinese are fucking us. It’s not just a blind hatred, they are negatively, along with the rest of the global-state, impacting the US.

"Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I’m sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind. "

See, right here, you’re just calling his character into question even when the action he proposes is good, you still have to find a negative intention buried in it somewhere- that we discontinue operations in the ME. I cannot argue with an insult. I don’t know- cannot know, the man’s true character, all I know is the actual function he accomplishes. Even his use of memes sets off your alarm it seems.

"My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral “humanist” sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don’t think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian “amoral” grounds alone. "

I oppose it because it destroys everything I value in life: beauty, personality, philosophy, personal freedom, national freedom, etc. If that’s moral or amoral, doesn’t matter to me.

As for serious philosophy: politics isn’t philosophy. Politics is an application of philosophy. It’s applied philosophy.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:40 pm
" As a matter of pure taste, Trump is lower than low. No serious thinker, no one with any shred of heart left, could ever cultivate any sort of taste for him. Nor am I interested in petty utilitarian ideological (religious) moralizing and metaphysical prophesizing about “what will happen if so and so is elected”, like we’re some sort of fucking partisan news commentator on CNN."

The first sentence is just an egregiously small-minded accusation, of the kind befitting religious people- oh, this person does this one thing I disagree with so his entire character is demonic and he’s destined for hellfire, etc. The later is nonsensical. It’s religious to respond to the actual world? To consider the causes and consequence of particular things in the real world- that’s what politics is. And something about CNN.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:44 pm
“You like Trump so your entire personhood is invalidated” is what that statement you made means. And then you accuse others of being religious. Others of being bigots. It is hard to respect the purity of your intentions when you say things like this, because this is the same mechanism that allows religious people to discount entire segments of the populace as condemned and set in the loft of moral certainty. I despise the SJW type hyper-liberal from the bottom of my heart and even I would still not say something like “If you vote Hillary you’re completely invalidated as a human being.”


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:57 pm
The principle produces instances that attain not quite fully to it, because to do so would require for it to be alone, or in absolute control -

there is never a full negation - nuclear blastwaves are the result of approaching anything like negation - and stars are this limit - but there is a pure negation of every other entity that every entity starts out as, in order to affirm itself; or rather than to negate, it sculpts its image of it as either a function of itself, or moves to destroy, or if possible, disregard it. These: destroy, disregard, or integrate/integrate oneself into are the values to the variable ‘chaos’ or ‘random’.

Trump is moving the population back to such a negating of the other in order to afrfirm the self; but what is really happening is that he affirms the principle of self-affirmation, as a result and cause of self-determination, which is a universally applicable principle, and he thus stimulates all humans implicitly to rise up against their totalitarian governments, and all governments to get their hands out of other countries.

The big oil Saudi clan of which Clinton is a function on the other hand seeks simply to keep the middle east a hell so that it is easy for Saudi Arabian royal house to keep its minority position as the rule and standard of all the worlds power balances and transactions, and remain the controller of the world economy. Her program, besides deeply warmongering, vaguely reminiscent of some humanist slogan, is only an excuse to keep the Saudis in control. They paid off Iran just to keep the panicky Saudis calm. Saudi Arabia owns all this process, it obviously created Isis - it’s really all absolutely inhuman. Obviously, female children are the main victim. It’s thus a matter of my deepest tastes, instincts, will, standards - this global rapist clan should not be elected again.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:02 pm
It’s not even Trump. It’s the death of one political axis and the birth of a new one, and a movement within the changing society, that is expressing itself in the form of Trump, because he happened to have the money, resources, and the ability to play the media in order to actually win. You insult and tear down this one man like it would really matter even if all your accusations were correct about him.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:04 pm
Even if Trump himself falls short of the idea of ending the globalist state and re-affirming the self-determination and rights of sovereign nations, you are not looking at it properly: that idea now has, through Trump, a public voice- a public force now strong enough to get within an inch of the presidency, where formerly it was relegated to the remote periphery of public discourse.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:09 pm
So a politician looks at the common sentiment and pronounces it to get an easy vote, as Clinton has: a leader looks at what the few are saying, though saying fervently, and pronounces it, in order to get people who never even bothered voting before to vote, and finally be heard. Trump did the later.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:12 pm
Though I will give Capable the benefit of the doubt: no serious person could cultivate taste for the bigoted genocidal maniac compulsive liar woman bashing bullying psychotic fascist you have turned Trump into, in your own mind.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:19 pm
But by all means, allow Clinton, a person who unironically suggested to drone strike Julian Assange and threaten Russia with war over her hacked server, accepted funding by Saudi tyrants, and essentially promised a ground war with Iran, to be voted in, because Trump called Rosie o Donnel fat. Because these two people are equally evil.

If Clinton is elected, her fiscal policies will tank the US economy and her actions on the world stage will invite the condemnation of every other Nation in the Western world and bring about our fall, economically and politically.

Trump’s fiscal policy- in essence a drastic simplification of the tax code, will boost our economy and his return to national sovereignty will re-solidify our position among the world-powers.

You have taken the one election that does matter and turned it into the election that matters the least.

Trump is: antiglobalism and a return to nationalism and national sovereignty, with the US in a leading position among the world powers.

Clinton is: globalism, the deconstruction of the very idea of a nation-state, and the subordination of the US to the political hegemon of a global state.

The tertiary capital I have elaborated demands the continuation of the project of a global state. It implies the fall of the US. Trump will stall this process and bring about a global conflict, but with a rebirth of national liberty all over the world eventually. Hillary will complete it, sink the US into civil unrest and lose our positioning among the world powers, and blanket the human spirit in the night of a borderline communistic global state. Based on my theory of capital, it’s not a prediction: it’s a conclusion.

If we’ve ever had a true choice in an election before, this is a choice. I believe it’s a choice which, if you have understood it, you are morally obligated to make.

This whole thing about how can a philosopher support Trump: how did Aristotle support Alexander? Was Alexander a beautiful image of philosophic and cultural refinement, while he was cutting off people’s heads raiding all over the place?


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:48 pm
The reason I think Clinton might still be elected, despite all that is known about her, is this Japanese saying, ‘in the depths of their hearts, all men long for the end of the world.’


" 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
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:57 pm
The decision the world is facing:

Do we take Hillary and inherit the cold, depressed world our fathers and mothers left us, or do we take Trump and act on all the instincts of need, thirst an will that we have learned to feel since Hitler was crucified?


dionisius against the cross…
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:58 pm
And one other thing about Hegel.

It is a property of dialectic reason in general, the way that some people choose to use words like racist, misogynist, fascist, etc. By not ascribing affirmation to Being, you have denied affirmation to all being(s)- all affirmative content is evaporated from philosophy, and all identity is lost, until there are no principles left, no oughts, no realities, and everything means everything else. Fascism has the seed of its own negation in it, absorbs with its opposite into a synthesis, and so on: this degenerating, emptying of affirmative content has been going on in philosophy for long enough to take us to the total annihilation of the political discourse, an annihilation epitomized in Clinton, the old axis. The Hegelian dialectic is even itself subject to the dialectic: “I’d be on your guard if you’re reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel’s dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes.” The only way to escape it, to escape this evaporation of philosophic content, is by parting ways with Hegel at the most obvious spot: his most fundamental starting point, his point of departure.

I don’t hate, fear, or dismiss Hegel: I simply recognize that the Hegelian dialectic is a nonsensical system and is responsible for the evaporation of all philosophic content, all affirmation. Denying the purity of affirmation to Being is the greatest philosophical sin: from it, we have been taken to atheism, materialism, and liberal secular humanism.

This is the “danger” in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don’t form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man’s intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable’s talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.

Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:22 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:05 pm
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:06 pm
Just kidding.

My approach has always to take nothing seriously but my own perceptions. Some philosophers get closer to it than others. Hegel is fucking boring.


dionisius against the cross…
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:12 pm
Pezer wrote:
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?

Hegel denies himself, I don’t have to.

“I’d be on your guard if you’re reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel’s dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes.”


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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:15 pm
Sure. Only a kid’s desires can take one in and out of the maze.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:23 pm
Quote :
Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man’s intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos

I wanted to lift this out - it is the affirmative ground of the negation of Hegel. It is true, this.

Hegel naturally forces one to become its terms; all philosophers do this, thus taste drives me away from many once I have understood them. I only read what I want to shape me - and this is basically one line of thought, the line that sacrifices all coarse things to beauty.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:24 pm
It’s only a maze if you want to get somewhere. Did Hegel want to get somewhere?


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
Quote :
The History of the World travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of History, Asia the beginning.

Like Aristotle, he looked in the right direction, but was a total buffoon about what he figured we’d find there.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:32 pm
Parodites wrote:
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.

If you have broken Hegel directly by reading him, 弓. I found him a very hard and dry type of stone I’d just rather leave to its devices.

If these devices are indeed todays reality, then Capable must certainly continue reading him… if he has the courage, that is only an asset.


" 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
    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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:33 pm
Nah, Hegel’s text isn’t a stone or a blade. He’s a melting furnace. I threw him into it."

"I re-read him every few months for that reason: his system is the system governing the age. He epitomized a hidden defect or disease in philosophy in general, he’s also useful in that regard: a medical text.


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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:43 pm
If you can get through him anyway. I had pharmaceutical aid.


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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:45 pm
I prefer to catalogue philosophers by smell. Hegel smells to me like old dust covering quaint pictures of ducks and duck hunters.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:46 pm
We are all aware of the maze.

Some, it is true, rather experience it as a prison or lifeitself or something.


dionisius against the cross…
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:51 pm
The real problem is Hegel never made me live. A good book, you live. I don’t mean you go back outside after reading it and have an experience; experiencing things- that’s not living. Kierkegaard said you could only think backwards, you had to live forwards. Not very Hegelian of him!


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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:55 pm
So the ol’ Heidegger then, eh?

I like Capable precicely because there is infinitely more richness in French philosophy than in German philosophy.

Between those who do while thinking backwards and those who chill while thinking allwards… Well, the choice is clear. Germans fall too easily into the trap of the thing itsef.


dionisius against the cross…
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:00 pm
If Capable is seriously undertaking a reading of Hegel- read Kierkegaard too. K. was the only intentionally anti-hegelian I know of. His approach though: attack Hegel with Hegel. Do the, apply the dialectic to the dialectic itself thing I was talking about. Kierkegaard is fun to read though.

I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes, but I perceive a mistreatment of Trump and misreading of where his support comes from. I am logically bound to defend the guy.


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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:05 pm
Trump, we can do little about.

Reaching back in history and stealing whatever treasure Hegel found sounds more achievable, at least in Capable’s case. The only thing I see missing from Cap is joy, which is reflected in his support of a soul-less machine.

To think crankyness is the thing to rescue from Hegel is possibly the noblest faliure possible, but I suggest against it. Because my priority is people, not weird philosophical grails that have no care for what is good or bad but only intricate.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:24 pm
So Pezer, you maintain that Nietzsche isnt German?

You really need to learn German to make such judgments.


" 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
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:28 pm
I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:34 pm
There is a hard line between Greece-Rome-Germany, through grammar. Old Greek, Latin and German all work with the case-system. They divide the subject and object into 4, or in Latin 5 cases, and build their sentences from these understandings, rather than from an object-subject relation such as we have.

Philosophy as a thing of power has never been French - only with a vast sense of humor and sex can a French philosopher become vaguely interesting. Camus and Lacan are the only ones that manage, for me. But it isnt what I’d regard as philosophy.

Deleuze may be an exception - yet in his pure French contentedness and taunting to hierarchy as such, he avoided entirely the vertical plane that the Greeks, Romans and Germans have cultivated, and that creates living concepts.

The main value of French philosophy is for it to pronounce itself in a nice French accent. Hence, il n’y a pas de hors-texte. This is its positivism, its affirmation, and from this dancing surface, a womanly thing, some joys arise, like the men I mentioned.

Lacan has been the one to look at his own nature, and realize he was the Cokey itself.

Quote :
I am Venezuelan.

Very much not a Venezuelan philosopher.

Yes you are. A philosopher necessarily contradicts his people. How else could he possible discerned as a philosopher, as an outstanding man? I am a philosopher of the North Sea coast.


" 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
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:39 pm
I speak Spanish indeed. My linguistic powers far outstrip English speakers. Like Germans, but passionate instead of fastidious. German passion seems to lie in the elevation of fastidiousness until, in Odin, it actually becomes holy.

Our task is not to find languages. It is to make 'em.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:01 pm
Unfortunately that is indeed what seems to be the German path. They micromanage the whole, which has no essential micro-parts, and they disregard the parts, the humans, for the sake of the imagined whole - “The more I love humanity as a whole, the less I find that I like them in particular” as Dostoyevsky said.

But the German genius is the opposite. From Mozart to Nietzsche, Germans have far surpassed all other modern countries in terms of producing cultural marble.


" 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
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:19 pm
Not to mention Johan S and Luwig Van.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:20 pm
Greatness is in Germany, but only when it is not German.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:22 pm
To be human first, before anything, is itself to cleanse one’s self of the original crime.


dionisius against the cross…
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:43 pm
Just to be clear, if we’re still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn’t anywhere near my main argument against him, my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery. I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn’t be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of “either Trump or Clinton” holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not “evil”) must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I’ll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I’m not at all interested in ideology from any “side” of if, so I guess that’s gotta be that.

Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don’t we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don’t really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole “base value”. That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.


“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
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 Oct 05, 2016 2:41 am
Parodites wrote:

This is the “danger” in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don’t form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man’s intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable’s talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.

Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.

Your idea here is that the articulation of the genetics as Hegel is after, is entirely formal and empty; this is not correct, because as soon as this ‘empty’ system is set up, and through being set up in the first place at all, it immediately starts appropriating contents to itself, like a low pressure system into which a high pressure naturally moves. And the system isn’t used to push to the far End as you seem to imply, that would indeed terminate in evaporation, although not of truth or meaning, but of the human mind which is far too finite to handle such an attenuation. Rather, the system is used in the initial first stage to set itself up and naturally gathers contents to itself, the most salient ones available; then in the second stage these contents are “deconstructed” and becomes the empty forms into which other, now more refined and subtler contents move. But this deconstruction is not the kind of postmodern destruction into non-being that we think of today, it is simply an opening up of a content to see what is inside it, and figuring out how it works. Like opening up a clock and examining it for the first time. And this kind of opening-up does not destroy that which is examined, since we are talking about ideations and not about material clocks with fixed spatiotemporal existence.

Concepts may form spontaneously but that is only from our perspective on them, in fact concepts have their own genesis and causation-history. Rather it is the idea of a pure affirmation of being “as such” and as baseline, ground state that seems erroneous here. There is no “given” pure affirmation of being because even the initial (subjectively, immediate) givenness of this affirmation is itself already molded as excess by those forms and contents that preceded it and caused it into being. In the case of actual human beings and their instinctive biology, this is genetics; in the case of psyche and mind and learned emotions, this is the vast history of culture and ideas, in part recorded in myth but also in language and largely in how we pick up subtle non-verbal cues from our caregivers while we are in early infancy.

We model others that we encounter, especially when we are younger. The category of the individual is not absolute, nor given; it is created. Likewise the affirmation of Being from the pure breakthrough of the excess-as-such is indeed “given and immediate” as you say, but it is only so from the perspective of the already-setup subjectivity, the very immediacy itself is the lack of a true ‘immediacy’ on the part of the subject-as-excess-breakthrough-into-liminal-partitions; what you call the intuiting of the pure affirmation of being is really as I see it the fact that the immediacy appears precisely because this subject has not yet become distant from itself, and not because that immediacy holds any kind of special ontological-epistemological status.

What is immediate and given is basically what is still “only just itself”, A=A, a kind of thing simply because it is also a non-thing, a pure self-equality which is therefore in that sense also purely empty. This is nice, but not any kind of philosophical Holy Grail around which everything rotates. This state of initial immediacy and self-identity that we might associate to an intuition of pure affirmation is really: 1) as intuition a kind of collapsed immediacy-for-self, the fact that self-division has not yet occurred, and 2) as pure affirmation is basically a clinging to this initiate state of immediacy-for-itself.


“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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:10 am; edited 1 time 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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:07 am
The way I see it, the pure affirmation of being is like an implicit fidelity to the excess. Yes the excess exists, it exists both objectively as well as for a subject; and subjects are implicitly and always oriented toward that excess which is for them. However, this implicit orientation to that excess which is for the subject itself represents a kind of naivety in which the subject is self-identical in such a way that it is itself precisely and only because of how that excess which is for the subject is not yet at all resisted in any way. Being at this stage is nearly empty, and could never progress without ceaseless division of its substance, just like an embryonic cluster of cells dividing over and over to ultimately make a baby.

The “purity” of the affirmation of being rests precisely on this fact that division has not yet taken place, and after we have become subjects in our own own right, grown up and learned philosophy for instance, there is no real way to get back to that initial stage of naive purity. But religion attempts to hold this as a value and ideal, a return to a state of grace in which we were self-identical with our own excess which is for us in so far as we were “ourselves” in the first place and at all. Yet time only moves forward and never backward, we may unwind ideas at the conceptual level but we cannot unwind the substrata on which concepts move, nor can we unwind the body backward in time either.

The way I see it, is that the excess changes as being changes: as the subject ages and grows, that which is excess for it also changes, expands as well as differentiates into different excess-types. These types arent defined by different kinds of excess but by different ways in which excess is delimited and channeled effectively to the ends of being. The excess itself, as object-cause of the intuition of the pure affirmation of being, is always already split up within itself along the very same lines of the developing being itself, this is precisely what subjectivity is and means.

First of all, Hegel’s system of philosophy cannot destroy an idea, because upon examining an idea that idea is not destroyed into non-being, the original idea remains there unchanged even as it is also in the mind being dissected; second of all, Hegel identifies that this kind of immediacy of being to and for itself, a kind of “intuition of pure affirmation as such” which is firstly a feeling (sentimental experience) and secondly a kind of “idea”, is both productive of subjectivity in the first round and both productive and destructive of it in the second and derivative rounds: productive and destructive in precisely the sense that being-for-itself or the self-identity of a being with itself at the formal level is both productive of being qua being as well as highly limiting and destructive of being in so far as this self-identity prevents further differentiation and change, closes off possibilities and forces fetishized clinging to various specific contents and forms that are, in the particular moment that happens to be the case right now, constitutive of that subjectivity as itself as such thus far. This is basically what Hegel was referring to in that passage that is in my signature quote right now… we cling to ourselves because we are not yet ourselves, just as we must search for freedom precisely because we are not yet free, as Nietzsche said.


“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
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 Oct 05, 2016 4:06 am
Back to Trump, I just realized something important: part of his appeal is, like any demagogue or fake populist, he makes politics look easy. He makes you think that you can understand and do politics just as well and even better than anyone else, precisely because you aren’t an “insider”.

The very fact that we lack knowledge prescient to politics is spun around into a kind of strength of capacity for politics, by people like Trump.

In a way there is a continuum based on knowledge of politics in both the general and specific. Those at the bottom know next to nothing about anything related to politics in reality, but these people still believe they understand foreign policy better than the president, for example; these people are now supporting Trump because they feel empowered by his braggadocio and demagogue status (religious pulpit approach) into thinking they now understand far more than they actually do.

Like I said before, mostly this is about bringing back manufacturing jobs, which is a bit ironic since Trump himself has used Chinese steel in his buildings. Feel free to look up the investigative reporting that uncovered this recently, I’m not going to waste my time referencing things when I don’t think the desire is even there to look at the facts like that, but I hope I am wrong about that. In any case Trump could have used American steel but he didn’t, on massive multi million dollar projects. Likewise as I have already pointed out, he uses third world labor in manufacturing his clothing and he owns stock in Ford and GM and Nabisco and all these companies he rips on for outsourcing. But anyway, I am getting back into facts, which I didn’t want to do here for obvious reasons.

My point is simply that Trump gives voice to this feeling that one can become an armchair expert on just about anything just because one tells oneself it. “I understand geopolitics better than the political class!” is basically the line of thinking, and in typical Trump droning mind-control they just repeat this over and over and over and over again until they believe it.

“Terrific, just terrific, really I am so intelligent, I understand so much, really I do, you wouldn’t believe if I told you, so good, I am so good at politics it is unreal, just unreal folks, no one has ever been as good at politics as me, believe me when I say I’m the top, the best there is, top notch, terrific, just the best folks.”

It really is a form of “mind-control”. One that he seemingly does to himself 24/7. And I cannot believe that you think this is normal human-level speech. Trump doesnt talk like a robotic Hillary institution, but neither does he talk like any person I’ve ever met.


“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
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 Oct 05, 2016 9:17 am
I am seriously not at all trying to be a dick here. This is a serious point that must be addressed: Why is politics the only field in which one is supposedly qualified precisely because A) they do not even like that field as a general rule, and B) they have little to no experience in it?

Can you imagine an electrician, or a mechanic, or a philosopher, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a pilot, demeaning their own field and bragging that they’re an “outsider” with little to no experience in that field, woud you hire an electrician who hates the field and has little to no experience in it?

Why is politics supposed to be different? Trump and his kind of “little guy, good old regular person” crowd seriously believe that government is the problem and seriously believe that not having experience in government is a requirement for being in government. This is a problem. Government is far more complex and multi-faceted than we realize, Trump’s brand of “small guy conservatism” of armchair experts on everything from war to international trade to foreign policy to taxes and budgets to social issues seriously believe they and their man Trump are more qualified to run the government, and this belief is based on a seriously oversimplified view of what it actually takes to keep a government running. You can’t treat government like a business, the government exists for exactly the opposite purpose as business exists; business makes profit, increases Capital, whereas government fulfills those roles that are either not capitalizable like that or should not be. We shouldn’t be either defending or not defending other nations based on whether or not they’ve pay us; we should not be condemning global neoliberal colonialism in the ME simply because its expensive for us to be there. Yet these are precisely Trump’s positions on those issues.

In case it isn’t obvious, I raise these points to help break down the false dichotomy of EITHER Trump OR Clinton. We need to reject that way of thinking. Once we get past the fallacy of excluded middle here we are able to start to see what might potentially constitute a true political approach and value to political issues and problems. Clinton’s sociopathy and lapdog to the neoliberal globalism status, and Trump’s proud lack of experience and being part of a political class that hates the government in principle and narcissistically believes they are true experts on the subject, neither of these two clowns are a reasonable choice. Trump represents the very international globalized business that he apparently opposes, his “business success” was to inherit millions from his dad, go bankrupt a few times, lose a billion dollars in one year and then have the taxpayers bail him out of that, and now he brags about it – “Hey I am on your side, believe me, but if I can screw you over in the process well hey folks that’s just good business.” Plenty of contractors were never paid by Trump for their work. Again feel free to look up the facts.

So what i am saying is: let’s get past the false dichotomy. What would real political insight, skill and leadership really look like?


“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
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 Oct 05, 2016 9:42 am
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don’t believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don’t want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn’t like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

skepticalscience.com/empiri … arming.htm

ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w … _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming’s existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.


“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
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 Oct 05, 2016 11:28 am
Quick restatement of purpose here for me:

While I reject the false dichotomy of the choice between Trump and Clinton, because this dichotomy is logically based on a fallacy of excluded middle that is all but deliberately created by the US political system, I of course do understand that practically speaking this dichotomy is forced upon us because realistically either Trump or Clinton will win the election. I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils in this situation, I don’t condemn anyone for doing that. Clarify our values and try to reason out consequences and ends for each candidate being elected, and then vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s perfectly fine, but it’s not what I’m going to do. Neither candidate is close enough to my own values therefore I will vote for neither one.

But I think I’ll withdraw from this thread, mostly because it isn’t psychologically healthy for me to continue here; this unhealth is based on the fact that each of our respective positions and values have now been adequately clarified and I can’t see that our positions or values will change as a result of my continuing to post in this thread. The exception is that I will gladly offer rationale and factual evidence backing up any of my claims made in this thread, if requested; I will do so happily, and if I cannot find fact and evidence for any claim, or a least a valid and solid rational defense, but really there must also be hard fact and evidence to support these positions too-- if I cannot find any to back up a claim that I’ve made here then I will absolutely and happily abandon that claim.

I reject ideology and psychological motives here, I want to uncover truths to “build thought to disclose the future”. My positions so far are based on what is most justified based on the evidence, facts and rationale that I have to far: I would gladly yield any position that I’ve made here if new facts or evidence is brought to counter them. I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I’m happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now.

So I’ll leave this thread but with the caveat that a call for facts, evidence or philosophical reasoning in defense of anything I’ve said here will be met by me with a sincere attempt to provide as such. Otherwise, thanks to everyone here for engaging so openly in these ideas. I hope no feelings were injured in the course of those engagements.

In the Hegel discussion points, let’s move that over to the Hegel thread I made, if possible.


“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:18 pm
Here goes: an attempt at an apology for Trump.

That his tactics are disgusting is the reason he should be president.

Trump understands that a lot of people with what we might call disgusting opinions, or just a lot of pain from being mistreated, are getting angrier and angrier and holding more and more sway over the capital of the world, which the USA still is. Instead then of attempting to psychically eliminate them from the world with philosophy or somethin, Trump wants to give them a voice and integrate them into the fold.

I honestly think that a guy like Trump, distasteful as he might be, must win and must be coopted, as he has been, by movements like Black Lives Matter, Millenial Feminism, and generally speaking philosophers. We must respect that his supporters, too, were brought into this world, and there is enough cool shit in it for us to understand eachother. We just have to be gentle. That’s all that the cranky people of the world want: we want gentleness. We know we have had a hard time showing it, thus all the more reason to show us how.

So. Respect your neighbours son. Otherwise, they might not respect YOU!


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:23 pm
Capable wrote:
Just to be clear, if we’re still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS

The one who made that gif is tasteless - certainly.
I think Trump was sick of the emotional chokehold that forced us all to pretend that people with disabilities are Gods. That he doesn’t give a shit about slave-moral codes about vulnerabilities is clear.
That he would be wise to keep this as an incident and not a pattern, is clear.

Quote :
As for racism, the fact that Trump is a racist isn’t anywhere near my main argument against him,

Good, as no one had conceded that he is racist. You’d have to argue that. These claims aren’t meaningful. I know he’s not a racist. I know Islam is not a race, and “Mexican” isnt a race.

I know that virtually all Clinton supporters are racist. Here entire social agenda is the essence of racism. Its just ‘racism that is okay because it hurts Trump’.
Fuck that man.

Quote :
my broader point was that the form of his approach, tactics and appeal is pure cheap demagoguery.

Clearly I disagree. I dont understand why you assume that such naked claims hold weight for a philosopher.

Quote :
I could cite plenty of evidence here to show that Trump is a racist but who am I kidding, it wouldn’t be seriously looked at and even if it were no one here would particularly care. The false dichotomy of “either Trump or Clinton” holds sway here, absolutely. To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not “evil”) must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good.

How is that?
I am just asking you to consider the lethal fascist your nation is about to elect. It is your responsibility as Americans. I dont care much for aloofness at this point.

Quote :
With my experience in judged debate competition I can clearly see in my mind where points are dropped or improperly addressed. I could make a nice layout of all this and clearly articulate each argument on both sides and where they meet and where they fail to meet; but that would take several hours, and I no longer feel inclined considering that I no longer believe it would be met with honest, philosophical treatment anyway. Hell, maybe I’ll get bored someday soon and do it just for fun. But I’m not at all interested in ideology from any “side” of if, so I guess that’s gotta be that.

Ive been articularing my arguments, as has Parodites, you havent addressed any of them. Your claims have been refuted, and still you keep making them as if they are evidently true. I think you are truly wrong here.

Quote :
Glad we can at least still agree on many other things, though. In fact why don’t we try to find the points where to have agreement, such as in our opposition to the idea of the corporate oligarchy state as an easy example; or the most basic values that support and sustain human being. Well that last one could be tricky, if you don’t really hold any actual values here but just the standard of valuing as such as the sole “base value”. That would be another interesting issue to look further into.

We just disagree fundamentally on this political cycle.

Of course all this is a minute part of my philosophizing - this brilliant stuff about the Doric is deeply pertinent to the core, though.

Quote :
You already know my cornerstone rational values. I consider these values truly universal and that human being as such is based in and on them. Of course there are many other values that are a half-step derivative up from these core ones, these derivative human values are also important despite and even because they are often opposed to the core ones. A true systematizing of the hierarchies of values from the core on upward through the derivative continua; that would be something to see.

I consider no values universal except self-valuing itself- VO would not allow for another thing."

"Capable wrote:
Quick restatement of purpose here for me:

While I reject the false dichotomy of the choice between Trump and Clinton, because this dichotomy is logically based on a fallacy of excluded middle that is all but deliberately created by the US political system, I of course do understand that practically speaking this dichotomy is forced upon us because realistically either Trump or Clinton will win the election. I understand the desire to vote for the lesser of two evils in this situation, I don’t condemn anyone for doing that. Clarify our values and try to reason out consequences and ends for each candidate being elected, and then vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s perfectly fine, but it’s not what I’m going to do. Neither candidate is close enough to my own values therefore I will vote for neither one.

But I think I’ll withdraw from this thread, mostly because it isn’t psychologically healthy for me to continue here; this unhealth is based on the fact that each of our respective positions and values have now been adequately clarified and I can’t see that our positions or values will change as a result of my continuing to post in this thread. The exception is that I will gladly offer rationale and factual evidence backing up any of my claims made in this thread, if requested; I will do so happily, and if I cannot find fact and evidence for any claim, or a least a valid and solid rational defense, but really there must also be hard fact and evidence to support these positions too-- if I cannot find any to back up a claim that I’ve made here then I will absolutely and happily abandon that claim.

I reject ideology and psychological motives here, I want to uncover truths to “build thought to disclose the future”. My positions so far are based on what is most justified based on the evidence, facts and rationale that I have to far: I would gladly yield any position that I’ve made here if new facts or evidence is brought to counter them. I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I’m happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now.

So I’ll leave this thread but with the caveat that a call for facts, evidence or philosophical reasoning in defense of anything I’ve said here will be met by me with a sincere attempt to provide as such. Otherwise, thanks to everyone here for engaging so openly in these ideas. I hope no feelings were injured in the course of those engagements.

In the Hegel discussion points, let’s move that over to the Hegel thread I made, if possible.

We disagree absolutely on all of what has been said in this thread; on what is disgusting, on what is philosophy, on what is an argument, etcetera - but as long as no one has been hurt, Im okay with that. I will remain active in this thread at least until the elections; a paradigm that I consider to be supremely powerful philosophy has been revealed here - at its center the Doric order.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:42 pm
Capable wrote:
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don’t believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don’t want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn’t like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

skepticalscience.com/empiri … arming.htm

ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w … _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming’s existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.

The pertinent point here is Parodites’ one, that to give global authorities power to basically reorganize the earths entire economy so as to basically restructure the atmosphere, can not be done without creating a very dangerous inequality of power.

Trump uses rhetoric to keep a modicum of power out of the hands of the globalists. All means are justified here - as Globalism is precisely what Parodites says it is, and what every one can deduce it is; a concentration of power away from the people.

The belief in the need for global control is just an absence of faith in humanity’s capacities to be at least as functional as a rodent. And it is precisely that lack of faith, stemming from weak people that are convinced that everyone must be weak - that has put genocidal sects that proclaim ‘decency’ in power…

When he is president, obviously Trump is going to be more effective in combating climate change as he is actually intelligent enough to deal with China, which is responsible for a massive part of the worlds greenhouse gasses.

The larger problem is obviously the cutting down of the Amazon. But Hillary and her sick snob electorate is just too fucking fond of soy to look in that direction. It’s all so seethingly decadent, the left… fear of Trump only represents the apprehension before the surgeon.


" 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
    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 Oct 05, 2016 1:07 pm
Your definition of globalism as “concentration of power away from the people” is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN; but worse, your definition other than being quite simplistic and black and white is basically just the definition of government as such. By definition to have a government at all is to concentrate some power a distance from “the people”, and as I’ve already pointed out and which I believe has so far gone unanswered is that the political power of “the people” is largely the negative power to throw out bad leaders and is also the smaller positive power to abstractly ground political leadership in the populace at large, through voting and consent of the governed.

“The people” did not write the US Constitution. A very small group of highly educated and dedicated people did. This whole hypostasizing of the category of “the people” into some kind of political God is troubling to me, to say the least.

As for the other post you made, here is some response below (guess I got sucked back into the fray). And by the way, which points of yours or Parodites have I not responded to? Quote them and I will respond.

Definition: demagogue, " 1. a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

  1. synonyms:
  2. rabble-rouser, agitator, political agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand, fomenter, provocateur"he was drawn into a circle of campus demagogues"
    • (in ancient Greece and Rome) a leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people."

In depth here, theatlantic.com/entertainmen … es/419514/

What makes Trump a demagogue? He is the very definition of using rhetorical tactics (such as mind-numbing repetition, or using child-level vocabulary), lies, red herring, hyperbole, “racism” (bigotedly grouping people into fixed blocs based on nationality or religion (no use splitting hairs about “Islam is not a race” or “Mexican is not a race”, I already know that, the idea still stands)), grandstanding, doomsday prophesizing, and generally feeding on populist sentiment and anger while offering very little real substance.

Quote :
Donald Trump appeals to voters’ fears by depicting a nation in crisis, while positioning himself as the nation’s hero – the only one who can conquer our foes, secure our borders and “Make America Great Again.”
His lack of specificity about how he would accomplish these goals is less relevant than his self-assured, convincing rhetoric. He urges his audiences to “trust him,” promises he is “really smart” and flexes his prophetic muscles (like when he claims to have predicted the 9/11 attacks).
Trump’s self-congratulating rhetoric makes him appear to be the epitome of hubris, which, according to research, is often the least attractive quality of a potential leader. However, Trump is so consistent in his hubris that it appears authentic: his greatness is America’s greatness.
So we can safely call Trump a demagogue. But one fear of having demagogues actually attain real power is that they’ll disregard the law or the Constitution. Hitler, of course, is a worst-case example.

theconversation.com/the-rhetoric … ogue-51984

You could look up “demagogue” in the dictionary and find a picture of Trump. He is the textbook example of what the term means. I can’t even see how that is possibly up for debate whatsoever.

As for that GIF image, so the person who used actual video of Trump himself is in poor taste, but Trump’s own behavior on that video is not? How does that work? You seriously want to claim that a grown adult standing up in front of the world, wanting to be president, and physically emulating retarded motions with a douche bag look on his face is “high taste”? Um.

The shift to coddling disabilities today is an over-reaction to the much longer tradition of dismissing and discriminating against disabilities. Pendulums swing one way and then the other, not going to hit it perfectly on the mark until it has swung many times in both directions. But that doesn’t at all justify Trump’s absolutely childish, immature and quite frankly utterly embarrassing behavior. He is seemingly at the emotional level of a 12 year old boy bullying other kids on the playground because he thinks it makes him seem “cool”.


“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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:12 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
Oh yeah and Trump and these Right conservatives don’t believe in global warming. This is sort of like their desire to teach creationism in schools, or their aversion to sex ed. There is a precise reason for this way of thinking, and it is based in ideology. I don’t want to get deep into those reasons just yet, but I want to let this sink in: Trump rejects climate science, he seriously thinks he knows more than actual scientists and experts here. It isn’t like he has studied the data and come to this conclusion, oh no, not at all, this is pure ideology. He literally and at the level of his self-valuing cannot accept even the basic concept of human-influenced global warming.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

skepticalscience.com/empiri … arming.htm

ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w … _UCuIY8LYU

I really do understand and sympathize with the psychological need at the root of the impulse to deny global warming’s existence or importance, I used to be in that same camp. But it was just based on ignorance, and once we educate ourselves a little bit there is no longer any excuse for that ignorance, nor is there any excuse to refuse to educate ourselves on this issue. This is a problem we can actually solve, addressing global warming before hitting the runaway peak threshold, but public leaders like Trump who arrogantly and petulantly deny the very problem, due to their ideologically driven need to remain ignorant, are the serious problem here.

The pertinent point here is Parodites’ one, that to give global authorities power to basically reorganize the earths entire economy so as to basically restructure the atmosphere, can not be done without creating a very dangerous inequality of power.

Trump uses rhetoric to keep a modicum of power out of the hands of the globalists. All means are justified here - as Globalism is precisely what Parodites says it is, and what every one can deduce it is; a concentration of power away from the people.

The belief in the need for global control is just an absence of faith in humanity’s capacities to be at least as functional as a rodent. And it is precisely that lack of faith, stemming from weak people that are convinced that everyone must be weak - that has put genocidal sects that proclaim ‘decency’ in power…

When he is president, obviously Trump is going to be more effective in combating climate change as he is actually intelligent enough to deal with China, which is responsible for a massive part of the worlds greenhouse gasses.

The larger problem is obviously the cutting down of the Amazon. But Hillary and her sick snob electorate is just too fucking fond of soy to look in that direction. It’s all so seethingly decadent, the left… fear of Trump only represents the apprehension before the surgeon.

Before I read Capable’s response, I want to say: I do not believe it is up to the gringos to defend the Amazon.

If the peoples and inmediate territorial allies of the Amazon cannot work shit out, we sort of deserve having it ripped from our hands.

The fight is not to avoid Clinton ripping the Amazon from the Amazonians, it is to become worthy as Amazonians of the Amazon.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:15 pm
Let me put it this way.

As a prophet of the Amazon, I am not here to defend her. I am here to try to save the world from her wrath. But I’d rather lose myself than the Amazon lose anything, so beware all ye who seek her destruction.


dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:43 pm
Bottom line, I like the Amazon better than I like Climate Agreements made by genocidal billionaire clans.


" 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
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:54 pm
word


dionisius against the cross…
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 Oct 05, 2016 2:03 pm
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

  1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.
  2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
  3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
  4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).
  5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).
  6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
  7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
  8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of “free trade” global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).
  9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.
  10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump’s denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.

I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

Another point I found where I didn’t properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, “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.” My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the “the people” from “expressing their will”. We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn’t work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It’s diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It’s basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.


“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm
Capable wrote:
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

Let me address all of them a bit. I will not make any excuses for what I think politics fundamentally is… which is opportunistic.

Quote :

  1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

It’s already stolen; the US and Saudi Arabia form a robber clan that controls the world through oil. Iraqs oil has been stolen when Saddam was put in power by the US… very many US wars have been about stealing resources. Trump is sort playing with what is de facto happening under Obama; stealing the oil.

Quote :
2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.

Yes, everyone working in real estate contracting is in touch with crime, crime rules that world for the full hundred percent. I know Trump is very good in dealing with criminals - he is a New York businessman contractor. I consider his capacity for simple, effective schemes an asset, right now, in a world that is made entirely of scheming.

Obviously the president of the USA needs to be a highly amoral man - or woman - you need to kill arbitrarily a lot - I see Trump as the least amoral so far. Clinton was the worst - he destroyed Europe by bombing Belgrado and making war with the Russians when the cold war had just ended. Bush and Obama were just continuations of Clintons nationrobbing.

But I digress.

Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)

Ive seen him admit to this. He said “Im a businessman now, not yet a politician.” Very honest of him, actually. It also shows that he understands what both are, business ad politics, how they differ at bottom; politics is representation, business is not.

US deregulation has made it very hard to profit from legitimate domestic businesses. They were all forced abroad by Clinton, or into bankrupcy, it seems…

Quote :
4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).

I agree, but only in that it has produced, so far, a lot of butchers. Imagine that Truman was once voted in… then Trump isnt all that bad, at all.
I think, as Ive said before, that Trump represents the more lofty ad sane part of the electorate.

Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).

Id call that a global balance of power, but if that is what you envision, we envision things that are alike.

Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).

Certainly, but it should also not spend tax dollars on things that a large part of the populace is vehemently against, especially if they are in direct contradiction with the founding Logos of the country, which is to have individualism over collectivism.

Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.

Unfortunately we are all humans, and humans have never been able to reach that sort of agreement. As I see it, all attempts to regulate globally have directly caused genocidal wastelands. What I think is that al nations should take care of ther own shit, and by economy, pressure each others in doing that too.

Trump plans to do this sort of thing, he says - to put actual pressure on the Chinese, rather than get stuck in a fruitless intellectual debate, over what is real or isnt - all that can be done is to pressure the culprits with real, not rhetoric, pressure.

ALl these committees on climate change, they cost billions, and they only make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything.
Clinton appears a slave to the Chinese, as she is one to Wall Street, and Wall Street is seemingly enslaved to Chinese economical decisions. This is why she wont put direct pressure on them to reduce their exhaust gasses, I assume.

Quote :
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of “free trade” global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

I disagree. The left/right distinction came from Marx, who took a perfectly pan-political English workers movement for an extra day off (weekend), and minimum wage, and made it itno some bizarre metaphysical ‘necessity’. Traditionally, working classes vote conservative, namely to keep their jobs - only when a right wing regime needs to be replaced to they sometimes go for left - but this regime now is ultra-left, ultra statist, and has all but destroyed the working class.

Consider how utterly noble it is for people to fight to the right to work, to build something.

I dont believe in left and right at all, never have, by the way. Trump talks like someone who understands peoples desire to make themselves useful, rather than being urged to feel guilty for wanting to work. I dont care who is in the left, or in the right textballoon - I just know that he’s right about this, regardless of what he can ultimatey accomplish.
It is a very crucial thing to just have your values expressed for a person, especially when the last 20 years, your presidents have scolded you for having values, and for complaining when they give all your values away to fascist and simply incompetent regimes overseas.

Trump motly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw. Hillary is of course not elected really, so she isnt a representative politician, just a banal criminal. But she’s not the issue here.

Quote :
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.

As Ive said I dont see life in categories like that, what Ive seen happen with my own eyes is the Democrats under Clinton have sold out the country and planet to a few corporations, and they were enthusiastically helped by the Bush clan, for the whole thing to be extended by Obama. They are lal clearly of the same party,despite the shows they put up to pretend to be adversaries. It would be hilarious if it was acted a bit better. Now its just watching a bunch of sanctimonious Hitler wannabes seeing who can make the most pointless kills with a smile… I truly dont get what their joy is but they seem to enjoy it. Anyway - this is what I keep coming back to. The lat 4 presidents were just basically American Hitlers, in terms of the disregard for human life.

Quote :
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump’s denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.

I think that the point Parodites has been making is the right one; nothing is worth handing over our power to a global elite. Nothing furthermore exists that count count as a reason to trust that such elites would even be remotely capable of addressing any issue with success. These are the same elites that have caused global warming - who have shaped the world of uncontrolled industry that we’re in.

Now we should give them more power in the belief they will act wisely and on our behalf? Hmmm… no.

Quote :
I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

That it happens with any government is precisely why it will certainly happen with something as colossal and unwieldy as a global government. Al the UN does these decennia is stand by while the chosen dictators or militias slaughter their populations. Then they extend the dictator a document.

Quote :
Another point I found where I didn’t properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, “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.” My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the “the people” from “expressing their will”. We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn’t work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It’s diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It’s basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.

Im between you and Parodites in this - I do believe the logos was the correct one, but as I said in this thread earlier, the logos was superimposed on a highly unequal landscape.

The whole suing and countersueing culture evidently makes it impossible for a nation to be truly stable. It is absolutely prepostrous. Maybe this would be a fertile subject to investigate for us - how to construct a proper legislative system without becoming socialist or anti-capitalist or anti-wealth.

All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:23 pm
That was a bit emotional again - the fate of the world may be decided in a month, I am a bit on edge… it makes no sense to say they were Hitlers - it is just a reaction that I get, when I see a routine killer of civilians like Obama or Clinton compare their political adversary, who has not yet killed (nor condemned a race, or a gender), to Hitler I just instantly think: but wait, now that they mention the name, they do appear very Hitlerish…


" 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
    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 Oct 05, 2016 7:07 pm
I just looked at the gif you sent, and the thing is: he does that hand thing to mock everyone, he had done it many times in the past. He didn’t know the reporter had a disfigured arm. He made the same absurd gesture he had a million times before.

Is this your standard of taste? Just pull up a random hate article on Trump and run with it?


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 Oct 05, 2016 7:08 pm
And even if he did know the guy had a fucked up hand and mocked him- as I said, he didn’t- so what? The reporter was a douche. I’ll mock his fucking t-rex hand. I’ve done worse shit than that to people.


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 Oct 05, 2016 7:54 pm
No hard feelings in this, just have to respond.

" To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not “evil”) must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good. "

Bullshit, nobody has intimated that you support Clinton. I recognize you do not, I have also recognized you’re not supporting the current globalist regime. Is putting words in our mouth part of your elite debating skills that you learned?

  1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

  2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
    [His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

  3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
    [His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

  4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).
    [What does that have to do with Trump, specifically? And our process is much more complicated, it takes into account to some extent the non-homogeneous nature of ideology, it’s a representative government, etc. Are you… suggesting that Trump should be denied the presidency even if we wins the popular vote? What is the point? Is Trump a tyranny of the majority? ]

  5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).
    [Government- centralized federal top down government: is itself totalitarian and fascistic.]

  6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
    [Says who? The US government should exist to maximize American interests over those of other nations and populations. Does that mean “for profit”? Do you disagree?]

  7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
    [An assertion.]

  8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of “free trade” global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

  9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.
    [This is the most absurd comment you’ve made. The whole POINT is that Trump is transforming the Republican platform because people have demanded it change. Trump was once a democrat, once a reform party member. And if that’s what the EPA does it fucking sucks at it- as all federal institutions do. I’d get rid of them all, including the EPA. The constitution didn’t invest any power to the fucking EPA as far as I know, maybe I need to re-read it.]

  10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump’s denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.
    [It’s not that important. Russia’s nuclear arsenal I’d say is a little more important.]

" Your idea here is that the articulation of the genetics as Hegel is after, is entirely formal and empty; this is not correct, because as soon as this ‘empty’ system is set up, and through being set up in the first place at all, it immediately starts appropriating contents to itself, like a low pressure system into which a high pressure naturally moves."

My whole point is that the dialectic does not logically function. If it actually worked, then sure. For the reason I mentioned in the other thread: in order for two things to enter into a dialectical relationship, you have to have a negative function: one has to negate the other. There exist many things that simply cannot be brought into a relation of this kind. Force, in Nietzsche, relates only in a positive function, namely to other Force, expressing the purity of Being’s affirmation in terms of the Will-To-Power. I’ve already given my alternative to Hegelian dialectic, Nietzsche had his.

I cannot ascribe to Being any negativity. I simply can’t accept the premise.

"Can you imagine an electrician, or a mechanic, or a philosopher, or a doctor, or an engineer, or a pilot, demeaning their own field and bragging that they’re an “outsider” with little to no experience in that field, woud you hire an electrician who hates the field and has little to no experience in it? "

You’re conflating. It’s not good that he’s not a politician, it’s good that he’s not one of [i]these politicians. I’m a bit astounded. Do you find something tasteful in these people? I hate all the supreme court justices, I’ve hated the last couple presidents; I hate most of congress.

" Why is politics supposed to be different? Trump and his kind of “little guy, good old regular person” crowd seriously believe that government is the problem and seriously believe that not having experience in government is a requirement for being in government…"

The government has made decisions that have cost us. Philosophically, the federal government points a gun in my face and tells me what to do. That’s why I dislike it. I mean: these politicians and government officials have experience navigating through reams of useless laws like our present tax code that only benefit them and the corporate elites- yes, they have experience in that.

“Your definition of globalism as “concentration of power away from the people” is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN”

Yeah, and the point is: what if America doesn’t want to fucking cooperate anymore? What if it is costing us too much?

" But that doesn’t at all justify Trump’s absolutely childish, immature and quite frankly utterly embarrassing behavior. He is seemingly at the emotional level of a 12 year old boy bullying other kids on the playground because he thinks it makes him seem “cool”. "

Jesus Christ, more about t-rex arm guy. You need to lighten up. I mentioned how Jefferson and the like did even more “outrageous” things than Trump has. Who cares?

“My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the “the people” from “expressing their will”. We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn’t work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It’s diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here.”

Nobody was talking about popular votes. The point is our federal government has vastly overstepped the boundary of power afforded to it by the constitution. Unless the constitution explicitly defines a power for the federal government, then that power doesn’t exist.[/i]


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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:57 pm; edited 1 time 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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:56 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
Points I have made that I know or believe have not been addressed yet (please correct me if they have been):

Let me address all of them a bit. I will not make any excuses for what I think politics fundamentally is… which is opportunistic.

Quote :

  1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

It’s already stolen; the US and Saudi Arabia form a robber clan that controls the world through oil. Iraqs oil has been stolen when Saddam was put in power by the US… very many US wars have been about stealing resources. Trump is sort playing with what is de facto happening under Obama; stealing the oil.

Thanks sincerely for taking the time to address each of these points I made. I hope to reply in kind.

But when we went into Iraq and secured the oil fields, we ultimately left them, returned them to the Iraqis. The entire problem Trump was talking about was that the US forces left the oil fields and ISIS moves in to take them over. Yes I realize that the US has stolen national resources such as oil, again I am not naive, if you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman this is really the best source material I know of here. I have no illusions. But Trump is nakedly bragging that we should just embrace this deplorable state of affairs.

You yourself seem to clearly oppose the state of affairs where the US “steals the oil”, so why on earth are you defending Trump when he “goes along with Obama?” More specifically, in Iraq, the US did return the oil fields to the Iraqi people, which was absolutely the right thing to do.

Quote :
Quote :
2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.

Yes, everyone working in real estate contracting is in touch with crime, crime rules that world for the full hundred percent.

I don’t know this. How could you know that this is true, what is your reasoning or experience or evidence here? This seems like a quite extreme claim. And again, even if it is true, which I do not know that it is, you seem to just be apologizing for it while at the same time you acknowledge on some level that you know it is problematic. Or maybe you don’t find organized crime problematic or morally reprehensible at all?

Quote :
I know Trump is very good in dealing with criminals - he is a New York businessman contractor. I consider his capacity for simple, effective schemes an asset, right now, in a world that is made entirely of scheming.

Again this is a very, very cynical view. Yes there are schemes, but no I do not think “everything is a scheme”. That sort of thinking seems to be a cop out, the kind of easy hyperbole that Trump uses to make thinking easy on himself – dividing the world into blacks and whites, “this is that” sort of absolute statements. I think, instead, that things are quire a bit more complex than this. Most things are somewhere in the gray area. But again, what evidence or reason do you have to claim that Trump is “very good at dealing with criminals”? I don’t know that this is true. And what specifically do you even mean by that statement?

Quote :
Obviously the president of the USA needs to be a highly amoral man - or woman - you need to kill arbitrarily a lot

I disagree. And again, you seem to be, on the one hand, deploring Clinton-type sociopathic US imperialism while on the other hand saying this is somehow necessary… I don’t understand this weird combination of these two opposed attitudes.

But more to the point, the US does not need a highly immoral leader. Killing is not always immoral. Killing should not be arbitrary, it should be driven by philosophical principles when it is necessary (self-defense, national defense, in defense of human rights, etc.). I do not accept that immoral arbitrary killing simply for our own narrow gain (of oil, or whatever else) can at all be justified. I think you probably agree, because if you don’t, then you would have no problem with Clinton at all. She would be your champion.

Quote :

  • I see Trump as the least amoral so far. Clinton was the worst - he destroyed Europe by bombing Belgrado and making war with the Russians when the cold war had just ended. Bush and Obama were just continuations of Clintons nationrobbing.

But I digress.

Yes the whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing was really bad. Clinton in Europe, yes also very bad.

Your argument seems to be trying to thread the needle as follows: “We need some immorality, but not too much immorality… Trump is at little immoral but not as bad as Clinton, Bush etc.” Is this really your position, are you trying to toe the line here on precisely how much “immorality” is “necessary” or not? How would you know, what are your standards of measure and value in making such a determination?

Quote :
Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)

Ive seen him admit to this. He said “Im a businessman now, not yet a politician.” Very honest of him, actually. It also shows that he understands what both are, business ad politics, how they differ at bottom; politics is representation, business is not.

US deregulation has made it very hard to profit from legitimate domestic businesses. They were all forced abroad by Clinton, or into bankrupcy, it seems…

I have not seen Trump admit this. If that is true then he is basically saying “hey I am doing bad things because it is really hard to be good!” Well, that isn’t really a defense, just a pale justification and excuse. In any sense it is not a philosophical reason. If Trump really, sincerely cared about these issues of sweatshops and outsourcing and the like, he wouldn’t be doing these very same things himself. And not only in the past, and that he now had a change of heart… he is still doing these things right now.

Quote :
Quote :
4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).

I agree, but only in that it has produced, so far, a lot of butchers. Imagine that Truman was once voted in… then Trump isnt all that bad, at all.
I think, as Ive said before, that Trump represents the more lofty and sane part of the electorate.

I absolutely do not agree on this point. That little GIF clip of him demonstrates quite clearly the kind of “sanity” he has, especially when you consider that he did those antics on live TV broadcasting to the entire world.

Quote :
Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).

Id call that a global balance of power, but if that is what you envision, we envision things that are alike.

Great, this is good to know. We have a clear thing in common now. We can build from this.

Quote :
Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).

Certainly, but it should also not spend tax dollars on things that a large part of the populace is vehemently against, especially if they are in direct contradiction with the founding Logos of the country, which is to have individualism over collectivism.

Like what? What sort of things and spending are you referring to here? Please state it and explain how it is in direct contradiction with the founding Logos.

Quote :
Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.

Unfortunately we are all humans, and humans have never been able to reach that sort of agreement. As I see it, all attempts to regulate globally have directly caused genocidal wastelands. What I think is that all nations should take care of ther own shit, and by economy, pressure each others in doing that too.

Trump plans to do this sort of thing, he says - to put actual pressure on the Chinese, rather than get stuck in a fruitless intellectual debate, over what is real or isnt - all that can be done is to pressure the culprits with real, not rhetoric, pressure.

ALl these committees on climate change, they cost billions, and they only make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything.

How does scientists and policy makers getting together to discuss climate change and share data with each other, and think up things like the Paris Agreement, “make sure no one is spontaneously doing anything”?

International agreements are indeed quite possible, and have happened many times. “Globalism” is just another word for “international agreements”. You can add the “by some degree of force” at the end if you like, but that is both unnecessary in the extreme apocalyptic sense of “force” here as well as always already the case in terms of mild force as incentives and pressure applied economically, as you were saying.

Quote :
Clinton appears a slave to the Chinese, as she is one to Wall Street, and Wall Street is seemingly enslaved to Chinese economical decisions. This is why she wont put direct pressure on them to reduce their exhaust gasses, I assume.

I did not know that Hillary Clinton will not put direct pressure on the Chinese to reduce their exhaust gasses. Where is this written or why do you think this?

As Zizek pointed out, the US sucks in a billion dollars a day from the rest of the world; this is debt spending that sustains not only the US economy through consumption but also sustains the other economies of the world, namely we buy the things they produce, we directly fund their economics through this trade deficit. Yes this is definitely a problem. But how is Trump going to solve that? Trump’s own tax plan will add trillions of dollars to the US debt. Plus the situation is so complex now that if you just shut off the flow of billions into the US from the rest of the world, economies will collapse everywhere. There needs to be a measured, gradual winding-down of this situation into something more reasonable. I don’t think Trump’s proposes for trade wars would at all solve that. And other than trade wars and “making people pay what they owe (us)”, I don’t even know what is coherent macroeconomic policies are… maybe you do? Can you explain them to me if so and how they would slowly unwind the present irrational situation without blowing it all up to hell?

"
Quote :
Quote :
8. The idea of workers rights, unions and some trade protectionism is a basically politically Left position (the opposite position of “free trade” global capitalism is the neoliberal-neoconservative idea).

I disagree. The left/right distinction came from Marx, who took a perfectly pan-political English workers movement for an extra day off (weekend), and minimum wage, and made it itno some bizarre metaphysical ‘necessity’. Traditionally, working classes vote conservative, namely to keep their jobs - only when a right wing regime needs to be replaced to they sometimes go for left - but this regime now is ultra-left, ultra statist, and has all but destroyed the working class.

I am only speaking of US politics here. I understand the left/right political divide doesnt perfectly translate from the US to European countries.

Marx’s point was that the class war being fought at the economic level of labor against capital owners is indeed a kind of metaphysical necessity as you called it. That is absolutely truly the case. Marx was right about that. If you disagree, tell me why. The entire nature of labor is that we (you and I, most people) are required to sell our labor power as a commodity to a capital owner; the capital owner literally buys us as indentured servants and we sell our intellectual or physical or emotional labor, the capitalist sits around and by virtue of owning the capital is able to directly appropriate our labor to himself, and “pays” us wages that are commensurate only with the cost of this labor (again, us, you and me and most people) replacing itself over time as a flesh mass workforce.

Yes, that is a fucked up, highly “metaphysical” situation that human being is present locked in. Marx was right to call bullshit on it.

Quote :
Consider how utterly noble it is for people to fight to the right to work, to build something.

Indeed work is, all other things being equal, a noble and necessary thing. That does not at all refute the above point I just made.

Quote :
I dont believe in left and right at all, never have, by the way. Trump talks like someone who understands peoples desire to make themselves useful, rather than being urged to feel guilty for wanting to work. I dont care who is in the left, or in the right textballoon - I just know that he’s right about this, regardless of what he can ultimatey accomplish.

You’re homogenizing all “work” into the same category, a supposedly noble thing where we desire to “be useful” in some grand beautiful sense. Most work today does not conform to that standard. Most people feel like slaves, and are slaves.

Quote :
It is a very crucial thing to just have your values expressed for a person, especially when the last 20 years, your presidents have scolded you for having values, and for complaining when they give all your values away to fascist and simply incompetent regimes overseas.

Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw. Hillary is of course not elected really, so she isnt a representative politician, just a banal criminal. But she’s not the issue here.

Again, we will disagree. Which people have ruined the lives of which other people, and how? NAFTA puts manufacturing out of business but creates a ton of other jobs elsewhere, such as in service industries and traded goods, imports, small proprietors and entrepreneurs and salesmen. NAFTA also lowers prices on goods and services over time (I am not defending NAFTA, but I am pointing out that these same Trump supporters have also benefitted from it too). The only ones who really get net zero or negative benefit from NAFTA are A) if you literally really did lose your job at the steel mill and are basically unemployable now, or 2) if you are working in a third world sweat shop or jumping off the roof of Foxconn. Those people have legitimate complaints against NAFTA… these petulant Trump supporters are not seriously in a position to complain at all, they are just “disaffected” and mostly whining. Trust me, I have been to Tea Party rallies, I have seen what it is like there.

Imagine a bunch of well to do upper middle class white guys in business suits holding up anti-Obama signs about how Amerca is Tyranny now. Yeah, these fucking people have no idea what tyranny really is – do you think they give one shit about the workers in the third world, or the lower class laborers who REALLY lose their jobs due to free trade policies? Nope. They just care about their own narrow ideological, partisan feelings and getting to spout off against “them liberals”.

This is precisely my point, that most of these supposedly angry Trump supporters aren’t seriously upset by the REAL problems that we have. And neither for that matter is Trump. Mostly it is a lot of fake outrage (it is real outrage for faked reasons).

Quote :
Quote :
9. The political Right (Republican party of which Trump is a member) in the US generally supports corporations as people, money as speech and the decimation of institutions like the EPA whose task is to hold corporations to a basic standard of social beneficence toward public spaces and public health; again the notion that corporations are not people, money is not speech and companies should generally serve the public interest or at least not seriously damage it, these are all politically Left views.

As Ive said I dont see life in categories like that, what Ive seen happen with my own eyes is the Democrats under Clinton have sold out the country and planet to a few corporations, and they were enthusiastically helped by the Bush clan, for the whole thing to be extended by Obama. They are lal clearly of the same party,despite the shows they put up to pretend to be adversaries. It would be hilarious if it was acted a bit better. Now its just watching a bunch of sanctimonious Hitler wannabes seeing who can make the most pointless kills with a smile… I truly dont get what their joy is but they seem to enjoy it. Anyway - this is what I keep coming back to. The last 4 presidents were just basically American Hitlers, in terms of the disregard for human life.

There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. And more to the point, the ideas themselves which you seem to appreciate, namely the ones mentioned just above in the quote, are at the philosophical and theoretical level progressive ideas, namely they stem from a deeply rooted belief and value in human rights, equality, fair treatment, the rights of the individual, and social justice when it comes to caring for public spaces and not allowing private industry to run over all of it, destroying and polluting or even just privatizing it all. These are good ideas, we need more ideas like this; they are fundamentally philosophical, progressive thoughts and values. It is good that you have them implicitly, but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge from where they come or why they are really valuable at all.

Quote :
Quote :
10. Global warming does actually exist and it is actually very critically important that we address it somehow. Trump’s denial of these facts is based on his ideological need to remain ignorant here.

I think that the point Parodites has been making is the right one; nothing is worth handing over our power to a global elite. Nothing furthermore exists that count count as a reason to trust that such elites would even be remotely capable of addressing any issue with success. These are the same elites that have caused global warming - who have shaped the world of uncontrolled industry that we’re in.

Industry itself isn’t bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech. And no, “the elites” didn’t “create global warming”, that is a weird and false way of looking at it. Global warming is a natural consequence of the industrialization of the modern world, probably every self-aware, sentient species in the universe confronts this challenge at a certain stage in its development as a species.

I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit. They do not want to have to scale back or pay for more advanced technology or pay a cost for the carbon they emit. There is heavy lobbying here in the US by the energy industry. The Republicans are basically, to a certain degree, beholden to these people and special interests. I don’t know if Trump is beholden to them or not, but the GOP in general is.

Quote :
Now we should give them more power in the belief they will act wisely and on our behalf? Hmmm… no.

Again, this is not something I ever advocated, nor is that what would be necessary. When it comes to politics and serious problems I believe in honest and difficult pragmatism, not easy hyperbole.

Quote :
Quote :
I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.

That it happens with any government is precisely why it will certainly happen with something as colossal and unwieldy as a global government. Al the UN does these decennia is stand by while the chosen dictators or militias slaughter their populations. Then they extend the dictator a document.

You are arguing against a specific iteration of the UN, and not even the UN in general, much less the idea as such of a “United Nations” sort of structure. The UN indeed does condone violence and genocide, approve sanctions, sent in peacekeepers and relief supplies and aid workers, and try to organize for peace. Yes they aren’t always great at it, there needs to be a lot more work being done here. That is precisely my point, which you seem to indirectly be agreeing to: the UN is not yet good enough, we need more of this very same thing. Your very complaint against the UN, that it is not effective at its ostensible goals, is also precisely my point too.

Quote :
Quote :
Another point I found where I didn’t properly respond yet: Parodites claim that the US constitution exists as a means for the will of the people to realize itself, “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.” My response is that the US constitution set up a government of division of powers and representative elected leadership precisely to also prevent the “the people” from “expressing their will”. We have an entire judicial branch that is equal to the other branches; the judicial branch doesn’t work by submitting issues to popular vote. Neither are laws written like that. In fact the US constitution makes it quite difficult for direct popular vote of the people to enact any laws (amending the constitution requires 3/4 vote of all states (yes states, not even direct democracy here either). It’s diluted surrogate governance of layers of representation with checks and balances where experts positioned at key points in the system (such as judges) make critical determinations. I absolutely disagree that the will of the people is somehow the central or sole goal here. If it were, direct popular vote would have been the basic template on which decisions of law and policy are made, and that is not the case. The vast majority of the time we vote for REPRESENTATIVES, people, not on law or policy directly. This allows for compromises and for expert level thought on issues to coexist with the larger and more blind, inexpert will of the people. It’s basically a system of compromise. And that is why it works.

Edit: Disclaimer: no feelings were harmed in the making of this post.

Im between you and Parodites in this - I do believe the logos was the correct one, but as I said in this thread earlier, the logos was superimposed on a highly unequal landscape.

The whole suing and countersueing culture evidently makes it impossible for a nation to be truly stable. It is absolutely prepostrous. Maybe this would be a fertile subject to investigate for us - how to construct a proper legislative system without becoming socialist or anti-capitalist or anti-wealth.

All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born

Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially.


“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 Oct 05, 2016 8:03 pm
" You yourself seem to clearly oppose the state of affairs where the US “steals the oil”, so why on earth are you defending Trump when he “goes along with Obama?” More specifically, in Iraq, the US did return the oil fields to the Iraqi people, which was absolutely the right thing to do. "

Obviously it wasn’t. We shouldn’t have left oil to a destabilized state where we know terrorist ideology was propagated.

“I have not seen Trump admit this. If that is true then he is basically saying “hey I am doing bad things because it is really hard to be good!” Well, that isn’t really a defense, just a pale justification and excuse. In any sense it is not a philosophical reason”

You claim we can’t rag on politicians because we haven’t read their 1,000 page tax code, but your rag on Trump’s business practice. People in his position have something called fiduciary responsibility. They must avoid paying costs that could be legally avoided, in order to maximize profits for their workers. If that means working the tax code, moving a factory out of the US, etc. then that’s what he does. His point is that he shouldn’t have to move his shit to another country, there shouldn’t be a tax code full of loop holes. The tax code reform he is going to pass simplifies hundreds of pages to a single page, making it more of an even playing field for small and larger businesses. This reform will cost Trump himself a significant monetary loss.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:05 pm
"There are clear differences between the left and right parties here in the US. This radically cynical view, which I also think is deliberately defeatist, that they are all the same, there is no difference, it is all shit, everyone of them is Hitler, is just nonsense to me. But then again I live here and see first hand the real, down to earth differences in beliefs and attitudes of these people based on their political persuasion. "

Nah, they’re both (were) globalist corporatocratic parties. The only difference is in meaningless social issues: one likes fags, the other doesn’t. On everything that matters they are the same. Bush and Obama’s foreign policy was the same. Their views on the surveillance state were the same.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:09 pm
“I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant.”

The cultures and national identities in this world cannot possibly ever come together in the way you describe. It is not conceivable. You would have to first get rid of the idea of the nation state and open the borders, then simmer the population in a melting pot for a few generations.
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 Oct 05, 2016 8:11 pm
Parodites wrote:
No hard feelings in this, just have to respond.

" To hate one is to love the other. I recall Nietzsche talking about this logic as the basis of slave morality: you are bad (evil) therefore I am good. Clinton is bad/evil therefore Trump is good. Or, as Ive been falsely accused of already many times, just because I think Trump is bad (not “evil”) must mean that I apparently think Clinton is good. "

Bullshit, nobody has intimated that you support Clinton. I recognize you do not, I have also recognized you’re not supporting the current globalist regime. Is putting words in our mouth part of your elite debating skills that you learned?

Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here.

Yes many times when I make arguments against Trump it has been replied that Clinton is much worse, or why don’t I also attack Clinton also? This is the false dichotomy I am taking about; “Clinton is bad, therefore Trump is good, or must be good”. It doesn’t need to be a direct “You believe X” statement to conform to that fallacy, nor for the implication to be quite clear that apparently in order for me to attack or criticize Trump I am supposed to also either attack or defend Clinton; after all, why would Clinton come up so much when I am talking about Trump specifically, if perhaps not as the false dichotomy of the fallacy of excluded middle then maybe just as a kind of redirection?

Quote :

  1. The false conflation that Trump made between protecting Iraqi oil from terrorists and stealing it for our own use.

  2. Trump ripping off contractors and American steel workers by secretly purchasing Chinese steel for his buildings and for refusing to pay contractors for work done.
    [His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

That wasn’t my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel.

Quote :
3. Trump using third world sweat shops for his clothing line, and owning stock in the very companies he supposedly objects to (Ford, GM, Nabisco, etc.)
[His practice as a businessman is typical and nothing illegal was done.]

Ok, it is clear that tou are [i]deliberately missing my point.

I will be honest, this is a new low for BTL.

Quote :
4. The fact that “tyranny of the majority” is a very real concern and that direct democracy on policy issues doesn’t work very well and isn’t ideal (as I said, in no other field or line of work or policy do we take a “vote of “the people”” for policy or decide what to do).
[What does that have to do with Trump, specifically? And our process is much more complicated, it takes into account to some extent the non-homogeneous nature of ideology, it’s a representative government, etc. Are you… suggesting that Trump should be denied the presidency even if we wins the popular vote? What is the point? Is Trump a tyranny of the majority? ]

No, I am not saying that Trump should be denied the presidency if he wins the popular vote (although he could still lose anyway, thanks to the electoral college system). And the kind of fake populism and cheap religious pulpit-like demagoguery that Trump represents and cultivates in his followers is indeed flowing from the same place where the danger of tyranny of the majority resides. As de Tocqueville was referenced as saying in that news piece which you summarily dismissed without serious discussion.

Quote :
5. A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is).
[Government- centralized federal top down government: is itself totalitarian and fascistic.]

No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn’t make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic… that should be interesting to see.

Quote :
6. The government should not be run like a business (for profits).
[Says who? The US government should exist to maximize American interests over those of other nations and populations. Does that mean “for profit”? Do you disagree?]

The point I made was that the nature of government is different from the nature of business. Not every thing can be capitalized upon to turn a profit, case in point with addressing polluting of common spaces (economic Tragedy of the Commons). The government in part exists to address those issues and problems which are either not capitalizable or ought not to be capitalized upon; the business world exists to generate those profits, pure and simple.

Quote :
7. Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.
[An assertion.]

What the fucking hell? Where has the honest intention for serious discussion gone?

Yes it is an “assertion”. It is also one that makes perfect sense, or perhaps you can tell me how you are going to address a problem of X scope if you aren’t going to operate solutions at the same X level? Or perhaps you can be bothered to even reply to the point I made at all, rather than dismiss it out of hand like some fucking troll.

Anyway, I am fucking pissed off now. You achieved your end. I will not bother with the rest of what you wrote.


“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 Oct 05, 2016 8:13 pm
“I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. And why do you think big business apologists like these Republicans deny global warming? It is because of their own narrow self-interest at the level of business and profit”

And why do you think others push it so vehemently?

Could it be- perhaps, that the gravity of global warming falls somewhere in the middle between “it doesn’t exist” and “it’s our gravest existential threat,” and that both parties are using it- as they use everything, to profit 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 Oct 05, 2016 8:20 pm
"Thanks for the attitude and making it personal. Glad we can really elevate the conversation here. "

No, no, no. You’re the one who made it personal. At no point until this thread did I ever exhibit hostility, you are the one who has done so repeatedly.

I’m pissed that you lump several million Trump supporters into the “irredeemable asshole” category. As I support him, that is personal. You explicitly stated that one cannot like Trump “and have any heart”, etc.

" No it is not, not necessarily. You can define it that way if you want, but that doesn’t make it true. You could of course provide some evidence or reasoning in favor of the logical argument that federal top down government is necessarily totalitarian and fascistic… that should be interesting to see. "

I’m not defining it, it’s called a principle. The federal government draws its authority through force- it can legally dispense force; it does not draw it from our volition. Perhaps to some extent it will always be necessary, but this federal government has gone far beyond the scope of powers originally afforded to it. If you read the constitution as granting implied powers, there is no limit to the number of additional capacities you can add to the federal government. The only way to read it, is: if the constitituon does not explicitly define that power, it does not exist.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:22 pm
You’re the one in general that has allowed political discussion to become personal, when you began levying insults all over the place at Trump and anyone who likes him.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:23 pm
" That wasn’t my point. My point was that Trump is being a clear hypocrite and apparently lying about truly caring about issues like cheap Chinese imported steel. "

What I said about fiduciary responsibility applies. Or instead of that explanation for the variance in his business practice and his politics, you could just call him a liar.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:29 pm
“Global level problems actually do require global level solutions.”

The reason I didn’t address it seriously, is the following: for the reasons I mentioned about national identities being too different to cooperate effectively, that global level of cooperation will never appear organically. China is never going to quit fucking up the environment in some spirit of human fraternity with us. You might get Russia to dismantle a couple bombs, if you’re lucky: but they’re never going away. So we must rely on less than global solutions.

Last edited by Parodites on Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:43 pm; edited 2 times 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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:30 pm
And I am still irritated that you claim: I am the one making it personal. My debate skill comment was a fucking joke, dude. Your comment that I’m an irredeemable amoral heartless asshole because I like Trump- that wasn’t a joke.


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 Oct 05, 2016 8:34 pm
Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Just to be clear, if we’re still on the topic, here is your standard of taste:

giphy.com/gifs/fun-trump-donald-cEb1tO6Xvn0DS]

That wasn’t a personal insult?

So go be pissed off, just understand: you’re the one who made it personal first.

The fact that you won’t support Trump never became for me a signature of defect or malice in your person, I just took you as having got caught up in the spirit of Trumpenhate, as we may have perhaps got caught up in the opposite. But you have quite clearly allowed the fact that a person likes Trump to override your rationality. You could have even voted Clinton and I would have never read you a list of the dictators she’s received money from and said to you: that’s your standard of taste, you’re basically soul-less and heartless for supporting this cunt, you’re just a rabid racist spellbound by empty demagoguery, etc."

" I could be converted into a Trump supporter if the facts, evidence and sound philosophical reasoning requires it. I’m happy to go that route if anyone would like. Otherwise we have mostly stated our positions and our values, and that will have to be enough for now. "

I explained his fiduciary responsibility, and his dealings as a businessman have nothing to do with his politics. Especially when the very tax reforms he has proposed would cost him significantly. I have explained my position on the global state and the fact that a politics based on national identity cannot coexist with it. The global structure you want does not exist. The one that does, has cost us gravely, and Trump at least claims to stand against it. I have explained that his support is coming from a transition into a new political paradigm, and that the parties are reformulating; while Trump openly embraces that reform, Clinton has stuck to the old dying axis- that’s where Trump’s support is coming from. It isn’t because he’s just a “populist, a demagogue.” I have explained the material danger of a Clinton presidency. There is nothing else I can do. A few of his little gaffes, like the t-rex arm guy, I explained as well, but for the most part I thought them insignificant. I could throw my hands up and say you’ve ignored all my arguments just as you say we’ve ignored yours. Clinton is: we’re definitely fucked. Trump is: maybe we’re fucked. If you can’t honestly see enough of a reason to vote one way or the other on that, fine. Honestly your entire line against Trump revolves around petty gaffes and drudging up random blurbs he made without any context, insulting his supporters; comparing his business practice with his politics without any apparent understanding of his fiduciary responsibility, comparing him to Hitler, insinuating he’s a racist, (he’s simply not) etc.

I’ve brought this thread into page 9, but one gets carried away sometimes.

We’ve been friends for about 10 years at least, you want to tell me to fuck off because I committed the egregious crime of poking fun at your “I learned how to debate bit”, (you can’t go on a rant about how great you learned to debate and expect nobody to say anything) especially after all the insulting shit I pointed out that you’ve hurled at people on Trump’s side, (which I obviously am) it’s your prerogative. You can’t say shit like “If you like Trump you have no heart, no taste, you’re not a thinker anymore you just want a Fuhrer,” and not expect me and anyone else on Trump’s side to not take that personally, as you know I definitely like him. I let it go at first though. What if I said: you can’t support the centralization of federal government and a global state without being a soul-dead conformist pussy retard? What if I said: If you’re a leftist, you’re a tasteless douche with no credibility as a human being. Would that not be insulting? I didn’t do that shit to you. But you can do it to us. I wouldn’t do it either, because I don’t believe it.

But hey, maybe I just need to read some more Washington Post, it will all make sense to me then. That’s called levity. Now you’re supposed to say: and maybe I can just pop a couple dozen pain killers and probably fall right on the Trump Train too. Or ignore everything, then tell us we’re ignoring you; insult anyone who likes Trump repeatedly and then get pissed off when I take one jab at something you said, riding off into the night on your cloud of moral superiority. Don’t post that bullshit fucking gif and tell me you’re here for a serious debate or what my taste is and then get mad when I make fun of one thing you said. I explained why it was a ridiculous image.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:51 pm
I think by now the title of the thread has been revealed to not be hollow.

VO prescribes irreconcilable value-differences. That is what being is.

This election is of absolute significance. So we are being valued in its terms. Our resources, powers, are being drawn out into this battle.

I agree with Parodites on every point.

Also, I didnt even know it wasnt some kid in a wheelchair he mocked, but a reporter with a fucking paying job.

That is pure wretchedness and ill will, to use that incident as such. The people who framed this story are indeed heartless, soulless, and if that word has any meaning at all, evil people -

as I see it. I’d imagine this fabrication to be very painful for the actually disabled.

Ive also had no choice but to feel offended as someone who likes Trump, for being called all these things. I figured I didnt need to take too seriously, as obviously the working premise of our forum is a deep mutual valuing.

It is only natural that this critical time (with Saturn on Antares, the ancients would be hiding in caves) the most violent valuings find their way out. Valuings that apply to the future of the west, which is being decided.

I would propose that we agree that none of us could possibly be seen as heart- or tasteless, but I’ll wait until after the elections.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:01 pm
Yeah, without VO it’s all doomed to stay in the middle ages - at least the bottom line. Without the formal appreciation of irreconcileable value differences among humans and creatures in general, and a system of reconciling them indirectly by employing the very logic that commands this rugged individuality of being, the world will continue to burn and produce bullshit dichotomies over which friends and family will kill each other.

Divide and conquer… the US election circus has divided us here on BTL… which really is quite proper, under the circumstances. We can suffer a bit for this.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:05 pm
" All of it comes down to how valuing is understood, how it is ranked in the episteme, from which the law is born"

"Yes, basically: reality is imperfect. Politics and economics especially. "

I dont know what perfect means if not reality - (how can reality be more ‘perfected’?) but perfection doesnt imply the absence of friction.


" 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
    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 Oct 05, 2016 10:08 pm
It’s obvious what you’re doing Capable. You’re going around on random news sites trying to find the dirtiest shit on Trump to make us all feel guilty about supporting him, because the incident in the gif happened months and months and months ago. You didn’t for five fucking seconds google the t-rex arm guy incident and find out what actually happened. I know you haven’t listened to Trump himself much or you’d know that he had made that very gesture numerous times before the incident- he makes that absurd hand gesture to everybody, to signify that they’re being too sensitive or babyish or girly, that’s what the gesture means when you raise your hands up really high and flap them around: he did it to Jeb, did it to Rubio, etc. It’s obvious that you simply believe we’ve fallen into a mind trap over Trump. And I believe you’ve simply fallen into the media’s mind trap over despising Trump, the media which de-contextualizes every-last-fucking-thing the guy does or says, as was the case with Mr. T-rex hand. Anyway, I still don’t have any personal malice toward you, I just thought the debate thing was funny: my view of you is not lessened. I just think your politics is fucked. But I understand that politics can only ever be an application of a philosophy, to the world. The same philosophy can be applied numerous ways. Your philosophy may be sound, and your politics can still be fucked.

One great thing about Trump, he’s made a line. There’s not many lines left in the world. A bit of a living strike against old Hegel: synthesize this shit. And it is good that there are still some lines, some separations.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
"Industry itself isn’t bad. Technology and science are the only ways we can fix global warming. We do not need to shut everything down, we need to keep innovating new ideas like carbon capture tech "

In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don’t. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it.

" I of course agree that we should not just hand over our power to anyone. Obviously I agree on that. But I am saying we do not need to do that. Things like the Paris Agreement can happen if idiots like Trump get out of the way, denying the very problem itself. "

A formal agreement and promise to do something without having anything close to sufficient means to do it, is certainly not hope-giving. It is rather a statement of being entirely unfit for the task, of completely lacking seriousness. Which hardly came as a surprise.

The best thing for a scientist now is not to wait until his government gives him an order, but to start thinking for himself.


" 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
    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 Oct 05, 2016 10:33 pm
Oh yeah, Capable, you also mentioned I was behaving like some kind of religious nutjob or cnn correspondent because I- predicted things that might take place should Clinton or Trump be elected. Fuck off with the personal shit like you haven’t gotten personal yourself, before I ever did.

“In fact, no one is stopping anyone from developing such technology. Governments are entirely free to do this. But they don’t. Globalism is a moot point here. Nothing more is required to start attack this problem than the gigantic scientific apparatus the US has at its disposal. That they arent doing this, and trying for globalism first, is evidence that they have no intention of solving it.”

Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you’ve made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited. If the globalization had never commenced, our country would have had the funds to get us to Alpha Centauri by now and none of this would matter.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:56 pm
Parodites wrote:

Yes, I would add: All higher level science is a government affair. (Schooling is also a government affair and they fucked that up too.) The government funds all the fucking research projects. Instead of trying to pass laws for us with the alliance you’ve made with other governments, just fund some solar technology or something. Oh yeah, you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain that alliance, this globalism- because our so called allies demand we give them all our military resources, defend their boarders, relinquish our assets to foreign aid, etc, out of the goodness of our heart, for the sake of the noble project of a global state, so your budget for science projects is likely pretty limited.

True. A single percent of the military budget solves all hunger too. The real priorities are evident only by what is actually happening, not by what politicians are saying and formally agreeing on.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:03 pm
Essentially the larger structures get the blinder their will to power unless they are integrally regulated by the self-valuing principle proper; usually this happens as the cost of parts of the environment. Kissingers post-political confession is the final political logos, I think - curb unifying ambitions and tread in deference around great historical powers - above all ones own. Postwar USA equals a globalized politics; Trump understands well that all that is needed now, is boldness, which requires independence.

Your definition of globalism as “concentration of power away from the people” is not a necessary definition at all, it totally rejects my definition of cooperative globalism among democratically participating nations in structures such as the UN; but worse, your definition other than being quite simplistic and black and white is basically just the definition of government as such. By definition to have a government at all is to concentrate some power a distance from “the people”, and as I’ve already pointed out and which I believe has so far gone unanswered is that the political power of “the people” is largely the negative power to throw out bad leaders and is also the smaller positive power to abstractly ground political leadership in the populace at large, through voting and consent of the governed.

“The people” did not write the US Constitution. A very small group of highly educated and dedicated people did. This whole hypostasizing of the category of “the people” into some kind of political God is troubling to me, to say the least.


The political elitism is troubling to me. The Fathers wrote the Constitution to give the people a voice, not to command them. The constitution grants very few powers- very few legitimate commands, to the central government. This political elitism reaches it greatest formulation in the global state: you believe the masses cannot learn to take care of themselves, that they must be administered to.

" A democratized group of nations is a real possible form of globalism (globalism is not inherently “totalitarian” any more than government itself is)."

Yeah your democratized group of nations is possible if those nations tell their populations to fuck off in order to cut deals between each other, because otherwise difference in national identity and interest will cause nations to drop out of the arrangement. As our government has told all of us to fuck off- and essentially giving hundreds of billions of our dollars away to other countries in the form of military aid is in fact telling us to fuck off.


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 Oct 05, 2016 11:16 pm
I am still troubled by your bit about how politics is like engineering, we can’t let Trump in because he doesn’t know politics. More political elitism.

These political elites and lawyers- they’re fucking useless: their skill, their equivalent to engineering, is working through hundreds of pages of over complicated legalese like our 1,000 page tax code. True, Trump doesn’t know that. But he knows how to throw that fucking tax code in the trash and write one about a page long, which would level the playing field and prevent corporations from amassing their inordinate wealth. The State- I made this point pages ago- got involved in the Braudelian stage of capital through this process: they make it so that you need massive amounts of cash to hire the lawyers necessary to figure out how to get you out of paying so much in tax. A smaller buisness cannot afford that. So the big business just keeps getting bigger. And this is possible because of the bullshit politician crafted piece of brilliant fucking engineering we call the tax code. These politicians are really good at doing something that’s fucking really meaningless, managing a 1000 page tax code that shouldn’t even fucking exist and which we can just throw out when Trump gets in. It’s like being a professional at- what’s as useless as a politician, I don’t know; it’s like being really good at something really inconsequential and unnecessary.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:25 pm
Parodites, what do you think about a synthesis of on the one hand the will to reduce US government to bare essentials as the fathers intended, and on the other the will to implement a US type constitution as a default code for nations that are pining for a sane form of government?

Rule by example conquers in the best way, it commands excellence simply by the fact that only an excellent being attracts exemplification. Excellence isn’t a qualitative but a quantitative one, as excellence applies in potential to all proper qualities, it is merely the full (quantity) explication of them. At least, this is a way of arriving at the convenient truth that all men need to be free to be excellent, and that we can never convince someone by logic, but only by example.

Capable simply refuses to be convinced by a man who gives this example; I respect him for that, it is also an aesthetically righteous resistance to the most convenient path. The price of this is apperently a misunderstanding of our intentions; Capables philosophical mind is set against relativizing and taking opportune routes unless they can be made with the full being. I imagine he has met a great deal of people in person both who vote for Trump and are abject, and on the other hand those who are decent and compromised by Trumps rhetoric. This is democracy, the true battle to the death for values. If Clintons vices are less pertinent to his experience than Trumps vices, then at least I must concede that Trump needs to alter certain things. I do trust Capable as an instinct. His political ideas are incomplete simply because he has not seen the necessity of my scheme, which needs a Trumpian victory (small dissolution wars) or a Hillerian defeat (a large failed unification war ending in renewed chaos, possibility, remaining of the lucky nations who are rich but have no nuclear arsenal) I would not have been so bold in the title had I not figured out the line of the best prospect from value ontology. There is going to be a global agreement, but it is not going to be of a political nature, rather a purely juridical one; the court in the Hague. Global Justice must be done to the worst criminals - to set an example. That is all. For the rest, all private and national agencies across the globe have all the resources to do what they need to do.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:37 pm
The US must formally agree to some conditions for the Tribunal (the work of which has not been without hypocrisy, but has still inspired fear in the right type of people - a unique feat) - it must admit to some responsibility for its actions abroad. If it does this, a league of world leaders will have emerged in the US first, then China and Russia, then Europe (nuke-alliances are regional), India/Pakistan/Iran/Israel, the whole axis of - as well as Japan/Korea (I assume the Northern half will either go to China or to the Southern logos, which is a supremely privileged US vassal state where life is quantitatively much better than in the US (but infinitely more monomanic), Brazil, and whatever rising nation is exploiting its population or resources cleverly and according to the standard of self-valuing so as to produce true power, which is vitality. All nations are led both in foreign politics and self-cultivation in example by the virtues of the supreme nation, the United States of America, which will find, in this role, in all its American fellow nations happy second-equals. America as a continent has never seen its pride compromised, so it is robustly fit for the task, and I can’t see any other historical necessity than that some axis from Washington to Sao Paulo will come to take the world in a grip that will become its spine over the course of the next centuries. Formally all nations are equal, and Russia and China are giants by all measure, but the sort of agreement by rapport that can be formed along that ten thousand mile mountainrange is invincible by its pure aesthetics.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:41 pm; 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 Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:40 pm
… US type constitution as a default code for nations…

Yes I agreed a while back in the thread that American constitutional philosophy should first: be perfected in a true independent US free from intrusion by foreign interests, cultures, and governments. (the Constitution was only the first brick in the edifice) Then: exported to the rest of the world. But that first part has never been allowed to happen, due to globalization. We must re-assert our independence politically and economically with a Trump victory, strip the central government, and continue working out our political system until we are satisfied with it for our own populace.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:43 pm
Sounds like a plan.


" 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
    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 Oct 05, 2016 11:44 pm
We simply do not yet possess the political scheme required to bring about the global system Capable envisions, (I recognize it is not the same as the current globalist regime) for our constitution itself has failed us in this country, that’s why the central government has been able to overstep its sphere to this extent. Until we develop that scheme, acting on the intention for a democracy of nations- however noble that intention may be, will likely prove disastrous, at a time when there is no more room left for disasters of the global variety.


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 Oct 05, 2016 11:57 pm
And one other thing about the fact that Trump is not a politician or legal expert, and that isn’t the worst thing in the world- some would say it is good:

Our first president was a general. He killed guys. Not a politician or lawyer. With an equivalent of an elementary school education.

He seemed to do alright.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:50 am
“We simply do not yet possess the political scheme required to bring about the global system Capable envisions, (I recognize it is not the same as the current globalist regime) for our constitution itself has failed us in this country, that’s why the central government has been able to overstep its sphere to this extent. Until we develop that scheme, acting on the intention for a democracy of nations- however noble that intention may be, will likely prove disastrous, at a time when there is no more room left for disasters of the global variety.”

Here Heideggers virtues comes in, the bridge concept, the self-midwifery of mankind, mastering-emerging, physis; detail through scope.

To have seen which mechanisms must end up ruling is literally to speak from the future. Science speaks from the future of objects. Philosophy from the future of man. God is a cheap philosophical trick; globalist unificationism is a result, we now break up the scheme into gods - and multiple futures. Man is writhing in clasutrophobia, the idea of a unified, shared destiny of all is as terrifying as hell has ever been to the subconscious psyche; it knows what madness that entails, and is reminded of the primordial chaos of drives…

What I means practically is that the principle has to be conceived simultaneously as a project for the US and for the world, because this is the most reliable way of honing it to perfection. Simplifying dramatically; Only in this sense is it bold enough to be American, which means ‘not silly’.

Simultaneously conceived, or conceived to apply universally, but not implemented anywhere before it is verified in its effectiveness at home. Prudence in boldness, boldness for prudence; the Doric spirit of the US.

Expand minimalization [myhth - Zeus subduing Kronos/time (and by implication liberating Ouranos/potential)]; philosophy commanding being-as-time, bringing about the powers of value. To value power here - value the cycles, ‘the way things go’ - affirmation of recurrence - not feverish and idealistic but calm and empirical. Real cycles, clockwork.

To begin with, what we can actually accomplish globally as Nietzsche’s favorite men, forgers of myth and morality,
‘Eternally’ recurring feasts.
We wont be able to organize shit without them. This the Fathers knew and implemented well.

A feat in the sense of Halloween or Thanks giving or Christmas is a formal and symbolic recognition of valuing, in terms of the self-valuing of the entire nation. It is a true institution of love, and it cultivates what I will plainly call the good. The more festivals the better - the Romans had one nearly every day.

These arent coincidences in the normal sense of the word; they are engineered co-incidences, producing this Heideggerian emerging, the Greek physis.


" 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
    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 Oct 06, 2016 2:42 am
I don’t entirely go along with Nietzsche’s conception of the affirmation, but the idea that the dialectic literally makes the negation of Being the essence of Being, is my starting problem with it. The dialectic is entirely re-active. It does not touch the ground of Affirmation. Because it is entirely reactive, the dialectic is concerned with change- it is the essential formulation of change and incorporation. But:

[ The eudaemonia
of man, the perfected happiness of humanity, must lie in what Aristotle deems
pure activity, that is, activity outside of time, activity that is not passive before the goad
of any other kind of activity, rather such exogenous re-active forces are located in the
poetic compulsion toward beautiful forms or in the religious instinct, and we have only
philosophy to turn to for this perfect activity. A timeless, motionless activity is simply an
activity that does not cause change, that does not influence any other activities into
becoming reactive to it: philosophy is this perfection. ]

By my definition, dialectics is simply not philosophy. In fact… it seems to be the opposite. The dialectic makes all concepts become reactive to it, absorbed into it, and submitted to its process. It needs other concepts to become reactive to it in order to function, and thus it seems to be a diminishing force, a force exhausted by its own strength, a force incapable of affirming its own positive being.

True philosophy does not require the reactive submission of other powers to itself, in order to exist.

Not only does philosophy not force other powers to become reactive to it, true philosophy forces other powers to become active, affirmative of themselves and their own positive being: (this is why I can support Trump and delight in things contrary to my own philosophy- my philosophy has liberated all powers within myself to establish their independence and affirmative character, their plurality rather than dialectical synthesis)

[ Once freedom is set into motion its tendency is to communicate itself as Schelling says,
to induce everything that it touches to exercising its own liberty and, just as the stars
begin to appear in the firmament, so the stars in the moral heavens rouse themselves one
by one, each seemingly as a champion to every other, to finally annunciate that perfected
eutaxy of powers over whose image we are set upon ourselves in capitulant deliverance- to
a philosophy, if we but light that first star, that is, the urge for immortality, for
continued Being, for existence. ]

This is what I want VO to be: and dialectics seems to be literally the opposite.

And this perhaps not coincidentally fits what I want politics to become as well, with a return to independent nation states.

As you said above: "we now break up the scheme into gods - and multiple futures. Man is writhing in clasutrophobia, the idea of a unified, shared destiny of all is as terrifying as hell has ever been to the subconscious psyche; it knows what madness that entails, and is reminded of the primordial chaos of drives… "


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 Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:02 am
The whole point of the dialectic is that two things, like Being and Nonbeing, are opposites, because each contains within itself the seed of the other. So when you combine them in synthesis, what you’re doing is eliminating their difference: difference here is only an existent quality, not essential. The culmination of the dialectic in absolute spirit lies in the extinguishing of all difference and identity from thought, a full enclosure of the logos from the mythos: it lies in extinguishing everything that life is, for life is identity, self-valuations, self-determinations, boundaries, difference.

If every thing contains within itself the seed of its own opposite or negation, and thought itself- should thought be dialectical, can only synthesize them by eliminating their difference, when we are left with absolute spirit with no identity, how can there possibly exist self-valuation?

" Not only does philosophy not force other powers to become reactive to it, true philosophy forces other powers to become active, affirmative of themselves and their own positive being… "

This is what I mean by reification.


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 Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:17 am
In my system, two datums enter into conceptual opposition, not by expressing the seed of their own negation in the other, but in mutually affirming Being in its purity, from two independent vantage points (epistemes*); thus Luther talked about how the evil man affirms the being and potency of god but in an inverted way, while the good man affirms it just the same. Then there is a stage of negative reflection in which that basis of mutual affirmation is negated, namely Being in its pure affirmative character, thus both the good and evil man sin they simply respond to it differently, and sin is the negation or absence of the divine potency. Then the good and evil man atone for their sin and reincorporate that purity of Being’s affirmation which they both were grounded in, though now it enters into the world through their atonement in a new form- it has been reified. And so the history of thought is the history of this constant withdraw and re-participation of the divine, Being, in the material world, as it changes forms with each reification.

" Instead of ascribing the imperfect core of Nonbeing to Being, its opposite: we ascribe everything to Being. Being contains, not the core of its own conceptual opposite or nonbeing, but the plenitude, the pure Affirmation. Then when it externalizes itself, this process, instead of producing the paradoxical negation of the negation, produces an infinitude of Being(s.) Being becomes surrounded on all sides by innumerable other(s), not just its own “conceptual opposite.” Then two of these other(s) reify their conceptual tension through a stage of negative reflection, which destabilizes them by reincorporating the original affirmative Being: they reify Being in its otherness as a new term born of their negation, they internalize the externalization of Being’s plenitude as otherness, for the other- as pure otherness- as consciousness or spirit, as humanity specifically: that is what human consciousness is. This is how the infinite God creates the finite consciousness of man in which he participates like one solitude within another solitude, ie. love, without ever diminishing the duality of god and man, of solitude and solitude. My process of reification describes not change, but generation; not transformation into something’s opposite, but how Being in its pure affirmation, setting behind the universe and history, finds a way to constantly participate in that universe it is conceptually isolated from, participate in the very plentitude it itself generated; how the infinite Being of pure affirmation re-submerges itself in its universe and re-emerges within it through the reification as a guiding episteme to continue driving history forward, to continue generating the expressed plenitude of other being(s) we see around us."

In other contexts I refer to the episteme alongside the passive ground:

" The perfect, timeless activity of philosophy is that which supplies the passive ground of
value or meaning, it is in other words the creative act, but philosophy is not constituted by
the value it creates."

The timeless perfection of philosophy, which acts without causing change- without forcing other things to become reactive to it, instead prodding them with Being’s affirmative content to become activities themselves, to express their self-valuation, is accomplished in that it supplies the passive ground of a value upon which these things can begin actively expressing their own affirmative being to Being. But it is this very passivity or ground, which allows being(s) to express their affirmative content to Being, that prevents being(s) from ever fully ridding themselves of their identity, of becoming their opposite, or dialectically synthesizing and re-unifying with their source in Being. Thus:

[ Politics is in essence the
organization of imperfect activities upon the innermost passive ground, upon a meaning,
a value, an aspiration- a ground that is supplied by philosophy but does not constitute
philosophy. In Nietzsche this passive ground as is supplied by philosophy is called simply
Power, for every moral and philosophic value constitutes a quanta of power, a certain
specification of potential energetics. The actualization and configuration of this power
and potential with other quanta of power, with other values, is Will, which takes the form
of politics both in external society and inwardly as a rank ordering of our evolutionary
drives: the Will to Power specifies the dimension within which these configurations are
made, within which the imperfect reactivity of forces exogenous to philosophy are
organized on the passive ground of philosophy, whose highest realization is the eternal
return, a complete re-action and involution. Insofar as kinesis is a movement of the
imperfect toward the perfect, following Aristotle’s definition, the kinesis of the polis is a
movement from present material conditions toward eudaemonia or happiness, from
reactivity coordinated within an organism toward the timeless perfected activity of a soul,
but since this movement takes place on a passive ground it can never arrive at its object,
for the polis, in its organization of re-active forces, creates the very dimension of time or
kinesis which it wants to escape from- a dimension we call history. History is the
reckoning of its own end. Thus Nietzsche proposes transvaluation as the form of this
reckoning, whereby the circle of time is turned back around in the vicious circle of God.]


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 Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:08 am
So the relation between a (b)eing and (B)eing can never be negative in this scheme, which is the central anti-dialectical core. That relation, of being to Being, is pure difference, after Deleuze. It can only be positive, generative, irresolvable. It is the excess. What Kierkegaard called: qualitative disjunction. What N. called Will to Power- each philosopher had a name for it: being strives toward that Being, strives to destroy itself and overcome itself to shed its identity and become the All, the Affirmation itself. … To become the Affirmation itself… That is what self-valuation is in my terms. Yet, it cannot succeed: the very kinesis this will institutes condemns it to its identity, to the passive ground, which Nietzsche grasped as the eternal recurrence. So in my philosophy Nietzsche is absorbed and reinterpreted: the Will-To-Power is simply the fact of this asymmetry between being and Being, which urges each being to affirm its being as Being and become the All, the Affirmation.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:28 am
Yes this is Beings nature as I also see it, a violent glory bursting into tragedy, which is the sap of culture, but this history of philosophy is superseded here - in this particular philosophy where pure affirmation is embodied as difference; where a paganism comes out of the affirmation both of god, pure affirmation, and Being, pure difference; instincts are born here that can endure this condition of asymptotic approach to perfect self-valuation to the point of discovering a new bliss, which is an order created by the continuous presence of also asymptotically rising wills - my mind had instantly connected this to the notion of the Doric order, which was always the chosen structurality of aesthetics to guide my intellectual politics towards a world. Somehow my mind works like that, with stone and light and iron, materials.

In this light Capable and I did design the Pentad; to separate pillars in the most separating form. (The path of Venus as seen from the Earth happens to have that structure - I don’t know why. Well I do, valuing, maximization of difference — exaltation is the backbone of all dynamis.)


" 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
    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 Oct 06, 2016 6:47 am
Really I’d love a debate on the merits of Trump where the following terms are banned for all involved: racist, sexist, bully, Hitler, fascist, egomaniac, megalomaniac, demagogue, I could think of a few more. Then we’ll see where we’re at.

" I found one point Parodites made and you just reiterated which I have yet to respond to, namely that global government would amount to giving power to be tyrannical, that in order to fight global warming we would necessarily be handing over tyrannical power to a global level government. I disagree because while yes global government could be used for tyrannical ends, this is the case with any government; it requires that we carefully craft the structure of government such as the Founders did in the US, and not just abandon the entire project. Again this falls back on the fact that I’ve already outlined my idea of how global government could work, a kind of UN like setup but with more force of law and some kind of basic shared military apparatus. Decisions would be voted on by representatives, not made by one tyrant."

Yes but a new world order- an actual shared military apparatus over the earth: that would be a lot harder to overthrow, should things sour. And my point will continue to be: the national identities in play are too different to reconcile their populations with the interests of the respective nation-states. I have also pointed out how the EU will never be like the US for geographic and economic reasons. In order for it to function, one nation will end up having to compromise the interests of its own citizens on the behalf of a foreign nation: outside governments will be able to influence us, etc. I don’t want any outside force to influence the US government. I don’t want a vote cast in Brussels to have any effect on anything in the US, as it once effected Britain, because the culture of Brussels isn’t the culture of the US. It doesn’t make sense. Someone in Europe doesn’t understand the situation and culture of someone living in the US, these populations are completely separate from one another, why would we want to pool their political force into a few common representatives who could not possibly consolidate the differences in these populations? In the US, ideology is not consistently spread out: if we take a consensus of the whole population on rather gay marriage should be legalized, it will probably come out yes, but there are many states where, if that vote was taken from their sole consensus, the result would be no, as the populace there has a different culture and they’re more religious: this dis-empowering at the level of local communities would be magnified a thousand times in the system you’re describing; a thousand-thousand times. Entire small nation-states would have their political force cut to nothing, and lose their sovereign right to self-determination. This is why mandating a federal legalization of gay marriage is an unjust execution of central authority; the states have a right to self-determination. Without an amendment, the Constitution does not grant the power to define marriage to the central government. And this is the way it should be, to preserve the integrity of national ethos at the most fundamental level, local community. Do you not see, even if you think gays should be able to marry as I do, that if we do not follow that course, and we allow the central government to magically produce these “implied” powers, that there is nothing to limit it? It will continue growing and growing, expanding its power, as it has done so.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:13 pm
Increasing military strongholds and centralization does not seem the best way of moving away from fascism to me either.

However, reducing US leverage in the world is unacceptable as well, as the system will collapse. What needs to happen first is increasing the leverage, by electing a strong politician, a man with an actual love for his country, and the experience of building things by bridging ideological gaps, a restoration of the areas that have been made into less than humane by the post cold war chaos politics by inserting working economic infrastructure, opening markets - so as to eventually ennoble the populations so as to actually want a secular minimalist government.

Truth will triumph either way, it is just a matter of how far the attempt to circumvent it is stretched, and thus how much will be destroyed in the path towards it.

Truth is local.
Any attempts to organize the world as a whole are insane - there is no “the world”, except indeed as a monster of energy.

There are realms.

The US is a portal-realm, a beginner-stage, but it is an advanced realm, an endgame as well. It is not much in between.

As a superior nation isolated on its own continent, the US can reign for thousands, and determine nature for millions of years. It is the first global hegemon, and if it plays its cards right (which means to stop bluffing (acting superior to ones position) against weaker enemies, who grow stronger and stronger, but simply “call it” before they catch up), then the world belongs to the US simply by its superior human self-valuing stronghold. Trump is the archetypical American. Americans are known to be blunt, bold, sexual, unapologetic, straightforward and effective. They are also known to be weak minded, cruel, self-ignorant, sanctimonious, backwards about the rest of the world, hypocritical and inhuman. All nations have strengths and weaknesses. Russia has been looking more human than the US for a decade now - electing Clinton will tilt the scales for good, as the US will have lost its bluff, shown a much weaker hand than we all figured it to have.

Electing Trump is simply cutting your losses. They’re big, but not bigger than your gains. Clinton would be turning all gains finally into loss - initiating the stage of global, fully unaccountable “Capital” (deadly force - lets drop the deeply receded semantic euphemism) - and thus, anarchy, and rise of totalitarian nations, predominantly China, which will not hesitate to start killing all muslims, taking some Pakistani missiles for granted, I reckon.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:55 pm
The US and France created its current form, and the British empire protected Islam for the longest time, but the Chinese and Indians perceive them as vermin. In China, a muslim uprising is shot down to the last man. No beheadings, you dont torture vermin. (these views arent my own)

Our culture has set off a lot of shit in Asia, and China aint taking kindly. If you look at what they are capable of doing to themselves, then really, just imagine what they would do if the west didnt stand in the way, to purify their continent of Abrahamistic and Alexandrine perversions of the true state of Being as they figured it out under the Yellow Emperor. The Russians will be all too glad to help them, as will the Indians.

This is fact: Chinese engineers and politicans speak of their project as ‘ah, around in a thousand years, this will begin to produce its intended rendement.’

A Somali generals son who lived in a house we shared with the Zen painters zon, who taught me a part of what I know about Islam and related cultures, told me this prophecy: when the men with the narrow eyes in the east will grow stronger, the end of times is upon us.

I naturally approach this within the framework of the ontological status of perspective alone; the end of times for a certain Realm.

We best not stand in the way of that end too much, unless we want to be reincarnated muslim girls… kek. But really, if valuing coherence could perpetuate in spin configurations alone, I could see it work quite like that. Value-consequence, ‘karma’, is pretty obvious always, if all systems are dropped - the greatest art to me is to think directly, to See True Relation.

What this requires is the absolute absence of neutrality - it requires a veritable self, to be valued into being. Which, since it is a fiction, I had to construct - and I am among fellow marblesmiths. We need a Pericles now with Athenian sophists around him but a Trump with a staffer who occasionally does a clever search online will do.

Trump is preferable even for this reason alone: he will listen to us, if it happens to be opportune for him. All true leaders look directly to the ground. If I look at his daughters pure adoring and at the same time perfectly reality-grounded loyalty, I see a leader of some capacity.

And from the get-go it was ridiculous of the US media establishment to ridicule Trump for his a reality tv program - at least he ran his own show! You need a president like that, who runs the show he’s in charge of. Not one who just turns grey as the machine reaps his years in human blood.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:25 pm
I continued posting in another thread -
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t732-marx

To clarify this

" the end of times for a certain Realm.

We best not stand in the way of that end too much"

I continued:


"Genocide of muslims is not implied here- just the fact that Socialism would long have absorbed Islam if it hadnt been for the West.

Parallel to my absolute rejection of Marxism as a valid enterprise-related theory, I have seen it also as the empirical resolution to Islam. Afghanistan is the example, a perfect hippy state until Mr Brzezinski decided to use it to kill the USSR."

and further

"All Russian leaders after Stalin have expressed themselves well about the American people. All they tried to defeat was the banking system. N one ever came closer to defeat Russia than Gorbachev, who of course was just a shadow of Stalin, a conscience. But the bizarre magic of the old land produced Yeltsin as an absolutely irreducible “Always Close Russian” -

this “Always Close Russian” is required on our Eurasian continent. It is the depth that is deep enough to be unfathomable, therefore fearsome to nations like India and China, which dont much give a shit about nukes, much more about the actual proximity of a magical adversary.

Magic just refers to the capacity to do what the other cant, by mechanisms that the other cant see.

The US media’s magical mechanism is just pure low-ness; because people are in general decent and quite honest, it is literally impossible for the large majority to imagine the degree of deceit that defines their media - no man ever fully believed a newspaper at face value, but hardly any man would have suspected a paper like the New York Times to be entirely used to spread perfect lies for perfectly vile political ends.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:14 pm
Constitutional Law
Mathematics
Semantic Structure
Game Theory (entities aren’t ontically closed off from each other, as more of them take part, identification dynamics change underneath the frozen episteme)
Subatomic Coherency (replacing Quantum Physics and String Theory)
Macro-Probabilistic Mapping (combining Relativity with Quantum Mechanics)
“Sciences of Sanity” (integrating all western psychological theory, before exploring the East from a solid Occidental vantage point )
Supranational Politics (value ontology of nations and peoples; a lot of the Earths poor or unfortunately mineral-rich regions are still entirely unpolitical, living in arbitrary borders under arbitrary regimes, disconnected from large flocks of their own who live across these arbitrary borders)

etc etc

what I can not see myself doing is intervene in penal law. It’s the area I have absolutely no philosophic idea about except the pure evolutionary logic of being driven to ‘punish’ someone who causes harm - I have the idea that the standards can not be set here, that this is where excess must find a very clean and direct path, that should not be absorbed for to long by the system. I think the system is never dead - the institution is always as Pezer says up close and personal - and thus that it actually suffers of the misdeeds it is asked to process, and can come up fairly quickly with appropriate punishments if only wrong/right are set in stone, and degree all due to context.

Capable and I used to disagree penal law, and again it is not my strength at all, the best I can do is rationalize my will to leave it locally whereas I know full well that this would lead to lynchings. So, in effect, I am at loss - because once a self-valuing is violated and the state interprets this as a violation of it, of its laws, then both the perpetrator and the victim are absorbed in a ‘sinful state’ - which then through the theory of law, philosophy, attempts to attone for itself.

There is something to be said for the Iranian model, which is not strictly Islamic, but simply an eye for an eye, when it comes to violent crimes - they allow the victim or the victims kin to execute the payback. I know that it sounds barbaric, but it will at least be infinitely more sensible than what the US has now, where a good part of its most vital population has been legally entrapped at the age of 18-22 into a petty drug deal to be imprisoned simply so the owners of these prisons can take their daily couple of hundred taxdollars for each inmate… capitalism is worse than religion in the illusions it is able to spin - that is precisely its power, probably. And why it now is running seemingly inevitably into an abyss of impossible necessary return. But since it is all a figment of the imagination the worthy of all money (none of it can be eaten or used as a tool, other than a coin as a screwdriver) it will be possible for to whomever the debts are outstanding to just dissolve the whole problem. the economy itself cant really crash, it can just happen that too much misplaced money gets between the wheels and it slows down for a bit, which in turn causes poverty and that may case violence, which in turn has some power to hinder production - but the original cause is simply an idea, which can be let go off quite easily - as I see it, which may be wrong - it’s only an idea that occurred just now.


" 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
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:08 am
Okay, so I started to scatter some seeds of political self-valuing among The People of ILP. Im going to water this and see if it takes root. Here is my OP - a zanyness is always required, - or as Parodites would never say: a romantic irony to ward off cynicism and have style become reality-generative meme - let the stars follow their course and the gods scatter along its path, pouring the water of life as the Hades conquers the house of our birth.

trash:

These elections are the first ones of the people. No matter who wins, the people will have elected now. All have been able to see the truth and fraud will be difficult to pull off. Whatever happens is the will of the people. Now we begin to see what that actually means.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:22 am
the essential question of Nietzsche is what the truth is worth.

The people of America will now decide that among themselves. They will also bear the first consequences, but the results will shape the will to power more than any decision so far since Caesar passed his power along to Octavian.


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:32 am
Please keep in mind that “We the People”, at the time of writing, was referring to “landed white men”. Little has changed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:42 am
Fixed Cross wrote:
the essential question of Nietzsche is what the truth is worth.

The people of America will now decide that among themselves. They will also bear the first consequences, but the results will shape the will to power more than any decision so far since Caesar passed his power along to Octavian.

Yes, this upcoming election is a very important one. Sad that the Republicans could do no better than Trump. But then, Trump may be what my country needs right now.

Truth is the most important asset a person has. I believe Nietzsche tried to express this in his own way.

I also believe that the “will to power” is rooted in the individual’s desire to live one’s own life the way (s)he sees fit (without violating the same right of others).

We Americans will soon be making a choice. Continue on the same path (most people don’t like and can’t handle change) or start walking a different path.

Just letting you know that I have read the post, that I’m basically in agreement with what you said but have nothing to add at the moment.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Maybe I should add that all my commentary on the US is extremely ironic - all the facts I state are true to my knowledge but the paradigm I sketch is naturally very far from an American psyche.

BUT THAT IS THE POINT.

The US has imposed itself on the world through the selective values that the world is now holding back up to it. It is not hamburger culture, it has no claim to food in such a dramatic way - it is violent sanctimoniousness. The error Freud spoke of, that he feared could bring a great catastrophe upon mankind.

Trump is the least sanctimonious man ever to run for president, and yet the first candidate of which the Americans are ashamed. He is the first one who behaves in a way that is clearly the same as the behavior the US has been selling as cool, and as how it’s done. But apparently Americans dont actually believe in what theyve been selling us.

So we I am giving back now some impressions - it is always insulting if ones country is defined by a foreigner, especially one that has some stake in it - I am aware of the ugliness of mistakes precisely if they are rare but structural. But so here it goes.

America is a stupid country, it has had stupid sanctimonious barbarians as leaders. Leaders who had no clue as to who they were leading… and who were being led by a large oligarchy of capitalistic interests that were the true benefactors of our age. Your presidents have been arbitrary men, puppets of a clunky evolution that brought about a regime of douchebags utterly unnecessary under the umbrella of free value exchange. Clinton is sort of the decision that douchebaggery now needs to be the iron rule of the planet. It wont co ‘click’ like the previous times.

Someone actually managed to tell me that it was sort of rational for the NATO to be mobilizing in Ukraine because Russia is. People think that. I realize that most Americans must have no clue that Ukraine borders on Russia. Ugly ugly ugly. And as the world is self-valuing, it truly will very likely come to an end when this motivation comes to be the dominant one.

So fuck it. Im posting some shreds of your constitution with Betty Boop. Pop culture is the highest pronunciation of the US in any case - it is the lightness that did not exist before.

This lightness has gone to its head…

Philosophers are of course not tied to their national ethos and worth, even though they may determine it.


" 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
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus, are you American? If so from which state?

It would be nice if we dont go to war, I still have much to see - as do we all.


" 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
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course there is the Third Possibility we need to be talking about - or not - probably not -
what the establishment will do if Trump wins.

You have to offer them jobs. Maybe you can give them Australia.

Now this is how a Amsterdam kid saw your country in the 90’s.

youtube.com/watch?v=mY0TcSrt8os

(to ‘understand’ … lol… one must first see part 2, the first part. youtube.com/watch?v=3mgZLTzuVxw )


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

America is a stupid country, it has had stupid sanctimonious barbarians as leaders. Leaders who had no clue as to who they were leading… and who were being led by a large oligarchy of capitalistic interests that were the true benefactors of our age. Your presidents have been arbitrary men, puppets of a clunky evolution that brought about a regime of douchebags utterly unnecessary under the umbrella of free value exchange. Clinton is sort of the decision that douchebaggery now needs to be the iron rule of the planet. It wont co ‘click’ like the previous times.

I can’t argue with that. The last president we had that I actually respected was Ike.

So fuck it. Im posting some shreds of your constitution with Betty Boop. Pop culture is the highest pronunciation of the US in any case - it is the lightness that did not exist before.

I was surprised to see Betty Boop. I have a few of the original black/white graphics of her.

Philosophers are of course not tied to their national ethos and worth, even though they may determine it.

In truth, my ideal is that all humans can become cosmopolitans. This was inspired by Albert Camus. There is much philosophy in Camus’ writings but most people miss it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus, are you American? If so from which state?

It would be nice if we dont go to war, I still have much to see - as do we all.

Yes, I am an American. A proud one. I served twenty years in the Army.

I was born/raised in northern Ohio. Retired from the Army to Florida where I still live.

My philosophy while in the Army was to preserve the peace, not to make war.

As the warrior’s code states: I will help you if I can; I will kill you if I must.

My country is involved way too much in the affairs of other countries. The new president of the Philippines is the only person recently who has had the balls to talk back to dictates from America when after Obama attempted to counsel him on how to rule his country the newly elected president told Obama to go to hell. I fell he was right and just in doing so.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Of course there is the Third Possibility we need to be talking about - or not - probably not -
what the establishment will do if Trump wins.

You have to offer them jobs. Maybe you can give them Australia.

Now this is how a Amsterdam kid saw your country in the 90’s.

youtube.com/watch?v=mY0TcSrt8os

(to ‘understand’ … lol… one must first see part 2, the first part. youtube.com/watch?v=3mgZLTzuVxw )

Yeah, a lot of negative things can be said about America and most of them are likely justified.

However, there are still people who come here on visitor’s or education visa and after their visa expires they just stay here in the USA. And there are many who come here to find work and never go back home.

My nation still has great potential for millions of people but big industry, big banking, and my government keeps screwing up the “American Dream”.

I have no idea where my country is headed but I don’t like the indicators I have seen over the past 50 years.

Trump may be what America needs to get back on track. I don’t know. I don’t like the idea of Trump being president but that doesn’t matter if it would bring positive changes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Im honored that someone with all that experience find sense in my analyses.

It has always seemed me as well that Eisenhower was the best president of the post war era. I suppose this means that indeed for an imperial nation, generals can very well make good presidents.

De Gaulle was one of Frances best presidents and George Washington was of course a general.
Military men have the knowledge of necessity and sacrifice that no state can do without.


" 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
    avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can you imagine a military coup in the US? The thought never occurred to me before now.
It would require an absolute chaos among the Agencies.


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, military people have had to opportunity to view things from the outside and most try to stay out of politics.

Powell was a good General. Too bad he accepted that job with Bush.

McArthur was feared by the politicians and that’s why he got fired.

I think a military coup in the US would be almost impossible. The various commands are too separated. Yes, it would require chaos at the top levels of government.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With a knot in my stomach I remember Powells face like I just saw it. As he presented the aerial pics of the supposed facilities, his soul broke.

I dont know how they coerced him but it may simply have been with dishonorable discharge due to some woman he saw or something.
It seems to be the way leaders are generally being discredited.

You can see my issue with puritanicalism - it doesnt mix well with militarism.

The Roman Mars was an absolute servant to the central state-goddes Venus.
No nation ever rose to power without gods except the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Maoist China.

We must discuss this - because we need to look at consequences, not ideals.

Go visit the Temple of Zeus in Athens (it is not on the Acropolis, but down amidst the dirty traffic), and tell me if you do not understand why I say that gods exist.
Fictions that cause cultures into being, whole sciences, these are existing things. Even though I feel that Zeus is far more than a fiction, as purely a fiction he already is more real and tangible than most things.

The World is Will to Power, Zeus is an image of power that compels my psyche into ecstatic creative downpouring. Odin is a god that guides my path to beautiful girls. I live with gods since a while, since Ive discovered which ones are both relevant and real enough to me, their presence comes alive through valuing their attributes.

The psyche is more powerful than it strictly needs to be - this is the human problem. It is my experience that to hold on to a supreme but non absolute value, which is to say a great love, is in general the best way of getting things done in the long run. If a god serves such a purpose, then belief is justified ( granted that it does not get into the way of other values, such as science or common sense, that it does not restrict, but only discloses.

Hence - N’s question about the value of truth.
And since it can be questioned at all - if value does not take prevalence -
if value, furthermore is not Truth itself.

And what is a god if not a Value… the truth about truth is its value, which first of all is determined by its pertinence. And value is per definition pertinent.

ᚨᚨᚨ
ᚨᛇᚨ
ᚨᚨᚨ

Because I dont accept any limits set by authority figures, a god who is totally indifferent to human affairs except when they produce supreme beauties or virtues like the Greeks had their Gods is a perfect catalyst of life, for a forcefully imaginative type like me. Zeus is not an authority, nor is lightning an authority, not that it knows anyway - it does not even notice us.

I wonder if it is possible for you accept the gods existence to me, as I accept his non existence to you. Not that I care to convince, I just like to explicate - and I psychologically wonder about the thresholds that values put in the human mind.

Truth is great, but it has too many wings to fly.


" 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
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can’t question beliefs no more than I can question faith or a person’s religion.

Those are personal and I have no right to question them.

But I will, on occasion, point out reality to another if appropriate.

A story about the Buddha: it is said that a disciple asked Buddha if the gods answer a person’s prayers. Buddha replied that there are no gods but if you pray to them they will answer you prayers.

I did read some Greek mythology during my mid-teens but that was so very long ago. Hardly any recall.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
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 Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You might like the novel American Gods by Neil Gaiman, Fixed. It’s not bad. Odin makes an regular appearance if I remember right.

Trump mostly represents normal people being fed up with being lectured by the very people that ruin their lives, towns, states, country, and planet. In this sense, at least, he represents me. He is the most dignified and honest representative politician I ever saw.

:laughing:

I don’t know who it was doing the talking here but that is one of the saddest statements I’ve heard lately.

I voted for this lesser-of-two evils and wish that I hadn’t voted at all, which isn’t me.

Define dignified?
Define honest?

He’s a demagogue!

I pity you. Its great to have Trump. You should not be seduced into feeling bad about a human running your nation for a chance, Arc.

you wouldnt happen to read mainstream media, would you???

Trump uses the means of the people… this makes him a demagogue in the eyes of elitist. Yes, we know this. But are you elitist, Arc?

Compassion might be a better word to use.
Define human.
Would you like to have him? Take him.

Do I listen to the news? Yes, I do. But I also read him, I listen to his so-called rhetoric. I see his narcissism and his insecurities. I do not trust him. Thankfully, hopefully, he will not run this country as he did his own businesses.
He’s like a fascist.
Do I have a bias against? I sure do but I also see that he is not good for this country…only for a chosen few.

No, I am not. I am rather surprised that you would have to ask me that question.

I cant even begin to imagine why someone with a heart would think of Trump as bad. I only see fascistic media and idiotic beliebers lying and crying, for the rest I just see Trump making miracles happen domestically and abroad to save mankind.

Defeating isis, repealing Obamacare, getting out of tpp, just a few world class savior acts he pulls off in the first year. But there is so much more that he does that is better than I ever expected Americans to be capable of doing, politically.

Trump began a process of healing, but the disease is close to terminal already. If he can bring the debt down somehow that would be most useful. But the Fed Reserve always retains the ability to crash the economy at moment notice, which power they have acquired since 2008 by loading up their balance sheets with over 4 trillion dollars (almost 1/4 the whole GDP) of bad debts. If they start selling those debts, it’s all over.

I don’t know if they would use that as a threat or not. But I wouldn’t put anything past them.

Regardless, the disease was so massive that the healing simply had to start, somewhere, anywhere. Doing nothing (electing The Shill) was not an option. And the deep earthy wisdom of Americans understood this.

And the Federal Reserve is run by…???

The Fed Reserve is a private company owned by the major US banks, with its governors being appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Alan Greenspan, Ben (Shalom) Bernanke, and Janet Yellen being…?

I’ve already addressed that issue. More than once. Now you need to tailor your comment to what I’ve already said on the subject.

You haven’t addressed a damn thing.

None of that is a done deal as of yet, Jakob. He hasn’t defeatest isis. Also, is it he alone who would be defeating isis?
About Obamacare? What would he do but rush in where angels fear to tred. I agree that health care needs changing but what does he want to do? Swoop in like a terrible tsunami and wipe people out, healthwise. I do not trust him, the way he operates.

I think that you have some Halo Effect going on, Jakob.
He is not the Savior of the World. On the other hand…

I didn’t say that he was all bad. Most people are not all bad ~ most. But I do not intuit that he is good for this country. Pay very close attention to him, the things which he says and the things which he doesn’t say. They are not in good harmony ~~ for me.
Franklin Roosevelt used to have his fireside chats.
He has his so-called tweets. How harmonious are they? How deserving of the office of the President of the United States?
Has he ever been called on the carpet so to speak for his actions and reactions on twitter?
Do you think that it would behoove lol the P of the US to be rational and balanced when it comes to his tweeting albeit he is a human being – but still, could he not exercise intelligence and walk away?
How much better in a person’s eyes he might at least appear to be, instead of being no different than many who rant?
Does he have carte blanche when it comes to tweeting?
Ought he to say the first thing which comes to his mind, because he has felt insulted?
Ought the P of the US fight back verbally when insulted or do you think that he must exercise some form, some kind of civility?
After all, he is not admonishing or insulting one of his employees from the past.
Where is the intelligence and decorum when it comes to the way in which he relates to many people?

I don’t know if he can in reality be dangerous but the way he exericses his right to speak to people can sometime in the future make for danger.
Behavior in one venue I think carries over to behavior in other venues.