"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."