The Philosophers

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.

Trump is the first non-fascist, non genocidal president you’ve had for at least half of a century.

But he uses twitter.

:astonished:

I can’t even begin to argue with you, Arc. The lives Trump is responsible for bettering already count in the billions.

Its fine by me if you don’t see this. But your life has been drastically improved as well.

Arc - this applies in my world just as acutely as your own standards apply in yours.
If you can read this without giving in to the impulse of wanting to “correct” me here, then you will be able to better understand my position - without taking it, of course, without sharing it. I do not expect nor desire that - it is impossible. It would be a miracle just for you to understand the basics of the standards Nietzsche describes below.

I can assure you that this applies in my world with perfect consistency, and always has.

"A great man — a man whom nature has constructed and in-
vented in the grand style — what is he?

First: there is a long logic in all of his activity, hard to survey
because of its length, and consequently misleading; he has the
ability to extend his will across great stretches of his life and to
despise and reject everything petty about him, including even
the fairest, “divnest” things in the world.

Secondly: he is colder, harder, less hesitating, and without
fear of “opinion”; he lacks the virtues that accompany respect
and “respectability,” and altogether everything that is part of the
“virtue of the herd.” If he cannot lead, he goes alone; then it
can happen that he may snarl at some things he meets on his way.

Third: he wants no “sympathetic” heart, but servants, tools;
in his intercourse with men he is always intent on making some-
thing out of them. He knows he is incommunicable: he finds it
tasteless to be familiar; and when one thinks he is, he usually is
not. When not speaking to himself, he wears a mask. He rather
lies than tells the truth: it requires more spirit and will.*’ 1 There is
a solitude within him that is inaccessible to praise or blame, his
own justice that is beyond appeal." [Nietzsche, The Will to Power]

Mind you, this is not meant as a description of Trump. It is a description of a type of man that may hep you understand why Trump is being valued over all the other US leaders before him. Trump is a step in the right direction.

Fixed Cross

Perception is everything. This I am aware of. You do not see his fascist leanings?
I will take a better look if you will. But… :evilfun:
As I said, I did vote for him but I see no real changes but many grandiose statements/promises.
But Rome wasn’t built in a day.

If you place a particular vowel and a consonant before the word uses Jakob, you might be more on the mark.

.

Sure you could but you would win insofar as arguing goes but not convince me otherwise ~~ since you are a far better opponent than I am.
But do you want to know something? I would love nothing better than to be convinced of his effectiveness in actually making America great again.

What have you been drinking, Jakob, and I ask you this with affection.
Show me where so I don’t think that this is just so much propaganda.

I think that there is a halo effect going on there.
My life is just as it was before he became president.
But please tell me ~~in what way has my life changed. I do not see it at least not as yet.

This might appear to be your projection, Jakob, but I’ve been known to be wrong and that is not coming to you as an insult, not at all.
But I really do think that there is a strong halo effect going on with regards to how you view him.
But don’t worry about it. We all have them but we have to see them.

So I do not see most of this pertaining to him but certainly some does lol . … probably more to you.
But I am curious about what the historians will have to say about him when the time comes. I only hope that it is far better than what I intuit. i realize that I am more than a bit biased here but who is it who sees more realistically, the one who has the halo effect or the one who might be a bit biased? That question does not pertain to just you and me. Perhaps they are simply the opposite side of the coin. Who knows?
But let’s not count our chickens before they are hatched and let’s not put the cart before the horse.

lol What?! Has Trump written a book called Notes to Myself (an actual title of a book) and have you been reading it?
You would first have to prove a statement like that, Jakob and who is it that would do this valuing of yours at this stage of the game?
Don’t people have to prove their selves first?
Is that from one of those so-called polls which would favor him? It would certainly have to be at this stage of the game.
You can’t see the bit of hero worship going on here?

You have me all wrong. I am far too cynical about human nature to have human heroes.
I see in trump the first somewhat honest, somewhat transparent, somewhat human US leader of my time.

I think it is rather the halo-effect of the previous leaderships that has you fooled.

They were all absolute monsters, and yet they were presented as humans, and people voted for them and let them do their monstrous business while talking about them as if they were any less horrible than Hitler. That to me is the halo effect which Trump breaks.

Anyone who liked Hillary Clinton is, and I mean this literally, easily as deluded as anyone who liked Hitler. But the same to an extent goes for Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush – not to speak of the ones that came before. All of these folks are mass murderers. Thats no reason to dismiss the USA, or the West, but it is a reason to rejoice in a more honest and human type of leadership.

Humans will always be offensive to humans. That is why ultra sensitive humans vote for robots like Clinton and Obama, who do their killing with a big grin and tell you its all for the good of mankind.

People actually believe that Obama did al his mass murdering for some moral purpose. That is the halo effect. That is the hero worship. Obama and Clinton fans are literally exactly the same as Hitler fans. That is the halo effect. Trump has no halo, he is crude, like the USA is at heart. He doesn’t have it in hi to pretend he is something he is not. The US is being revealed to itself. That is what hurts you about Trump - you are being made to see yourself as an American.

Americans are being made to see that their country is not some moral vanguard, but a human all too human power that has to make a decision about whether or not it likes itself. Trump shows you for what you are. Take it or leave it.

:-"

If you have real rouble seeing my perspective, just take a look at the viciously obscene cowardice of so many people on this site, and realize that this is a kind of running standard for politically motivated humanity - it is all entirely subhuman. In this subterranean climate of behaviour, this absolutely ugly standard of comportment that people like Wendy and Joker represent, the absolute cowardice and leechery of it amidst all of that, a leader like Trump is pure deliverance. An actual human.

Humans are not exalted beings, but they are better than Clintons or Obamas, Ottos and Autsiders, better than the memetic froth on genetic waste that these trolls represent.

Absolutely, yes.

This is excellent stuff. Trump is indeed the rightful representative of America, the true face of the US. I’ve disliked the US since my adolescence, and therefore also dislike Trump; Fixed Cross has loved it since childhood, and therefore also loves Trump.

Last night I was in a heightened state and wrote something in English again, against my resolution–something philosophical, that is. I will post it here in honour of the Philosophers and also because it may be fitting in this context.

::

Philosophical supremacism is the claim that philosophers rank above all other men, or that philosophy ranks above all other–activities. Now this has always been widely considered insane–consider Glaucon’s response to Socrates’ idea of the philosopher kings in Plato’s Republic–, and even in modern times it will be considered so. For to a modern, philosophy or science only has value insofar as it improves the people’s life. But one need not be a modern or even a Platonist to find grave problem with the claim. For there is an inner, analytic inconsistency to it.

Philosophical supremacism is concerned with rank. Rank however is not the subject of philosophy as such, but only of political philosophy. That is to say, it’s not the subject of natural, but only of moral philosophy, not of physics or metaphysics but only of ethics, at most of religious philosophy but not of “first philosophy”–philosophy proper, “philosophical” philosophy. This means that philosophy proper cannot claim a higher rank than any other activity.

The philosophers proper, however,–the genuine or actual philosophers–are those who lay claim to a highest form or way of human life, a virtuous life or person. To claim this about the (meta)physician is inconsistent, as we have seen. But is claiming it for the political philosopher not circular and thereby absurd? “The highest man is he who commands and legislates as a statesman, a moralist or a prophet that his kind of life is considered the highest.” He will then have to do so as a rhetorician, a play actor, an inspired poet: his self-expression, not what is expressed is then the focus: it is only the shadow play suggestive of the blaze behind it.

In the case of moral philosophy, that blaze is the blaze of natural philosophy: the impassioned conviction that every part of nature, as a manifestation of the whole or the nature of nature, is divinely glorious to see in truth. On some level, be it only the microscopic, science and divine service are one. Sublime patterns are found that fill us with awe. But the microscopic and telescopic are in a sense different planes from our natural, human-scaled one. In this sense, science is an escape. The greatest challenge lies in what is seen with the naked eye and the naked mind. This is the level on which dust is dust and fire is fire. The level on which virtue or virility banishes filth into nooks and crannies. On this level, the divine itself is ranked into high and low–even into divine and non-divine, even demonic.

::

The level on which dust is dust and fire is fire is also the level on which worms are worms (as per another of FC’s most recent posts). I was actually thinking of worms around when I wrote “filth” and, then, “dust”. I also thought of the brain of the leech (Zarathustra part 4) and of gnats’ anuses (Aristophanes’ Clouds).

Here’s something else I wrote today: “Tastism: the view that there is such a thing as good and bad taste.” I may be a Cato to Trump’s “Caesar”, but I do assert that an objectively higher taste and tastefulness can only arise out of the consistent assertion of some irrational and arbitrary taste.

“Voegelin seems to believe that ‘post-constitutional’ rule is not per se inferior to ‘constitutional’ rule. But is not ‘post-constitutional’ rule justified by necessity or, as Voegelin says, by ‘historical necessity’? And is not the necessary essentially inferior to the noble or to what is choiceworthy for its own sake? Necessity excuses: what is justified by necessity is in need of excuse. The Caesar, as Voegelin conceives of him, is ‘the avenger of the misdeeds of a corrupt people.’ Caesarism is then essentially related to a corrupt people, to a low level of political life, to a decline of society. It presupposes the decline, if not the extinction, of civic virtue or of public spirit, and it necessarily perpetuates that condition. Caesarism belongs to a degraded society, and it thrives on its degradation. Caesarism is just, whereas tyranny is unjust. But Caesarism is just in the way in which deserved punishment is just. It is as little choiceworthy for its own sake as is deserved punishment. Cato refused to see what his time demanded because he saw too clearly the degraded and degrading character of what his time demanded. It is much more important to realize the low level of Caesarism (for, to repeat, Caesarism cannot be divorced from the society which deserves Caesarism) than to realize that under certain conditions Caesarism is necessary and hence legitimate.” (Strauss, “Restatement on Xenophon’s Hiero”.)

With this ad hoc “signature” quote I will return to my self-imposed exile from English in philosophicis.

=D> And you, the ego-maniac, self-deceiving, drug addict who can’t face his mental illness who fucks black whores with ketamine up their asses and brags about it while some lame sock puppet on ILP are of a high standard, more valuable, than the average American, like Joker and I who deal with our families, don’t flee from our countries, and fuck each other legally while sober, we are ugly since we reject a greedy, religious conspiracy. Yes, you are the epitome of sound judgement. :laughing: You keep bringing up my name, desiring my attention being the sick fuck you are and now you have it crazypants! Was the chick you took the photo of and posted in the rant house the Islamic girl you knocked up?

Only a low life would use a girl, without her consent, for some sleazy photo-op proof of having sexual affairs. =D> Good job dumdum!

That’s his Muslim girlfriend, eh? :laughing:

Last night I wrote something in English in a heightened state again. It incidentally has some common ground with Fixed Cross’s latest post in his “Grand Scheme” thread, but it belongs in this thread. I guess I’ll also post links to the rest of my English-language videos here soon.

::

Aan wie richt ik mij? O Muze, is dat het beste dat we te bieden hebben? O godin!

“Light my fire” is the ardent cry for something higher than it itself is. Something that departs from where “The End” begins. Something older than Oedipal—nay, something that only now opens the eyes to that That is where it all begins. The Son as the self-fulfilling prophecy of the Father—the Fathers.

Oedipus, the three-in-one eyed, Wisefoot, the three-legged, Snake.

He who shows Eve Adam.

The true Adam.

The Omega, the Alpha.

The Lion-dogged who steals or “robbeth”.

The King of Actors on your horizon. But thus far ever beyond it, unknown and unseen. Beyond what you know of “Evil”. Greater than the greatest evil is the Good, that is, the only one not insane, or the sanest being present, accessible. The best speaking being. The gender king.

One who is somehow between the nerds and—the rest, the strong and the weak, or at least manages to convince himself thus far. An Oedipus blind to the Swell-Foot that he is, who forces himself to See only when seduced by the best, like Uma Mohan—Saraswati Stotra, “Trishakti — Devi’s Divine Dimensions”—

Which reminds me: I have these thoughts about dimensions. The great Singers’ or Seers’ ground art is rhythm, rushing, roving in time. Melodies, let alone lyrics, only serve to catch the dance thereof (of both, respectively). The Dunce, the fool whose rapid tongue flows ahead of the king’s—the wise guy, the wit. But the true King is of course the Queen—that is, of all who sport to be king.

Who is the REAL Sir Lancelot? The one who best honours the king, most barely leaves him in his pride. Most supermanly portrayed by Henry Cavill in The Tudors. But King Arthur had only one wife. And Lancelot returned to the fold, having tasted Magic, the third path between Peasant and Nobility, between Boor and Knight, clumse and Supreme Servant.

Words tend to distract from where I really meant to go. I will try again.

Where did Ser Knight find HIS magic? Where magic was most devowed: the True Religion, the Abrahamic or Ibrahimic Magic, really Persian Magic, Persian Virtue… The Fire of Light as opposed to that of Darkness. But That is precisely the Darkness, the sweetest most persuasive Burning, the crackling of witchwood, of witchhood… Even in ancient Greece, Oedipus had this “irrational conviction” that he needed to be vaporized by lightning in a sacred grove or garden, where no one should find him. Why? Because he was wise and not mad, and his was the strongest way to attest to it. Not insane, not impure, not raving, not off the right track, not hubristic—not deluded in having truly seen the power of the Gods.

Those who, having lived as Oedipus, move on as if no line was crossed that might be drawn by Gods, had to be burned as witches in earlier times. Today the civilized world is much more lenient, ever more lenient than the “barbaric” past. Yet this was made possible thanks to the past. We are still only relatively lenient, and may always have to be that way even if given forever. And “forever” could only be given if man remains a relatively intelligent being, not allowing itself to go extinct.

For all of history, man has been the species of the three types: two obvious ones and a third, questionable type. Yet it’s precisely this one that sets the standard, “type”, the notion of two types to the stronger of which he himself belongs. To the men, say, he shows that he’s a man, and to the women, he intimates that he is on their side.

My sacrifice is the forced coming out of the third type. I recently spoke of “the naked eye and the naked mind.” But I wear “eyewear”—eye glasses, man-made lenses, like telescopes and microscopes. (I’m a telescopic wearer.) Likewise, I regularly—though not often—melt an eyeglass for my mind—a substance-induced grounding-anew for my mind. Usually, I am most sober, but my best sobriety is still slightly, if essentially, off. Just like my glasses don’t have to be perfect, my mindglass need only converge the light I see with it enough to clearly make it out—make out the form it takes. A wellspring.

I was considering using magic truffles (the lightest kind) this vacation, but this trip was induced by vaporizing weed. This is my coming-out as what Morrison called “a
visionary-scientist
radiocal biochemical
aviationary sky-diver”. A shaman. A Magus, a black-magic user—which reminds me of something I thought of saying before, of going into before. There is ONLY black magic, except for the kind that charms the world to think it is not. Zoroastrian, Abrahamic, Roman, Liberal, Globalist: these are all so many links in the chain away from the Brahmanic, whose mirror image or foil is the Brahmanic. Nietzsche wrote:

“It is an eternal phenomenon: always the greedy will finds a means to hold fast, through an illusion spread out over things, its creatures in life and to impel them to live on. These here are fettered by the Socratic lust of knowing and by the delusion to be able to heal the eternal wound of existence thereby, those there are ensnared by the seductive beauty-veil of art fluttering before their eyes, those there in turn by the metaphysical consolation that, beneath the whirl of appearances, eternal life flows on indestructibly: not to mention the baser and almost even more powerful illusions which the will keeps at the ready in every moment. Those three stages of illusion themselves are only for the more nobly equipped natures, who experience the burden and hardness of existence with deeper unlust and who are to be deceived over this unlust through exquisite stimulants. Of these stimulants consists everything we call culture; in proportion to the mixtures we have respectively a SOCRATIC or an ARTISTIC or a TRAGIC culture: or if one will permit historical exemplifications: there is either an Alexandrian or a Hellenic or a Buddhaistic culture.” (The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music [1872].)

But he later corrected himself:

“[T]here is either an Alexandrian or a Hellenic or an Indian (Brahmanic) culture.” (Pencilled correction in Nietzsche’s own handwriting in his copy of The Birth of Tragedy. Or: Hellenism and Pessimism [1886].)

This makes perfect sense. Socratic, Apollonian and Dionysian. Modern, Ancient (Platonic) and

::

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9qhFKMaTWY[/youtube] SEVEN, Sacred Chants III, “Vishnustuti-Vishnushodashanamani”

Emoticon -[tab]your claim to moral superiority about my posting the pic, out of your own scummy nature assuming that no consent was given or that I would do this without consent, while putting my rant house post in the open just to troll me some more (you’re in all my threads trying to mark your territory like a dog) proves once again your total personal collapse due to your sexual obsession with me. Admittedly Ive made it easy for you to get obsessed and to troll me. But you’re just ongoing proof of being a piece of more and more sordid shit. Thankfully Ive not been telling relevant truths about my personal life since a few years. That had proven dangerous when KTS began to approach me.

You are entirely transparent, which is a good thing since you’re so ugly. Please, for the sake of this world, if you have any shred of self respect left in you, be gone and make a home up your ass where you live with Joker.[/tab]

Sauwelios, thank you for your promising posts. You’ll understand Ill take some air and sunlight before I allow myself to them. What used to be discernible as persons with whom I could have some conversation are now largely become true chandalas, negations of dharma. With this rather absolute contrast between their sordid obsession with things outside of themselves and your inward gratitude (which is the same as beauty) I see a signal point to finally brandish them untouchable.

We could perhaps simply begin to categorize posters in castes for the sake of keeping ILP clean and entertaining. This prerogative defines us as the first caste, but who else shall this supreme space include?
A delightful conundrum.

But all this as the circumference of such matters as are addressed by The Philosophers.
As Bobo would endlessly quote from A Fistful Of Yen: You. have. our. gratitude.

Back to de Weteringschans.

Stop referring to me (period!) and you didn’t have her consent to post that in some pussy-getting thread online, liar!

I actually have an idea on how to enforce this casting.
To simply strip them of their supposed individuality by addressing them never directly and when in tbe third person always referring to them as “the chandala”. This may then apply to anyone too wretched to be discerned whole, in or out of ILP - we speak strictly of the unwholesome substance the type represents, a substance which precludes structural integrity. These posters are best described as dharmic lepers.

The chandala keeps begging for the mans attention as its nature prescribes but sometimes it does so in offering music it did not itself produce. This is the only way in which it can touch the skies, indirectly.