I want to punch Marx in the face for making Hillary Clinton

[URUZ]

“A great irony is that the only real "social construct" is socialism itself, the whole edifice of social construction theory. This theory made up the idea of social construction because... that is precisely what it is itself.

So Marx tried to value himself in the shadow of Hegel, and ends upon appropriating Hegel's Absolute Spirit into a false idea that society is entirely separate from biology, earth, and 'hard realities'; that society-history is purely a fictional and arbitrary thing, therefore may partake of Hegelian universality, therefore any and all evasions and selective blindness to facts are justified to that end.”

[URUZ]

The following is especially relevant, and completely exposes the fraud of Marx/collectivism, forces it to stand naked in the light of truth:


“Communism is a force attempting to release nuclear energy from the [cultural, historical/social, psychological] substance. Communism pulls apart existing relations within the substance in order to release energy from this destruction. For example, the structural relationships at the political or economic level, the molecular relationships at the community and family level, and even and eventually also the atomic relationships at the level of the individual person/psyche itself. Communism aims to provoke these kinds of pulling-apart nuclear reactions in order to release stored energy; this stored energy had formerly been used for maintaining the onto-epistemo-logical structures and for allowing self-valuing to occur at higher thresholds than it otherwise would be occurring at, thanks to the existence and maintenance of those onto-epistemo-logical structures at both the individual, family, local community, and state levels. All of those levels each possess their own being, but are also each only one part in a larger being, namely in the environment in which self-valuing finds itself and by which self-valuing is able to self-value to its highest capacities, translating and interacting with as much truth and as many truths as possible.

The building-up of the social/cultural substance in order to effect that substance as this kind of environment suitable for the highest kinds of self-valuing is a very long historical process, and again is a natural process very much 'geological' in nature, whereby derivative layers grow tectonically and create meta-frameworks allowing for new kinds of relations and objects, and just as the root breaks through the rock so too do these kinds of substances break through the harder realities of the natural world and into the light of the moral universe, into the possibility for responding to and knowing facts, values, reason in a more and more direct manner. This whole building-up process is very slow over time, a gradual accumulation.

What happens with communism is that the imbalances within this substance with respect to the distributions of its bulk of hardened capital atop the social/cultural milieu of the substance itself are taken advantage of to cause seeds of internal disorder and destruction to take root, like cancers, within the substance. The first communists (Marx for example) figured out that if you pull apart existing substance-relations there is a sort of energy that is released from this; this energy is chaotic in nature and tends to have a destructive effect, because it is not integrated into the larger substance and environment but rather represents precisely the destruction of a small part of that substance and environment. The substance is now beginning to attack itself in a very profound way, it is becoming cancerous as the communist idea infects self-valuing with lust for forcing new capital-arrangements into being that would ostensibly be more advantageous to that communist self-valuing itself. But all of that is only a secondary causality, more like catalysts and a setting up of the situations in the practical sense; the real reality of communism is simply its being this destructive disordering force ripping apart existing relations within the substance. Any number of excuses and justifications can be used to trigger and grow this force within the substance.

Communists will prey on people's disaffections, their desires, their frustrations, their embarrassments, their inabilities, in order to trigger nuclear reactions. The communist hopes that these reactions will cascade in chain reactions causing the communist idea to self-perpetuate and take over the entire society, such as occurred in Russia and China. It is important to see that the communist agitator is really a very careful practitioner of this philosophical/'spiritual' method of attempting to work directly with the substance to provoke a specific outcome; I am not at all convinced that Marx et.al. had no idea what they were doing, I think all of these early communists must have been at least somewhat deliberate in their intentions and methods. But the communist idea is naturally intoxicating for people whose self-valuing has been damaged or limited in some crucial way, because it offers them a religious escape and excuse for these traumas and failures. Communism is indeed a religion, which is why it does not tolerate other religions (it is 'atheist').

Communism is a religion of self-worship of the idealized capacity for working; I say idealized because real work can never be rationalized in that way, real work is work of the earth, work as and within and for the substance of the social/cultural and for setting self-valuing properly in its relations to truth. Communism disregards these relations and removes self-valuing from its contexts, forsakes the earth, and attempts to realize a religious neo-substance directly in reality and without any pretext, precursor or vision. Communists must burn up the existing social/cultural substance, first in nuclear reactions to spread communism to a threshold point of self-sustainability and second in using the existing capital and substance relations and objects as fuels, burning these to produce the life-substances that will satisfy the people from moment to moment. The whole central planning, top-down authority aspect of communist economics is no accident, it is an integral part of what communism does to the existing substances and capital: in communism's 'spiritual' (philosophical) attempt to form a religious kingdom on earth, it must simultaneously reject the earth as such and make direct use and consumption of the earth in strict linear manner in order to satisfy the basic needs of the people who are now communist. Because the earth has been abandoned it can no longer provide for the communists and the communists can no longer truly work with the earth, therefore their only recourse to survival is to seize everything around them and appropriate it into new destructive-consumptive processes, digesting the whole history and capital development of the past and present which becomes their 'new earth' upon which they attempt to found their religious kingdom.”


Yes, “digesting” it, indeed. Everything about culture, history, society, value, relationships, truth, art, all of it becomes, under communism, nothing but more fuel to toss upon the burning pyre in order to keep the fire going. Communists, like modern leftists/liberals, do not work, they “work”, and therefore can only actually generate heat and light through always finding more to throw into the fire pit. They cannot invent a light bulb or discover electricity for example, to continue the analogy— such actions are psychologically, philosophically impossible for a communist/liberalleftist, their very religion prevents them from being anything but a brutal caveman in the wild (“the wild”, this is what society becomes under communism, as civilization continues to break down as it always does within applied communism), scavenging for the next meal that can be stolen and for whatever works of art, value or truth can be thrown into the fire pit to continue to keep the communist warm for another day.

[URUZ]

“...communism is nothing more than entropy. Literally it is entropy.

All of the social, cultural, economic, linguistic-psychological (mental and emotional) constructs and values that are built up during the history of a civilization, a nation, a family, etc. are literally structures, and as structures must be maintained. They are subject to entropic decay if not maintained properly.

Communism is this decay. The burning-up of these structures in order to generate 'heat' energy; that heat is what we see as the revolutionary-chaotic impulse to destruction, the mob. The mob is destructive precisely because the mob is this burning-up of existing substances, producing heat-fire, and that heat-fire is simply the actions of the mob.

Communism is the psychological attractiveness to entropy. So literally a form of death. Standing upon the edifice of capitalism, of constructed values, we can look down below us and see communism far down there.”

[Meno_]

A shift from histro-hister nautics to semiotic compensitiory
fill ins to manifest for substantial value, where commune type universal brotherhood eliminates the need to fear the bursts of bubbles , and de-signify literally the science of its own decoding.

This seems amusingly simple, but the previous seminal paragraphs leading up to it need to have repeated readings for proper correlation basically for fear of the primary culprit: alienation, for does not communism"s favorite mantra deal with subscriptions of stay here for if you go toward the multi dimensional you'll fall off the linear?

This last is only a self induced warning how history tends to repeat at times of panicked self valuing..

The apparent catapult of self valuing into the nothingness of the nuclear family , well that goes alongside a warning Franklin Roosevelt made albeit oh so constructively . There is nothing to fear but fear.

[URUZ]

Would be really nice if you actually made some sense. Just saying.

[URUZ]

I know that's a lot to ask of the ILP crowd.

[Meno_]

I really admit that and that can not always be said of said I ILP crowd.

But I need. to AND want to work on that. My forte is that I am fairly objective about well founded criticism.

Greatful for that honest., knowing that is not really a credible argument but more a weak posturing, so let it go with that.

Will rephrase cause this is ibid a fascinating topic and undressed may prove challenging, yet not absolutely unobtainable.

[Meno_]

And if that undressing proves embarrassing consisting of vastly more inspiration than perspiration, a response such as ' Oh Well , may not prove much, either to lessen the sense of embarrassment.

In any case a retreat into rhyme without reason may also be an option hoping it will not come to that.

[Meno_]

deleted for reasons unmentionable and redundant.

[Silhouette]

Just a couple of things to add, before I may or may not respond in a bit more depth (and yes, good post Chakra)...

In light of the Kennedy speech, it seems as though the choice is between a messy pluralism that encourages criticism from all sides - a kind of perpetual political war and unrest, or a peace that would by contrast not involve this kind of continually unresolved debate - thereby implying it is beyond question. The latter seems somewhat sinister to say the least, and we most certainly have the former in place at the moment in the West no matter how hard you might freely argue to the contrary.

On one hand, ongoing political battle actually feeds back on itself because nobody with an opinion that deviates from supporting the status quo ever feels like they are properly listened to or have any real influence. They shout louder and louder, becoming more and more extreme in a vain attempt to be heard (e.g OPs like this), and ironically from this background of pluralism from which they are demanding in favour of one particular way and not simply arguing against all sides, they are pushing for the aforementioned peace whereby their opposition has lost and no longer has influence. It seems particularly ironic when they claim to be fighting for free speech in order to silence others, simply because they feel that they are the ones being victimised by the silencing power of their political opponents. Each extreme finds the other to be the ones oppressively fighting against free speech.

It seems to me as though we ought to expect to be challenged from all sides, if we are to actually be in favour of free speech.

I am wondering why those currently in power are criticised from one side as the other, and vice versa. It makes me consider that they are neither, or both. In order to gain quantitative favour, it's their job to be more in favour of your poltical enemies than you are, because the middle-ground is closest to the most number of normally distributed votes. In this way, it's quite obvious how politicians and the media always appear to be fighting for the other side. The more you exaggerate how much this is so, the more "edgy" your opinion, and you get the approval of like-minded cultish tribal folk. It's very motivating and cathartic to have and oppose such a clear enemy, the more they are made of straw and the less you realise this the better.

Another aspect of this whole circus is that if there are two options sufficiently distinguishable from one another, at least seemingly, one will always be closer to you than the other unless you somehow lie exactly in the middle - in which case you probably aren't shouting so hard. It's no wonder we have a naturally emerging duopoly in politics. Dopamine levels are at their highest when outcomes are feared to be 50/50, hence why politics are compared to sport - and marketed by politicians as such. Sympathising with your opponents is boring!

[James S Saint]

The problem is that there is no standard for agreement whereby two opposing parties can freely and willingly state, "Okay we can agree on these items". Given that one thing, the entire socio-political arena changes immensely. And that is what Resolution Debating is about - providing a means to agree while still being open for debate, rather than the demonic "let's all agree to disagree ... Muhahahahaha.."

[Fixed Cross]

First of all, thankfully we now have Trump, who as the first modern politician has come from a background of Meritocracy rather than crime and is simply not tied to Marxist deathlogics that prevent someone like the reasonably gifted Silhouette from owning up to his mistakes so as to prepare for the art of thinking. Socialism, Marxism, depravity in general is marked by the structural lack of accountability/self(-knowing).

UrGod - indeed Collectivism is a form of entropy. The idea(l) that a Collective is anything at all other than a heap of squashed ex-individuals, is akin to the idea that piling up a bunch of random machine parts makes a machine.

The most troubling part is that some want to be squashed in such a pile, such a safezone, invertebrate oasis surrounded by reality - they are like worms and yet make claims to Humanity. But worms in a can do not constitute a world.

The world is deep, and you are all about to witness its depths reaching out to you soon enough. It doesnt matter what you opine, it matters whether you heed the principles that made you.

[Silhouette]

First of all, thankfully we now have Trump, who as the first modern politician has come from a background of Meritocracy rather than crime and is simply not tied to Marxist deathlogics that prevent someone like the reasonably gifted Silhouette from owning up to his mistakes so as to prepare for the art of thinking. Socialism, Marxism, depravity in general is marked by the structural lack of accountability/self(-knowing).

What a complimentary way to call me a non-thinker Damning with faint praise at all?

What intrigues me is the way that a well functioning team can far outperform a collection of individuals each pursuing their own self-interest. Distribution of labour and co-operative strategies and whatnot: the most successful strategies - businesses aren't even "supposed" to use them beyond a certain level under Capitalism! Cartels and collusion are naughty. Of course Capitalism does not exclude forms of much weaker levels of teamwork, but individualism is the foundation - the ideal. When that ideal is desecrated you get these overpowering "Communist" powers that are taking over the world - how weak those squashed, random-machine-part ex-individuals are!

There is the knowing of oneself as separated from the group, the unknowing of oneself as hiding within a group, and the knowing of more than yourself as empowered by the group. Clearly the second is the weak one, the first much stronger but still it pales in comparison to the third. By all means moving from 2->1 first can enhance one's perspective on moving from 1->3, I recommend an oscillation between 1<->3 once one is free from 2 - that's when one can really test their thinking, once they have moved on from merely preparing for the art of thinking.

Don't be a worm in an irresistible juicy can waiting to be feasted upon into by a bird (2), don't just be a worm who escapes such a doom to come back a stronger worm (1) - become a net of worms and ensnare that lone crow, your would-be prey! (3)
More inspiring words were never spoken....

Joking aside, Collectivism is so damned as weak ideologically, it doesn't even seem to be considered that it is in fact stronger when tested.

[URUZ]

First of all, thankfully we now have Trump, who as the first modern politician has come from a background of Meritocracy rather than crime and is simply not tied to Marxist deathlogics that prevent someone like the reasonably gifted Silhouette from owning up to his mistakes so as to prepare for the art of thinking. Socialism, Marxism, depravity in general is marked by the structural lack of accountability/self(-knowing).

What a complimentary way to call me a non-thinker Damning with faint praise at all?

What intrigues me is the way that a well functioning team can far outperform a collection of individuals each pursuing their own self-interest. Distribution of labour and co-operative strategies and whatnot: the most successful strategies - businesses aren't even "supposed" to use them beyond a certain level under Capitalism! Cartels and collusion are naughty. Of course Capitalism does not exclude forms of much weaker levels of teamwork, but individualism is the foundation - the ideal. When that ideal is desecrated you get these overpowering "Communist" powers that are taking over the world - how weak those squashed, random-machine-part ex-individuals are!

There is the knowing of oneself as separated from the group, the unknowing of oneself as hiding within a group, and the knowing of more than yourself as empowered by the group. Clearly the second is the weak one, the first much stronger but still it pales in comparison to the third. By all means moving from 2->1 first can enhance one's perspective on moving from 1->3, I recommend an oscillation between 1<->3 once one is free from 2 - that's when one can really test their thinking, once they have moved on from merely preparing for the art of thinking.

Don't be a worm in an irresistible juicy can waiting to be feasted upon into by a bird (2), don't just be a worm who escapes such a doom to come back a stronger worm (1) - become a net of worms and ensnare that lone crow, your would-be prey! (3)
More inspiring words were never spoken....

Joking aside, Collectivism is so damned as weak ideologically, it doesn't even seem to be considered that it is in fact stronger when tested.

[URUZ]

^ Homage to I.L.P.

[Fixed Cross]

What a complimentary way to call me a non-thinker Damning with faint praise at all?

Narcissists...

Its not about you Silly.
Im calling you reasonably gifted as an illustration of the decay humanity is suffering, with your typical refusal to investigate what you talk about, and your disdain for the idea of looking at peoples deeds and judging them at the hand of such empirical terms - disdain for research is a widespread human trait, these times - even among the gifted.

I know you're a clever guy. That doesn't mean that you are dominated by integrity or have the balls to do research.

You are eminently proud of not having done the research to back up your claims, and are disdainful of the notion that someone might expect some research...

Its just beautiful. The outcome is so very predictable. And its so good to not partake in this ethos where ignorance is the first prerequisite for making statements.

Its like watching a market begin to slide down a long slope, when you've shorted it.

The future is bright for anyone that invests in integrity, in power, in empirical valuing.

[Silhouette]

^ Homage to I.L.P.

Don't you have to say something of worth if you are to justifiably express superiority?

You are eminently proud of not having done the research to back up your claims

Not at all, in fact I have felt ashamed of my reading difficulties ever since they became apparent to me when I was very young. Numbers and everything else - easy, but unfortunately this particular flaw continues to this day to stunt my ability to research as much as I would like - at least through the medium of print. Naturally I still try, and to attempt to make up for it I listen to people who have researched when I can, but no doubt this will still fall short of standards such as those that you claim to uphold. In terms of pride, I am proud of my ability to still outsmart people in spite of such a flaw, and frankly I love the hit of thinking logically and creatively along with the best of them. I regard what I have salvaged out of this situation to at least suffice, because by no means am I unaware of what seems to me to be a great deal of research (though that is not for me to judge) - and I agree that research is lacking in direct correlation with lack of effort for much of humanity. Whether or not humanity is decaying I am not so sure - though decay is certainly increasingly more visible. Am I a Narcissist? Surely not as much as I used to be, and it should be apparent that I am willing to admit my flaws - I understand that you were speaking of a wider group than just myself, it's just that you did name me in particular and nobody else. And yes, I am aware that talking about myself for an entire paragraph does nothing to counter your accusation

I am to gather that your argument is that more research on the part of people such as myself would cure me/us of opinions such that I espouse. I am willing to consider that this may be possible, for not just me and a wider potion of humanity that you say I illustrate. Any change in mind has yet to be seen, and I assure you that I am not a fan of the ignorance of mine and of others. Though I don't find that simply stating the existence of such research does much to cure this.

Obviously I expect this research to which you refer to be deeper than the common judgment of the empirical deeds of people who have practiced some form of Collectivism, which I have endured ad nauseum. Such judgments as "Marxism has been tried and failed" utterly lack scientific rigour. In what scientific community would it have been remotely acceptable to look for the existence of, say Neutrons, in a few different ways - to understandably fail and conclude with certainty that they do not exist? I quite admit that larger scale experiments that have so far been claimed to have been undertaken in some form have been undertaken at an absolutely unacceptable cost. If we are to take such investigation seriously and with any intellectual AND moral integrity, our approach must be far more cautious but existent nonetheless. Otherwise, it cannot be claimed without hypocrisy that I am the lazy one.

In the perfectly possible case that I have missed your point and you wish to argue otherwise, please do enlighten me.

[URUZ]

^ Homage to I.L.P.

Don't you have to say something of worth if you are to justifiably express superiority?

Considering that I’ve already posted the below into this very thread, and you’ve chosen to ignore and respond to none of it... yeah. You are about the lowliest scum imaginable, it seems. A perfect ILP sub-creature.

Go ahead, keep faking replies to people who sincerely write lengthy thoughtful posts, keep pretending your own superiority with flippant comments that imply things you know to be an outright lie. The typical liberal-leftist mentality. I’m sure you love a good NPR listening session, eh? Lol.


[ There seems to be a natural tendency for people to desire to collectivize (Styxhexenhammer called it a desire on the part of people to organize, which desire basically renders anarchism impossible) and there are various reasons for this. But whenever this tendency reaches an apex and takes over the general political will and thought of a society, that society starts to lose its ontic coherence.

An entity's existence depends on its maintaining ontic coherence. This is also what we call self-valuing.

Collectivism, so called, only has a proper existence as the natural overflow of values from a strong, coherent self-valuing. A self-valuing will share its values with whatever falls within its broader values-sphere, with whatever it values. But obviously those values must exist, and that self-valuing must be free to share or not share those values. Values cannot be compelled from a self-valuing without distorting those values, cutting out their natural existentiality, and also not without seriously harming the self-valuing from which values are taken. Future valuing possibility is seriously undermined by values-theft, even if that theft produces a momentary increase in values-availability and 'work'-effort.

Individualism is the philosophy that implicitly centers itself upon the fact of self-valuing. Collectivism is a name for various ideologies that are based the perversion of self-valuing in one form or another as theft of values.

Marx codified collectivist tendency within political application and sentiment, and attempted to use scientific-analytic/Hegelian methodology to reinvent economics in terms of the controlled and coordinated, "scientific" theft of values, which of course means the grinding down and eventual termination of self-valuing; remember that a self-valuing is always the source of a value, any value.

The economic model of scientific collectivism coupled with the freeing of the psychological constraints upon the natural impulse to desire to collectivize, led to humanity becoming infinitely malleable and able to be manipulated by applying a two-prong approach: 1) control their economic situation to produce values-theft and redefine this as "progress" and "production", and 2) manipulate the public sentiment around moral issues in order to pervert thinking with shallow virtue politics and 'wedge issues', building upon existing cultural differences to produce distinct classes that can be pitted one against the others. The combination of 1 and 2 produces the modern political landscape. Almost no one can think past it.

...A great irony is that the only real "social construct" is socialism itself, the whole edifice of social construction theory. This theory made up the idea of social construction because... that is precisely what it is itself.

So Marx tried to value himself in the shadow of Hegel, and ends upon appropriating Hegel's Absolute Spirit into a false idea that society is entirely separate from biology, earth, and 'hard realities'; that society-history is purely a fictional and arbitrary thing, therefore may partake of Hegelian universality, therefore any and all evasions and selective blindness to facts are justified to that end.

...The following is especially relevant, and completely exposes the fraud of Marx/collectivism, forces it to stand naked in the light of truth:


“Communism is a force attempting to release nuclear energy from the [cultural, historical/social, psychological] substance. Communism pulls apart existing relations within the substance in order to release energy from this destruction. For example, the structural relationships at the political or economic level, the molecular relationships at the community and family level, and even and eventually also the atomic relationships at the level of the individual person/psyche itself. Communism aims to provoke these kinds of pulling-apart nuclear reactions in order to release stored energy; this stored energy had formerly been used for maintaining the onto-epistemo-logical structures and for allowing self-valuing to occur at higher thresholds than it otherwise would be occurring at, thanks to the existence and maintenance of those onto-epistemo-logical structures at both the individual, family, local community, and state levels. All of those levels each possess their own being, but are also each only one part in a larger being, namely in the environment in which self-valuing finds itself and by which self-valuing is able to self-value to its highest capacities, translating and interacting with as much truth and as many truths as possible.

The building-up of the social/cultural substance in order to effect that substance as this kind of environment suitable for the highest kinds of self-valuing is a very long historical process, and again is a natural process very much 'geological' in nature, whereby derivative layers grow tectonically and create meta-frameworks allowing for new kinds of relations and objects, and just as the root breaks through the rock so too do these kinds of substances break through the harder realities of the natural world and into the light of the moral universe, into the possibility for responding to and knowing facts, values, reason in a more and more direct manner. This whole building-up process is very slow over time, a gradual accumulation.

What happens with communism is that the imbalances within this substance with respect to the distributions of its bulk of hardened capital atop the social/cultural milieu of the substance itself are taken advantage of to cause seeds of internal disorder and destruction to take root, like cancers, within the substance. The first communists (Marx for example) figured out that if you pull apart existing substance-relations there is a sort of energy that is released from this; this energy is chaotic in nature and tends to have a destructive effect, because it is not integrated into the larger substance and environment but rather represents precisely the destruction of a small part of that substance and environment. The substance is now beginning to attack itself in a very profound way, it is becoming cancerous as the communist idea infects self-valuing with lust for forcing new capital-arrangements into being that would ostensibly be more advantageous to that communist self-valuing itself. But all of that is only a secondary causality, more like catalysts and a setting up of the situations in the practical sense; the real reality of communism is simply its being this destructive disordering force ripping apart existing relations within the substance. Any number of excuses and justifications can be used to trigger and grow this force within the substance.

Communists will prey on people's disaffections, their desires, their frustrations, their embarrassments, their inabilities, in order to trigger nuclear reactions. The communist hopes that these reactions will cascade in chain reactions causing the communist idea to self-perpetuate and take over the entire society, such as occurred in Russia and China. It is important to see that the communist agitator is really a very careful practitioner of this philosophical/'spiritual' method of attempting to work directly with the substance to provoke a specific outcome; I am not at all convinced that Marx et.al. had no idea what they were doing, I think all of these early communists must have been at least somewhat deliberate in their intentions and methods. But the communist idea is naturally intoxicating for people whose self-valuing has been damaged or limited in some crucial way, because it offers them a religious escape and excuse for these traumas and failures. Communism is indeed a religion, which is why it does not tolerate other religions (it is 'atheist').

Communism is a religion of self-worship of the idealized capacity for working; I say idealized because real work can never be rationalized in that way, real work is work of the earth, work as and within and for the substance of the social/cultural and for setting self-valuing properly in its relations to truth. Communism disregards these relations and removes self-valuing from its contexts, forsakes the earth, and attempts to realize a religious neo-substance directly in reality and without any pretext, precursor or vision. Communists must burn up the existing social/cultural substance, first in nuclear reactions to spread communism to a threshold point of self-sustainability and second in using the existing capital and substance relations and objects as fuels, burning these to produce the life-substances that will satisfy the people from moment to moment. The whole central planning, top-down authority aspect of communist economics is no accident, it is an integral part of what communism does to the existing substances and capital: in communism's 'spiritual' (philosophical) attempt to form a religious kingdom on earth, it must simultaneously reject the earth as such and make direct use and consumption of the earth in strict linear manner in order to satisfy the basic needs of the people who are now communist. Because the earth has been abandoned it can no longer provide for the communists and the communists can no longer truly work with the earth, therefore their only recourse to survival is to seize everything around them and appropriate it into new destructive-consumptive processes, digesting the whole history and capital development of the past and present which becomes their 'new earth' upon which they attempt to found their religious kingdom.”


Yes, “digesting” it, indeed. Everything about culture, history, society, value, relationships, truth, art, all of it becomes, under communism, nothing but more fuel to toss upon the burning pyre in order to keep the fire going. Communists, like modern leftists/liberals, do not work, they “work”, and therefore can only actually generate heat and light through always finding more to throw into the fire pit. They cannot invent a light bulb or discover electricity for example, to continue the analogy— such actions are psychologically, philosophically impossible for a communist/liberalleftist, their very religion prevents them from being anything but a brutal caveman in the wild (“the wild”, this is what society becomes under communism, as civilization continues to break down as it always does within applied communism), scavenging for the next meal that can be stolen and for whatever works of art, value or truth can be thrown into the fire pit to continue to keep the communist warm for another day.

...communism is nothing more than entropy. Literally it is entropy.

All of the social, cultural, economic, linguistic-psychological (mental and emotional) constructs and values that are built up during the history of a civilization, a nation, a family, etc. are literally structures, and as structures must be maintained. They are subject to entropic decay if not maintained properly.

Communism is this decay. The burning-up of these structures in order to generate 'heat' energy; that heat is what we see as the revolutionary-chaotic impulse to destruction, the mob. The mob is destructive precisely because the mob is this burning-up of existing substances, producing heat-fire, and that heat-fire is simply the actions of the mob.

Communism is the psychological attractiveness to entropy. So literally a form of death. Standing upon the edifice of capitalism, of constructed values, we can look down below us and see communism far down there. ]

[URUZ]

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead leftists? Not being forced to think just yet? How about this?

“My problem with communism is the Marxist critique that enables it, specifically the inversion of the Hegelian dialectic which constitutes historical materialism; I reject the typical dialectic as well as its inversion. The inversion was used by Nietzsche to create the historical master-slave struggle, by Marx to create the class struggle, and now by feminists to create the gender struggle. BLM to create the race struggle, etc. (* ie. the patriarchy. And just as Marx produced the concept of false consciousness from the class struggle, feminists believe that the female psyche itself is just a culturally imposed norm that restricts and oppresses them- something to be destroyed. Both are disgusting ideologies. ) In fact, all leftism is a form of this inverted dialectic: and all right politics is a form of the typical Hegelian dialectic.

Marx didn't know what he was creating with his historical materialism, perhaps you can give him a pass on that. But as I said, all leftism, feminism or blm or whatever it is, amounts to a variation of the inverted Hegelian dialectic which historical materialism utilized in the form of a class struggle and Nietzsche first conceived, though not as systematically as Marx, in his genealogy of morality and the master-slave struggle.

Leftism is the inverted dialectic- in its extreme it annihilates all values and culture; Rightism is the typical Hegelian dialectic itself, which in its most extreme form creates the historical absolute from the movement of spirit- ie. fascism. The left enlarges the State's power by subordinating the populace after destroying their identity; then the Right steps in and turns the State into a God. The two constantly feed into one another. Staying in the center of the political axis as the US has done just gives you a virtually apolitical corporate consumer capitalist "culture." ”
-Parodites

[URUZ]

Still not clear enough?

[Fixed Cross]

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead leftists? Not being forced to think just yet? How about this?

“My problem with communism is the Marxist critique that enables it, specifically the inversion of the Hegelian dialectic which constitutes historical materialism; I reject the typical dialectic as well as its inversion. The inversion was used by Nietzsche to create the historical master-slave struggle, by Marx to create the class struggle, and now by feminists to create the gender struggle. BLM to create the race struggle, etc. (* ie. the patriarchy. And just as Marx produced the concept of false consciousness from the class struggle, feminists believe that the female psyche itself is just a culturally imposed norm that restricts and oppresses them- something to be destroyed. Both are disgusting ideologies. ) In fact, all leftism is a form of this inverted dialectic: and all right politics is a form of the typical Hegelian dialectic.

Marx didn't know what he was creating with his historical materialism, perhaps you can give him a pass on that. But as I said, all leftism, feminism or blm or whatever it is, amounts to a variation of the inverted Hegelian dialectic which historical materialism utilized in the form of a class struggle and Nietzsche first conceived, though not as systematically as Marx, in his genealogy of morality and the master-slave struggle.

Leftism is the inverted dialectic- in its extreme it annihilates all values and culture; Rightism is the typical Hegelian dialectic itself, which in its most extreme form creates the historical absolute from the movement of spirit- ie. fascism. The left enlarges the State's power by subordinating the populace after destroying their identity; then the Right steps in and turns the State into a God. The two constantly feed into one another. Staying in the center of the political axis as the US has done just gives you a virtually apolitical corporate consumer capitalist "culture." ”
-Parodites

"Excellent" is an understatement.
Pentad destroys both fascism and leftism.

[iambiguous]

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead leftists?

Or, if you're a leftist:

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead rightists?

Of course you all know my own take on this:

There are those on both the left and the right who insist that, pertaining to almost every human interaction under the sun, there are behaviors that are braindead and behaviors that are not.

Objectively, as it were.

For these folks [in my view] it is less important which particular ideological/theological/deontological etc., narrative is true, and more important that it can in fact be established that one is true.

That it happens to always be their own is just icing on the cake.

In other words, of far greater importance to the objectivists is to embody a comforting and consoling psychological contraption that allows them to view the world self-righteously as an ongoing struggle between "one of us" and "one of them".

Now, it goes without saying that both sides see me as the enemy. Why? Because I dare to suggest that these epic moral/political conflicts revolving around what is said to be either natural or unnatural to do, are largely existential contraptions instead.

To wit:

1] rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy and...
2] awash in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change

So, worse than being outwitted by the folks on the opposite end of the political spectrum, is to be outwitted by a moral nihilist like me.

And all I ask of them is to note a particular conflict out in a particular context and to make that crucial distinction between those behaviors that they are able to demonstrate to all rational men and women are braindead, and those that are not.

Perhaps on this thread?

[Meno_]

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead leftists? Not being forced to think just yet? How about this?

“My problem with communism is the Marxist critique that enables it, specifically the inversion of the Hegelian dialectic which constitutes historical materialism; I reject the typical dialectic as well as its inversion. The inversion was used by Nietzsche to create the historical master-slave struggle, by Marx to create the class struggle, and now by feminists to create the gender struggle. BLM to create the race struggle, etc. (* ie. the patriarchy. And just as Marx produced the concept of false consciousness from the class struggle, feminists believe that the female psyche itself is just a culturally imposed norm that restricts and oppresses them- something to be destroyed. Both are disgusting ideologies. ) In fact, all leftism is a form of this inverted dialectic: and all right politics is a form of the typical Hegelian dialectic.

Marx didn't know what he was creating with his historical materialism, perhaps you can give him a pass on that. But as I said, all leftism, feminism or blm or whatever it is, amounts to a variation of the inverted Hegelian dialectic which historical materialism utilized in the form of a class struggle and Nietzsche first conceived, though not as systematically as Marx, in his genealogy of morality and the master-slave struggle.

Leftism is the inverted dialectic- in its extreme it annihilates all values and culture; Rightism is the typical Hegelian dialectic itself, which in its most extreme form creates the historical absolute from the movement of spirit- ie. fascism. The left enlarges the State's power by subordinating the populace after destroying their identity; then the Right steps in and turns the State into a God. The two constantly feed into one another. Staying in the center of the political axis as the US has done just gives you a virtually apolitical corporate consumer capitalist "culture." ”
-Parodites

On what basis can You simply reject the Heglelian dialectic, not withstanding its inversion ?

[Silhouette]

Considering that I’ve already posted the below into this very thread, and you’ve chosen to ignore and respond to none of it...

You are correct that I chose to not respond to any of it, but unfortunately you are incorrect in your assumption that I ignored it.

In fact it would seem that you are quite eager to make a great deal of assumptions. Personally I recommend instead the exhaustive analysis of all facets of discussion first, all the while with the intention to disprove to yourself hasty conclusions that you might otherwise be tempted to draw from the evidence so far presented, before even considering making up your mind. And even after that still holding the case open to further evidence... by all means create expectations and theories along the way - this is the scientific approach.
I recognise the appeal of dismissing points of view into pre-selected and pre-defined categories, and considering all subsequent input in terms of these categories - an extremely efficient and easy approach to thought. But I ought to warn you that it may not result in a particularly accurate or deep understanding. In the interests of my own consistency I shall write off this impression as merely preliminary, and continue to consider your future approach to viewpoints that you do not share - with an open mind.

It appears to me that you adopt an expert opinion on certain ways of thinking to which you object, without yet showing any evidence of making a sincere attempt to immerse yourself within these certain ways of thinking - such that one would expect from an expert. Increasingly scientists are finding that they need to examine relatively alien ways "in their own language" (to quote Robert Sapolsky) in order to gain valuable insight. You will forgive me if I do not yet trust your judgment.

Not that bits of data are in particularly short supply it would seem, but merely copying and pasting what you already said is a bit of a waste. My qualification was that of contributing "something of worth", not "anything at all" or "something that you thought was valuable but turned out not to be". Don't worry though, I will explain (do note this attempt and please do attempt to adopt it yourself): your contributions were saturated in claims, descriptions and analogies - this is not the same as explanation. Simply telling a story or painting a picture of what you think Communism/Collectivism/Leftism "is like" gives no reason to reconsider these stances. It simply demonstrates that you don't like certain things in various similar ways - which is no doubt cathartic for both the writer and the reader who is already converted. Unfortunately grasping a mechanism by which another may begin to correct themselves is both intellectually and psychologically strenuous. It requires an attempt to actually understand their position first (prepare for cognitive dissonance in trying to do so), and deriving logical steps in line with this is a skill that not many appear to get particularly proficient at. If you are not a good teacher, then I am afraid you are doomed forever to frustration that is all too easy to take out on others in the form of insult and haughty derision. Clearly I suffer from this myself to at least some extent, but you can at least see me trying.

Communism is entropy, decay, death, a religion, internal disorder, chaotic, cancer, it lives only off the progress of that which came before it, it dismantles valuable structures, work of the earth and creation are not possible under it - all of these: claims, description and analogy! What are you actually saying here? What are your explanations/proposed mechanisms by which to give these claims logic? To what specific events are you referring and in what specific way does any of this apply?! There really is no need to type paragraph after paragraph saying the same thing in a different way. You are clearly trying to put a lot of this in Fixed Cross's terms, but it's really doing nothing to elucidate - though not surprisingly it is pleasing him, He who unashamedly and openly states that He wants you to be led by Him.

One thing to which you referred grabbed my attention: this notion of "theft of values". I am intrigued by this if you would care to elaborate, in light of my above suggestions of course - I don't want more of the same or re-quotes. I presume that you do not merely mean the reinvention of that which came before - because literally everything is just that. Perhaps you disagree though? I happen to agree that there is a natural tendency for people to collectivise, I personally enjoy co-operation and collaboration. Am I necessarily doomed, however, for this to become my self-undoing? By what specific logical mechanism?

So "rightism" is like the Hegelian dialectic and "leftism" its inversion. A potentially trivial comment: I personally I find the mechanism of dialectics to much resemble deductive reasoning, and I suppose the inversion would be much like inductive reasoning - in that deduction narrows down a conclusion from premises and induction opens up theories from established facts, and indeed I do find that the right often suffer too much from the former and the left too much from the latter. I have considered before the somewhat Totalitarian tendency of (deductive) reasoning within its structure of concluding with finality and absolute correctness (e.g. maths), and I do think there is something insipid to the process of forever opening up new possibilities for its own sake without doing anything specific with them (e.g. the arts). But as Meno_ asks: in what way can you get around dialectics?

FYI, I had to look up NPR - but then I am not an American. I like to listen to viewpoints that I do not currently hold as my own, I am interested in growth and evolution not affirming what I already believe as though I were insecure about it.

[URUZ]

Oh, not clear enough for you braindead leftists? Not being forced to think just yet? How about this?

“My problem with communism is the Marxist critique that enables it, specifically the inversion of the Hegelian dialectic which constitutes historical materialism; I reject the typical dialectic as well as its inversion. The inversion was used by Nietzsche to create the historical master-slave struggle, by Marx to create the class struggle, and now by feminists to create the gender struggle. BLM to create the race struggle, etc. (* ie. the patriarchy. And just as Marx produced the concept of false consciousness from the class struggle, feminists believe that the female psyche itself is just a culturally imposed norm that restricts and oppresses them- something to be destroyed. Both are disgusting ideologies. ) In fact, all leftism is a form of this inverted dialectic: and all right politics is a form of the typical Hegelian dialectic.

Marx didn't know what he was creating with his historical materialism, perhaps you can give him a pass on that. But as I said, all leftism, feminism or blm or whatever it is, amounts to a variation of the inverted Hegelian dialectic which historical materialism utilized in the form of a class struggle and Nietzsche first conceived, though not as systematically as Marx, in his genealogy of morality and the master-slave struggle.

Leftism is the inverted dialectic- in its extreme it annihilates all values and culture; Rightism is the typical Hegelian dialectic itself, which in its most extreme form creates the historical absolute from the movement of spirit- ie. fascism. The left enlarges the State's power by subordinating the populace after destroying their identity; then the Right steps in and turns the State into a God. The two constantly feed into one another. Staying in the center of the political axis as the US has done just gives you a virtually apolitical corporate consumer capitalist "culture." ”
-Parodites

On what basis can You simply reject the Heglelian dialectic, not withstanding its inversion ?

Because that’s not an accurate model for how reality works. “Rightism is the typical Hegelian dialectic itself, which in its most extreme form creates the historical absolute from the movement of spirit- ie. fascism”. The Hegelian system is the pure metaphysics of “God” overdetermining everything such that any principle can be used to preempt any of its own consequences and flaws through Kantian mandate, “the ends justify the means”. It is pure telos-thought which “purity” creates a system whereby consequences and errors are merely fed back into the original thesis as secondary inputs that are subsequently distorted or “synthesized” in order to maintain the purity of the original principle; in other words, honesty becomes increasingly impossible. The direct effect of this is to stifle the excess, and the excess is always the real underlying cause for conflicts and contradictions. Contradiction is only “overcome” if either 1) a Hegelian synthesis occurs whereby the sides in contrast are reduced to sufficiently linear operators such that a direct equation can be made between the substances of both, which results in a partial falsification of both sides, which reduces for a while the tension between these sides and is therefore taken as a success, when in reality this “success” has only achieved to bury the real sources of conflict and difference ie buried the excess even more, prevented it even more from exerting itself. This is why these sort of metaphysical systems rather openly religious or not end up leading to totalitarianism: they literally bury reality inside an arbitrary image, the image is arbitrary because it’s only purpose was to initiate a sufficient closure of the gap of difference such that a relative (and indeed temporary) reduction in tensions could occur. Or 2) a new third term is discovered in which the difference is reified outside of itself and thus not falsified or repressed but rather represented in an actually new space, creating a new scope and range in the world and allowing tension to decrease in direct proportion to actual resolutions amingst the original excesses.

Kant and his linear absolutist metaphysics of telos without negotiation, which aborts the excess under any substance, made Hegel possible, and Hegel simply turned this metaphysical nonsense into a “science” and basically birthed what we know of as postmodernity, analytic philosophy which is really all that Marxism is, applied analytic “philosophy”, the destruction of an authentic excess (real causality, as yet unexpressed but very significant tectonics) for the sake of an inauthentic and forced “resolution”, all justified after the fact by moralism, sophistry, deliberate manipulation of language, and.. force.

It is no accident that communism can only be enforced by a “strong state regime”. It codifies theft and loss of individual volition as absolutely necessary tenants. This is what religious fundamentalism is all about, and Kant and Hegel were certainly that, religious fundamentalists. Everything is justified to their “god”, whatever high sounding names they want to call that god (progress, Justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, the perfection of spirt, whatever).

Hegel buried truth in language. Kant began that work and Hegel finished it; then Marx applied it by reversing the two poles and placing ‘spirit’ at the mercy of ‘materialism’. All of this is entirely at odds with the actual tradition of reason, economic principles and philosophizing that had been going on (and ultimately had given birth to America and its Constitution of limited government and rights of the individual (France was poised to follow America’s example but they got Napoleon instead of Washington, so it got all fucked up for them)), all of that philosophical work was all basically covered over under Kant, Hegel, Marx and others who followed in their wake.

Yeah, Hegel killed language by burying truth forever underneath words. This gives perfect impetus to totalitarians to create any sort of justification they might need to make their madness seem necesssry. Marx was just following through on this same logic: falsify the real terms of the situation and bury the excess therein, institute a forced linear equation between those false terms, create a “universal conflict” out of that analytically reduced difference, and then violently reorder the world and society according to the entirely post-hoc conclusions drawn from all that. Basically, trap humanity in a prison of lies, convince humanity that fantasy is reality and reality is fantasy.