ILovePhilosophy.com

It seems like humanity is being split up by ideology into different castes, i.e. differently bred types with completely different outlooks and subtle-physiological responses.

Like the lowest caste of the untouchables in India was being bred by forcing them to eat their own shit and forbidding them to wash, so the lowest caste here is being bred by feeding them CNN and Facebook news feeds. Anyone who manages to "eat" the liberal narrative and not vomit, i.e. anyone who believes it, is being transformed into a chandala, an untouchable - a slave, in Nietzsches terms, of the lowest rank. The future will have billions of such slaves doing the worst thinkable work and living in the most deplorable circumstances, gut-feeling that they deserve nothing better, and bred-through in filth so thoroughly that they aren't capable of being aware that there are more desirable circumstances.

Higher castes are formed out of discerning folks.
The basic proletarian and farmer caste is in formation from basic Trump voters.
The warrior caste is in formation from people who play a very active role in the politics of freedom - a man like Jordan Peterson.
The brahmanic, "priestly" caste consist of those who directly engineer the future.

Exhibit A: Trump the Antifascist.

Kirk: Trump’s Greatest Show of Power Lies in His Reluctance to Use Power

If he had anything in him of Obama, Bush, Clinton or any other president since Lincoln, he would long have used his power to simply stop his opponents in their tracks. But he prefers to let society finds its own way as he takes care of the most urgent repairs of the damages inflicted by endless corrupt rule.

Where its gotta go is networks of voluntarily philanthropic industries.

"Syndicates" except syndicates aren't usually philanthropic

The reason that future networks of industries must be philanthropic is that humanity can't thrive under Statism, which is the easy-seeming way of systemizing help for people who need it.

Help is possible everywhere, but not through government.
Bureaucracies are not determined and focused enough to expend 90 percent of their efforts on the actual goals of alleviating suffering on a grand scale. Disinterested employees, people who are just there to hold job and to take bonuses pervade all bureaucracy on Earth and if it exists beyond, then there too.

So philanthropy is the only option.

And it is in accordance with nature.

Natural selection is the sexual selection of the specimens which exhibit the most spendthrift. Those who clearly have most to share. Only excess of wealth is proof of wealth.

Bene. Esto.

Hmm...

Another gigantic "general description" of the human condition.

Or so it seems to me.

Okay, how does it fit into, say, VO; or the agenda of the Bilderberg Group and those who own and operate the global economy; or Marx's description of capitalism as the historical evolution of the means of production; or Freud's categories; or Trumpworld.

And how might it be understood in regard to a particular context in which these different castes react to conflicting behaviors that revolve around issues in which the consequences of particular political policies benefit some considerably more than others?

Also, what does it mean to be more "discerning" about issues that revolve around behaviors that are especially important to those some call "value-voters"?

Finally, let's try to imagine how someone like Satyr might react to it. Is this really all more about genes than memes?

Gigantic it is.

I try to work with all the things I know are going on, from Bilderbergs scheming to the thoughts and feelings of common persons.

I try to see where everything goes.

What I describe isn't so much a plan, as something I see happening.

It is clear to me after watching the left rally against a perfectly moderate and decent president as if he were a tyrant that there is a serious and profoundly impacting disease running through the leftist mindset, which I would think must lead to social degradation and a long term impotence in terms of, well, self-valuing logic.

Jakob wrote: Gigantic it is.

I try to work with all the things I know are going on, from Bilderbergs scheming to the thoughts and feelings of common persons.

I try to see where everything goes.

Yeah, we all do that. But we all do that from the perspective of one particular individual having had [in the course of living his or her life] a unique set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge.

So, to the extent that someone basically ignores this and concocts one or another grand scheme [or philosophy of life] to explain where he thinks that things are going, is the extent to which in my view he embodies what I call the psychology of objectivism.

Then it's just a matter of which particular set of political prejudices he comes to champion. And the extent to which he excoriates all those who refuse to become "one of us".

Thus, it comes down to the extent to which you believe that others are obligated to think like you do because how you think is thought by you to be the optimal point of view or [even] the only rational point of view.

But, at this juncture, we would have to bring this discussion down to earth. Given a particular moral or political issue, what would constitute human interactions going where they ought to go? What is the actual embodiment of reason and virtue given a particular context.

Jakob wrote: What I describe isn't so much a plan, as something I see happening.

Okay, you see something happening in this caste system that others do not see. But how is their point of view not in turn just another existential contraption embedded in their own set of political prejudices embedded in their own life's trajectory?

What can philosophers pin down as that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe?

Jakob wrote: It is clear to me after watching the left rally against a perfectly moderate and decent president as if he were a tyrant that there is a serious and profoundly impacting disease running through the leftist mindset, which I would think must lead to social degradation and a long term impotence in terms of, well, self-valuing logic.

Moderate and decent in regard to what policy? What makes any president moderate and decent in regard to this policy? And how is the right-wing mindset not in turn configured existentially? What makes them the exception here other than that you construe yourself as more in sync with their point of view?

And, again, in regard to a particular set of conflicting goods, what on earth does it mean to speak of "social degradation and a long term impotence in terms of, well, self-valuing logic."

Pick a context, a set of conflicting behaviors rooted in a set of conflicting value judgments and flesh out what this means to you.