Liberal-leftism does not exist

it is not a substance, it has no substance whatsoever. liberal-leftism is merely a trend, a fatal slide within conservatism; it is the progressive (lol) slide within an existing substance and reality. original liberal-leftism is merely classical liberalism which is just conservatism. conservatism is just “reality”. conservatism as ideology is a translation of reality into political and sociological languages. neoconservatism is just liberal-leftism disguised behind a few superficial images and facades made to appeal to conservatives, it is not at all conservative.

liberal-left ideology is socialism-communism which is not a true ideology at all but a personified embodiment of the fatal slide hidden behind a series of images and memes. communism is not real economic theory. it is another fatal “progressive” (regressive) slide within existing substances.

this is why the conservatives and the right cannot fight liberal-leftism. it is why liberal-leftism will continue to grow: because it is not a thing that can be battled, it has no true form, it has no core principles or substance, rather it is merely a tendency, an entropy within the world.

this entropy takes hold emotionally and socially-professionally as behavioral meme-ishness that requires closing oneself off to rational, critical, objective or interested thought. development of ideas (philosophy, science) are necessarily precluded under liberal-leftism. liberal-leftism coincides with totalitarianism because both liberal-leftism and totalitarianism exist outside the domain of developed thought, outside of any will to reality. totalitarianism is a small substance, a very limited but hard substance that can be fought directly, but liberal-leftism is not a substance and cannot be fought directly. therefore when liberal-leftism fused with totalitarianism as in the USSR or China for example, both became unstoppable. there is no way to fight them. the only limits to which they are subject are those imposed naturally by reality itself; hard world-limits such as what caused the USSR to collapse under its centrally planned economics, or hard subjectivity-limits such as in the hearts of average ordinary healthy human beings who are naturally conservative (real). but this natural conservatism in the average person is wearing away under the progressive fatal slide into madness of the liberal-leftism entropy, while modern big tech and big finance are fusing with big government to try to prevent the hard world-limit of reality intrusion in the economic sense such as which brought about the end of the USSR.

but the USSR never died, it migrated into and as the west, as liberal-leftism. and now the fusion of tech, finance and government into world-spanning totalitarian networks is fusing with liberal-leftism in a way that is unstoppable. except for those two hard limits i mentioned above.

we shall see how far this monster is able to push against these limits without becoming subject to them again. things will get very, very bad indeed.

every supposed substance or idea or concept of liberal-leftism is actually either 1) a breakdown in a conservative substance, idea or concept, or 2) a naturally occurring feeling, emotion or behavior / tendency that is neither conservative nor non-conservative but entirely a-political. for example of (2), anything naturally pleasurable like sex, drugs, will to power, romance, maternal instinct, these are used by liberal-leftism as if they were political substances, ideas or concepts. why? in order to attempt to fill in the void left behind where the existing conservative / real substances, ideas and concepts have decayed due to liberal-leftism.

I will add more later, this is from notes I had:



Leftism is definitely insubtantial, as it is an inversion of Hegel's dialectic that can be applied to any subject to create a historical materialist revision of it, be it Nietzsche reading the inverted dialectic of the master-slave struggle, the feminists reading the inverted dialectic of the male female gender struggle to create the patriarchy, be it people reading the racial struggle out of history, etc. In more detail:

I define Leftism as any of the infinite variants of Hegel's inverted dialectic, which Marx called historical materialism. Like I said somewhere [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.]

-----------

5. The epistemes: an alternative concept of Truth and method, to oppose dialectical
reasoning in all its forms and guide philosophy toward recovering the Doric intuition of
Being, Loss, and Transcendence. Relies on the fundamental negativity of Truth, (contra
negation of the negation) to differentiate the affirmative content of Being multi-vocally,
rather than the truth as the Absolute, which typifies Being univocally or dialectically, that
is, as the Totality.

To start with, the original Hegelian dialectic, which is a crystallization of the
metaphysical tradition stretching back to Nicholas of Cusa, Plato, and Aristotle:

In the original Hegelian
dialectic, we see that the thesis of Being itself, because Being is constrained by time, has
within itself a seed of negation- an imperfection within itself, whose imbalance must be
stabilized- stabilized by the dialectical process. So an antithesis emerges as a natural
expression of that seed of negation, in Being's case- nothingness, and then a synthesis
creates the new concept Becoming by moving the original negativity in Being to the
concept of Nothingness. This transforms the concept of Being, and we are left with
Becoming as a new thesis for a new dialectic. History itself is this dialectical pattern, an
ongoing attempt to correct the imperfection and remove the seed of negation from
identity. The absolute identity free of negation is the Totality of Absolute Spirit, the
object of human history.

In essence: there's an imperfection in Being because, for Hegel, and for metaphysics in
the old tradition before him, all things carry within themselves the seed of their own
conceptual opposite; the dialectical progression toward the Absolute simply reads these
internal oppositions, to achieve the univocity of the Totality. Being synthesizes in this
way with its own conceptual opposite, this is "the negation of the negation", for out of
this negation Becoming appears as a new concept- the emergence of the new concept
"negates" the negation and transforms it into an affirmation- namely, in this case, the
affirmation that there is a Becoming; the internal imperfection of nonbeing within Being
expresses itself as Becoming, within Time. But there is an imperfection in Becoming,
then it synthesizes with its own opposite again, and so on and so forth, gradually
enlarging the Totality through the extrapolation of the "circular self-enclosed
Parmenidean ideal of Being without Loss", an ascending staircase spiraling toward the
Absolute. History, human history, is simply this progression toward the absolute from
within time, for Hegel anyway. The Marxist formulation of dialectical materialism simply
inverts this.

In Hegel's dialectic the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis occurs
within geist, spirit, ie. the mind, and the physical social structure and history of humanity
is an external expression of it. Marx inverted that to say that the dialectical process is
history itself- the physical material of human society, and that expresses itself on the
human mind. [instead of mind or geist informing or expressing itself on the pattern of
history.]

Hence the whole programmable robot idea, man is just a mirror of his social superstructure.
[for the material history is not logically organized like it is for Hegel, it's just
the result of natural law and evolutionary pressure]
Adorno and the like go even further by not just inverting the dialectic, but removing all
affirmative content in the initial thesis, Being;

[ To salvage the Hegelian system, Adorno
brings together Marxist and Freudian concepts and situates within the dialectical process
the unrealized and unattainable dream of humanity, the Freudian unconscious forever
submerged beneath conscious life by material conditionality in the vein of the Marxist
critique, and therefor a dream which in the dialectical process always leads to the
formation of ontological abruptions or closures, things which cannot be actualized by the
dialectic as affirmation- the dialectic, the more extensive it is, always ends up bringing
these ontological abruptions of the world into our universe of dialogue as the distorting
light of apocalypse- hence Adorno's magum opus of philosophic errors, negative
dialectics.]

Thus the Absolute is what geist or mind aims at through an internal negotiation of the
coincidientia oppositorium within the logos in order to modify and direct the pattern of
material human history, for Hegel- ; for Marx, inverting it, it is the flow of material
history itself which modifies the structure of geist or mind, which inculcates in us the idea
of a blind universe, atheism and the idea that identity is only a social construct created out
of the false consciousness emerging out of class-struggles- that is what human
consciousness is, just an internalization of the class-struggle generated out of the flow of
godless undirected material history, [initially in N. as master-slave struggle, then class
struggle in Marx, then gender struggle in feminism, then race struggle, etc.] hence
dialectical/historical materialism; and, for Adorno, the flow of human history is a
continual self-limitation and abruption of geist or mind, which impotently absorbs
everything into the missing Utopian center of signifier of the Absolute, emptied of all
affirmative content, the "negative-dialectic" [traditional right-left politics comes from
Hegel, then feminism racialism and what is commonly described as Leftism (it's actually
an expression of the axis under liberalsecularhumanism) comes from the Marxist angle,
and finally postmodern 500 genders type stuff comes from Adorno, Derrida, etc, the
romanticism of Freudo-Marxism.]

fuck yes.


why are we the only ones who care about truth? the three of us, only ones on this goddamn planet. who give a fucking shit.

oh well.

i’ll add my thoughts later, thanks.

marx said that the purpose of philosophy was to change the world; a more perfect perversion of philosophy, and of the world, can scarcely be imagined.

yes philosophy ends up changing the world but this is by no means the purpose or function of philosophy. many things change the world, including and perhaps most of all the world itself, and everything able to be deemed non-philosophical or even anti-philosophical, and to equate these with philosophy solely on the basis of their occasional and highly secondary activity and consequence as becomes some change in the world itself, is merely to destroy philosophy at its core. it is no wonder that marx signals the end of philosophy, and that the world which his “philosophy” had brought into existence is one so thoroughly devoid of having been or being subject to any influence that might be called philosophical, meaningful, complete, thoughtful, or sane.

the left was born of an excess the origin of which marx symbolizes with his anti-philosophical mumblings, and having been born in this way the left also split “conservative” earthy human subjectivity into several different varieties of supposedly politically-oriented and politically-centered ideologies, namely into “the right”. the political right is but a shadow of the natural earthy conservatism of human souls, and the political left is but the shadow of this shadow, an echo of a now far-enough removed excess and lack, a perversion, such that we can barely see or speak about that original act of madness any longer. it is certain that the world will continue to decay under the growing madness of marxism and all that clings to it and is born of it, and the fact that marx himself can be traced back into some vagaries of already-maddened philosophies such as those of Kant of Hegel is beside the point, for this knowledge provides no means of resolution or final judgment upon this marxist world such as could bring about for the world a means of salvation and redemption.

it is still a mystery how such a madness could have gripped the entire human species so easily and quickly, but i leave that question for other explorers of the terra incognita of the soul; i prefer more removed and boundless, more meaningful sic hunt dracones in the soul, in the universe of ideas which is still so largely unexplored, and for now simply repose myself outside of time to gaze back down in a moment here or there at the world in both wonder and horror, while other men can content themselves doing battle for the world-soul without even realizing how they must take up the instruments and weappnry of the presiding madness in order to even attempt to do so. the right and the left are now a maddened daemonism, and i fear that the heights and absolute bound of this daemon are still far away in the future— we have much more insanity to suffer on account of this irresolution before the daemonic polarity reaches something like a final moment of potency and, pushed back against its own truth, finally begins to settle into some series of images born of that original moment of madness which birthed it, into something like a principle or a will, which must in their extreme and maximum point of expenditure of tension and energy against the immovable limit of existence finally incorporate back into themselves something of the very reality which they themselves have struggled for so many hundreds, probably to be thousands of years, to “overcome”.

the epistemes may represent as alternate model of truth a way forward here, out of leftism, but i’m not sure how yet. the epistemes to me imply gaps and radical breaks in the flow of truth which seem counter intuitive to me and which i think the existence of which would cause most people to resist the idea as a paradigm and new model. there is this basis idea or intuition that everything is linked up somehow, connected and nothing is really totally isolated or absolutely different. this for whatever reason is the metaphysical assumption that i see underlying pretty much everything about human thought. and unless i’m mistaken it seems the epistemes break with this metaphysical intuition.

i think my tectonics could provide a way to bolster the epistemes and ground them in a way that sustains the radical breaks as well as sustains the metaphysical intuition. the breaks could be seen as stop-gaps preventing things like the endless entropic slides into further madness and insanity and chaos that we see occurring as a result of unchecked leftism. so framing the epistemes as these kind of preventative blockages which serve a useful function of an anti-entropic nature might be helpful; then within this ground would come a means to orienting the self toward its own possible and actual already-lived natures within all of this tectonically fortified anti-entropicly bolstered substance with its multi vocal spheres and affirmative pattern-series.. namely value ontology could act as this center in the self. to me this implies the necessity of linking up between people, since that is what we are anyway; a single mind is the many webs of linkage point threads connecting immaterial substances of facts, logic and meanings and then when this one mind and its autogenerated perspective (“I”) is able to communicate with another mind the whole series takes off exponentially. people don’t use communication in the correct way, not really; i would like to see a more proper use of communication take over, and when this happens truth will break free and it will be that much harder for leftist madness and all forms of silly entropy to take such a deep hold.

at that point humans will use technology and leftism as mere tools for our own self-edification and to climb so high into truth that our experience will barely resemble what it is today. the mind will take over, the heart will take over. what is leftover will be like trace art images scribed here and there to give us some guideposts and things to smile about together.

i don’t think that the idea of everything being somehow connected and integrated together (no radical absolute breaks) implies any kind of totality. in fact it seems to imply the lack of any totality since reality just keeps going without end in every direction because no absolute edge or limit is possible, therefore also no totality is possible. it’s a truly endlessly proliferating multivocality. there is tectonic consistency and deep level integration as well as upper level phenomenological integration of everything but this does not imply totality except perhaps in the idea as the highest climbs of the continuum of the most universal understanding and truth, which immateriality could only ever be accessed and known by a being capable of the greatest thoughts, the greatest philosophizing. such a being would also unlock amazing scientific knowledge to itself. but such a being would also have long surpassed what we call politics, since politics is built from our unresolved questions and liberal-leftism specifically as well as right-fascism are merely extreme examples of the collective failure of humanity to resolve certain or those important questions. this failure rests upon individual weakness, a kind of madness and pathology the existence of which demonstrates that no matter how far we have come and how great people are in many ways we are, in the cosmic scheme of things, basically still just a child species.

philosophy shows us the way forward. but people only learn by necessity. either the necessity of truth, or the necessity of harsh reality.

The Absolute is the apex of Mind.

Mind in its dyadic ot triadic architecture which allows it's activity, which is reflection, finds itself in this as apex-point and this, with the advent of the Socratic, which is the relocation of ultimacy from outside to inside, has become man's horizon or God; the point at which there can be no more reflection. The mind which thinks itself.

Beyond this point however lines disentangle from their convex and the apex is seen as a starting point. Thus the Absolute is a ground for the new heathen whose soil is immaculate and whose limits are unknown.

New wolves are afoot.

Hence we swear by Thor and pledge to Odin. Like the sailors who discovered, by their discovery of the British Isles, the very act of discovery itself.



(And this is why, and how we love Trump)

For what is the purpose, the value of any insight, of any attainment into consciousness?

Conclusions that we draw here, find justified here, are what define us and separate or bind us. If we have "a Being" it is only in this that we can know it.

Some find the purpose to be fundamentally absent, a folly to even consider such a thing as a purpose, because consciousness is "just a mechanism". Some can only conceive of a mechanism in terms of a purpose. It seems that we are built, or wired, in certain ways that we can not escape. "Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to the endless night"....

So given that we are born to sweet delight, that there is a purpose to us, then what separates one of us from the other - how are we separated, what are the different purposes, values that we assign to our consciousness, that our consciousness assigns to itself, places before it?

First of all there are two types to discern: the open-ended and the closed-ended will. The closed-ended will is the Buddhic, the type of consciousness that conceives its purpose as being drawn from its own limits. Purpose is a form of annihilation or termination of a process. The open ended is more Samurai-like, it seems the purpose as necessarily lying outside of itself. These are two different approaches to the unknown, or to not-knowing.

The former approaches its own not-knowing as a condition it extrapolates on that which it does not know, thereby draws the world inside of it, producing a knowledge of self and world as identical. And so a self and a world are construed in which a safety is attained; a release from the wheel of suffering. But this safety has a flipside, as it acknowledges by denouncing it the existence of the wheel of suffering, and the escape from it requires a constant effort, a warding-off. So it leads to a psychotic, schizofrenic state of compulsion.

The second approach acknowledges suffering but not a wheel of it, does not seek to escape or denounce it. It rather ever makes its path towards it, as if the suffering is its prey. This is the way of the warrior, who knows all too well that whatever is unknown can not forever remain unknown unless it does not exist, with the all important addition that whatever does exist stands a fair chance of being destroyed - and what remains unknown is less likely to be destroyed than that which is drawn into the light of consciousness. This, as I understand it, is the European way, also the way of the Samurai. It is the way of Man, of Mannaz, of the bear-pit initiation.

Then, what is the value of the initiation in the bear-pit?
Well, that is precisely the knowledge one is initiated into. But one may well suspect it beforehand by the complexion of the initiate, the movements, the way of life that springs from that pit. Granted that such initiates wander any nearby grounds.

Thus I say to you, fellow initiates, whoever you are: wander the grounds of the uninitiated!

Fixed Cross wrote:

The Absolute is the apex of Mind.

Mind in its dyadic ot triadic architecture which allows it's activity, which is reflection, finds itself in this as apex-point and this, with the advent of the Socratic, which is the relocation of ultimacy from outside to inside, has become man's horizon or God; the point at which there can be no more reflection. The mind which thinks itself.

Beyond this point however lines disentangle from their convex and the apex is seen as a starting point. Thus the Absolute is a ground for the new heathen whose soil is immaculate and whose limits are unknown.

New wolves are afoot.

Yes, this to me, as I am seeing it, is describing the fact that pure values in and for themselves are being released into their self-valuing freedom. This is precisely why/how the liberal-left does not really exist: it is an expression of values in transition to freedom, meaning that each value is individualizing itself more, isolating itself more and asserting itself in more tyrannical ways. Right now the liberal-left is somewhat loosely organized around a common structure of shared goals and personality, but that will begin to change. This shared structure is an illusion predicated upon the fact that the values being presently freed are still nascent and are being freed from more or less the same substance, they all more or less still "point in the same direction". Thus they are able to be harnessed together more easily by forces like gulag and the demoncrat party.

But the right will also begin to see itself degenerating into a loose structure of values-in-transition-to-total-self-valuing-liberation. We are witnessing a slow motion atomic explosion in the political ideological existentia. Which also has deep psychological implications of course. And the side-effects of all this are going to be quite bad, terrible, difficult, annoying, etc. but it simply is what it is. The world is transforming into a more pure valuing-ness, a war of values.

Beautiful.