The world no longer exists

And yes, any imposition of a law on people who didn't choose that law, is a 'primordial crime'. Or just a lawless violence.

Therefore, the US Constitution (perfected) can and may only apply to those people who have voluntarily pledged allegiance to it.

And such people are the only ones to be guaranteed protection by that law.

This is Value Ontology applied to politics. Law, to be pure in its existence, to be unambiguously lawful, must be able to self-value in terms of the people it presides over. It must be carried.

And right now is about the time to begin teaching that concept to people.
It will breed the strongest people there have ever been.

But this is a war for consciousness which should last millennia, and will never really extinguish, as with each new born person, the war continues.

This state of perpetual war, this expanding society of rights-upholding freemen, draws out mans true nature, what I call "free will".

And the aim is not to subject the world with this law. That is contradictory to the nature of the law. None shall be subjected by the law of liberty.

Also note: I certainly never said law is crime. It takes me a while to subdue my anger over being misquoted especially on such important topics, to regain my calm and decide it is worth my time to respond.

I have said that the imposition of a law is a crime against any previous law which the imposition overrules.
That does not make the law itself a crime. Unless a law actively calls to be imposed on people who hold other laws, law is not crime.

Such "subtleties" are to be understood very well if progress can be made.
You understand me very well in my reasoning, all things considered, better than any other. But where it concerns politics, I am being misread and misunderstood even by you.

Also don't think because you were born in the US that makes you more rugged at war for liberty. Id like to see you or any American take on the tyrannies Ive taken on by my cold lonesome.

If even a dozen Americans with my readiness for action existed...

Im of a more ancient type. I don't even accept metaphysics at all. For me, thought and action are indistinguishable.

Zero evidence?

We elected Trump. That’s all the evidence needed. Why do you think we elected him? To drain the swamp. To throw Hillary in prison.

We actually want that. That is why we elected Trump.

I’m not sure how this is hard to grasp.

So while you are supportive of Trump and make excuses for him not doing what we elected him to do, you at the same time see “zero evidence” meaning you discount the very fact that we elected Trump to do precisely what he is not doing now.

So let me get this straight.

The American people are to blame for not doing anything about our criminal politicians. When we elected Trump to do exactly that. And Trump’s not to blame for not doing it. Huh?

As for politics is crime or law is crime, my point stands regardless which term is used. I always assume I don’t beee to nitpick every quote to perfection because I can go off of the deeper meaning, and it won’t degrade into some kind of semantics nonsense because this isn’t ILP. But maybe I need to actually carefully quote every idea I’m attempting to respond to. I don’t know.

I’m simply too angry at the critical points I’ve made about Trump being dismissed. He didn’t charge a single deep state traitor with a single crime. Despite all his talk about draining the swamp. And despite lock her up, guess what, he did literally nothing. He made excuses and set her free.

It’s the biggest betrayal possible. The American people elected him to clean house. He didn’t do it. So what’s next? I don’t know. Seems the average persons intellect is too low to allow civilization to continue. That’s what I see.

It doesn’t matter, and I don’t have time to pour into this. I see what I see, I offer my ideas and observations. If they don’t get accepted or understood, ok then. I’ll just keep drinking.

I realize I’m the only one trying to see these truths, what I’ve been saying about trump. No one else apparently wants to see that he hasn’t done shit about the fake news propaganda, the massive debt, the spying on everyone, or bringing any accountability to any of the deep state swamp creature traitors.

No one else apparently wants to see any of this. Well ok. I can’t force anyone. I’ll just keep drinking. Because I don’t have the time anymore to dig deep into the substances and unearth not only truths but also the motivations others need to approach them, and mitigate the resistances and work it all perfectly into a perfect coherent tight system where all the ts are crossed and is are dotted. Where every statement in response to a claim is perfectly quoted word for word to avoid any need to dig deep into what I might actually be saying at the level of meaning and derivative conclusions with speculative inferences stacked into the factual bases. Naw, I don’t have the time for it, to map things out like that anymore.

My mind will zoom across the ether and distill truths into statements which I’ll write down as best I can given the circumstances and limits of my time and energy. Any gaps of possible misdirection that I fail to close are left open on purpose, not really because I’m interested to see if a higher authenticity is reached on individual initiative but more so because I just don’t care. I don’t have the time and this isn’t ILP, I don’t need to hand hold anyone.

I suppose it’s also because I have nothing to prove to myself anymore. So I don’t need to spend so much effort tracking down every little possibility in order to account for it so that things don’t stray elsewhere. I know exactly what I’m saying and I assume others do too. I realize that’s not a fair assumption, but it’s just how I am. This reality is navigated by truth highways.

I don’t know why it’s apparently fine for politicians to be above the law. I don’t know why politics itself is supposed to be the same as criminality. I don’t know why it’s ok that trump let Hillary go and isn’t draining anything. I don’t know why my observations about trump not doing shit about or debt or spying on Americans or fake news always fall on deaf ears. I also don’t know why Pezer is over at fucking ILP and not here to help develop these things. But I don’t need to know. I know plenty already. I’ll just keep drinking then. And I’ll keep my observations about trump to myself from now on. Let’s all keep the nice narrative going. Keep fighting the deep state! You can do it trump! We’re winning! Yuuuge winningness!!!

Down with the globalists!!! We’re winning!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

this guuuuuuuuy


he was hating on Trump until I explained some stuff to him.

Now he acting all tough


yeah bru


suuuuure.



alright we're done here.



Good luck, you liar.

Apparently it's time for us to go our separate ways. No way I can respect what you're doing with my writings here. Meaning I have to abandon this place, and if I do that, there's no point in internet philosophy at all anymore.

Phaer enough. There is work to be done that can't be done from here.

Good luck, this time I say it without bitterness.

Maybe we will meet one day. I'd like that.

For now,



Fixed Cross

I have lied about nothing. What have I lied about? Nothing at all. To state my ideas, if those ideas don’t agree with the “winningness yuuuuge” agenda, is apparently blasphemy. Is that so?

This is the message I intended to post, below. And as is typical I don’t have time now to go into more detail. Nor to read more closely what you wrote above. Which I’ll do soon..

—

The only way to remain sane in this ‘world’ is to expose oneself to zero “news” media. News is now 100% propaganda, whatever directly or indirectly so. Even news that tries to be authentic is also propaganda because the spread of propaganda has become so ubiquitous it’s impossible for even the smaller or more local media to avoid being part of the propaganda pushing.

Even places like Breitbart are part of the problem, at best they simply act as revelation of method to normalize the “new reality” (or on the flip side they pretend that there is some kind of just around the corner “winning” against it) and at worst they simply push the exact same propaganda mindmelting insanities and false concepts/anti-reality.

I’m just done with it all. The world is dead now anyway, thanks to trump not doing jack shit to remove the deep state traitors. He proved to everyone that Hillary is above the law, despite his “lock her up” promise. So fuck it. The only thing now is to live locally in one’s own values-set and try to preserve what reality one is able to preserve in one’s own life.

Very painful to see the world die like this. Not with a bang, but with (not even) a whimper.

I will now go through and respond to each post individually and specifically, using proper quotes. I haven't had time to do this yet. Apparently it is important that I make the time, so I will do so. To attempt to avoid confusions and mistaken assumptions, especially as pertains to method. More below on that.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Well I see zero evidence for your claims on behalf of the great resilience of Americans against criminal politicians. In fact your whole thread here seems to be about there being no such evidence. What am I missing?

No, the only evidence needed is the American people rising up to elect Trump to throw out the deep state traitors and globalists. What more evidence could be needed than this? This is the main reason Trump was elected. The American people, enough of them anyway, are wise to the game and this is their way of fighting back.

If this doesn't work, there will be civil war. Which is something the globalists and leftist deep state traitors want, because it gives them an excuse to use extreme measures of force. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but with Trump's refusal to prosecute any traitors... I think it will come to war.

What sort of evidence are you looking for? You discount the fact we elected Trump. So what evidence could be needed? Americans in general want the rule of law to apply equally to everyone, rich and poor, politician or not. Americans in general are not elitists, that is a basic principle of American culture to be individualist, liberty-oriented, non-aristocratic. Of course there is a growing segment of weird leftists and slavish types who want unequal dispensation of liberty and justice. We can also count neocons into that camp too. The hope is that the numbers of these people doesn't reach a sufficient threshold to top the overall balance. But I think we are already there. Especially since Trump has abandoned the mission.

Quote :

But this is why I suggested you run for office.
I should maybe have formulated that more seriously but your clown-esque image now and your refusal to address my points about philosophers duties changed my sprits about it. Sad. Point still stands though.

Points about philosopher's duties, by this I think you mean that the philosopher should act, that action and philosophy should be the same thing? If so, I disagree. I am no marxist to believe "the point [of philosophy] is to change the world", no the point of philosophy is to understand the world, to know truth. By knowing truth one makes oneself in the image of truth, just as "man is made in God's image" to use the christian story-image for that same idea. And once you are made in the image of truth, proper actions will follow.

To focus on action first and foremost is to put the cart before the horse. Actions are results, consequences of what and who you are. You must focus on the 'what and who you are' first in order for proper actions to flow from that. To focus primarily on action as such is to "twist facts to suit evidence, rather than evidence to suit facts" to quote Sherlock Holmes.

Proper action is very important, and action itself is very important. But this cannot take the place of philosophy proper, which is truth as such and for its own sake . DEPTH FOR ITS OWN SAKE. Literally for its own sake. That means something.

If you mean something else about philosopher's duties I would like to know. Part of action being running for political office, I think in your view here, is also something I reject. I have as little desire to hold any political office as I have desire to have power or control over other people. As Aristotle said the man who seeks power over others is the man who is powerless over himself. And as Parodites once said what use is it to me to rule over a much of stupid cows (paraphrase)? What value or point in that kind of "power"? That isn't power. I have no desires for political office nor is my consciousness and personality banal enough to handle such a thing. Politics is not the realm of philosophy, which indeed is a sad truth. This is a failure of politics to raise to the stature of philosophy.

Quote :

If you want to prove America can be what you say it is, rather than what it has, empirically considered, been so far -- you better start proving it.

America is not just one thing. I have not claimed America is one thing. I have claimed that Americans have a strong spirit of loving liberty. This is ingrained in the American psyche or culture. It is part of the foundational values-structure. That doesn't mean X % of Americans have this or in whatever ratio they might have it. It means to speak directly to the values-structure itself. For you to focus only on the opposite side of that, as leftists always do when they rant their long litany of America's faults, is only the reverse of that same error the right makes with their fervent patriotism at all costs. I am in neither camp. I simply speak to the foundational principles, to the values substances and the MEANING directly. I am fully aware of the faults and limitations as well.

Quote :

My position has always been: without VO, no law will govern rationally. And the US Constitution is relatively close to a VO based law. But it needs to be perfected, requiring not only a Pledge of allegiance from politicians, but from everyone enjoying the "god given" rights.

Because in so far as god gives man rights, man is the form god takes on doing that.
Man as pure-self-valuing, man as invested in the foundation of his rights, this is what is required for such rights to be upheld consistently.

Yes I agree with this. And this is one thing that foretells the death of the world, that man no longer is invested to his own rights-structures, values-structures, principled foundational substances. Man is no longer self-embedded in his own reality. There are many different reasons for this, and I don't need to go into them now. This would be a good topic for another thread.

Indeed VO-ness needs to be infused more properly into society, culture, politics. All laws are proper in the sense they are rational, true, which also means in the sense they reflect VO-like principles. Self-value which is also the A=A. Reality recognition. Truth-observance.

Quote :

Right now, the US is in a state of almost pure contradiction, which is illustrated by your claim that Americans have zero tolerance for political crime following your claim that they do absolutely nothing about the worst political criminals. I only see evidence of the latter, as Ive only seen evidence of that all across the world.

Indeed, both of these aspects exist in Americans, just as they exist in all people. Everyone has their own little values-preferences, their self-valuing biases in which the rules do not apply or are not applied in the same way. That is quite normal and good. Assuming it is... normal and good. As with all things, they can become perverted and used improperly. America embodied contradiction and this is part of its power, its daemonism. Indeed it is a war. And the side which values liberty, equality, anti-authoritarianism and anti-aristocracy is a very strong and very deep side. As you know too. And I know that you know this. Which is why I am surprised to see you say "I only see evidence of the latter". Indeed there is much evidence of the former, for you and I both know this nature of the American spirit and character. You know it very well based on your travels here.

Quote :

America has been exceptionally productive in many respects. But intolerance of political crime is the very last thing I would credit I with.
Maybe you can change that.
Or am I the only one "American" enough to understand that, if you want something done, you've got to do it yourself?

No one person can end all political crime. No surprise no one has done this yet.

I am not naive. I know about crime, its nature and potentiality and indeed also its necessity. None of that discounts what I am saying in this topic. None of that vindicates Trump for his betrayal in not prosecuting The Shill (or anyone else).

Americans are sick and tired of all this shit. The corruption and crime in their government. They don't want all these fucking wars, for example. That is part of why Trump won. That is also why the warmongering globalists always need to use so much psychic propaganda, warfare and violence against the American people in order to "convince" them to go along with all the criminality. To the extent Americans accept so much of it is also largely to the extent those same Americans have been brainwashed by their media and everything else into false ideas (false narratives) that justify it. But then again most people are not philosophical thinkers, and that is the root of the real problem. A failure not of philosophy but of people before philosophy. Before their own potential. And indeed I do blame them for this failure, to a degree. I don't forgive it as mere ignorance. Not when it comes to adults anyway.

Fixed Cross wrote:

And right now is about the time to begin teaching that concept to people.
It will breed the strongest people there have ever been.

But this is a war for consciousness which should last millennia, and will never really extinguish, as with each new born person, the war continues.

This state of perpetual war, this expanding society of rights-upholding freemen, draws out mans true nature, what I call "free will".

Yes people need to fight for their rights. But there is also a sense in which people need to take their rights for granted, to not need to fight for them. This impulse is just as real and just as important. It is the balance of the two which keeps the world sitting spinning atop a pinhead over the abyss.

Fixed Cross wrote:

And yes, any imposition of a law on people who didn't choose that law, is a 'primordial crime'. Or just a lawless violence.

Therefore, the US Constitution (perfected) can and may only apply to those people who have voluntarily pledged allegiance to it.

And such people are the only ones to be guaranteed protection by that law.

This is Value Ontology applied to politics. Law, to be pure in its existence, to be unambiguously lawful, must be able to self-value in terms of the people it presides over. It must be carried.

Yes I agree to this but only to a point. But not everyone needs to accept every aspect of the law for the law to be properly rational and non-criminal. We can disagree or fail to understand many things about the law, and yet the law itself is still proper and right, and we may agree to follow it. We may agree to follow it largely out of self interest to avoid penalties, and yet this is also just fine. It is not in human nature to memorize and understand every law in society. That is for lawmakers, to understand the deep rational roots of justice and its applications in theory and practice. This is for philosophers. Only philosophers should craft laws, which makes politics itself a contradiction.

Let's say a proper law is introduced, say the US constitution, and some of the people in the land in which it is introduced do not agree to it and do not want it. Does this make the imposition of the US constitution a "primordial crime"? No. Because the aspect of it being a "crime" does not hinge upon the opinions and desires of the people against which it is imposed. The criminality of it rests in logic, in truth as such. I have an example of this actually. In a recent discussion with someone I asked what is their definition of theft, they said theft is whatever the law defines it as. I pointed out this is not a definition, and then I gave my definition as "taking something that belongs to someone else against their will, often with the use or threat of use of force (implied in the fact they don't want to give the thing which is being taken)".

^That is a proper conceptual definition. An objective standard, a pure concept. This is more to my point about criminality. Something is criminal at this higher objective conceptual level, and not at the lower level of whatever the law happens to say or whatever the people happen to think or desire.

So now we are getting closer to the real substance of our disagreement in this issue. Very nice to see. I hope this can be expanded upon further. Because this idea of law is crime, even in your limited use as "any imposition of a law on people who didn't choose that law, is a 'primordial crime" is something I disagree with for the reason I just outlined. This needs to be further discussed and debated.  

Fixed Cross wrote:

And the aim is not to subject the world with this law. That is contradictory to the nature of the law. None shall be subjected by the law of liberty.

Not subjected by, subjected TO. Subjected TO the law of liberty means all are given into the confines of this law, to live within its boundaries, to share in its substances. The law is simply there for everyone who reside within its scope, they don't get to pick and choose the laws they want to follow. If they really disagree they can always leave, or renounce their citizenship. Then they are truly free from the law. But until then, if they reside within the law then it applies at least to the context in which they exist, if not directly "to" them. And even to apply a proper law such as upholds liberty is not "subjected by" or "subjected to". Unless we remove all connotation from that and simply mean it applies across the scope of territory in which it applies. Which is just a truism.

But I will repeat that the law doesn't factor into accounts of itself or its application whether people agree or not. The law can be changed, or you can chose not to follow it of course, but the law has this also built into its structure in the form of penalties. Of course we are talking about the constitution and liberty, and not so much petty derivative laws. We are taking about things like the bill of rights, and not a list of "you cannot do this or that...".

But as Parodites has said quoting another philosopher, those who understand freedom feel compelled to spread it across existence. This is simply how it works. One cannot understand these things, these higher truths, without seeing how they properly apply in larger contexts and even to people who do not understand them. Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance of truth is not a reason to deny truths to people. It might be a reason that people fault and suffer on their own account of ignorance, but it is not a reason to for example prevent the proper application and distribution of truth. Truth will raise others to itself, or crush them for their ignorance. That's reality. And my focus is always on reality itself, on truth itself.

Quote :

Also note: I certainly never said law is crime. It takes me a while to subdue my anger over being misquoted especially on such important topics, to regain my calm and decide it is worth my time to respond.

My apologies for that. I left that deliberately open as a gap in the substances under discussion, due to the overlaps with politics and law as conceptual categories. If politics is crime, as you said, and in light of your other comments about primordial crime of the original imposition of law, I think this is an important 'gap' to fill in. And as I said I don't have the time or necessarily even energy to sit down and write out this entire gap-space on my own. I prefer it to be written out like this, in the back and forth of authentic discussion.

Quote :

I have said that the imposition of a law is a crime against any previous law which the imposition overrules.

That would be to claim all laws are categorically or ontologically equal. I disagree with that. A proper law being applied against a previous law that was improper, for example, would not be an act of crime. The previous law itself is already a crime, even if this fact is not yet understood or not understood until the appearance of the proper law.

Quote :

That does not make the law itself a crime. Unless a law actively calls to be imposed on people who hold other laws, law is not crime.

That is my point, it doesn't matter if the people want certain laws over others, the criminality of a law is not based on their desires or opinions. The criminality or lack thereof of a law is based on truth itself, in reason and in reality. And can be deduced using logic and philosophy, not by asking the people for their opinions on it.

Quote :

Such "subtleties" are to be understood very well if progress can be made.
You understand me very well in my reasoning, all things considered, better than any other. But where it concerns politics, I am being misread and misunderstood even by you.

Yes I did miss that subtlety on your part, initially. But we are still in deep disagreement on this point, which is what I intuited in the first place and why I left that "gap" obviously open for further exploration.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Also don't think because you were born in the US that makes you more rugged at war for liberty. Id like to see you or any American take on the tyrannies Ive taken on by my cold lonesome.

If even a dozen Americans with my readiness for action existed...

Im of a more ancient type. I don't even accept metaphysics at all. For me, thought and action are indistinguishable.

Yes and this goes back to my point about action, but that is sort of beside the point now. I am not questioning your resolve or actions, of course. I prefer if mine are also not called into question. And if so I am happy to elaborate my absolute devotion to truth as such, which should be obvious to anyone here. And also to again elaborate on why this is more important than action for its own sake, or action wed to thought.

For me, thought comes before action. Philosophy comes before the world. Although yes in many cases these do and should co-occur together.

But when it comes to being rugged at war for liberty, I will never compromise that terrain. There are many Americans who will never compromise it.

Fixed Cross wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

this guuuuuuuuy


he was hating on Trump until I explained some stuff to him.

Now he acting all tough

Now this... is where indeed we might be done.

Because you see, yes of course I was blue pilled in 2015 before you and Parodites and others helped red pill me out of the fake news propaganda spirals. I am very grateful for that, but ultimately it was me to did and had to do that hard work, and who suffered for it. And I still suffer for it, but that is beside the point.

Also beside the point is the fact that you "explained some stuff" to me and now I happen to see aspects of Trump that are considered blasphemy to you or MAGA now. The mere fact that I used to dislike Trump because I was blue pilled has nothing to do with the fact that now that I am no longer blue pilled and can see the larger objective picture I also see specific failures of Trump, and I am going to point those out.

More interesting is the fact that you will not comment on those things I mention. Well you did, you made one comment stating America would be a banana republic if Trump threw his political opponents in prison. To which I responded the obvious point that that's not what Trump would be doing nor what we want him to do, rather want him to be the spearhead for America's gutting of the traitorous deep state infestation that is rotting America from within. We want to drain the swamp, you know that thing Trump said a thousand times. But now that he isn't doing it, somehow that's ok with you? Or it's wrong of me to point out he isn't doing it? I will also point out that after I responded to your banana republic point, you haven't yet responded back to what I said, or if you did I missed it.

Also I am not "acting all tough". I will let that one go.

I am doing what I always do. I am stating what I think. I am speaking truths as best I can. You are free and expected to counter them if you disagree, and we will continue to engage back and forth until or if a common understanding is reached. And I will continue to point out the weird orthodox nature of this seeming assumption that I am not allowed to question or criticize Trump in any way.

How strange is that? Is Trump such a religious figure in your eyes? That I cannot even critic him for what I think he is doing wrong? Has Trump done anything wrong in your eyes? I don't honestly know. I can't recall you ever being critical of him. I am sure you have been, over maybe one or a couple of things, but I can't recall them right now.

Certainly if you were I would not respond with somehow you are not "allowed" to critique him, or certainly not bring up something from 4 years ago that you used to not like someone therefore now you have no right to critique them.

This is all very bizarre to me. But this is indeed clown world, I am not that surprised. It is indeed sad though. That you would be reduced to these words above, merely because I dare to point out some very obvious facts.

Quote :

yeah bru


suuuuure.



alright we're done here.



Good luck, you liar.

I did not lie.

And I very much resent and am angered by this.

I will let it go, or try to. But you need to state exactly what it is you think I lied about.

I felt you were completely pissing on my careful efforts and then suggesting I ... well, fuck it. You've replied now.
I was boiling over with anger, and felt completely misrepresented. Which is why I impulsively called you a liar.

We can leave this behind now, if you are willing. As now youve correctly represented my writing and gone into it with your true power.
fucking HATE it to not be addressed with true power. GODDAMN I HATE THAT SHIT.

I will take some time to address all this fresh stuff youve written. A short vacation from the internet has calmed me down tremendously, improved my health mentally and physically. I hope I can maintain at least some of that.

Thanks for the profound reply brother.

individualized wrote:

America invented a new kind of government, one bound by an ironclad constitution for the sake of the governed.

It doesn't turn out to be so very ironclad.

And there are innumerable weaknesses in it.

The existence of congress which may imposed taxes is ... unquestioned. To name just one thing.

Its a good start, is all.

And the type of government is not new, its derived of Greek and Roman politics.

Quote :

To subject power to those against whom power is wielded. That’s a deep philosophical achievement. To enshrine the logic of freedom, anti-tyranny as principle, into the bedrock of a new society and see what happens.

This was done in Athens.

Quote :

Well the whole world saw. America rose up to become the world. Or rather it’s guarantor and central focus point. All the rest gathered and swirled around it, like in a storm.

Much to do with resources.

Quote :

So now I have to witness this America, my society a bd culture, rotting to death because of the infection of “elitism”. This same old principle of tyranny which America originally shook off. Politics is crime? Politicians are above the law? Now I know I’m really going crazy in this clown world, to see such statements made by a fellow brother in philosophy. This clown world has gotten to me, i can’t much take it anymore.

Are you going to blame the nations which America had enslaved for its own corruption?
Seems weak.

I think America turns out to have been rather decadent.

Quote :

Must be why I drink a bottle of expensive scorch every two days now, including for my breakfast in my coffee. Fuck. It. I’m so fucking tired of all this shit.

So I call trump to account for not doing as he said. For lying to his supporters to get their vote. Guess what, that’s what all the other politicians do. Lie to get votes. I thought trump was supposed to be different. Isn’t that why we all liked him? He’s not a politician. He’s just a human. A very successful human who sees the real problems and knows how to fix them, and has the will to do it. And doesn’t give a shit what anyone else thinks.

No.

Haha, no I was never remotely that naive.

Quote :

Well it’s a nice... narrative. But the fact trump had 4 years now and hasn’t drained the swamp is all the proof we need. Ok sure, let’s do another narrative, “it isn’t enough time”. “He needs more time to drain the swamp”. Or, “he’s working on it behind the scenes”. Or “he knows it can’t be done so he’s just doing his best”.

He has freed the world of the yoke previous US politicians had imposed on it.
As far as American politician go he is by far the best.
And I like him as a person too.

Quote :

Well, no. None of those false fake news narratives will fly. Those are Fox and Breitbart and Blaze and Newsmax propaganda pieces. Fuck all that shit. I know for a fact those are all bullshit, and why? For a few reasons I’ve already mentioned but one primarily: trump confirmed Hillary is above the law.

he confirmed that she represents something immensely powerful - namely the heart of US deep state politics.
Which Americans allowed into existence the past century by being naive and spoiled children.

Quote :

That’s it. He had the easiest case in the world to charge her. Case closed, slam dunk.

Thats the silliest thing Ive heard this year.

Yeah sure, power doesn't exist.
You can just put a high member of a 40 trillion dollar organization in jail like some big basket ball player plops the ball in the net.

Yeah man, thats how it works.

Quote :

EVERYONE knows she is guilty as sin of at least this federal crime of mishandling classified information, let alone all the other shit she did. And trump promised to put her in jail for it.

And he did nothing. Made excuses for her.

Then of course there’s the pictures of trump buddy buddy with Bill Clinton. Or the fact trump was Epstein’s friend even while acknowledging publicly he was a pedo. Well. We don’t even need to go there. Trump is expanding the debt as fast as Obama did. Look at yearly deficits. He also allowed unlimited spying of all Americans internet activities without their permission. Which I’ve pointed out before.

And you Americans never did anything about that.
Except once in your lifetime make a pencil-mark on a ballot.

Never raised any weapons.

And yet claim the moral high ground.

Compared to the French, you are truly very cowardly.

Quote :

But none of that is needed here. I don’t need to also point out he has done nothing against the literally fake news propaganda organizations like CNN which he still invites into then White House and still gives exclusive monopoly contracts to in federal buildings.

I don’t need to point all that out. Because I know no one cares.

Again, its all your own American doing.
The rest of the world had to suffer all your fascist bullshit.

Quote :

All I need to point out is, he has the one perfect chance to investigate and charge Hillary with her crimes, and he didn’t do it. He did what Comey and all the deep state did and he made excuses for her. He protected her.

Trump fucking protected Hillary.

So just let that sink in.

By the way does the president even have the power to put people in jail?
Doesn't America have the famous Roman-French separation of powers?

Quote :

And now I have to watch the world dissolve into goo as mere tribalism takes over in the vacuum of philsooogt, reason, factual existence. I have to see the traitors go unpunished despite we voted for trump to clean this up. And then on top of it I have to see that apparently Hillary is really actually above the law.

Wow. Just.. wow.

I have nothing else to say.

Lol. The idea you can think casting a vote is doing your civic duty is hilarious.

People who think that deserve to be enslaved.

individualized wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Well I see zero evidence for your claims on behalf of the great resilience of Americans against criminal politicians. In fact your whole thread here seems to be about there being no such evidence. What am I missing?

No, the only evidence needed is the American people rising up to elect Trump to throw out the deep state traitors and globalists. What more evidence could be needed than this? This is the main reason Trump was elected. The American people, enough of them anyway, are wise to the game and this is their way of fighting back.

Im no longer playing along with anything I don't think is true.

No, all evidence we have is that Trump was elected. Why he was elected, obviously there is no evidence of this.

I say he was elected to prevent world war 3, which he managed to avert.

Quote :

If this doesn't work, there will be civil war. Which is something the globalists and leftist deep state traitors want, because it gives them an excuse to use extreme measures of force. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but with Trump's refusal to prosecute any traitors... I think it will come to war.

Contrary. If the president breaks the law by taking over the justice department that is a declaration of civil war.

Quote :

What sort of evidence are you looking for? You discount the fact we elected Trump. So what evidence could be needed? Americans in general want the rule of law to apply equally to everyone, rich and poor, politician or not. Americans in general are not elitists, that is a basic principle of American culture to be individualist, liberty-oriented, non-aristocratic. Of course there is a growing segment of weird leftists and slavish types who want unequal dispensation of liberty and justice. We can also count neocons into that camp too. The hope is that the numbers of these people doesn't reach a sufficient threshold to top the overall balance. But I think we are already there. Especially since Trump has abandoned the mission.

Thats all sentimental narrative, not a verifiable fact in sight.

Quote :

Points about philosopher's duties, by this I think you mean that the philosopher should act, that action and philosophy should be the same thing? If so, I disagree. I am no marxist to believe "the point [of philosophy] is to change the world", no the point of philosophy is to understand the world, to know truth. By knowing truth one makes oneself in the image of truth, just as "man is made in God's image" to use the christian story-image for that same idea. And once you are made in the image of truth, proper actions will follow.

Thought is action.

Quote :

To focus on action first and foremost is to put the cart before the horse. Actions are results, consequences of what and who you are. You must focus on the 'what and who you are' first in order for proper actions to flow from that. To focus primarily on action as such is to "twist facts to suit evidence, rather than evidence to suit facts" to quote Sherlock Holmes.

Thought that isn't action is not thought. Its vanity. No consequences, no truth to it.

Quote :

Proper action is very important, and action itself is very important. But this cannot take the place of philosophy proper, which is truth as such and for its own sake . DEPTH FOR ITS OWN SAKE. Literally for its own sake. That means something.

I don't see any depth to thought that has no consequences.
I see only vanity.

It is not the task of anyone the change the world. Its simply the consequence of a thought that it changes the world.

Quote :

If you mean something else about philosopher's duties I would like to know. Part of action being running for political office, I think in your view here, is also something I reject. I have as little desire to hold any political office as I have desire to have power or control over other people. As Aristotle said the man who seeks power over others is the man who is powerless over himself. And as Parodites once said what use is it to me to rule over a much of stupid cows (paraphrase)? What value or point in that kind of "power"? That isn't power. I have no desires for political office nor is my consciousness and personality banal enough to handle such a thing. Politics is not the realm of philosophy, which indeed is a sad truth. This is a failure of politics to raise to the stature of philosophy.

Oh I see. You expect of Trump that he does your bidding, but you are too high and refined to do I yourself.
No, no elitism there at all.

Quote :

Quote :

If you want to prove America can be what you say it is, rather than what it has, empirically considered, been so far -- you better start proving it.

America is not just one thing. I have not claimed America is one thing. I have claimed that Americans have a strong spirit of loving liberty. This is ingrained in the American psyche or culture. It is part of the foundational values-structure. That doesn't mean X % of Americans have this or in whatever ratio they might have it. It means to speak directly to the values-structure itself. For you to focus only on the opposite side of that, as leftists always do when they rant their long litany of America's faults, is only the reverse of that same error the right makes with their fervent patriotism at all costs. I am in neither camp. I simply speak to the foundational principles, to the values substances and the MEANING directly. I am fully aware of the faults and limitations as well.

Actually,  I was the one who was talking about principles and meaning while you were ignoring me.

Quote :

Quote :

My position has always been: without VO, no law will govern rationally. And the US Constitution is relatively close to a VO based law. But it needs to be perfected, requiring not only a Pledge of allegiance from politicians, but from everyone enjoying the "god given" rights.

Because in so far as god gives man rights, man is the form god takes on doing that.
Man as pure-self-valuing, man as invested in the foundation of his rights, this is what is required for such rights to be upheld consistently.

Yes I agree with this. And this is one thing that foretells the death of the world, that man no longer is invested to his own rights-structures, values-structures, principled foundational substances. Man is no longer self-embedded in his own reality. There are many different reasons for this, and I don't need to go into them now. This would be a good topic for another thread.

Indeed VO-ness needs to be infused more properly into society, culture, politics. All laws are proper in the sense they are rational, true, which also means in the sense they reflect VO-like principles. Self-value which is also the A=A. Reality recognition. Truth-observance.

A= not A. As Parodites says, A > < A.

Truth just isn't that easy.

Aristotle was very weak compared to myself.

Truth exists only as a dynamism.

Correspondence is never exact.

Quote :

Quote :

Right now, the US is in a state of almost pure contradiction, which is illustrated by your claim that Americans have zero tolerance for political crime following your claim that they do absolutely nothing about the worst political criminals. I only see evidence of the latter, as Ive only seen evidence of that all across the world.

Indeed, both of these aspects exist in Americans, just as they exist in all people. Everyone has their own little values-preferences, their self-valuing biases in which the rules do not apply or are not applied in the same way. That is quite normal and good. Assuming it is... normal and good. As with all things, they can become perverted and used improperly. America embodied contradiction and this is part of its power, its daemonism. Indeed it is a war. And the side which values liberty, equality, anti-authoritarianism and anti-aristocracy is a very strong and very deep side. As you know too. And I know that you know this. Which is why I am surprised to see you say "I only see evidence of the latter". Indeed there is much evidence of the former, for you and I both know this nature of the American spirit and character. You know it very well based on your travels here.

No, I think you are essentially aristocratic.
In the sense of looking down on so many things.

Quote :

Quote :

America has been exceptionally productive in many respects. But intolerance of political crime is the very last thing I would credit I with.
Maybe you can change that.
Or am I the only one "American" enough to understand that, if you want something done, you've got to do it yourself?

No one person can end all political crime. No surprise no one has done this yet.

I am not naive. I know about crime, its nature and potentiality and indeed also its necessity. None of that discounts what I am saying in this topic. None of that vindicates Trump for his betrayal in not prosecuting The Shill (or anyone else).

Americans are sick and tired of all this shit. The corruption and crime in their government. They don't want all these fucking wars, for example. That is part of why Trump won. That is also why the warmongering globalists always need to use so much psychic propaganda, warfare and violence against the American people in order to "convince" them to go along with all the criminality. To the extent Americans accept so much of it is also largely to the extent those same Americans have been brainwashed by their media and everything else into false ideas (false narratives) that justify it. But then again most people are not philosophical thinkers, and that is the root of the real problem. A failure not of philosophy but of people before philosophy. Before their own potential. And indeed I do blame them for this failure, to a degree. I don't forgive it as mere ignorance. Not when it comes to adults anyway.

America has caused a state of perpetual war in the world, it has even invented radical **sl**.

Obviously it cant just withdraw suddenly and say oh no we're too good for this.

Trump has cleaned up much of the horrible genocidal mess previous American presidents (and their voters) made.

Anyone who voted for Bill Clinton is complicit in destruction of several nations and all the torments and mass deaths related. Anyone who voted for Trump is responsible for saving millions of lives.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

And right now is about the time to begin teaching that concept to people.
It will breed the strongest people there have ever been.

But this is a war for consciousness which should last millennia, and will never really extinguish, as with each new born person, the war continues.

This state of perpetual war, this expanding society of rights-upholding freemen, draws out mans true nature, what I call "free will".

Yes people need to fight for their rights. But there is also a sense in which people need to take their rights for granted, to not need to fight for them. This impulse is just as real and just as important. It is the balance of the two which keeps the world sitting spinning atop a pinhead over the abyss.

Not taken for granted so much as intimately known.
Taking things for granted is, I think, related to aristocracy.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

And yes, any imposition of a law on people who didn't choose that law, is a 'primordial crime'. Or just a lawless violence.

Therefore, the US Constitution (perfected) can and may only apply to those people who have voluntarily pledged allegiance to it.

And such people are the only ones to be guaranteed protection by that law.

This is Value Ontology applied to politics. Law, to be pure in its existence, to be unambiguously lawful, must be able to self-value in terms of the people it presides over. It must be carried.

Yes I agree to this but only to a point. But not everyone needs to accept every aspect of the law for the law to be properly rational and non-criminal. We can disagree or fail to understand many things about the law, and yet the law itself is still proper and right, and we may agree to follow it. We may agree to follow it largely out of self interest to avoid penalties, and yet this is also just fine. It is not in human nature to memorize and understand every law in society. That is for lawmakers, to understand the deep rational roots of justice and its applications in theory and practice. This is for philosophers. Only philosophers should craft laws, which makes politics itself a contradiction.

Again, that is an aristocratic view.
I disagree. I think it is the duty of The People to known and uphold the law.

Quote :

Let's say a proper law is introduced, say the US constitution, and some of the people in the land in which it is introduced do not agree to it and do not want it. Does this make the imposition of the US constitution a "primordial crime"? No. Because the aspect of it being a "crime" does not hinge upon the opinions and desires of the people against which it is imposed. The criminality of it rests in logic, in truth as such. I have an example of this actually. In a recent discussion with someone I asked what is their definition of theft, they said theft is whatever the law defines it as. I pointed out this is not a definition, and then I gave my definition as "taking something that belongs to someone else against their will, often with the use or threat of use of force (implied in the fact they don't want to give the thing which is being taken)".

"Theft" is not a law. So this misses the point, which as so very often when I make one, is subtle.

Quote :

^That is a proper conceptual definition. An objective standard, a pure concept. This is more to my point about criminality. Something is criminal at this higher objective conceptual level, and not at the lower level of whatever the law happens to say or whatever the people happen to think or desire.

So now we are getting closer to the real substance of our disagreement in this issue. Very nice to see. I hope this can be expanded upon further. Because this idea of law is crime, even in your limited use as "any imposition of a law on people who didn't choose that law, is a 'primordial crime" is something I disagree with for the reason I just outlined. This needs to be further discussed and debated.  

We do indeed completely disagree here. And indeed it is good to have this clarified.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

And the aim is not to subject the world with this law. That is contradictory to the nature of the law. None shall be subjected by the law of liberty.

Not subjected by, subjected TO. Subjected TO the law of liberty means all are given into the confines of this law, to live within its boundaries, to share in its substances. The law is simply there for everyone who reside within its scope, they don't get to pick and choose the laws they want to follow.

If they don't they have no true freedom.

Quote :

If they really disagree they can always leave, or renounce their citizenship. Then they are truly free from the law. But until then, if they reside within the law then it applies at least to the context in which they exist, if not directly "to" them. And even to apply a proper law such as upholds liberty is not "subjected by" or "subjected to". Unless we remove all connotation from that and simply mean it applies across the scope of territory in which it applies. Which is just a truism.

That is my point. Self-determined People either uphold and completely embrace and support the law or forfeit their rights to be protected by other such People.

All else is decadence.

Quote :

But I will repeat that the law doesn't factor into accounts of itself or its application whether people agree or not. The law can be changed, or you can chose not to follow it of course, but the law has this also built into its structure in the form of penalties. Of course we are talking about the constitution and liberty, and not so much petty derivative laws. We are taking about things like the bill of rights, and not a list of "you cannot do this or that...".

Yes, about principles.

Like self-valuing logic is a principle which upholds itself, so a Free Man must uphold his Free Man-hood.

Quote :

But as Parodites has said quoting another philosopher, those who understand freedom feel compelled to spread it across existence. This is simply how it works. One cannot understand these things, these higher truths, without seeing how they properly apply in larger contexts and even to people who do not understand them. Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance of truth is not a reason to deny truths to people. It might be a reason that people fault and suffer on their own account of ignorance, but it is not a reason to for example prevent the proper application and distribution of truth. Truth will raise others to itself, or crush them for their ignorance. That's reality. And my focus is always on reality itself, on truth itself.

Yes, and I probably understand freedom better than anyone else.

I do more to spread it, to infect people with it, than anyone Ive ever known. I urge people to fight for it every step of the way, too not simply expect to be given it.

I am alike Prometheus.

Quote :

Quote :

Also note: I certainly never said law is crime. It takes me a while to subdue my anger over being misquoted especially on such important topics, to regain my calm and decide it is worth my time to respond.

My apologies for that. I left that deliberately open as a gap in the substances under discussion, due to the overlaps with politics and law as conceptual categories. If politics is crime, as you said, and in light of your other comments about primordial crime of the original imposition of law, I think this is an important 'gap' to fill in. And as I said I don't have the time or necessarily even energy to sit down and write out this entire gap-space on my own. I prefer it to be written out like this, in the back and forth of authentic discussion.

Well this finally is all very clarifying

I wont apologize for my harshness, as our disagreements are very strong and a lot of anger about not being properly read has been building up in me. But I hope we can arrive at a higher plateau where we are again operating in the fullness of respect for the Word, above media, above bullshit, above the idea that the world can find its way without us --
this is how we started out, the knowledge that we, as philosophers, are perfectly required for the defeat of the catastrophic  weaknesses by which the political world is determined.

Quote :

Quote :

I have said that the imposition of a law is a crime against any previous law which the imposition overrules.

That would be to claim all laws are categorically or ontologically equal. I disagree with that. A proper law being applied against a previous law that was improper, for example, would not be an act of crime. The previous law itself is already a crime, even if this fact is not yet understood or not understood until the appearance of the proper law.

Quote :

That does not make the law itself a crime. Unless a law actively calls to be imposed on people who hold other laws, law is not crime.

That is my point, it doesn't matter if the people want certain laws over others, the criminality of a law is not based on their desires or opinions. The criminality or lack thereof of a law is based on truth itself, in reason and in reality. And can be deduced using logic and philosophy, not by asking the people for their opinions on it.

It can only be reduced to self-valuing logic which is the logical heart of the will to power -- nothing is given. It can only be taken.

Quote :

Quote :

Such "subtleties" are to be understood very well if progress can be made.
You understand me very well in my reasoning, all things considered, better than any other. But where it concerns politics, I am being misread and misunderstood even by you.

Yes I did miss that subtlety on your part, initially. But we are still in deep disagreement on this point, which is what I intuited in the first place and why I left that "gap" obviously open for further exploration.

Alright.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

Also don't think because you were born in the US that makes you more rugged at war for liberty. Id like to see you or any American take on the tyrannies Ive taken on by my cold lonesome.

If even a dozen Americans with my readiness for action existed...

Im of a more ancient type. I don't even accept metaphysics at all. For me, thought and action are indistinguishable.

Yes and this goes back to my point about action, but that is sort of beside the point now. I am not questioning your resolve or actions, of course. I prefer if mine are also not called into question. And if so I am happy to elaborate my absolute devotion to truth as such, which should be obvious to anyone here. And also to again elaborate on why this is more important than action for its own sake, or action wed to thought.

For me, thought comes before action. Philosophy comes before the world. Although yes in many cases these do and should co-occur together.

I do not even know any world other than philosophy.

I see all of the human world governed by philosophy, always. Until I devised VO However all philosophy was too weak to govern properly.

Ive always been clear about that.

Quote :

But when it comes to being rugged at war for liberty, I will never compromise that terrain. There are many Americans who will never compromise it.

Im counting on that.

Ill go into the idea of theft as intrinsically, objectively un-lawful, which you seem to be suggesting and which I have heard a lot of before.

I am not a believer in the creation myth in the book of Genesis.

I do not consider Mankind to be intrinsically superior to other animals.

So I consider the fact that we eat animal meat, after we steal the meat from the creature, to completely refute the idea that to take things from someone who eats meat, would be intrinsically unlawful.

The only reason I see it as unlawful is that we have laws against it.
And the only reason I see for having laws against it, is that it is more convenient to have laws for it than to constantly have to fight over possession of things.

The reason for this violence to be inconvenient is that we are powerful enough to make it so.

I have come to peace of mind about eating animals by not eating animals whose souls I relate to. But I don't imagine I have any intrinsic right to eat them. I do have a right to eat them, but I have given myself this right together with the people who have bred and killed the animals.

Still Id feel more comfortable if I was the one doing the breeding and killing of my own food. But thats not possible for me at this point.

I am glad we have laws against theft. But Id be just as comfortable owning a machine gun and blasting to smithereens anyone attempting to take valued stuff I have in my control. I see judiciary police forces as intrinsically violent. It just depends on who controls the police whether or not they protect my interests or compromise them. In either case, the top down violence of the state, or as they say, "the monopoly on violence" of the state, compromises pure individual self-valuing logic.

The only arrangement that would satisfy pure individual self-valuing logic would be a community of people who have willingly entered a contract to uphold certain rules for each other. You'd have to train children for this from an early age, like the Spartans. This contract would have to be a stripped version of the Constitution. With perhaps only perfected versions of the first and second amendments.

But it is more likely that we end up with a non-pure individual self-valuing system with an actual state, and with some institutions and perhaps even a police force.

Still, police forces are a fundamental breach of individual self-valuing logic. People who have the authority to overpower other people on grounds of suspicion ... what the hell kind of ethos is that? In my view this makes us much lower than many other animals.

Only the idea that police forces represent Truth as Such and that this Truth supersedes human beings in value can justify this. And I don't agree with that idea.

Still. You and Parodites both argue from a somewhat similar seeming position about Truth, that it, as such, does supersede any beings, any perspectives.

Im not completely convinced that this is wrong, as self valuing logic necessitates a plurality of perspectives thus secures that being is never reducible to perspective.

Fixed Cross wrote:

individualized wrote:

America invented a new kind of government, one bound by an ironclad constitution for the sake of the governed.

It doesn't turn out to be so very ironclad.

And there are innumerable weaknesses in it.

The existence of congress which may imposed taxes is ... unquestioned. To name just one thing.

Its a good start, is all.

And the type of government is not new, its derived of Greek and Roman politics.

I don’t like tyranny.

That’s nice about Greece and Rome. I’m sure they did a great job.

I’m well aware that politics is a contradiction. It contradicts truth, because it is anti-philosophical. Therefore the very best possible political law or constitution is simply going to be an imperfect mess. The point is to try and minimize the damage. So the best we can with this “politics” nonsense. And America did a pretty good job. I think history speaks to that. Too bad that America had to be founded on this shithole of a planet full of (literally) retarded apes.

Quote :

Quote :

To subject power to those against whom power is wielded. That’s a deep philosophical achievement. To enshrine the logic of freedom, anti-tyranny as principle, into the bedrock of a new society and see what happens.

This was done in Athens.

Again, I don’t like tyranny. I’m not too interested in what Athens did thousands of years ago. As Parodites has been pointing out much of what the American government does is blatantly unconstitutional, it’s just that the average person and the average Supreme Court justice is too fucking dumb.

I would rather discuss the system itself, the purpose and functioning of the constitutional system.

So we can understand how to minimize the errors as much as possible. Part of that is going to mean ejecting a lot of people who don’t belong here. The reality of this fact is going to push another war.

Quote :

Quote :

Well the whole world saw. America rose up to become the world. Or rather it’s guarantor and central focus point. All the rest gathered and swirled around it, like in a storm.

Much to do with resources.

I won’t digify this with a reply, since it doesn’t count as dignifying what I said with a reply.

Quote :

Quote :

So now I have to witness this America, my society a bd culture, rotting to death because of the infection of “elitism”. This same old principle of tyranny which America originally shook off. Politics is crime? Politicians are above the law? Now I know I’m really going crazy in this clown world, to see such statements made by a fellow brother in philosophy. This clown world has gotten to me, i can’t much take it anymore.

Are you going to blame the nations which America had enslaved for its own corruption?
Seems weak.

I think America turns out to have been rather decadent.

You’re the one who seems to think politicians are above the law. And you seem to think they ought to be above the law. That’s a very European view, not a very American view. A very non-constitutional view. And dare I say a quite decadent view.

Which nations has America “enslaved” again? I must have missed that.

This is really becoming disappointing very quickly. I thought there was.... more. To this.

This cheap easy talk of decadence, America enslaving other nations, blah blah. I’m feeling suddenly like I want to throw up. I am having a weird sensation that I’m at ILP. But this is BTL. I thought there was a standard of thought here.

I guess keep ranting your litany of leftist-inspired hates on America. I hope that is comforting while Europe burns. Not that I want Europe to burn, because unlike Parodites I think that America and Europe have a shared destiny. America can’t survive without Europe. So I don’t want Europe to continue suiciding itself. But I’m under no illusions either.

Quote :

Quote :

Must be why I drink a bottle of expensive scorch every two days now, including for my breakfast in my coffee. Fuck. It. I’m so fucking tired of all this shit.

So I call trump to account for not doing as he said. For lying to his supporters to get their vote. Guess what, that’s what all the other politicians do. Lie to get votes. I thought trump was supposed to be different. Isn’t that why we all liked him? He’s not a politician. He’s just a human. A very successful human who sees the real problems and knows how to fix them, and has the will to do it. And doesn’t give a shit what anyone else thinks.

No.

Haha, no I was never remotely that naive.

Right, I do see it now. You’re a supporter of corruption and crime in politics, lying in politics, breaking promises, making false promises to your supporters, letting the “elite class” (aristocracy which you seem to like so much) get away with anything and everything even after you promise to clean it up and actually win the power to do it, win that power thanks to so many “naive” people who actually hold actual values and who believed what trump said.

Wow, how naive indeed. To think of wanted some kind of higher values out of trump. All you seemed to want is a better criminal elitist aristocrat type. So much for politics, so much for value or liberty, I guess this is all about tyranny for you. It’s all a power game, that’s how you see it. Will to power. I know that view, and it’s precisely why politics remains anti-philosophical. Just like you already implicitly equated all laws in all nations and societies as if they’re all equal, when you said that the imposition of a new law is a crime against a former law. Or when you implied the criminality of a law depends on how people feel about it.

Again, I’ll not be surprised by any of this. I will be surprised at myself for taking this long to see through to your actual political aims and “values”.

Fetishizing power is what politics does and is. It’s for anti-valuing. Truth has little place in it. What is the for it’s owb sake of power? What is “power” even? But I digress. There’s no point in trying to develop ideas in this direction. Not here at BTL anymore, that’s become clear.

Quote :

Quote :

Well it’s a nice... narrative. But the fact trump had 4 years now and hasn’t drained the swamp is all the proof we need. Ok sure, let’s do another narrative, “it isn’t enough time”. “He needs more time to drain the swamp”. Or, “he’s working on it behind the scenes”. Or “he knows it can’t be done so he’s just doing his best”.

He has freed the world of the yoke previous US politicians had imposed on it.
As far as American politician go he is by far the best.
And I like him as a person too.

He didn’t free the world from anything. Once trump is gone it will go right back to the way it was. Trump didn’t drain the swamp and he didn’t bring any accountability to anyone. The swamp is still there, just as much as ever. Trump is one guy, once he is out of office that’s it and things go back to how they were.

That’s why he blew his chance. Why we were “naive” to trust him. Apparently you weren’t so naive, although I don’t remember reading you ever say you didn’t expect trump to fulfill those promises he made. It’s still amazing to me that after all this time you won’t even offer any arguments or ideas to counter what I’ve pointed out that trump has failed on. A really remarkable and glaring omission on your part. That you won’t even try to defend him. Well you don’t need to, because you are perhaps happy with those betrayals I pointed out.

He didn’t drain the swamp. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t lock Hillary up. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t bring any accountability to any of American politics. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t do anything to slow or stop fake news propaganda. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t do anything to stop or slow down targeting of non-leftists online and in media by censorship, slander, libel, deplatforming. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t even slow much less reverse crippling debt spending. You don’t seem to care.

He didn’t slow or stop or even bother to try fighting back or even talk about how the internet is now one gigantic spying and data collection operation against everyone. You don’t seem to care.

I’m sensing a pattern here.

The fact that none of the above bothers you is... enough for me to realize I shouldn’t even be spending my time finishing this response right now.

Ok you're back at misreading me even worserer than before.

Kewl.

Damn, I was really at any worst at the end there.

I didn't even remember that sneering post until I rediscovered it last week or so.

It's not at all true what you suggest (if you are reading this ever) that I dont mind that the swap wasn't tdraied and os on, its just that I never expected that it could be done, and that I never expected any politician to do everything he promised.

I was, and still am, merely excited that Trump did some of the things he promised and some very important things next to that.
That made me angry, having been misinterpreted in this sense. Im an extremely cynical person when it comes to politics. Which is why it is a shame that we all had to descend into its logics, its goals....