Trump

One thing I agree with Parodites about completely when it comes to Trump is that he represents an impulse to freedom in people- his supporters don't really care much about his policies, or the fact that he changes his mind on various policy ideas and doesn't even appear to be a "traditional conservative" much at all.. He is an anti-politician and his basic message is very simple: "I don't give a fuck what anyone says about me, and I'm going to say whatever I want to say in the moment". He doesn't bow to any political correctness or liberal-humanist norms, he is almost like someone from a couple generations ago who time traveled here and is totally oblivious to the whole game of "always know exactly what you're supposed to say and how you're supposed to say it" that dominates politics and much social life today.

So in this one way he is a breath of fresh air. People are sick of being told what to think and say and what they aren't allowed to think and say. Before very recently people could say just about anything and it was considered exercise in free speech, even if someone says something unpopular or insensitive to a particular person or group it didn't mean they would automatically get fired, possibly sued, and have their face and what they said plastered on 24 hour news in a public shaming. So Trump supporters are essentially motivated by their recognition of how Trump could cause a reversal in these trends of public shaming and political correctness. He doesn't say what he's supposed to say, he is supposedly publically shamed for that by the entire media and popular culture circles and yet he doesn't stop, gives the impression that he doesn't even care. That is pretty cool actually.

In other areas I disagree with him strongly and think he would be a bad president, he might end up throwing a tantrum and causing escalation leading to WWIII with his reactive petulant personality, but at least in the one area of freedom of speech he is basically spearheading a revolution.

And the best test of freedom of speech as a value is to look at what happens when someone says things that are stupid, unpopular, and offensive. A lot of people today don't even want free speech, they want to be told what is good and bad to say, which means of course what is good and bad to think. Trump is proving this by saying all these things that piss people off and showing it is not only his right to say and think them, but even leads to widespread appeal and his political success.

This is why his supporters can't be convinced to stop supporting him. He can make offensive and ignorant comments or he can insult people for their disability or mock women or whatever he wants to do; even if his supporters don't like those things he's saying, they will still support him on the basis of his being a representative of the value of free speech, which value is really the basis for all the others.

Of course freedom of speech is a clear value, but so is both restraint and unstated agreements to commonly accepted speech also clear values. Without either of these competing values a society doesn't have very far to go. I suspect that the tension between so-called right and left on this subject, as exampled by Trump and his supporters against liberal-humanist political correctness, is a direct manifestation of that competition and the Nietzschean-esque war of values and revaluations going on under the surfaces. This is all very interesting, even if American society ultimately cannot survive such a tectonic will to revaluation. But in the end something new will emerge from all this, some new arrangement and agreement of powers, of values. Western civilization is probably strong enough to ultimately succeed at this great task and push the daemonic irresolution even higher, push subjectivity and human being higher into existence.

Also interesting is that these titanic efforts to compete and coincide massive values-arrangements may happen to coincide with the appearance of true artificial intelligence. That would perhaps introduce a third term into the equation.

With regard to WW3, I have a completely different reading of it. He's actually anti-war. Not just antiwar- he's the most antiwar candidate to run in countless decades. This is something people must understand about him, which is not obvious:



As a classical nationalist, which I mentioned before in the other message, Trump wants to bring the old definition of the nation-state back into play, meaning he wants to end the parade toward world-conquest that has characterized US foreign policy for a long time by both democrats and republicans- since WW2 in fact. We have attempted to play the other nations in the world like a chess-game and bring history to a state of paralyzing peace so as to constitute a kind of new-world order, a globalist system, both culturally and economically. To accomplish that we have had to spend trillions on our military, so that we can loan it out to other nations to use. This pursuit of a globalist system has done nothing for the actual people of America, whatever benefit it has created for the world in general. Trump wants this conquistador bullshit to cease, and for America to return to its own individual ethos and ideal, to stop attempting to unify the other nations, and to cease granting those nations such massive- and expensive chunks of our military resources, which we can no longer afford anyway. This isn't my reading of Trump, he said all of this himself in the speech he gave recently on foreign policy:

“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs. The nation-state remains the true foundation of happiness and harmony.”- Trump

Not many people in the media or anywhere else actually understand the historical basis and the meaning of that statement. He's the most anti-war candidate that has run for office in decades and decades. True nationalism by its very definition, due to these reasons, is inherently anti-war. Only through this form of nationalism, with each nation representative of its unique ethos and serving exclusively its own people, can war be averted and harmony attained: this globalism shit, this America as the world's police thing, has done nothing but precipitate catastrophe after catastrophe, it has failed to accomplish its purpose, which was supposed to be bringing peace. The media's main criticism of Trump in that speech is that his vision will "undermine America's ability to shape events around the world." ... That's the point. America has no business shaping "events around the world," shaping world-history. America has to shape America's history.


I would add that due to this, due to not needing to bend everyone under one globalist idealogy, Trump will be free to re-establish good relations with nations like Russia which have refused to ideologically submit.

Trump is a Trojan horse of internet memes and media personality, and when night falls, the People are going to find themselves brought right into the inner political sanctum, and they will take back the republic.

And for others reading this thread, a message I sent Capable on why exactly this whole Trump thing is happening in the first place:



Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders only exist in this presidential race due to the fact that their respective political parties no longer reflect the will and beliefs of their constituencies- of the people. The parties are completely out of sync with the 2016 voters. Under no other circumstances would either of the two be running- and with regard to Trump, winning. The media did not create Trump, nor did the poisonous thought-cancer which the Left has become. It is simply the way the fates tied the strings that the person to whom the task has fallen of reflecting this transitioning stage in US history and the public consciousness on the political stage turned out to be, strange as it is, Donald Trump. There are two options now, given the fact that Trump has secured his nomination. Either the political party can simply admit it is a corrupt machine and openly silence the people (and Trump) with a contested convention, or it can accept what Trump will do to it: re-align it with will of the people, so that over time it can be re-imagined and re-conceived. Silencing the will of the people may not even be possible anyway now, and a contested convention unlikely, given that Trump has actually exceeded his polling and gotten more delegates than he needed with the New York and Acela wins. Lying, El Rato/Zodiac Ted and "Golly Jee" Mr. Pancakes Kasich have suspended their campaigns. Even if they did bring it to a contested convention, it would likely destroy their party: perhaps the Republican bosses are so corrupted that they would prefer being completely destroyed to being simply reinvented. The latest polling indicates Trump does actually have a chance of winning the General against Hillary. He's even a few points over her in at least one. And the thing is, the media and the other candidates have thrown every conceivable thing at Trump during this process- there is nothing left for Hillary to hit him with. There's no ammunition. There's nothing she can say to Trump that everyone in the world hasn't already said- and heard, ten times over- and all it did was increase the scope of Trump's victories. And Trump has not even started attacking her, so the only possibility is that Trump's negatives will go down and Hillary's will increase, over time. If Trump can move enough people to get out and vote, or switch sides to him, etc. then he absolutely can win the general election. He's been praising Sanders lately too in an effort to pull in his supporters, which has already been happening anyway. This would be the first time in US history that someone completely outside of the political sphere, with that very machine attempting to destroy him at every step, has managed to get around both it and the media and, by mobilizing the wills of the actual people, simply talked his way into the White House. You must recognize that he has been war-gaming all of this, Trump, for a very long time- decades. 80 percent of the things he says and the way he acts is part of his strategy, an exaggeration, a diversion, etc, intended to get an election. Nobody knows what his true political intentions are, assuming he becomes president, save for him. Save one intention, which everyone can see, that is, killing the political machine, cutting the line of all the dynasties, and silencing the thought-crime declaiming, leftist media so that people can be free to write and say what they want without fearing loss of employment, etc. But that one known intention is enough for me to desire his victory. It will be very interesting to see what he actually does, if he wins. The only real political identity I can read on him, is that he is a nationalist in the old classical sense of the word. Nationalism is very different than patriotism. Patriotism is taking pride in the accomplishments of other people and your ancestors, a very passive thing which gives you a free pass to set around doing a lot of nothing while basking in the sun of glories that are not your own. Nationalism on the other hand is a desire to contribute, on your own merits, to the cultural legacy of your fellows, and to uphold a certain set of ideals representative of that legacy, as superior to other sets of ideals- an active thing. I too am a nationalist in that sense, as I conceive Western civilization to have reached the greatest heights so far seen in humanity, and the US in particular to have taken up the ethos that the British once commanded, as the crest of it at this particular moment in history. That Western ethos is challenged by globalism, the left, the media, this political machine, etc. That political machine, made up by both Republicans and Democrats, which Trump is attempting to destroy, doesn't care about an ethos or an ideal, they just want to turn the country into an economic engine, using it to control the largest source of wealth ever accumulated on the planet- the material and cultural assets of the collective American people: they don't want the people to have an actual ideal, an ethic, or thoughts in general, and that is why they team up with the media and leftist philosophy so that they can reduce everything to meaningless identity-politics- to the whole "you're racist, you're misogynist, you're ableist" bullshit. That is why this machine actually wants foreign hordes of immigrants to come here- the more that come here, the more powerful the Welfare State can become, which must take care of them and give them free shit because they mostly can't contribute anything to us, and while the welfare state does benefit them a little bit (at our expense), who it truly benefits are the keepers of the machine- who siphon off chunks from all the wealth redistribution for their own benefit. The Left has replaced the Western ethos with their own pseudo-Marxist delusional mass-psychosis- an ideology that has no positive content and can only define itself through negation- it's not racist, it's not sexist, it's not a lot of things- yet that ideology can't actually say what it itself is, only what it is not: because it is nothing. The left has replaced beauty with equality, greatness with justice, truth with feelings, and virtue with blind hedonism, pop culture, media, smartphones, and internet memes. Equality and Justice are not positive ideas, they are negations of the lack of justice and equality, and mean nothing in themselves. They must be joined to affirmations in order to mean something. And an affirmation by the very nature of what it is, by definition, cannot be "inclusive." A value, a philosophic affirmation, is specific, closed, and uncompromising. And that affirmation can only be the great ethos of Western man- unless anyone can point me in the direction of a superior ethos. The Left is everything that needs to be flushed down the fucking drain of America (along with the Right). America is poisoned and needs to be burnt down completely. There's no line that can be drawn from here to the more meaningful existence, in which there are greater factors to take account of than the economy, which you had mentioned you wanted. The only way to get there is by resetting the political machinery. And the only man now that can accomplish that, is Donald Trump. He's the first actual civilian to have ever gotten one step away from the presidency. No other civilian, from outside of the corrupted political machine, will ever get there again in our lifetimes. All the others who held the office were groomed from childhood, granted patronage, trained, micro managed, and mentored into the position. But, by resetting the political machine, I hope Trump can bring the US to a position at which we can finally go beyond the entire dynamic of Left-Right, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Leftist paradigm. The paradigm will no longer be who is Left or Right, who is Republican or Democrat, but rather, who is a nationalist in the classical sense, and who isn't. These conservative Ted Cruz variety shitstains have always loved their own doctrine, their hallowed doxa, more than the people, more than the actual country. They don't care about the country, they only care about the country insofar as it bears the image of that doctrine. And the same with these Leftists. The Left, like the Right, only have care for their doctrine, not the country: they only like the country insofar as it bows to their pseudo-intellectual deconstructionist inclusive globalist ideology. Neither they or the Right understand that the country is simply the living embodiment of a certain ideal, an ethos, which is of greater importance than any doctrine. Having a true Ethos, having the ideal of the West, is something beyond ideology and mere politics. It was once the point of connection between the left and the right, through which they could effectively negotiate. Both sides cheered when we landed on the moon. If Trump can reset the machine, we can all begin to reconstitute that ethos. The fact that he's gotten the Republican nomination- I would have said it was impossible, but it's happened. Perhaps the General will play out in a similar impossible way. Someone had to come and burn this political machine down so we can all start over again, it's just a strange turn of fate that it turned out to be this guy:

http://cdn.gagbay.com/2015/10/funny_memes_top_kek_donald_trump-616780.jpg

Haha, yeah,

I like your analysis and agree to most of it. This,

"Equality and Justice are not positive ideas, they are negations of the lack of justice and equality, and mean nothing in themselves. They must be joined to affirmations in order to mean something. And an affirmation by the very nature of what it is, by definition, cannot be "inclusive." A value, a philosophic affirmation, is specific, closed, and uncompromising. And that affirmation can only be the great ethos of Western man- unless anyone can point me in the direction of a superior ethos. "

is especially important I think. Lack of justice and equality would not be some kind of absolute thing but relevant to a particular place and time, to a situation and to whatever was lacking and associated to that lack -- life, pleasure, health, freedom, happiness, will power, will to power, creative expression, these would be more fundamental states associated to the meaning behind the lack of justice or equality. Justice and equality are means to ends, they can be asserted on their own merit in so far as this is understood to be a maximally efficient way of guaranteeing that those other true realities and conditions are being shepherded into existence by that asserting. The values of justice and equality are values precisely because they pave the way for other values to appear.

Justice for whom? and why? Equality for whom? and in what sense, to what ends? I see justice and equality as phenomenological conditions, a kind of articulable openness of being to its own possibilities. Any "specific, closed, uncompromising" thing would need to pave its way through that which it is not, and resist what resists itself; it would need to create or benefit from the conditions that allow it to succeed and thrive. In that sense when we look at a world, the world is a massive system wed together of threads of individual values and agreements, self-valuings, and in total this world-system demands its own ontological space for existing. As valuation or "consciousness-life" becomes totalized and universalized the establishment of that space for existing also expands toward the infinite, toward a pure formality or what we see as the negativity of for its own sake values like justice, equality, fairness, etc. These really have their root in the fundamental value of freedom, and are each even in their supposedly universalized forms only iterations of the value of freedom, iterations attempting to be applied in some practical way.

I agree that Western civilization is the highest ethos thus-far produced by humanity. This doesnt mean we shouldn't separate out from that ethos and civilization its better from more deplorable aspects, and try to raise the better ones while limiting the deplorable. This is what Trump states he will do, this is the whole unstated ethos of his campaign and task which resonates with people... he is the representative of the self-valuing that holds itself as its own standard and asserts its essential right to make values-declarations, to say this is good and that is bad. It doesnt even matter so much what the individual values judgments he is making are, on the side of the good or the bad as he sees it, because what really matters is the fact that he is acting as the symbol or Sign of this kind of approach. Most likely if he were more moderate and polished, and didnt say such offensive and insensitive things, that Sign-aspect he is serving as would be less pronounced and thus less effective. People wouldn't see him for what he is, they would assume he was just another panderer. So his bravado and idiocy, the fact that he can stand up there and mock a disability or make comments about women, or just lie and change his mind on a dime are really necessary "monstrous masks" that he is using, probably without realizing it (because I cannot give him credit as a philosopher in any sense), to distinguish himself from the fray and thus allow what he has to offer to stand forth in its own element. That thing he has to offer is the pure formality of being a value-standard, of asserting values as such and for no other reason than that one asserts them.

This element he has to offer and what he represents has become diluted and largely lost in America. Mostly now there is a lot of pseudo-valuing going on, standards are asserted only after a careful calculus of utility in terms of either liberal humanism or corporacratic-capitalist gain, and these two pillars by which valuing is supported today are crumbling. People taught to rebel by purchasing Rage Against the Machine CDs and wearing carefully corporately-marketed and crafted clothing, mimicking pop culture icons they see on TV without realizing these people have whole teams of 'experts' crafting everything they say, do, and their entire image; Trump offers another way, an older way.. "just fuck em, let's ride".

The rise of the Nazis forced our involvement in WW2, and for some reason, once they were defeated, it was not enough for us. Our involvement there initiated the whole globalist paradigm, which basically consists in the USA attempting to spread its democratic ideals across the world the same way Alexander conquered everyone so he could spread the Greek ideas and remake the whole planet in the image of Greece. This globalism is the substratum upon which both the Right and the Left, the Democrats and the Republicans, are unified in their corruption, working together underneath all the politics and the bullshit, going around the world and overthrowing dictators and foreign leaders to build nations, so as to develop the new world order, one-world culture style system that would end up profiting them- this is the basis of the whole war as business thing. Trump is an anti-globalist, and advocates the sovereignty of the nation-state. But these foreign peoples we are attempting to control don't want our Western political theories. The globalist paradigm has done nothing but precipitate endless war, and it has not profited the world's people, but only the world's leaders. And it has cost the US tax paying public immensely, because it is our military force alone that holds the whole globalist system together. We lend out large portions of our army and military resources to these other nations we've brought under the banner, so that they can have defense without having to develop a military of their own that they could one day turn against us and threaten the globalist system- this is the reason we spend 10 times more of our GDP on the military-industrial complex- it's not spent for our sake, but for the sake of our "allies," because they don't pay us back shit in return, and when everything collapses they're not going to help us, they're going to tell us to deal with our own problems, as we should have told them a long time. The reason our economy is tanking and our industries are destroyed and being appropriated by other nations is because of this globalist shit. Pseudo-marxist culture warfare, third wave feminism, far Left stuff- all that is an intended creation of globalists, simply meant to compromise the will of the people and get rid of any strains of nationalism that would prove antagonistic to the globalist agenda: Bezemenov points this out in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ.  

And it's obvious. A person like this: https://i.sli.mg/IZqViD.jpg is far too stupid to be the one in control- they are controlled.

As far as mocking women goes, he has mocked individual women, not for being women but for being who they are. I've done the same thing, it doesn't make me a misogynist. One reporter had the disability of having a fucked up hand or something, but Trump didn't know that and wasn't mocking him for the disability. Everyone talks about his "nasty comments" against people but nobody mentions the numerous good deeds he has done, which is understandable because, unlike every other politician on the planet, he has never mentioned any of his deeds in an interview, a rally, or anywhere:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/11/461306-these-5-acts-of-kindness-reveal-theres-more-to-donald-trump-than-just-his-celebrity-persona/

Western civilization will attempt to spread itself as far as possible, that is what strong civilizations do. The military, economic and political conquests and globalization, these are just means to that end. The task of this "liberal culture" (in fact containing elements of both left and right, and secretly smuggling the deeper codes of western-Greco-Roman culture and philosophy/science/subjectivity/values) is to imperialize itself as much as possible across the world so that when this task ultimately collapses, as it did with Alexander, with Rome and too with Britain, the seeds of this project will be scattered as far as possible around the world. Then too, like those similar seeds scattered by Alexander and Rome and Britain, they will begin to take root and grow as human history, which of course will be for us our distant future.

Trump's plan to essentially pull out of this project of western civilization spreading itself as far as possible, would effectively abort the task or at least slow it down; his alternative to military enforcement of globalized norms, namely of withdrawing military unless countries pay us mafia dues and instead having other countries get their own nuclear weapons, would also lead to the task being aborted or seriously slowed down, as mass proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously limit western civilization's ability to recohere itself in the future and as human history, as it did after Alexander's, Rome's and Britain's respective tasks too reached their inevitable logical conclusions.

The US can no longer afford the military expense of globalism. Our economy will completely collapse, creating not a recession but a true depression, and the wealthy elites will pick up the pieces and defect, because once again they don't care about this country.

Besides our problems, the consequences of globalism have been continuous war, proliferated across the globe. ISIS is one of many consequences. The ideals of the West cannot be spread to those whose neurology and cultural history are incompatible with it. Otherwise there would be a democratic republic where ISIS is now. The globalist scheme at the substratum of the Left and Right and the whole Hegelian psychosis of American politics has blighted the entire world with war, merely the latest consequence being ISIS and the migration crisis, bankrupted the United States and dispirited nationalist will, and profited only the elite class. Trump has my support because he says his main focus will be on dismantling this globalist system, and he claims he will also clear the illusion of the left vs right, republican vs democrat narrative that has confounded the public for so long, highlighting the fact that both of them at their extremity are simply globalists, each married to their respective doctrine without any true nationalistic concern for the country itself, and he will also shatter the media's power and influence over the political process, and throw out all the party leaders because neither the republican or democratic parties represent the will of their actual voters anymore.

Indeed strong civilizations want to immortalize themselves, but there are two ways to do that. The Greek, Globalist, European approach, and the Roman, American approach.

This vision of nations destroying themselves and their culture, so that the literal refuse of those respective nations can take root in later generations in a continued self-bastardization of humanity, disgusts me. Rome said fuck that shit and lasted more than a thousand years. Greece taxed itself by spreading its banner too far across the world, and Alexander, in his conquest across the planet, simply weakened Greece. Greece was conquered and colonized by foreign races and ideas, from Asia especially. It was remade in the image of those it sought to conquer, the same way the Muslims are remaking Europe in their own image. They will never do to the US what they've done to Europe. One reason is that, Europeans being stripped of their guns, the Muslims would have a very different experience migrating to and attempting to reshape a country where the entire 300 million population is armed to the teeth.

I favor the Roman to the Greek approach. The Romans charged tariffs for using their military as well. Not only did Rome last longer than Greece- they are remembered more. The Greeks tried to spread their shit around the planet through war and conquest like we are doing, and guess what? Less than 5 percent of their works in philosophy and literature are remembered by history, and even that is in fragments and papyri. The Sumerians are much older and we even have their random court documents and letters. Instead of proliferating, Rome stood in place, a defensive posture. And Rome succeeded in spreading its ideas into history, whereas Greece failed for the most part.

The Greeks were not nationalists in that classical sense I defined it. The idea was foreign to them, as it is to globalists and leftists. The Romans invented that defensive strategy, which succeeded in immortalizing them, as opposed to Greece which is mostly forgotten- the Romans invented true nationalism. Romans died for Rome, and history remembers them in great detail. Greeks waged war and died for immortality and glory, which history has denied them almost entirely. Ideas cannot be spread geographically through conquest and warfare, they can only be spread through time, through history, and Rome succeeded in that while Greece floundered.

"Any "specific, closed, uncompromising" thing would need to pave its way through that which it is not, and resist what resists itself;"


Indeed, but one part of my philosophy is reificiation- that is, a counter-Hegelian model where the definition of the subject through the antithesis of object, of the thing in that which it is not, of the dialectic, is overcome.


" The entire Hegelian system is based on a division of the subject and object, the ego and
the non-ego, that emerges in reflectivity, that is, after sense-certainty, ie. the initial form
of consciousness, brings itself to bear upon a given particular object within the sensory
universe, so that both the ego and its object are organized reflectively by the one
dialectical process, as parts in the dynamically enriched Totality, energized as it is by the
oppositorum of subject and object, through which the logos moves human intelligence
toward absolute-spirit. To consolidate my divergences from Hegel: the ego is already
divided from the non-ego before reflectivity is initiated because in pre-reflective
consciousness it is divided from itself, and this is the source of negative-reflective
consciousness; consciousness that re-produces its self-division as its very division from
nature, the external world, the non-ego; consciousness that reproduces its own immanent
lack as transcendent wish, its own missing object as the very form of its continuity, or the
alienated real of the ideal as the ideal of the missing Real. In the first stage of negative-reflective
consciousness, that is, the stage of negation-affirmation, the human subject
reads the corpus of Nature itself as a self-negating whirlwind of endless transitioning
forms, which is what it would appear like to man without the Hegelian assurance of
sense-certainty as the initial form of consciousness, and consequently identifies these
forms in order to conceive the episteme- that is, a regulative, guiding image of thought.
There are three epistemes which characterize each space or topos for consciousness: the
ontic, immanent, and transcendent. In the second stage, that is, in the stage of negation-negation,
consciousness identifies its own transitioning form, the real Ego, and affirms it
against a Nature now transformed by the ontic, standing no longer as the self-negating
surplus-energetics which fascinated the ancient Greeks, but rather as a negation of being
within Time. The ego's anxiety over death appears at that stage."


"... through the Hegelian sublation
of concepts, (Aufhebung) one concept is altered by being positioned within the dialectical
process as either the thesis or antithesis of another concept, while, through Reification,
one Idea continually restores itself as the Ground of another corresponding idea with
which it has been organized within negative-reflective consciousness in order to produce
a guiding episteme, that is, a regulative-theoretical image-of-thought. Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia, *
identity, and affirmative content, that is, a self-grounded Idea capable of bridging the
divide between praxis and theory, the world of man and the world of the divine:
reification produces both. Philosophy is nothing other than this continuous synthetic
abbreviation of negative reflective consciousness; (reification) that is, the continuous appropriation of
Ideas by way of other Ideas to the Ground, in pursuit of the Idea of Ideas, by which the
absolute ground might be discovered for all Ideas. The political episteme which would be
generated from that ground would of course be simultaneously the most divisive and
the most ecumenical, through whose abortive synthesis the dialectical schema might be
escaped in general and the paradigm of the Left-Right surpassed.


* " [man, human consciousness] stands as the site of the glorious risk by which one term in each series
of differentiations may be taken up and reified within the other, and through the
progression of this negative reflectivity so it is that daemonic tensions of this kind may be
reified and given transcendental specification. The reason that reflection is purely
negative for Holderlin is that the human self is a rupture of original negation into the
unity of nature and all reflection is an attempt to bring that self back into the unity of
nature, while in the view here given reflection is purely negative because the oppositions
within Nature through which the human subject affirms its own discontinuity or
separation from things constitute a continuous self-nullification of Being within
Becoming, of the will of God within human consciousness, that is, what Schelling would
call the self's distinct position within the universe as the being-in-danger, of the being that
can consciously obey or disobey the order of the divinity. The notion of a Heideggerian
dispensation from Being, of a passive revelation of Being to man as would inaugurate a
new political era and revolutionary consciousness, is strictly contrary to this conception of
man's danger, or glorious risk to use Plato's phraseology. If there should be such an era, if
would only arise through a kind of metapolitics in which the spheres of power belonging
to Culture and the State are reorganized in terms of reification and mobilized toward the
retrieval of a new racial identity from out of the dregs of the leveled discourse belonging
to the liberal-secular order of America, as distinguished from the fascism of the German
Reich or any of the various communist attempts in the east. Heidegger of course grounds
his hope of rescuing a primordial relation to Being from behind history and the story of
culture in Holderlin's account of poetic reflection, in which Being itself is grasped, not
through the concretion of any historical essence, but through the force of that very
negative rupture into the order of Nature which the human self constitutes; as a kind of
paradoxical consciousness the force of whose destructiveness might bring the new
revolutionary consciousness and polis into existence. Heidegger mistakenly believes that
this destructive potential can be brought into the service of philosophy and shaped into a
new polis, that it can be controlled and directed."





The last text in the multi-volume I am writing will be mostly on politics, and me discovering a new concept of the nation-state through the application of a model of reification, tinged by the inherent danger of human nature the two passages were talking about, as a ground for a kind of metapolitics in which the energeia and entellecheia can be organized and brought together in the form of the new heroic-man, in the form of a new racial identity and value-standard:



" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia..."


The passage on Heidegger's politics was pointing out his reliance on tragic subjectivity and the unfettered energeia in the equation.

In essence:

The entire history of consciousness and philosophy is the history of one error, the error whereby human consciousness conceived its self-division as a division from the natural world, so that death, the extremity of that self-division, becomes instead the firmest point of contact to nature, through which the featureless Becoming can be solidified as Being, at least once this erroneous cognition, which I call negative-reflective consciousness, reaches its last developmental phase and overcomes itself. The nation-state has been philosophically theorized as the form of this division from nature, a spark of Being separated from the aggressing ash-plume of Becoming; having seen past the error, I will re-theorize a new nation-state.

I hope that you're right about Trump and this key difference between the two forms of immortalizing taken by great civilizations, the Greek vs. Roman way as you said. I've never thought about these as being different, the Romans also sought out conquest and expansion, the spreading of their culture far and wide and they used their military and economy to hold that vast empire in place. They also had legality which was a huge asset, allowing them to spread and remain stable after conquering some place. Rome may, at a philosophical level, have had a more defensive posture such as traditional Americanism prior to WWI, I don't know; I don't see Ancient Greece as fundamentally driven by a colonialist spirit, the Greek City States warred with each other but also maintained relative peace in trade too, and the united occasionally. There was the Greeks such as Athens and Sparta and others united against the Persians, and then there was Athens and Sparta fighting each other. Then we have Alexander, but I dont know enough Greek history to know either way if they (other than Greece under Alexander) were essentially a colonialist empire such as Europe came to represent. Today we have a lot of Greek philosophers and writers to read from, but you're right that Roman culture definitely seems more influential historically now than the Greeks, with the exception for how Rome, after conquering Greece, simply became Greek and spread its culture and values that way (and created Christianity as a by-product of their fusion).

Colonialism has morphed into neocolonialism today, what we call globalism or liberal capitalism, of course it is a system supported by vast economic, political and actual warfare against many of the people around the planet, including us who live within the system. I don't have faith that Trump is any different from this system, for one basic reason that if he were actually different the 'system' could have easily crushed him by now, and secured the victory of some other GOP candidate. We saw the media attacking Trump, but that only made him stronger. The guy makes claims like wanting to kill the families of terrorists, that is really insane stuff. Throw in his desire to proliferate nuclear weapons and expand the use of torture, and his demagoguery, and I just can't support the guy. Yes the Romans charged taxes to their provinces and the governors had to pay Rome. That is a kind of mafia rule, where you spread out networks of sub-leaders who control localities and each sub-leader pays dues to the central leadership, which dues it extracts from the subjects under its control, dues for "protection". I agree that it makes sense to have countries pay for a portion of their defense when that defense is supplied by the US, but they already do that. S. Korea does pay us for our military presence there, contrary to what Trump said. It may not be as much as some people would like, but again we get intangible benefits from providing that military defense. If we are getting screwed on over-spending for our military and debt in our country in general, which we certainly are, then it is primarily for other reasons than that we have military bases in S. Korea and other places (the idiotic wars of the last decade are a large part of the reason we have extreme debt, tax cuts to the rich and wealthy ex-patriation are another.)

Think about the motives behind the two kinds of "protection", the mafia vs. the American way... the first is simply about power and collection of money, whereas the second is (ostensibly) about larger and more moral concerns, such as protecting people from violence and danger, and securing peace. If we actually hold to those latter values, which we ought to do as the dominant civilization on the planet thus earning ourselves the right and moral responsibility for it, then what good would it do that moral superiority and greater values we profess to hold, for us to start demanding huge fees as if collecting money were our primary aim? This would represent an abandonment of the values and ideals we supposedly hold to. (Granted, of course, that modern globalism which US Imperialism is but a bitch and crony for, doesnt hold those higher values either -- so Trump at least has a point there. But his answer isn't to return to those values, but to abandon them in a different way).

Even if Trump is a symbol of "outside the (broken) political system", even if he wants to blow up globalism and return to classical nationalism and mutual self-interest among nations, I still do not see him as a sane person. I disagree with how globalism has morphed into what it is today, but at the end of the day we really do need some form of global system and cooperation... I consider all of this today to be pre-history only, after all we don't even have clean energy, a way to economic progress without warfare or resource depletion, a way to stop destroying the environment, countless people still starve and die of easily treatable diseases; we don't even have real space flight, we couldn't even stop an asteroid from wiping us out if one showed up, nor a large solar flare (which in June 2013 a massive solar discharge came within 1 week of returning us to the Stone Age). These threats and challenges are real, and how would the human species rise to them without some kind of global (inclusive of all humanity and a step beyond the paradigm of "enlightened egoism" (mutual self-interest alone)) setup? I certainly disagree with the form that globalism is taking, but some kind of globalism is necessary. Maybe a Trump-ian kind of pro-nation-state set of mutual alliances of self-interested cooperations could substitute for a real globalism, but I doubt it. When you fracture into multiple independent entities that are struggling against each other for their own narrow gain, it's hard to get any serious work done or address real problems... you have like with global warming and pollution, the destruction of the rain forest, etc. a massive 'problem of the commons'. For all of these reasons and more, Trump doesn't appeal to me. But again, as I said, I hope you are right.

Rome spread out but that only really started happening near the end, for the most part their military expansion was solely for tariffs and whenever they needed more land. Their accelerated expansion is probably the reason why their civilization perished after more than a thousand year reign. Also, most of their campaigns were counter offensives because everyone was always fucking with Rome. Greece led many campaigns to spread its ideals, Alexander's the most extreme. Instead of Greece spreading its ideals, all that happened was Greece adopted the ideals of those it conquered, and became more Asiatic and Persian. Rome did not have that aspiration. Rome did not want to turn everyone else into Romans- in fact, the opposite. Rome set a standard, a very high standard, for other people to rise to, being Roman was exclusive. Everyone else were barbarians and Rome didn't want barbarians for either citizens or soldiers.


"Think about the motives behind the two kinds of "protection", the mafia vs. the American way... the first is simply about power and collection of money, whereas the second is (ostensibly) about larger and more moral concerns, such as protecting people from violence and danger, and securing peace."


Trump would rather us not lend military resources to the world at all. We shouldn't be protecting anyone either for profit or the goodness of our heart. We would be better off neither the mafia or the policemen of the world. But if we do, it must be in return for money. We are bankrupt, we can't afford it anymore. It's that simple. The second globalist way is not about securing peace, because globalism has succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. It's the reason we went to war in Iraq, left Libya in shatters after wasting Gaddafi, it's the reason ISIS has completely taken over. It amounts to us being the policemen of the world as Trump put it, and we're not welcome by most people. If the motive of the globalists is truly peace, then they and their program is simply incompetent and doesn't take account of the fact that many civilizations are simply culturally incompatible with one another. "We're heading toward a complex and borderless world." - John Kerry. If by "complex" he means filled with terrorist attacks, migration crises, and tanking economies, then yes, it will be very complex indeed. That to me is less than sane.


With regard to serious work. The nationalistic system gave us men on the moon, the unlocking of the last mystery of the cosmos- nuclear power, the internet, etc. When separate nation-states all championing their own cultural legacy and values standard compete, what is produced is the fertile ground for real accomplishment. The only true peace that can exist between the states is the peace that follows victory and defeat. Nationalism gave us men on the moon, nukes, the internet; globalism gave us a multi trillion dollar war, the twin towers, a bankrupt country, and an elite political class grown nearly omnipotent by profiteering the wars sparked by our intrusion into foreign sovereignties as the pretended police force of the world and humanity.

I have the idea that the US is a slave to the globalist mechanisms and that this is to no ones benefit, except maybe a million people worldwide.

The US warmachine has rarely since WWII at least which was really won by the Russians, been a factor in improving anyones lives abroad. The police machine it has raised has destroyed dozens of nations, laid to waste innumerable economies and set up hundreds if not thousands of bestial tyrants. There is no reason to have this rulership at all as it destroys all the goodwill and trust of ither great nations. No one wants to cooperate openly with ths US. They are viewed as loathsome vultures and lying cowards. If a meteor would have to be shot out of the sky or some global shield produced, the US will have to stand in a sane relationship with Russia and China. They will have to not be "policing" the borders of ancient sovereign states on the other side of the globe. US led globalism is purely a handicap, purely insane, it has never caused anything but depravity across the multitudes and hypocritical self satisfaction in a few meager proxy elites.

As humans, states function only as selfvaluings. You cant include them in some random overarching terms and expect them to thrive or accept the situation. It is like expecting a different outcome to a mathematical operation because a (fake) smile is added to it.

Reason enough for me to like Trump here is that he has shown that he understands that other nations have their own leadership, and that he does not make a claim to the morals of nations which the US has been trying to destroy, or of any nation. He is no priest, essentially.

I dont like his rhetoric about torture, but he is voicing only a small fraction of the cruelties that the US allows itself in reality. All deaths and torture it had a hand in considered, The 16 year Bush-Obama team is a butchershop of a high order, just short of Hitler, and Obamas aloofness about it makes it unendurable. He is telling jokes about his evidently evil and deranged critics while incinerating hospitals. It cant go on.

Summarizing these concerns as you have discussed them as well, Trump approaches the situation from an economical rather than a moral-ideological basis. Given the absolute absence of moral superiority of the US at this point, that is the only way to get some sanity back.

Electing Clinton would be tantamount to putting Skynet in place. She has, as her ads show, no conscious values. She is for all considerations a machine, put together in an age that has already ended.
It is just a question of how violently this end will be further  'symbolized' by pointless war and loss of humanity.

It MUST be remembered at all junctures here that Obama and Clinton are under the wings of Brzezinskis ideology and gameplan. There is zero ambiguity there.

Brzezinski literally invented modern Islamic radicalism. ISIS would not be thinkable without the Taliban, which is his 'gang'.

Brzezinskis aim is unilateral Anglosaxon rule and a splintered, impotent Russia. He has been at it for decades. No one mentions him, though Trump refers to his strategy continuously as disastrous and foolish. It wont do to name the guy, I suppose, as Ametricans like to think that their elected officials are the ones coming up with strategies and directions.

I do not have the economical expertise to judge every aspect here, but I do have the political historic eye to see that the US has been torn between Kissinger and Brzezinski the last half century. Kissinger represented the balance of powers, cold war strategy, Brzezinski the elimination of all balancing factors, a kind of cloaked Genghis Kahn. Scariest man of the 20th century.

Lastly, what bothers me about the established Democratic rhetoric, is that it has absolute disdain for democracy. Listen to all those comments by Obama about the evident certainly of Hillary following him up. There is no attempt to obscure the monarchist will.

And if the fervent anti-globalism expressed by many, including myself, and now Trump, is misguided, then so were all the founders of the US, who agreed on this point, envisioning the US in its very foundational intention as an anti-globalist state, though they didn't have the term,- a state irrevocably divorced from Europe's continued self-sabotaging interventions upon the world-stage of international relations- as George Washington expressed it in his farewell address:


“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice … It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

That point was the basic principle in Trump's foreign policy speech and the entire media machine lambasted him over it. They're lambasting Washington and all our founders. I suppose this fucking community organizer Obama who nobody even knew before he decided to run for president knows better than the guys who managed and structured a new form of government scientifically, as opposed to letting one take shape randomly like all the others.

The Democrats and Republicans are both the same, heedless of the founding principles of the US. Globalist corporate shills that care more about money and their doctrines than they do the country. Trump is making a new republican party, and after the Democrats are done self-destructing over Bernie Sanders, the sensible ones too will form no small part in it.


Yes Fixed, I also pointed out that the globalist strategy has only benefited the elite political class.

Besides globalism, Trump is also correct on our debt. We are 20 trillion in debt, and we are never going to be able to pay it. It's not physically possible. So we're just going to have to tell everyone that they can have 25 cents to every dollar we owe them, default on it, and if that's not good enough then they can go ahead and take 0 cents on the dollar, say goodbye to the military resources we loan them, and spend twice as much as we owe them on developing their own military. Interest rates will go up for some time under Trump's policy, but in the long term we will be far better off- not a mere spike in interest, but an actual economic collapse and depression, will be the result of the continued mass hallucination we have going with regard to the possibility of making up our debt. And if that happens, because we are so integral to the world's economy in general, our collapse will ripple into other catastrophes, which in turn will negatively impact us even more. No other politician is or would ever admit this reality, that we cannot pay the debt back and our only choice is to default and restructure, and that we will all have to deal with increasing interest rates for awhile as a consequence, before it can improve- because politicians want to make believe and say things that will get them elected, not the reality of our situation.

I know, I repeated in part what you said. Up until today I hadnt responded to your ongoing political discussion because it has been very lucid and entertaining (which is a difficult thing to find with political discourse) and I did not feel I could add to it constructively, but I tend to agree with most of the points you make.

I tend a bit to toward Capables direction on the subject of Greece and Rome - not so much that I disagree with your comparison entirely, but clearly, Rome could not have built itself out of such splendid materials if it wasn't for conquering Greece - so in this sense what applies to the US and the Athens also applies to Rome; we become what we conquer.

The USA, after having conquered nazi Germany, took on so much of Germany's scientific infrastructure that it effectively became nazified. This nazification was the lead in to its abandonment of its principles and the globalist project, which is essentially totalitarian.

Perhaps that term is too strong. But the point is that the US had to invent means that could rival the means of its enemy. As morality begins and ends with Method, transformation of a nations ethical heart is almost inevitable when engaging such an enemy. And there is an important point about torture.

Like Greece, America did impregnate the world with its 'soft power' - a power actually much more enduring than military supremacy; the Word, which would include the encapsulating of Eros in, what in Athens was sculpture and architecture, now in the west is 'entertainment'. A movie can be a religious experience, a series like Game of Thrones does for the population of the world what a mythical narrative once did - it binds people in a common experience. I dont watch the show as I dont like this particular experience, but there are many cinematic creations that have conquered me, made me the way I am. I mean to conquer this medium for this reason; it is the only way to master myself, mastering the phenomenon that has directed my soul through this life.

In terms of storytelling, if for a moment we place art above political directions, the Trump story is far more interesting, as we dont know the outcome. We know that under Hillary the current situation will endure and petrify the world even further, with the increased risk of explosions of violence in regions that refuse to extinguish in the soup of Anglo-globalist terms. What Trump might do is anyone's guess, but he will be aggressive and direct about it, which is both healthy and frightening... fright is often a good sign of health; fright splits into fight and flight, it defines what we are - the US is fleeing what it is under Obama, fleeing what it has become under Bush, which is the fulfillment of what it started to become under Truman; the all-systems-go attack to Russian imperialism. A spasmodic reaction is all that is left.

The US has conquered the world six times over in the past century, it has no worries about its name going down in history, and it would en good for it to relax for a while, and as Trump says let its allies figure out how to proceed; because right now it is way too easy for us Europeans and Asians alike to simply blame the US for our own disastrous lack of power over our own fate; it is simply too obvious, this white shadow, this futuristic battleship that always hovers so close as to cover all of the horizon; we can not compete, or ever dream to compete with out ally, it is suffocating. It would be better, more exciting anyway, to have the US be a rogue nation like all nations, and live in a state of affairs where the best effort wins support of that superhuman machine that the MIC has become.

If there is a Superman, it is the system itself, the beautiful monstrous technocracy that we've raised up; cinema, previously also gaming but it is fading, is the breath of life into this monster - and it is like a harvesting machine rampant across the earth, and we have to, as philosophers, conspire to raise a driver into the seat. At least to open up the cognitive symbolic, emotional-moral conditions that allow man to understand that there must be a driver. I dont mean a tyrant, I mean a philosophy, an active will to uphold what we have built as civilization as a basis and begin to erect an edifice upon it. What we're doing with the Earth isnt enough. Like Capable says, our technocratic efforts do not match the theoretical reach of our current powers. So Capable - what might a project be that could bridge the gap between this void and the future?

We can only harness power by maximally extending it. - Bismarcks ghost

Parodites wrote:

Besides globalism, Trump is also correct on our debt. We are 20 trillion in debt, and we are never going to be able to pay it. It's not physically possible. So we're just going to have to tell everyone that they can have 25 cents to every dollar we owe them, default on it, and if that's not good enough then they can go ahead and take 0 cents on the dollar, say goodbye to the military resources we loan them, and spend twice as much as we owe them on developing their own military. Interest rates will go up for some time under Trump's policy, but in the long term we will be far better off- not a mere spike in interest, but an actual economic collapse and depression, will be the result of the continued mass hallucination we have going with regard to the possibility of making up our debt. And if that happens, because we are so integral to the world's economy in general, our collapse will ripple into other catastrophes, which in turn will negatively impact us even more. No other politician is or would ever admit this reality, that we cannot pay the debt back and our only choice is to default and restructure, and that we will all have to deal with increasing interest rates for awhile as a consequence, before it can improve- because politicians want to make believe and say things that will get them elected, not the reality of our situation.

The peculiar thing is hat virtually all nations seem to be in debts greater than they can hope to pay off. One must wonder to whom these debts are standing out... I am actually fearful of addressing that reality, for one thing because it is self-evident that it can never be figured out from the outside. Even from the inside, the powerrelations must be so confusing that only a kind of magician can navigate it. This is where all these political advisors come in. They are warlocks behind the throne. Awesome, but really dangerous folk. The invisible powers they mediate are likely purely derivative-systemic of monetary will to power, self-valuing in resources. That is predictable enough but can not be altered; it is like the periodic table, strong attractive forces having the worlds energies click into place, unlocked only at the cost of blind erradication of the environment. The the reasons invoked to direct this will, the chemistry if you will that plays with the elements, are even more ancient than this monolithic, subhuman reason, and this is what remains tangible, to the thinker of magical reach, which the philosophers power certainly includes.

The one reason why I decided early on that I have an unusual degree of trust in such a weird violent rhetoric as Trump is that he emphasizes what he has built, that he expresses envy toward Asian and European nations about their bridges and magnificent infrastructure. I personally hold this to be my own highest ceiling - what the human race envisions it should build. It was in New York actually, in Central Park one summer that I was meditating, trying to deal with certain old and persistent agonies, that I found a way to merge the three Abrahamanic religions into a visiom. I had a vision of architecture, designed with only a compass and ruler, or stick and rope. I bought the ruler and the compass and sat down at Houston street where a psychic was where I was diagnosed astutely when I walked by that I established a relationship - and proceeded to be quite amazed with how easily one can eject sublime structures out of nothing. The key to temple building of the future is to work only with glass. The sun is going to electrify specific types of wired glass and cause magnetic storms on the outside, in the inside we have fountains around a theatre-like arrangement of benches, and as the sun traces its course across the sky the temple responds and the circumstances are modulated by the responses of the people inside, or not - one can fucking majestically manipulate the human spirit into the very heights of its current potential easily by upholding that body's holiness as an the aspect of architecture, as science has provided us with means to infinitely expand the power of the 'church' - which only ever was 'means to subject the psyche to overwhelming forces ordered so as to make the man into an element. Of what? Previously, of a higher order. But now, we can pick and choose Man himself; that is to say we can pick where we place the temples that will raise mans temperament. I dream of putting one in the middle of the Sahara, unseen by anyone but the occasional bedouin on a camel - the temple needs no priests or maintenance, it is built out of the hardest materials. One can go in and exist under pleasurably interesting sensory conditions with a design of multiplying the neural connections in the frontal lobes - I bet this can be done for under a billion, including the blueprinting and development of the technologies. Placed inside a Johannesburg slum - imagine the consequences - placed in a cornfield in Indiana - imagine those consequences! It would draw out very different qualities and draw them ut violently. The mysticism of the future is the exaltation of difference; the prismatizing of the world, as we have attained the subtlety. No longer drops combusting against each other in the merciless ocean tides but a translucent expanse of airborne drops that have the space to catch the light and refract it; on the canvas of eternity we are a fleeting rainbow - but what is eternity to us, who are beyond time; within infinity we cause the appearance of colors, within possibility we are Cause, period; time is an aspect of our choices, not the scope by which we measure our measure; that comes from within, somehow, in the endurance of a private pain that is Apollonian rather than Dionysian, the honing of an order for the sake of its aesthetic merit within the process of enduring the Dionysian, which is eternal confict; we have become rich enough in excess to shape such a thing. No war has been won for ages - the wars that lie ahead of us are architectonic - ArcheTectonic, 'placement-wars'. Not of product, but of existence-as-such in various flavors. Man will still be a newborn, she is still in her own womb, about to be born in a gigantic mess.

Without wanting to utterly disrupt the thread, still one more post... when serious academics feel compelled to do satire, it can get very nice.

Indeed we take on properties of our conquered, though that can be diminished with a powerful national self-image, which America did not have, being so young.


Trump's rhetoric is less extreme than Putin's at least. I like Putin too. I prefer extreme rhetoric.


Architecture is an art only a nation that possesses a vision for itself can excel in- America has no vision. Architecture is inherently nationalistic. It represents a nation's self-image.


New polls are in: Trump is about to surpass Hillary in Florida, he's leading in Ohio. Two very key states to win. He's leading in a few other states.



These bizarre philosophies, rather its feminism or Marxism or globalism or any other degenerate system of reasoning, only appear in the wake of great excesses in capital, in the wake of a civilization's meteoric rise, and exist as bubbles, quickly evaporating and ceasing to exist- because they advocate, above all, their own annihilation. They could only exist in such circumstances- if a weaker state adopted them, it would be destroyed, bearing nothing for perpetuity. These leftists who, cognizant of the economic crisis in both the US and Europe, insist that we are, after all, one human species, and need to address the problems of the migrants fleeing Syria with as much or even ampler vigor than we display when confronting the problems of our own citizens- who consider the nation-state an outdated concept next to international law and the amazing "successes" of the globalistic program,- who consider nationalism itself to be a kind of disguised racism and the idea of championing your own cultural legacy the strictest evil, not to speak of actually attempting to preserve it in the face of cultivation by a foreign intelligence-- such people stand, quite simply, for suicidal altruism, for the crystallize refinement of Nietzsche's theoretical slave morality, advocating nothing more than their own extinction, as well as the extinction of the host culture upon which they've parasitized. Without nationalism, without a drive to preserve and augment one's cultural legacy, then these self-destructive bubbles appear after every great increase in capital, after every cultural triumph and value-affirmation, and help to destroy a society. The fact that most leftists are also simultaneously communists or socialists, male feminists, etc. isn't a coincidence- it just suggests that all these systems are basically the same thing applied to different subject material. All of this is laid out in the ancient Melian dialogue. The Melians basically committed suicide by Athenian proxy in adopting such systems of reasoning.

The Left, this new Melos, has no vision for America or for the human species in general. That's why the democratic platform is essentially about nothing more than meaningless social issues that don't even have a place in the larger politics that any bid for the presidency should be focused on. Rather or not faggots can get married isn't even political, it's a social issue. I don't care who marries who, I don't care what bathroom people use. That kind of shit should be something figured out at the level of local communities and individual states within the US, not federally mandated and imposed from the top down. That is how it was envisioned by the federalists. Why? Because if you take a consensus vote by the country as whole, and come out with a majority wanting gay marriage, that does not take account of the fact that ideologies are not homogeneously spread out across the nation, and there will be many communities or even states where that is not supported by a majority: so you have to leave shit like that to individual communities and states to settle, and if someone who wants gay marriage lives in a state where it turns out the majority does not want it and the state votes to disallow it, well then that person should move to a different state with a community he would get a long with better. The federal government has no business deciding on what marriage is or isn't, the only task of the federal government is international policy and our money. The Democrats talk about nothing other than these meaningless apolitical social issues because they don't have any answer for the larger problems- for the truly political, nor do they possess any vision for the nation-state, for the US.