The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

Simply: if Trump meant what he said in this speech, and he's given every indication that he does, then he will be a good president:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nge0NnTEnCI

" It doesn't matter where we observe, being will always recede from our isolation of it from itself, and from us. This receding, and how to approach it, is also what Zen is, what a Samurai traces when he is poised. "

Observing this receding is for man a way to initiate negative-reflective consciousness:

[ Human eros, or a desire for immortality as
Plato understands it, is what allows man to read nature as the mortis imago, as an
impotent apophasis, as a latent unexpressed longing which through no synthetic, Hegelian
process can ever attain to the transcendent object toward which it points
indirectly as in Holderlin's account of the tragic-poetic, as the unspoken melancholy of
matter itself in Schelling, and perceive within it and within all beings a kindred, if
unconscious, erotic impulse toward immortality, the connatus in Spinoza's expression- yet,
one without the container of virtu to hold and give it shape, one without power.
Human virtu allows Eros to utilize the mortis imago to differentiate the individual beings
within nature, energizing and actualizing the tension of things for the purposes of creative
work- that is to say, the human ego, disjunctive or divided from itself, is able to refer to
itself and to refer itself to nonbeing and enter negative-reflective consciousness, and so
instantiates a transformation of nature's impotent apophasis, which pours constantly
outward toward the hidden deity and toward immortality, into the internal anabasis and katabasis of daemonic frenzy, reproducing its own
immanent lack unlike any other object, forming what Anaximander called a vortice, in
which the undifferentiated material of ousia begins the process of self-division which
creates the universe. The eroto-daemonic is a movement from the latent, unconscious
tension of created things, from the tristia following sexual incarnation, to the Uranian
domain of conscious forms within which Eros reifies the tension of nature as genuine
virtu or power, or Pico's holy ambition. ]



Though contrary to Heidegger's Being toward Death, for me this creates the deeper division, deeper than the divide merely between "mortal soma," or organic bodies, through which Eros vertically transposes for noesis the horizontal diffusive expansion of the willtopower in dianoesis-- through which power becomes love, and through which the daemonic principle achieves the cyclic momentum or heroic frenzy necessary for transforming its continuous alternation between variances of power or vortices into an ascent toward spirit, which is the basic form of philosophy.


[Modern psychology mistakes Eros as arising from the chasm of bodies rather than that of
khaos, following the Greek scheme, which, through a mysterious negative energy, pulls
all things toward itself and oblivion as much as Eros pulls things toward one another in
all the bitter passion of procreative embrace following the psychosexual fission of
elementary carnages in Artaud's theater, the pure-differential of Deleuzian immanence, or
in all the longing for the eternity of Spinoza's conatus from which fact the metapoetics of
the Chaucerian meditation developed the idea of art's knowledge predating that of moral
reasoning, which Adorno took up in his mistaken aphorism about the impossibility of
writing poetry following Auschwitz, when Workman would have it that, by the time the
need for moral truth even awakens in man, all the poems have been already written. This
supposed primordial sexual division in nature, whose chasm it is said to be the aim of
Eros to cross and repair, is grounded upon the conflagration of souls in the pseudo-
Manichean archon, or the first splitting up of the unique essences in the Neoplatonic
scheme, and that upon the still more distant khaos of the proto-Greek mythic cosmos- the
true chasm from which Eros properly arose, the abyss preceding all generation and
division, an empty plane upon which intensities organize themselves between the lower
and higher energy states,- a topos of foundational lack, of immanent nihility, upon which all of those
apparently categorical divisions of the psychic and biological orders are made only to the
end of isolating covariates, discharging tensions, and delivering up new possibilities to
the conquering erotic impulse in whose motive the various assemblages are concatenated
in the libidinal-motive complex, just as khaos allowed Eros to organize the primary
divisions into a universe- the libidinal motive complex which, in its perfection, as carnal
knowledge successfully reified and transformed into moral truth, provides access to the
transcendental topos, the vision of God and a consequent supernature read from out of the
bloody agons of sexual incarnation ... ]



This idea of love as a pure affirmation beyond death, a vertical transposition, as reificiation, which works by returning all that was evaporated in the diffusive movement of the daemon in its katabasis, I spoke of here:

Love is a primary concept in my writing, but of course what I mean by it has little in common with what people usually mean. To summarize what I write about it: love has theological, philosophical, and psychological aspects, usually framed by myself in terms of daemonic love or, to align with the philosophic-Platonic eros, the eroto-daemonic. Love is any act of will through which you are returned the content of that act of will, (vertical transposition of horizontal) intimately tied to the idea of epistasis and antidrome- that is, to the form of reversal out of which my psychosexual derivation is made. As strength, it begets strength, as weakness it begets more weakness, for the painter it provides an image, for the poet a song, and blood it provides for the warrior, etc. (For the philosopher it provides?...) This return accomplished by love to check and master the reversal or epistasis, is tied to the pandemos, to loss and urania, and to the habituation of will in Echhart. In order for the will to return to us all that was taken by the will under love, something must be held back from love's object- hence the mystery of lies and betrayal as the necessary "initiation in the mysteries of the dawn". God had to keep himself from the world in order to give himself to the world, the origin of sin before the good, etc. In order for a mortal to give himself to god, he must mirror this divine infedelity or evil- he must keep himself from god; this is the mystery of reaching enlightenment but paradoxically refusing absorption of the ego by the godhead, like the tzaadik and bodhisattva. What is held back in the act of will under love is the yearning rescued from dissolution here:

[ This conceptualization of the Pandemos can be happily organized by constructing a dialogue network with Solger, Schelling, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Eckhart, Theophilus, and Climacus, whose essential structure will here be offered. Since the object of human destiny lies beyond the finite, the conatus or longing for eternity both destroys matter and reveals its essence, its beauty, extracting its Form and the semina motuum for the soul's ascent like Solger's sublation of the tragic in itself, of the Pandemic, sacrificial dissolution of the finite in the finite struggling for the infinite. But this revelation must become habitual will in Eckart's language: the creative potential or Machiavellian virtu it invests to us as precisely that Theophillian paradysi species or an image of paradise, imprinted on the will in the philosophy of Climacus like an erotic-mortal prototype for the divine agape, (which allows us to theoretically establish a reference point for the divine, "a new center for the garden") in order to survive the epistasis or reversal of love's "passion brought to event" and the conquering antidrome in order to become a constitutive feature of psychic existence, must be transformed from mere instinct into participant will, bear the living saeculum and demarcate the invariable, for, just as Eckhart defines a typical, momentary will in which inspiration temporarily crosses the limen of transcendence, and a greater habitual will in which the creative instinct can possibly be solidified and transformed into action, we might say that there are equally two kinds of activity: some acts demarcate the invariable and give measure to the boundless, while in others, like the unsublimated discharge of the sexual instinct, to refrain Holderlin's lament, all yearning vanishes across the shore of the boundless into the infinite. In terms of the daemonic progression, the ascending frenzy of the heroic cycles gradually accomplishes this "habituation" of inspired genius. Carrying the paradysi species or Theophilus' image of paradise as a Climacusian erotic-mortal prototype for divine agape, as the true "eikon" for godly tragedy, man becomes capable of demarcating a new line for the boundless, thereby preventing "all yearning from vanishing into the infinite" in the merely human or comical madness of the phantasia. Like the immediate dissipation of the sexual energetics through the bare act, as opposed to the visionary state induced by its heroic frenzies, creative-artistic redirection, and sublimed gestation, so this yearning thereby rescued from dissolution of the inspired state becomes, through the habituated will, the virtu which empowers amore, and the amore which empowers man... ]

An act of will not made in love will not return the content of consciousness, and sets up the horizontal diffusive movement of the daemon (willtopower) in its variance between one element of the tragic contradiction which animates human existence and the other, between finite and infinite, mortality and divinity, freedom and necessity, etc. Eros provides the daemon the noematic or vertical dimension, within which the content of dianoia or consciousness is reified.


Thus love is both a shield and a sword, it protects the consciousness from losing itself in the constant dynamic tension between representation and reflection, and it conquers outside forces- this is why, following Plato, I identify love or eros as the pathos of philosophy itself. Love is also a psychic potentiation; the stronger one loves, the more of oneself one can protect from dissolution and daemonic descent. In heroic-daemonic love, the whole consciousness is reified. Another reason eros is identified with philosophy itself is that, as the act of will which returns its own content, love or eros also acts as a limen between the immanent and transcendent- the basic structure of the mytho-logos and the sign-symbol or the third symbolic category that goes beyond the other two, ie. metaphor and metonym.







Yes as Fixed said, the conceptualization of the eudaemonia is a failed project of philosophy. As I say here:

[ The timeless perfection of philosophy, which acts without causing change- without
forcing other things to become reactive to it, instead prodding them with Being's
affirmative content to become activities themselves, to express their self-valuation, is
accomplished in that it supplies the passive ground of a value upon which these things
can begin actively expressing their own affirmative being to Being. But it is this very
passivity or ground, which allows being(s) to express their affirmative content to Being,
that prevents being(s) from ever fully ridding themselves of their identity, of becoming
their opposite, or dialectically synthesizing and re-unifying with their source in Being.]

But while Aristotle could not think through it, I believe Plato did, if in his esoteric, unwritten text:




[ Like the Socratic mimesis of
knowledge itself, the Platonic dialogue concludes in aporia: this is Plato's extension of
Socrates and the limited form of the dialectic, in that he reconfigures philosophy in such a
way as to inaugurate for the Athenian era the radical positivity that the Parmenidean (now
the Hegelian) univocality of Being dispensed with, so that, with the conclusion of each
text, we are left with an expansion of the philosophic lexicon into a multitude of voices
all gathered in the silence of philosophic wonder at the self-defeating reach of the
particular toward the absolute, rather than the absorption of so many given terms into the
totality. This aporia reproduces the negativity of reflectivity as the object of reflection; it
reproduces for reflectivity its own negativity as object and, thereby maintaining the limen
to the mythos from which philosophy intuits the radical positivity of Being, (a mythic
depth Plato explicitly aligns himself with, in opposition to Aristotle) deepens man's sense
of the tragic longing of the particular for the universal, our thaumazein or wonder, which
the dialectic threatens to absorb. Indeed, almost all the dialogues conclude in an aporia,
rather than a dialectical synthesis of differences. That Plato is taken for a dialectician
owes itself merely to the subtle fact that he mastered the dialectic- in order to articulate its
limitation.]

...


"And instead of transcending as P was pointing out is possible to do to break the opposition as seen for example in right and left, now the opposition is working together to create a matrix, a purely self-sufficient fantasy image-world that finally succeeds where feminism and religions failed: pretend to finally sew up the ontological 'holes' in our being, but of course nothing is actually being closed over let alone healed in any way."

Another thought about the transcending of dialectical opposition via Being's radical positivity:

[ The dialectic is entirely re-active. It does not touch the ground of Affirmation. Because it
is entirely reactive, the dialectic is concerned with change- it is the essential formulation
of change and incorporation. By the definition of a perfect kinesis, dialectics is simply not
philosophy. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. The dialectic makes all concepts reactive
to it: it needs other concepts to become reactive to it in order to function, and thus it
seems to be a diminishing force, a force exhausted by its own strength, a force incapable
of affirming its own positive being. True philosophy does not require the reactive
submission of other powers to itself, in order to exist. Not only does philosophy not force
other powers to become reactive to it, true philosophy forces other powers to become
active, affirmative of themselves and their own positive being. (to become philosophy themselves..) Thus, as Schelling says,
once freedom is set into motion it communicates itself throughout the whole universe:
only by this path does one arrive upon philosophy. ]


...

Up till now politics has only ever been a conceptual opposite to philosophy, as it specifically forces all other powers in society, rather school or church or art, to become reactive to the basic value which a given political system is built around, while philosophy transforms all of those forces into philosophy themselves, urging them to become active and creative powers:


[ Before philosophy reached this final configuration, the pre-Socratic individual lived in a
sphere wholly circumscribed by the powers of State, that is, a form of life perfectly
regulated by external factors in the organization of society, ceaselessly creating Cosmos
within the image of his Logos and living out the image of his Cosmos in the Polis. It is
only when Socrates internalized this logical structure afforded by the polis that a real
moral theoria appeared, finally differentiating itself from mere ethical praxis. The real
contribution Socrates made was just this: he, for the first time, gave us to understand
philosophy, not as yet another function of the existence of the political structure, but as a
way of life truly independent from the State, as an autonomous existence with its own
sphere of power, subject to nothing beyond itself; as a form of life subject only to the
height and depth afforded by the star of its unique daemon, and the hazards of its own
compass; subject only to some mysterious, internal criterion, by which alone it judged
itself- that is, conscience. While all the various political forces, rather we identify them in
the explicit functions of state, in the church, or in the hymns and songs of the poets with
all their beautiful lies, startle their objects into reactivity, momentarily blinding them, and
that to the end of including them in the Totality, of absorbing them into the overarching
polis, we find that philosophy gives us the answer Socrates afforded Leon the Tyrant: life
is much like the old Olympic games, some going to win the prize, some to sell their
goods, while the best go- as spectators. Thus philosophy spectates the activity of political
existence, of the state in general, without startling anything into becoming reactive to it;
where philosophy does act, it acts for exactly the opposite reason, namely to spur its
objects into the purity of independent action, that such objects might discover their own
daemon, fate, and character- their own philosophies. Philosophy, however, certainly
avoids becoming the enemy of the state, despite the fact that it has been firmly accused of
such treachery, and, insofar as it locates its most definite object, namely sophia or
wisdom, in the transcendent rather than the immanent, that is, in the divine wisdom
before which the finite cognition of man can proclaim only that it knows nothing, so it is
that philosophy can even prove itself the most pious servant of social life, for sophia,
insofar as she is loved- insofar as she is philosophized, becomes the passive ground or
value upon which the polis can begin mobilizing, in the form of a moral schema rather
than a limited ethical praxis, the whole scaffold and rank-ordering of her objects toward a
kinesis of the eu-daemon, in which the perfection of man consists. Before this, before
Socrates- before philosophy, men did not speak out of turn with their age; the individual,
perfectly conformed to the political structure, could only live out within himself the
ontos, a direct affirmation of ousia or Being's affirmative content- that is, the episteme or
regulating form of social existence, rising to or falling below the stature of virtue or arete,
so that the individual and the state could do nothing but limit one another: in the wake of
the Socratic enlightenment, the dialogue of immanence and transcendence had begun, and
the polis learned to impose itself upon the individual only as a means of imposing dike
upon psyche, or justice upon the soul, with the goal of achieving the Aristotelian
perfection of human happiness, which the Socratic school names simply as the
emancipation of psyche, to be accomplished only through dike or the good. As
philosophy emancipates the daemon, as philosophy encourages the psyche in all (b)eings
to take up the pursuit of Being, as philosophy spurs all things to independent action- as
philosophy induces all things to philosophize, so it is that philosophy taught the polis to
even name its own motive force, namely the perfection of human happiness in
philosophic terms, or the perfection of dike in political ones. ]





I believe however that all this is taking us toward a true philosophic politics.

Read an article today:



[ President Donald Trump's first three days are in the books, and they proved exactly as horrifying and surreal as the last eighteen months that Candidate Trump inflicted on America. On Saturday, while on an official visit to Central Intelligence Agency headquarters—and in front of a memorial acknowledging the men and women of the intelligence community who died in service of their country—Trump rambled angrily about his "running war with the media," just moments after trotting out newly-minted White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to shout delusional, easily-disprovable lies about, of all things, the number of people who attended his inauguration. ]

Yeah the first sentence is incredible. He struck down the TPP as one of his first orders, a set of laws that would have among many things, given corporations legal capabilities of suing nation states. Hitleresque. I find it difficult to believe that this guy is setting around horrified about it.

And it's not Trump's war with the media, it's the country's. Approval for the media is 19 percent.


[ Trump's version of delivering on his promise was issuing an executive order that "directed" federal agencies to try really hard to make Obamacare go away.

... This isn't leadership. It demonstrates no coherent vision. It's a feeble, feckless, empty gesture, the kind you make when you (1) know you're supposed to think that something is bad, but (2) also aren't really sure what that thing is, and can't be bothered to read the Simple English Wikipedia article describing it, either. Even his omnipresent campaign slogan—"Make America Great Again"—shows just how brutally bereft of original ideas he is. It's the sort of vague, aspirational nonsense that one would expect to hear from a man who learned everything he knows about being President of the United States from watching other men play one on TV. ]


This article is bad. Really bad. I have difficulty accepting the fact that a human being thought and then wrote this down. This is why the public approval rating of the news media is at 19 fucking percent. It's been one single workday and he's already being called lazy and ineffectual for not magically disappearing Obamacare in 24 hours.

He cannot repeal obamacare without something to replace it, or a lot of people would be fucked. So he made an executive order to prepare for the repeal while the replacement plan gets passed, as it cannot be made by an executive order, all so that the repeal and replacement can happen simultaneously.

[ Even his omnipresent campaign slogan—"Make America Great Again"—shows just how brutally bereft of original ideas he is. It's the sort of vague, aspirational nonsense that one would expect to hear from a man who learned everything he knows about being President of the United States from watching other men play one on TV.]

It's a campaign slogan, not a policy proposal. It's no more or less vague than Obama's slogan was when he ran. "Yes we can." Clinton's "I'm with her." Etc.

This fuck is so bereft of ideas that he probably doesn't even understand one of Trump's most basic points, namely the fact that Nato is just an outdated artificial political union meant to do three things; provoke Russia, protect Europe, and suck up all of our money while further fueling the globalization machine. Trump may not be the most eloquent, but fucking original ideas; no politicians were talking about globalism, nato's meaning in the modern world, Chinese currency manipulation, etc..

--

[A group comprised of former White House ethics lawyers and constitutional law scholars are alleging that Trump has contravened the Emoluments Clause by accepting payments to his many businesses from foreign governments, reports the New York Times.]

Trump getting cash from selling hotels is suspect, but Clinton getting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands for fucking speeches, from the Saudis, etc. that's perfectly reasonable. I'm sure they wouldn't have needed to file a lawsuit against her.

Haha, yes the corruption is absurd. As I was saying, when it comes to the media right now I have never seen anything like this before. It is pure 100% madness.

All of these people are scum and will have empty lives that no one wants to remember.

A little bit of a summation, which I would say to anyone approaching Trump for the first time:



We seek a way to think beyond the strictures of the right-left political axis that was put in place with the dawn of liberal-secular humanism and the death of God, when the foundational metaphysical orientation was abandoned at the war-torn introductions to the 20th century with which Christian morality once defined the humanistic values that have been duly appropriated in our pitiable era by the historical materialist theories of human development on the Left, rather we look to Marx or the feminists, and by the logical colossus of tertiary capitalism on the Right. These values, lacking that metaphysical depth and foundation, quickly devolved into a contrived politics meant only to confuse for the masses all the real matters of policy and economy being conducted behind the scenes with vapid jibberish about homosexual marriage and the legality of pot, pseudo-intellectual ideas of institutional privilege and gender norms- all which may be characterized as, at best, matters that long ago were deemed virtually apolitical concerns to be settled at the local level by the actions of integrated communities: the globalists use the left politics to import easily politically controlled immigrants with no knowledge of our culture, language, and history, in order to destroy our national identity and gain a steady stock of voter cattle, while they use right politics to push trade deals meant only to extend the reaches of an entirely manufactured, artificial, hemispheric world-market intended to accomplish a vast redistribution of human wealth on the global scale so as to funnel the capitalist excesses of all our labor, across all nations, into the pockets of an exponentially wealthier corporate elite. We seek a way to think beyond the Left-Right divide, while being mindful of the tragedies brought about by the Nazi Reich, and the philosophical pitfalls of the Heideggerian project for the de-struktion of the cultural forms of Being- necessary for Reification to use my term, as inspired the Nazis, who attempted to thwart the globalist system as well, which had so viciously punished the German population for refusing to integrate their economy into the world market, but who decided to foolishly entrust all political power necessary for accomplishing that goal in the hands of a single man, when in fact no single man can live up to that task.

You will not believe.

I opened a dutch newspaper video report on the press chef situation.
The guy stood there saying: "So Trumps guy says that the NY Times lied and portrayed falsely the reality of the situation, but when I went home I opened that New York Times again and really studied their spread again, and it really looked like it was emptier...."

I can not digest this degree of idiocy!

Not to mention if he had really studied it, he would have seen it even said something to the extent: 'this photo is taken 45 minutes before the inauguration began, but that might not really matter'
or I guess he also figured it didnt really matter.

What matters is that he is in the last drips of piss that his life has amounted to.

All they want to do is talk about the size of his inaugural crowd because they don't know anything about the tpp or nato or anything else probably.

Yep, plus they're pissed off that Trump is standing up for himself against their attempts to delegitimize his inauguration. He is actually using is office and the press secretary of the White House to call these news groups out on their lies, something they're not used to.

As Trump said this is a transfer of power to the people. He was apparently serious.

I guess the average person doesn't know a thing about globalism or trade or how a nation succeeds economically. Everyone in America is debt-ridden anyway so probably just assume that's a way of life.

You can not imagine, but the Dutch are entire paradigms less informed than even the most brainwashed students of New York.

They dont know what Nato is, they dont know what TPP is, they dont know why they would want to know, they dont know a single thing about the US that the New York Times boss hasnt forced them to know. Fair to say, they know less than nothing.

If I show you a video of the guy in question you will be baffled.

Sure they have heard that Nato exists, and that it is goodness itself. They think about Nato in the way a child thinks of Santaclause.

Except that when nato gives its presents from the sky, they invariably maintain silence on that. I havent ever read of a single casualty by Nato bombs. To the Dutch, Nato is 100% peaceful.

That is almost too weird for me to wrap my mind around, except that I encounter Americans like this too, fairly often. Their pop culture media newsspeak societies have turned them into placated cattle. Sometimes Madonna comes along and whips the cattle into a frenzy, but otherwise they all have the same vacant look of "peace".

I think the Netherlands needs to get a few decent right-leaning talk radio stations and newspapers. Just to balance things out, like we have here.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Yep, plus they're pissed off that Trump is standing up for himself against their attempts to delegitimize his inauguration. He is actually using is office and the press secretary of the White House to call these news groups out on their lies, something they're not used to.

But look, you overestimate the Dutch press.
Its hard to convey.

Theyre not afraid of Trump, they have no inkling that reality exists. Im not exaggerating. They think in terms of deserving Gods Preordained Peace And Latte.
What they are blabbering about is only that the New York Times is angry. To them the New York Times equals scientific truth.
What they are thinking at any given moment has nothing to do with actions or consequences. It literally only lertains to their level of contentedness in the moment.
Ive lived among them for over 35 years. In my life Ive met maybe 3 that knew anything about politics except what the papers write. They read about 5 times as many newspapers as Americans and consider themselves to be the most informed people on the planet.

Thrasymachus wrote:

I think the Netherlands needs to get a few decent right-leaning talk radio stations and newspapers. Just to balance things out, like we have here.

We have radical right all over. That newspaper I mention is right. Left and Right all come down to the same thing, when a nation has no power. Its population will simply be ignorant.

What saved the US was Trump, not any media. But there is no chance of a Trump in Europe.

Its bleak man. Really bleak.

Yes, but because of the constant polarity of war over here, political and idea-war-- values war, we have remained healthy enough to actually be capable of electing someone like Trump. Trump represents in the philosophical sense the very possibility that he could have even been elected, which possibility is cohered and raises into reality as action and cause once it has an adequate symbol.

I've known people who read several newspapers a day. They are the most utterly braindead "informed people" you can imagine. Perfectly arrogant non-being. I imagine most of them are professors.

I have to conclude that power informs knowledge. Hollands powers inform its knowledges. What are Durch powers? Large corporate trade and tax havenry, advertising and banking. The population is 100% demilitarized. All food is GMO. There is one big food chain left. And it has the most expensive reality tv in the world.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I have to conclude that power informs knowledge. Hollands powers inform its knowledges. What are Durch powers? Large corporate trade and tax havenry, advertising and banking. The population is 100% demilitarized. All food is GMO. There is one big food chain left. And it has the most expensive reality tv in the world.

The globalist wet dream, then. All power sucked from the people and given to the few elite who own the only significant corporation. Unbelievable.

There's a somewhat funny movie about that, Visioneers. Not a bad movie actually. Good satire.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

I have to conclude that power informs knowledge. Hollands powers inform its knowledges. What are Durch powers? Large corporate trade and tax havenry, advertising and banking. The population is 100% demilitarized. All food is GMO. There is one big food chain left. And it has the most expensive reality tv in the world.

The globalist wet dream, then. All power sucked from the people and given to the few elite who own the only significant corporation. Unbelievable.

Pretty much.

Dude we are right back to calling Trump Hitler over at the Times. This is fucking ridiculous.


[No, what was needed was a leader with answers, somebody to marshal a popular movement and cut through hesitations, a strongman who would put the nation first and mythologize its greatness, a figure ready to scapegoat without mercy, a unifier giving voice to the trampled masses, a man who could use democracy without being its slave.]

Yeah, our US government tending to the problems of America and American people instead of trying to help the corporate heads of elite institutions based in the West and in our nation get ahead in the Asian market with things like the TPP, this is bad and totally Hitleresque.

Yeah, the US economy and national morale was always this shit. It's just a mythology that life was ever any better here. Maybe for white guys I guess but fuck them right?

And the trampled masses- fuck em, they don't need a voice. Let them continue without wage increases for another 50 years.

And scapegoat; yeah, blaming terrorism on ISIS is a total scapegoat.



[To say, as he did, that the elected representatives of American democracy are worthless and that the people are everything is to lay the foundations of totalitarianism. * It is to say that democratic institutions are irrelevant and all that counts is the great leader and the masses he arouses. ** To speak of “American carnage” is to deploy the dangerous lexicon of blood, soil and nation. To boast of “a historic movement, the likes of the which the world has never seen before” is to demonstrate consuming megalomania. *** To declaim “America first” and again, “America first,” is to recall the darkest clarion calls of nationalist dictators.]



* He never said fuck democracy and representatives period... He says this in the context of our representatives accepting massive political donations, cash from foreign nations, and allying themselves to their corporate sponsors... Is it good that our government, with its record low approval rates, accepts such foreign donations, and caters to corporate shills constantly? I thought the left was all against big money and politics and government corruption. He wants to "drain the swamp" of things like lobbyists, not get rid of representatives, just replace them with better, more honest ones.

** Wut. He was elected through a democratic process.

*** Megalomania? He pulled off the greatest political upset in American history, beat an entire media, Democratic, and Republican establishment all allied in trying to stop him, fooled all the polls and analysts, etc. and he doesn't have a right to call it historical? It was demonstrably historical. Megalomania? He referred to himself in his inaugural speech 3 times, all in the context of swearing an oath, whereas Obama referred to himself in his last speech something absurd like 80 times.






Couple paragraphs later:

[Trump’s outrageous claims have a purpose: to destroy rational thought. When Primo Levi arrived at Auschwitz he reached, in his thirst, for an icicle outside his window but a guard snatched it away. “Warum?” Levi asked (why?). To which the guard responded, “Hier ist kein warum” (here there is no why).]




This is below yellow journalism. This is, I don't know what to call it.

And the comments to this "article" are just as absurd:

--
Unless President Trump intends to begin brutally murdering American citizens (aided and abetted by the Republican party), he and his associates had better realize that "We The People" do not intend to go quietly into that good night.
--


What in the fuck is this person on about? Go quietly into what good night? Does he think Trump is about to send in the death squads? For who? "Prince-Of-Darkness-In-Chief" and shit in those comments. These people are hysterical, they're ill. They have totally disconnected from reality.

Another comment:
--
I agree with Roger Cohen. Trump's inaugural address, in which he depicted America as "carnage," disparaged the political class and exalted "the people," had a decidedly volkisch ring to it.
--


Disgusting. People out there actually think that our current government cares about us, even raising these corporate globalist fuckheads above the people they're supposed to serve. If you don't lay down and take what this corrupt administration has to give you with a smile, then you're a fascist according to these people.

Indeed, they are ill, hysterical, they are themselves diseases.

Also, they are simply the people that get rich over the backs of those who finally found in Trump an actual protector.

It's easier to understand these nonbeings if we just assume all they are doing is defend the work theyve done in the past, so as to maybe keep their jobs and lifestyle.

All Clontin supporters have lived at the cost of human dignity. This is all they know.

It would be nothing short of a miracle if someone votes for Clontin in November, and by January suddenly turns out to have a soul! Lol. No such thing. These people aren't going to wake up to humanity anytime soon. They dont have it in them.