Politicians

The rhetoric is part of it, yes, and I should probably stop expecting a politician or even non-politician political candidate to worry about phrasing what they say in a way that aims for accuracy rather than rhetorical effect. Trump is no philosopher, that is probably the root of my disagreement, as it happens to be the root of my disagreement with any politician I've ever looked at and my distaste with politics generally. The idea of a philosophical politics is about the only thing that can interest me politically speaking. And in terms of depth and breadth of ideas I see generally there is a lot more of that within left-oriented political thought than right-oriented. Which simply indicates to me that the political truths, whatever they might be, are going to be found to a greater degree by examining left-ward positions rather than right-ward ones, quite simply because there is more substance there, more human over-growth of content. That over-growth also of course lends itself to producing a lot of stupid shit that in quite Nietzschean fashion gets co-opted and taken advantage of by other things, for instance pathological ego-driven and emotionally stunted processes bent on avoiding hard thinking at all costs.

The most uninteresting thinkers and ideas in politics, such as for me Trump represents, are moved by a desire for certainty and simplicity. Their thought-process rarely goes beyond two tiers. "X is bad, Y is good, therefore... and..." is about it. Whereas more interesting thinkers and ideas in politics are motivated by an actual thrust to engage with the extensive complexities and problems of human society, economy and 'human nature'. These latter kinds of approaches generally fuck up the job of that kind of critical thought, but nonetheless are trying at least on the unconscious-structural level to engage with rather than only simplify and deny-away larger concerns and realities.

Speaking against the archaic, medieval barbarisms and openly anti-philosophical nature of Islam as a religion is one thing, doing so in a philosophical or cultural critical context; saying on TV in front of the world and as a candidate for president of the US that "Islam hates us" is another thing entirely. The two statements cannot even be related in kind. Trump, to me, displays about the thought-process of a 6 year old, which happens to be around the age of thinking that most people in my own family seem to process political issues and ideas. I have no doubt they are excited at the prospect of casting their vote for him. In that sense I am certainly prone to noticing idiocy in the form of conservative bigoted non-intellectual toddler-like reactionary ego-tantrums, but of course that low quality of thought and discourse, if it can even be called thought and discourse, is probably about all we can expect for any idea capable of being presented publicly within a political context.

I agree about sex and porn, when I read that thing about necrophilia I remember thinking there was truth to it but also it was missing something essentially. It sounds like something Lacan would say, and I don't find much to like in Lacan. I think you're right about the comments to female and male sexuality. I happen to have intimate access to how my own mind and sexuality work, and I tend not to see men objectifying and fetishizing themselves as women do, nor do I see women obsessing over or responding obsessively to the images of men, other than what teenage girls do looking at magazines or at the popular jock guy. In other words it seems more like a phase they go through, passing from that into appraisals based far more on qualities of meaning like income potential, how "sensitive" or "badass" a guy is, his confidence and that magical look in his eye, whatever else sort of thing, whereas men basically wake up to their image-responding sexuality and that's that. I think you're right that men have both types of sexuality, the image-response pure biological and psychological catharsis type and the emotional- or meaning-based response type, that basically keep fucking each other up and infringing upon each other.

The last thing I want in the office of the president is someone with an IQ as high as mine, or a philosopher, or anything like a genius- because I know how I would use power if I had it. I know how to use power, and it's good that I don't have any political power because I would find every way I could to be a tyrant and impose my will on others: it's integral to elect precisely the people who don't know how to utilize power, as that limits the amount of things they can fuck up. As I said before, a philosophy is simply the will to recreate the world in your own image. There is no such thing as a philosopher-king, there can only be a philosopher-tyrant. I don't want politicians ruling either because they are simply puppets of the media in our society. Giving a philosopher political power would always end badly. But a clown- a clown who is sometimes a little bit right in his clownish pronouncements: that's a good president.



Politicians use nothing but political correctness as a softer kind of rhetoric. The stilted, humorless professionalism, the language crafted down to the syllable which we call political correctness- constructed so as to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, even at the expense of having to pretend we're talking about something other than what we're talking about, is the substance of media, and our political system bows to the will and influence of the media. The fact that Trump does not is one of the things that's put him in the lead. A harsher rhetoric has evinced the boredom the public has developed with respect to the softer PC style.



There is no need to go into an in depth analysis of Islam's archaic, medieval barbarisms, because Islam is an archaic medieval barbarism.


Islam is a very large ideology and contains primary values incompatible with those of the West. When he says that Islam hates us, he is saying that there exists a cultural incompatibility with our Constitution and the Koran, as he said "Islam" hates us, an ideology, not "All Muslims", a group of people; Islam can't literally hate anything because it is not a sentient organism, it is an ideology. The reason he doesn't bother going into a rant on a deep analysis of this incompatibility is that it's unnecessary to winning the election, as everybody is already aware of it. They wrap women entirely in rags to avoid looking at them or giving them any power over their mind through sexual attraction. Mohammed, who Muslims are told to emulate, fucked little girls and waged war in a way not unlike Isis. They want to kill those who leave their faith. They want an order of priests to rule the political process and despise free speech and voting. The system which Islam proposes is not compatible with that of the West. The majority of Muslims advocate values and ways of life opposed to those held to here- don't call this incompatibility hatred if you don't want to, but you have to figure out something to call it. It's not Jews or Wiccans that are blowing the brains out of cartoonists, flying shit into buildings, beheading people, or shooting up 140 people at a concert hall in France. Everything I've studied about the religion indicates that it has a radical political theory inherent to it unlike Christianity or Judaism, it's inherently more strict and violent, everything about it is constructed with the intention or propagation, and it is incompatible with the West- so when you put those things together in one human brain you probably aren't going to get anything exceptionally good. People talk about "reforming" Islam. What exactly is there to reform? Of all the negatives I can list about this faith, I defy anyone to name me even one single solitary positive thing about it. The other Abraham religions were organic expressions of man's historically changing subjectivity and self-understanding; Islam is just a cult concocted by Mohammed that stole its notion of the One-God and used it to coordinate a bunch of gangs of uneducated tribal polytheists into a real army so as to topple the political regime that existed at the time. The system, the actual text of Islam, "hates" us, that is, is incompatible- the people who practice it are irrelevant. Some of the people hate the west and some don't, all we're talking about here is their stupid holy text.


There are many positives to Trump winning that don't even have anything to do with his policy- that is why even a great a number of Democrats have switched over to the Rep Party just to vote for him. Most people are so contemptuous of the politicians that they want to elect someone- anyone, who isn't one of them, in this case Trump. If he's elected we might not have to deal with the two-party system anymore, as the Republican party will break up. The brain-dead media propaganda-machine will be broken at least in part and lose its power over our political system. The old donor class will collapse and money will lose the effect it has on the process, as Trump is winning the election without donors. I don't see any argument not to vote for him even if you disagree with everything he's said. He's willing to admit the simple reality of a cultural incompatibility- which is not a negative to my mind. No amount of post-modern critical theory analysis will ever make that incompatibility go away. The fact that a six year old could in fact recognize that and grown adults cannot is telling- perhaps a kind of genetic deformity has been allowed to creep into human DNA with the rise of our sterile modern civilization, a kind of atrophy of the amygdala or threat-assessment module. Read the Koran and the Constitution and then try and square them.


Also, to further dampen his alleged racism: while Trump does not have more Muslim support than the democratic candidates, he does lead all the other republicans in Muslim support. You can see why. Muslims come here- not refugees, but simply immigrants, for the reason that they wish not to live under Sharia law. Trump, who would limit the number of Muslims that can come here, then, is essentially united with them, as the policy is meant to limit political control that a large number of Muslims could one day come to exert. Muslims who came here to escape Sharia law and the general Islamic culture don't want a lot more Muslims to come here who like Sharia and wrapping women from head to hoe in rages. The paradox is of course that the minority is not assimilated to the majority: the majority is assimilated to the minority, or in the least changed, just as the largest and most powerful animals can be destroyed by the smallest of parasites. The smaller class sets quietly in the shadows gaining numbers until they reach a threshold beyond which they have enough power, at least in a democratic society, to influence our political system. Once they have enough people for their vote to have power, they succeed in changing the host society by hijacking its own electoral processes. France and Germany have in particular learned this.

And one other thing on the media. They post a bunch of unmarked quotes and get trump to retweet one, then turn around a have their "gotcha" moment when they reveal the quote was actually by Mussolini, a quote that had nothing to do with fascism, and then spend the rest of the week pumping out articles about how Trump supports Mussolini. They compare him to Hitler because he had people at one of his rallies raise their hand and promise to vote for him, even though Clinton, Sanders, and every other candidate did the same thing. He get's endorsed by a guy who left the KKK 40 years ago after joining as a teen and spending the rest of his life speaking against them, and because of a miscommunication in an interview Trump had they spent two weeks writing about how Trump wouldn't disavow the KKK- even though he disavowed the endorsement repeatedly in interviews and rallies. Honestly, I hate the fucking media and the political correct social justice bullshit even more than I hate the Islamic holy text.

Cultural enrichment:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKk15KcqNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KilJkG5Ndks


"In the capital of Oslo more than 90 percent of assault rapes between strangers were committed by immigrant non-western males... 9 out of 10 victims were native Norwegian women." Quite a statistic.

It's not terrorists that are the concern, it's the resultant civil war esque scenario that will and is playing out in miniature from this mass immigration. What happens when there's another mass terror attack and the will of the native population gets bent on the internal Muslim community that now exists in its own borders? Someone will go out and torch a Mosque or kill a Muslim, then some Muslims will get together and kill some natives, back and forth, and there will be a real problem on everyone's hands. Are we supposed to just accept all the short term negatives and risks, massively increased rape crimes only one of many, just for the hope that in the long term society will be a little bit more inclusive and nice? This isn't theoretical- Muslims have been allowed to acquire a significant number in Britain for example, and I could be arrested there for saying about Islam what I have said in this thread; free speech is a joke there.

There is a very essential point you must consider: Islam is not simply a religion, as Christianity is, or Judaism. It is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, a system, and it is constructed to accomplish certain ends socially. Hitler was a vegan and liked to play with animals. I'm sure there were plenty of Nazi soldiers who were really nice people. But the political ideology which they invested with power was pernicious to civilization- just as Islam is. Islam achieved what Judaism attempted to do, that is, fuse the state and religion, politics and the priesthood. That is why an analysis of each particular "medieval barbarism" exhibited by Muslims is basically pointless; it's the ideology of Islam itself which is the problem. We could break down all the particular ways Nazism was oppressive, but the point is that Nazism itself is a totalitarian system whose whole purpose is to oppress and perpetuate its own power- as with Islam. Mohammed constructed Islam in order to unite the bunch of splintered factions of polytheist tribes which existed at the time into a single force, coordinate that force in a marginal orientation- in secrecy and silence while it is still relatively small, utilize the political processes of the host society that Islam is attempting to take over in order to "clear the path" for this singular united army, and then, when everything is set in place, springboard an attack through the provocation of internal civil warfare and territorial disjunction. In his own life Mohammed utilized his new political-religious attack strategy and became one of the most successful warlords of all time, and achieved everything I just described, and even after his death his creation is utilizing its adherents even unconsciously to repeat this whole thing. There's really nothing else like it, I don't even know what to call it; a political ideology or a religion. Even in death Mohammed is using it to take over territory, it's like the ghost of his genius of war haunting the planet. It doesn't matter if the given Muslim doesn't know what he's doing- most Nazi members were not aware of what they were doing. The destruction of the Western culture will not be accomplished by terrorists, by them blowing shit up, it is accomplished by this 4 point attack strategy which Islam embodies as as political ideology and system of culture-warfare. Islam is the only "religion" that has in its text a fully developed legal and theological system part of which is both the offensive and defensive, militaristic and politicized conquest over any other ideology- Jihad. People talk about the period of Islamic peace, science, wealth, and general social stability without recognizing that the Muslim world only experienced that when- it was in control and had dominated everything else in the region

I don't want to deal with that bullshit. I simply wouldn't want to live in front of one of the majority Muslim micro-communities that have sprouted in France. Therefor I am unwilling to say that other people should have to. The system of Islam is built to thrive in secret and silence when its adherents are a minority, as consequence to an immigration, and then when their numbers rise enough they simply utilize their increased influence to transform the host culture from the inside out, accomplishing exactly the opposite of assimilation or integration.



Everything I have been talking about in this thread boils down to a conglomeration of the corporate elite and the State, the Left (there is no Right anymore, what is called the Right is just an expression of the Left) and the politicians, and the media into a single power-structure. We used to lead in manufacturing, but the state fucked that up, after the left became involved in trading deals. Now why would they attempt to destroy our industrial capacity? Because then the corporations will be dissuaded from re-injecting their surplus into the economy, they will hoard it in the banking system and balloon up to the 1 percent, and because corporations will in doing this gain power approaching that of the state itself, by lobbying to corporate interests politicians can get over many of the limitations imposed by our political system and share in the uninhibited power of capital as is possessed by the corporate elites: thus Republicans and Democrats are basically the same deal- corporate puppets. We used to lead the world in education, now we are near the bottom of the pack despite spending more on it than everyone else. Obviously the state's increasing involvement in the educational system doesn't work very well- for the people anyway. The highest levels of academia now do nothing but churn out more regurgitated critical theory intended to make concepts like value, truth, sexuality, and gender quite illegible, under the pretended guise of striving for greater inclusivity, fulfilling a role similar to the moralists of the 18th century which Nietzsche devoted a lot of writing to attacking: this serves the goal of the Left, which is like all goals, in that it amounts to a struggle for power, for this break down of fundamental concepts- like sexuality or the family structure, creates a potential for the actualization of socialist and communistic policy, which further petrifies our industrial capacities and grants more power to the state. Power is basically being split up between the corporate elite and the state; politicians lobby for a share in corporate power, while academics bank on getting a share of state power. The effect of this on the general population is that it has bred the most mindless, conformist, anti-philosophical people that's ever existed, the rational side of their brain shut off by the academia-state pumping its propaganda and PC conformist feminist nonsense into them and the emotional side shut down by the corporate-politician class numbing them up with Iphones on the corporate side and promising them a bunch of free shit and inclusive utopia and that all of their problems are basically because white people suck and rich people are thieves on the political side. Divorce rates and fatherlessness are higher than ever. Education, industry, and the nuclear family along with gender relations are all gone thanks to the the State and the Left. The media plays its role in this whole scheme in that it distracts everyone: while Rome fell, everyone spoke of bread and circuses. Bruce Jenner, a guy who stapled silicone to his chest and ran a whole family over because he was texting or something is now the "woman" of year and earned some kind of reward for being heroic. Our culture has already been fucking nuked, might as well let the Muslims finish off destroying it I guess.

It's fascinating how small ideas spread. I attribute it to this strange tendency we have to believe what we say, and to believe or disbelieve (radical polarization) what we hear other's saying. If someone says something with conviction we are more likely to believe it.

When members of a small religious group start talking about their beliefs to others, there is a natural affinity for others to believe or want to believe, even though obviously there is no evidence whatsoever -- the fact that these minority groups are so convinced themselves acts as a surrogate for evidence, as if it were evidence already. Why would this very small group of cultural or political outsiders be so convinced of this thing they are saying, which flies in the face of everything I have been told? They must have some secret insight that I lack. This is basic human psychology. People all want the special access insight into reality, they just don't want to work for it. This is, in my mind, the only real reason that religions are still dominant today.

Islam is a threat in this way, more so because the belief system as you point out, to which people are tempted based on how I described above, is actually deeply pessimistic, violent, archaic, unthoughtful. The Christian religion spawned centuries of deep thinking and probing into ideas and feelings, ultimately leading to discoveries of aesthetic romanticism, enlightenment values, as Christianity is basically Greek at heart. All religions are threats in so far as they smuggle certain content-packages into the mind under the guise of that "access to special insider knowledge on reality" bought due to the convincing way it is presented by others; so what really matters isn't how convincing or fast a religion spreads so much as what is the actual content of the religion. And I agree that individual practicers of a religion can spread that 'unconscious content' without even knowing it, either they can act out that content unknowingly or simply passively pass it along to the next generation, not acting on it themselves but migrating the hidden content to their kids and their kids kids, until eventually it can realize in some way.

But there are also competing issues here. Despite the medievalism of religion generally and especially Islam, due to its lack of a Greek center, and due to its not participating in the cultural evolution of western civilization as both Christianity and Judaism had largely done, most Muslims today are moderates. Interestingly, and to counteract some of the propaganda in those "CBN" videos (Christian Broadcasting Network, a pet project of super-conservative Christian retard Pat Robertson), Muslims who immigrate identify in the middle between the values and attitudes of their host country and those of their new residence country. Where one is actually living, the country and society you are in right now, is a stronger predictor of the beliefs, values and attitudes you hold than is the society and culture from which you came, and even though you still cling to that host culture and society, or want to. Integration is a fact, but so is multiculturalism, and there is some of both; some immigrants assimilate across generations while some are more resistant, there are many factors involved. But taking the total average population of immigrants, they sit right in the middle between their origin country and their new country in terms of beliefs, values and attitudes.

And again, most Muslims are moderate, and not extremists. ISIS actually hates other Muslims as much as they hate us in the west. And Muslims in the west have spoken out against extremism and ISIS, after all it is their own sons and daughters who are being absorbed and brainwashed into extremist movements within their own religion. And paradoxically, the more a society fails to help immigrant minorities integrate the more pressure there is to remain excluded and develop toward extremist tendencies.

Of course we can consider Islam a special exception if we agree that it has a "secret caliphate ideology" and actually aims to take over the whole world... but is that really going to happen? Increasing pressure of Muslims in Europe is forcing a move toward more multicultural and socialist politics, like in France where Muslim voters were deciding factors in Hollande's election, since most Muslims vote socialist rather than conservative. The political party systems in Europe and America aren't designed to handle the situation where a large (even 2-3% of the population is still large in an election, if they are all voting in the same way, that leads to millions of extra votes for one side rather than the other) population of new immigrants for another culture enter and vote mostly the same way, because the two party polarized system forces them to pick one side or the other, and therefore ends up skewing the results rather than generating a new political class or group independent representation. Proportional voting for representatives can address that issue to a certain degree but still poses a problem, and of course regardless the vote for President or PM is not proportional but winner takes all. And then you get socialist parties pandering to Muslim demographics for the votes, of course, same as here in the US where they pander to blacks and the poor.

Another point about perceptions.. the fear that "Mohammed is the most common name in the UK" or wherever. Look at the reasons: they allocate all various versions and spellings of his name, combine that with the fact that most Muslims name their sons Mohammed, combine that with the fact that non-Muslims are choosing increasingly diverse and unique names for their kids (not only do we have a larger pool of available names to choose from, but our pool is actually increasing), and you get the fear-mongering propaganda stuff like on those CBN shit fake news youtube videos. These people arent interested in truth, they are pushing a perspective, in this case the fear of a Muslim takeover. One needs to look at the source of this stuff, I mean just look at the "solutions" posed in those videos themselves.. Christians walking around handing bibles to Muslims, saying Jesus wants to save them from Hell.. yeah, what the fuck.

It is simply misleading to say something like "Mohammed is the most common name". What is the point of resorting to fear tactics that are based on misunderstanding the situations they pretend to address? If even 1% of the population is all naming their sons the same name, you're going to have that name become extremely statistically "common", despite the fact that again there are a relatively low number of those people compared to the more name-heterogeneous whole of people.

I agree that Islam represents values and beliefs antithetical to those in western civilization. But I don't think that is going to lead to a civil war, nor do I think there is some secret plot within Islam where a bunch of Muslims are in secret agreement to move to the west and eventually overthrow the system. Even hypothetically if they were to get a majority vote in politics, that doesnt translate to their tyranny of majority. Western political and legal systems are designed to prevent tyranny of the majority because we aren't a strict pure democracy, the "majority" (an abstraction for the voters behind whoever ends up getting elected) doesn't decide laws or policy or decisions, doesn't get to re-write society the way they want; instead they have to work within existing systems, find compromises, and even though they may have a governing majority are still limited in what they can do. I'm not saying it isn't problematic that foreign immigrants with non-western values could get a political majority in certain countries, but I am saying that the fear of this is way overblown. You also need to factor in what I said above, that if you actually poll immigrants including Muslims in the west you see their values, beliefs and attitudes are set right in the middle between those same polled from their home country and polled from the new country to which they moved. Integration is a fact, but of course it isn't a perfect or complete process. Some integration is always going to happen, and acts as a natural check against foreign immigrants en mass moving into a place and "taking over".

Basically, this anti-Islam stuff we see today is part of a conservative ideological fear-based reaction, produced and crafted by people like Pat Robertson and his "Christian Broadcasting Network". It isn't that we shouldn't be concerned about certain aspects of Islam and foreign immigration, of course we should, these are real issues. But it isn't some kind of end of the world scenario that Trump and others make it out to be. Trump and other conservatives and Christians are driven by their fear of not being in control and in charge, not being in the majority, and they are basically afraid of change in general, which is a hallmark of conservative ideology, therefore they are prone toward their own extremism and fact-selection biases, driven by anxiety. Again, that doesn't mean there isn't some truth behind what they say, but it does mean what they are saying is taken often out of proper context by them, simplified and turned into quick talking points, and pushed only for the emotional impact it will have, namely to inspire anxiety and fear in others too, thus galvanize support similar to how Hitler managed that with his own demonization of foreigners, Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. This kind of ideology is hate fueled by hate, ignorance by ignorance. There are facts involved and real problems with clashes of cultures, in particular with Islam and the nature of their book and beliefs, I agree, but those are merely secondary concerns at best to people like Trump or Hitler, or conservatives generally, who are operating on anxiety, fear and pure reactionism to the point of believing any old thing just so long as it confirms their already-held beliefs. Namely, they work from a position of intellectual dishonesty, which I cannot support.

I don't get the point about philosopher tyrants vs. kings, I believe philosophy is eminently noble and leads to enlightenment in one's thinking, leads to rational values and beliefs, which in large measure means clearing away intellectual dishonesties and dependency on pathological thinking such as based on anxiety and fear, as noted above. Philosophy is a cleansing method, not only for our ideas but also for our passions and sentiments. The trajectory of the history of philosophy is generally upward, toward higher and more noble values and ideas, toward progressively less illusion and error and ignorance need; this is the reason why western civilization has become largely secular, progressive, developed science and technology, classically liberal values rooted in principles of freedom and equality, and is basically the reason why Muslims and others want to immigrate here, because our societies are superior, and for good reason. Western society has its root in western philosophy, and yes has required to work through its own errors many times and will be required to do that again and again, but the total net effect is progressive uplift over time. Philosophy is not by its very nature antithetical to rational, sane and judicious leadership, I see no reason to accept leaders who merely want to tyrannize others and call that philosophy. Useful idiots, so called, such as Trump, could never be a realistic substitute for genuinely intelligent, philosophically-minded leaders. If our leaders have failed us to far it is not because they were "too philosophical" but because they were not philosophical enough.

One last point, the fear of Muslims taking over the population by sheer numbers is also overblown. Muslim birth rates level out to norms within Europe and America after coming here, high birther Muslim birth rates are basically from Muslims living outside of the west or having just come here, first generation. Beyond that, Muslim population isn't exploding from some magical super-fertility they have or by some secret Islamic commandment of theirs to have 10 kids to breed an army. I mean what the hell, that is just stupid. Yes Muslims are a growing percentage of the population, and yes even a marginal increase in their voting numbers can have political effects in elections, those points are certainly true. But they are still a minority even though a growing one, and their growth rates are not inherently higher, they are higher right now due to immigration (a lot of refugees) and, again, in their home countries it was common to have higher birth rates whereas in the west it is less common... and as we see, immigrants end up aligning themselves naturally to their host countries about half-way, and part of that includes the number of kids they have. Muslim population has ballooned in Europe recently, but this is due mostly to refugees.

Despite all that, yes I agree that Islam is a problem; not most Muslim people, they are fine (excluding foreigners coming here who have as you well put it absorbed the shit conditions in their home countries, and act out their violence and rape impulses once they get here...), but the belief system itself. Western societies should be doing more to combat the belief-system of Islam just as they have combated Christian belief-systems in the past, which culminated in rising secularism and progressivism in the west, which are good things. This trends has stalled due to, as you and Trump do correctly note, multiculturalist pressures of political correctness and not wanting to seem "mean" or "biased against" immigrants and minorities. The sentiments there are fine, but they simply motivate actions disproportionate to their need. The rationale is still there, and as Muslims do become a larger population within western countries we will see a corresponding decline in that PC-multicultural pressure simply by virtue of the fact that Muslims are or are perceived to be less of a minority than they once were. Political correctness works as an automatic mechanism to protect perceived or real minority groups or ideas from default oppression by more majority groups or ideas, like a pressure valve. Yes this causes problems when it comes to something like Islam, because PC thinking disregards content and only focuses on form-- the minority form is all they care about, the actual content is irrelevant, so when for example Islam can advocate terrible repression of women or homosexuals or arranged marriages for children, the PC mechanism is unable to process that. This is simply a fact of how that mechanism works, that it simply has limits to its usefulness. Yes I agree that any archaic medieval religious beliefs systems should be opposed openly by western society, our values juxtaposed against theirs in an "open combat of ideas", this is healthy. So in that sense, of establishing limits on political correctness, Trump and other conservatives do have some "useful idiot" value, that they can at least act unconsciously as a force pointing to the limits of political correctness and the value of tolerance. Values aren't absolute, they are limited and delimited, and interconnected in with each other in complex systems; this is something that has been lost on both the PC leftist crowd as well as the Trump Pat Robertson conservative crowd.

The real problems are in how these issues are being turned into hate and ignorance fueled party politics for personal or political gain, or to push xenophobic nationalistic positions which are based primarily on rhetoric and anxiety. "Hate these people over here, then elect me and I'll save you..." sort of retarded Hitler stuff. Taking advantage of people's fears, anxieties and propensities to ignorance never ended well... at best the Islam issue is being used today for those secondary purposes, thus (ironically) preventing us from actually addressing the real issues and challenges posed around the differences between western civilization and Islam.


On the issue of Trump having his audience raise their right hand and swear to to vote for him, I accept its possible and even likely other candidates have done this too, but I've never seen or heard of it. I did a search trying to find images of Sanders doing that, couldn't find anything. Basically Trump was just joking around, he talks and acts off the cuff and likes to joke, it's part of his appeal; but this hand raising and swearing allegiance to him thing also shows more his level of ignorance, that he wouldn't know or care of the historical parallels and connotations to fascism and the Nazis with such a gesture. The fact of trying to force people under public pressure of a rally and group-think to swear personal allegiance to him, is really a very stupid and low thing to do, even as a joke made out of ignorance or deliberate disregard for history and what such gestures mean or represent. If it's stupid and lowly to make people pledge allegiance to a flag, and it is stupid and low to do that, then it is even worse to do so to oneself personally. The force with which it's done against kids in school, namely pressure of authority and conformity, is no different from the force Trump used to his advantage to do it at a public rally, obviously people feel huge pressure to follow suit in a crowd like that no matter how weird or uncomfortable doing so probably made many of them.

Islam's "secret caliphate ideology" is a fact. Islam requires explicitly what it calls a worldwide caliphate. I don't understand how a person can be a Muslim and not support the imposition of global Sharia law, since that is what the Koran commands them to do.



"most Muslims today are moderates. Interestingly, and to counteract some of the propaganda in those "CBN" videos (Christian Broadcasting Network, a pet project of super-conservative Christian retard Pat Robertson), Muslims who immigrate identify in the middle between the values and attitudes of their host country and those of their new residence country. Where one is actually living, the country and society you are in right now, is a stronger predictor of the beliefs,"

I'm simply not convinced most are moderates.

* 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
* 38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup(2011).
represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
*38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
*One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
*78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
*80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
*Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
*68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
*51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree).The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).

I've heard the case that most are moderate a thousand times and find it no less propagandistic than any anti-Islam sources. Noam Chomsky is as much a propagandist as the wrinkled turd Pat Roberson. Here's a video taken by some guy with a cell phone camera, perhaps it is more impartial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cri1JVeNEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mFMmRhFiY


Is this fake? Did someone CGI it? Besides, propaganda refers to either lies or videos that have been stitched together in such a way as to give a deceptive message. It's irrelevant who the source of a video is if it hasn't been cut up and stitched together in a certain way, because the content of the video is actually happening regardless of what the source is attempting to use it to prove.


Multiculturalism doesn't work, it has never worked historically. Having kids speak different languages and hold to different religions retards the education process, having internal Muslim societies creates the kind of tension that turns into internal war. Muslims can't even integrate with themselves, they have been divided into two major tribes and at war with one another for a thousand years.


As a matter of fact, to me the term "Moderate Muslim" is oxymoronic and meaningless, like "moderate Nazi." Do they believe as the Koran says that Sharia is absolute? Then they cannot be moderates, to me. And this comparison is appropriate as far as I am concerned, because I reject the thesis that Islam is even really a religion: it's a pseudo-religious socio-political totalitarian system. Not only does it not have the Greek center the other Abrahamic faiths do, it doesn't even have a tradition of being contributed to by a diverse line of prophets and theologians, for it was invented by one single human being and is the vision of one man, Mohammed.

I don't know anything about Mohammed becoming the most popular name, it's irrelevant.

You reference the Muslim situation in the US- it isn't a problem here, yet. I mostly refer to the European situation. Also, with regard to their population growth; their birth-rate in France is three children a family, whereas the native rate is 1.2.


"The fact of trying to force people under public pressure of a rally and group-think to swear personal allegiance to him, is really a very stupid and low thing to do."

The only people exhibiting anything like group-think are the liberal Left: ask them anything on any subject and they are all in complete agreement. They run the colleges now, a professor gets fired if he steps out of line the slightest bit on something like feminism or Islam. Also, Trump was asking them to swear to vote for him since they came to a rally in support of him, not to swear personal allegiance. This is what other candidates have all done, his asking them to raise their hand was nothing more than an additional gesture, comparing it to a Nazi salute is what is very stupid and low. The Nazis systematically murdered millions of people- Trump said some words. And they looked pretty eager to raise their hand to me, I don't see much pressuring. They're also eagerly voting him into the presidency of the United States.

The guy isn't attempting to genocide Muslims, he is simply going to close the border to the immigrant Muslims so we don't fuck our society up anymore than it already is, as France and Germany have done.




The bottom line is I don't perceive any possibility of Islam and the West integrating. I don't see enough evidence to support the thesis that "most" Muslims, even ones in the West, are moderate. I don't see any evidence that the bid for a massively multicultural society is actually working. And leftist, liberal philosophy, informed mostly by deconstructionism and critical theory, has done nothing but breakdown fundamental concepts in the West, like sexuality, gender, the nuclear family, truth, reason, etc.

Quick point, I see the political left in America basically purged itself of radical far Left back in the 60s and 70s (remember we used to actually have militant far left groups in America, we no longer do), and today I think the political right doing the same thing, in the process of purging itself of radical far Right in its own party/ideology. Trump is part of this process of the eventual purge of far Rightism from within the political right in America. He cannot possibly win a general election, and regardless if he wins or loses the primary process he is going to accomplish breaking apart the political right, with the eventual result of removing far right elements as the party over the next 1-2 decades re-coheres around its centrist elements.

I don't get the point about philosopher tyrants vs. kings, I believe philosophy is eminently noble and leads to enlightenment in one's thinking, leads to rational values and beliefs, which in large measure means clearing away intellectual dishonesties and dependency on pathological thinking such as based on anxiety and fear, as noted above. Philosophy is a cleansing method, not only for our ideas but also for our passions and sentiments. The trajectory of the history of philosophy is generally upward, toward higher and more noble values and ideas, toward progressively less illusion and error and ignorance need; this is the reason why western civilization has become largely secular, progressive, developed science and technology, classically liberal values rooted in principles of freedom and equality, and is basically the reason why Muslims and others want to immigrate here, because our societies are superior, and for good reason. Western society has its root in western philosophy, and yes has required to work through its own errors many times and will be required to do that again and again, but the total net effect is progressive uplift over time. Philosophy is not by its very nature antithetical to rational, sane and judicious leadership, I see no reason to accept leaders who merely want to tyrannize others and call that philosophy. Useful idiots, so called, such as Trump, could never be a realistic substitute for genuinely intelligent, philosophically-minded leaders. If our leaders have failed us to far it is not because they were "too philosophical" but because they were not philosophical enough.

---




I don't like the idea of a philosopher having direct political power for several reasons. Like I was saying earlier, I divide the State and Culture. The state grants power economically to an elite class, culture grants power intellectually to philosophers/geniuses. The elite class and the philosopher class should always be separated, in order to avoid creating a state that has the power to inform and control culture, or a culture with the power to bend the will of the state.

I'm not saying that our leaders failed because of philosophy or because they were philosophers, I am saying that if we had leaders that were in fact philosophers, they would be even worse. I can't even stand other philosophers to simply exist, as my philosophy is a will to recreate the world in my own image- as is every philosophy; I certainly couldn't stand to live under another philosopher's rule. Our leaders have failed simply because they serve the corporate powers that only have such inordinate power dude ot the fact that the intervention of the state beyond what should be its restricted scope of power has left our economy is a state where the elite class are dissuaded from reinjecting surplus capital, creating a situation where they hoard their money in banks. The point of political systems, of a Sate, is to engineer the conditions for the flourishing of a culture or ethos: a genius or philosopher is the end point of that culture. The philosopher is the goal of politics, culture, and civilization itself. For a philosopher to control the system for which he is the goal is erroneous to me, as he will do nothing but reimpose his own idea on the world.

The classically liberal egalitarian vision of an equal pluralistic society is like the Christian brotherhood-in-love, without the religion. This is a vision of the world antithetical to the very concept of a culture, an ethos, which orders mankind into lower and higher forms of life. As the champion of an ethos, philosophy requires cruelty and amorality. It is best for that cruelty to remain an intellectual one rather than a political one.

Anxiety and fear are rational when they are anxiety over something real. Rationality, reason, thought, is just the reorganization of emotions and drives. The amygdala is the module in the brain that assesses threats and creates fear. It's amusing that super liberal-leftist people have been shown to have atrophied amygdala in brain scans. Simple fact is, if you speak badly about Islam publicly and attract enough attention to yourself, there's a good chance you'll get killed, even in the West. You can say whatever you want about Jesus or Buddha and nobody's going to bother you.

Capable wrote:

Quick point, I see the political left in America basically purged itself of radical far Left back in the 60s and 70s (remember we used to actually have militant far left groups in America, we no longer do), and today I think the political right doing the same thing, in the process of purging itself of radical far Right in its own party/ideology. Trump is part of this process of the eventual purge of far Rightism from within the political right in America. He cannot possibly win a general election, and regardless if he wins or loses the primary process he is going to accomplish breaking apart the political right, with the eventual result of removing far right elements as the party over the next 1-2 decades re-coheres around its centrist elements.

The left seem more radical than ever to me. They are not physically violent, but intellectually they are as insane as they have ever been. They make petitions to build schools with a board that assesses how sensitive your language is and would be able to expel you based on micro-aggressions. They have split the genders into 100 different sub types. Because they are more concerned with skin color than ideology they let Muslims get away with mass raping in places like Germany. But they are extremely concerned about the "rape culture" in the West. A lot of leftist thought today resembles something like a mix of double-think and simple mental retardation.

The only reason they aren't violent is because they have succeeded in deconstructing, in breaking down, these concepts; gender, sexuality, truth, reason, racism, etc.

I was thinking of how there used to be "leftwing terrorism" and this isn't even a thing anymore, it doesn't even exist. What is interesting is that you and I are approaching the issue from two different angles, essentially our positions are the same but reflected as mirrors of each other, two sides of one coin; you see the collapse of the right and there now existing merely shades of the left, whereas I see the collapse of the left and there now existing merely shades of the right. It is possible that everything is moving toward the center, that extreme edges are leveling out; the examples you illustrate about the left today and its triumphs over culture make me think that the left has simply deepened into culture to the point where, as you said, its deconstructions have largely succeeded, whereas I also see the right having triumphed over culture as well in typically capitalist arenas including the inability of large firms or their CEOs to be brought before the law for financial abuses and market manipulations, for the lack of antitrust enforcement and essentially the death of small business as we know it, and the near-complete absorption of the worker within the corporation as mere functionary of the corporation, basically the end of "worker's rights". Unions still exist but are largely symbolic and at this point already dying out. Workers are totally dependent upon the corporation they work for and cannot rock the boat for fear of simply being dismissed; there has been a parallel rolling back of whistleblower protections that prevent workers from exposing illegal or immoral practices, including within the dairy and meat production industries which have recently succeeded in convincing lawmakers to make it illegal to secretly film animal abuses within their facilities.

The focus shifts from the illegal, abusive or immoral practices or people and back onto the system, it is about preserving capital systems now and helping large capital holders from experiencing undo disruptions. In 2008-09 the trillions of dollars that were invented out of thin air could have been used to reinvest massively in the economy through infrastructure and public works projects, reducing student loan and debt burdens on an entire generation that is essentially fucked paying $500 a month or more in debts just to get a degree, and in breaking up huge insurance and financial institutions into smaller units with more competition and less economy-wide scope; instead they simply gave the cash to banks and those firms themselves, to keep them from going under. Yes we have extended unemployment benefits, welfare, food-stamp programs and social security for everyone from the elderly to the disabled to the "mentally ill", but those can hardly in my eyes be considered triumphs of the left, the are more like concessions given to the right-oriented swing of the economy toward massive wealth and capital holders, sort of like saying "well yeah you lost your job and there aren't any other good ones, so rather than try to fix the system we will just pay out cash benefits on a short-term basis until you find another shit job for low wages and no job security". The real issue as I see it, is that right and left have both transformed into neo-right and neo-left, with neoconservativism coming to the fore under Regan and his idiotic reductions of marginal tax rates and huge tax breaks for the rich, with naturally reduced revenue sharply and led to the start of endless huge deficits just to keep up the level of spending we do have and continue irrational huge tax breaks for the rich, and continued then under Bush with his further tax cuts for the rich and irrational wars in the middle east to essentially secure oil fields, extent the war machine, keep Iraq from converting from petrodollars to petroeuros, etc... now we have a shift into the neoliberal side, with Obama and TPP, increased outsourcing and of course the whole 2008 fiasco where Obama, a supposedly liberal candidate, basically handed trillions of dollars of US future taxpayer debt to super billionaires and the international banking system, has continued irrational warfare and high military spending, including violations of international law by targeting civilians with drones in multiple sovereign countries, and now pushing for Trans Pacific Partnership along with republicans (neocons). Ever wonder why most republicans and Obama are aligned on the trade deal? Obama and Hillary represent the face of neoliberalism and essentially merge with neoconservatives at the leading edge of economic, military and globalist developments.

The political categories are somewhat meaningless now. The extremes have faded away in part because as you say they have succeeded in penetrating the level of culture and policy as such, but also because those extremes, in an overt and open way, used to act as critiques against neoliberal-neoconservative overreach. Occupy Wallstreet didn't accomplish shit, Obama wouldn't even talk about it for nearly a year. There are essentially no workers rights or individual citizen's rights when it comes to the rights of large corporations and institutions or of the government itself; we have simply a system of the semblance of individual rights, that is all.

As for micro aggressions and making college students sign consent forms to have sex with each other and all that bullshit, I see these things as the continuance of the deconstructive postmodernist expansion, but not entirely without merit; I don't particularly value "nuclear families", most people I know hate their families and were seriously fucked up as a result of their parents, as Guattari pointed out families are essentially tyrannical structures of capitalist conformity that perpetuate conditions of default oppression and gender normalization and loss of degrees of freedom. I wouldn't shed too many tears for the death of the nuclear family -- although I value the idea of family quite highly, and I really do, the examples I have seen are overwhelmingly negative. So the postmodernist deconstructions are basically challenging and critiquing these forms of irrationality that still perpetuate, leading to devaluations of any category not already instantiated in the traditional system of the white/male/wealthy/Christian modality. I'm not defending the deconstructions and stupid shit like sex contracts and so many other hundreds of examples that are out there of the like, but I can certainly understand where this movement is coming from, and I can understand the existence of the irrationalities continually perpetuated under the form of "the way it's always been" where basically abuse against children in families is ubiquitous same as it is and has always been against women. I think the left pushes too far and things rebound back to the right, then the right pushes too far (e.g. Trump) and things rebound back to the left, only those rebounding basically take place within those left or right spheres themselves. The republicans are going to become far more centrist and mild as a result of this election season, I would think.

I want to address the other points, on philosophy and rulership, culture and society, etc. but I have to go... will get to it later today though.

Really quickly, on the philosopher as ruler, I agree that perhaps a philosopher ought not impose through political-social means his philosophy or image of man upon the rest of men and philosophers, if only because by doing he he would succeed both at terminating the possibility of other philosophers as well as probably end up, in the abyssal nature of life and world, in the non-entity of so many human things, realize only the errors and limits of his philosophy rather than his high points and true realities. But the other side of it is that the philosopher is perhaps the only one capable at all of thinking, and for this reason I would see philosopher as able to govern well where other men merely play out illusions and pathologies upon each other in their own incapacity for properly thinking. The philosopher as ruler not because of his specific philosophy but because of his pure capacity for understanding, vision, and authenticity, his "moral uprightness" and moral superiority.

The moral superiority of philosophers to me is a strange idea. Philosophy is higher than morality.



The left's triumph over culture has created the most braindead conformist anti-philosophic population the earth's ever seen; the lunatics who burned the library of Alexandria were better than people these days. Leftists aren't burning one library, they are burning Western culture itself. One of the weapons of leftists these days is identity politics. Identity politics is about using concepts like misogynist or racist that have been redefined through post-deconstructionist and critical techniques in order to lump people into boxes that are more easily silenced. Racism has been redefined based on a nebulous theory of power, so that blacks cannot be racist toward whites because they don't have as much "power" as whites, even if they are exclaiming that whites are naturally disposed to evil and tyranny. It's a bizarre and meaningless concept. Also, the term racism is reapplied to an equally nebulous concept of "institutions" rather than individual people, so that lots of individuals can also be classed as racist if they are part of the institution, like the white majority. Same with misogyny. This technique has been used on Trump from every angle; he's a racist misogynist sexist fascist Nazi ableist Islamophobe. I do not think as you said in a PM that the media created him. He considered running many years ago and did very well in the polls, like 15 years ago, but didn't go through with it. I don't even see why he's so controversial. He wants to close the border to mass Muslim and Mexican immigration.  "essentially merge with neoconservatives on the trade deal.." Yes, they do; but Trump does not, he's against it. He's not even really a Republican, he's been in the Democrat and Reform party before. He's running Republican now because he thinks he can get the nomination on that platform, once he gets the republican nomination you will see that his approach will change for winning the general election.


You should look into more research on the nuclear family. It is integral. The collapse of it has resulted in the fuck up. The destruction of the father role has deformed black culture and is mostly responsible for where they are today. It's effect on females is that, lacking a paternal figure, women are stuck trying to find one in their sexual lives and make everyone including themselves miserable because they never find what they're looking for. Guattari is completely wrong on his assessment of the family structure, and the attack on concepts like these is what I am talking about. He is also using one of these strange re-definitions of "oppression." It speaks to the contempt that has been bred for masculinity in general. 90 percent of homeless runaway children are from fatherless homes, 80 percent of rapists come from fatherless homes- rape is often an expression of males lacking a center in a paternal figure and never learned through him how to express their anger, 60 percent of suicides are from fatherless homes, 90 percent of repeat arsonists live only with their mothers, the majority of ADHD and developmental disorder cases are from fatherless homes (hence the dramatic increase in autistism and adhd as the family structure further degenerates, 90 percent in chemical abuse centers are from fatherless homes, 85 percent of youths in prison are from fatherless homes, I could keep going with statistics like these for a long time. So I don't see how the majority of people raised by a conventional father and mother as you say turned out fucked up and hate their parents, if 90 percent of the fuck ups in society are generated outside of rather than within the "irrational" family structure. We're not bonobos, who exist with basically no structure or family unity and fuck everything, we're Chimpanzees, extremely hierarchical and structured. Deprived in childhood of that structure, the psyche just doesn't organize properly. Also, gender normalization isn't a problem for me because I believe in female and masculine, hard-wired biological nature; female nature isn't normalized it is normal. Certain parts of the male brain are wired to parts they are not wired to in the female brain and vice versa. Evolution has balanced power through different psyches between the genders, due to our different historical rolls. We have different psychoactive hormones running through our heads. Females and males express distinct natures throughout all times and world cultures, etc.


The concepts the Left attacks, like the family or gender rolls, are what made the West triumph on the world-stage and brought us to the highest point yet attained in the history of the species. Deconstructionism itself even as a theory of critique is bankrupt, it's just about conceptualizing power-structures you pull right out of your ass like "patriarchy" and then using them to make connections between things that aren't actually connected, so that you can can call whatever you want racist or misogynist. Besides deconstruction, the Left borrows a lot from Marx, they just replace gender for class in the class conflict for example. Or race, etc.

Adding on to this, "whereas I also see the right having triumphed over culture as well in typically capitalist arenas including the inability of large firms or their CEOs to be brought before the law for financial abuses and market manipulations, for the lack of antitrust enforcement and essentially the death of small business as we know it, and the near-complete absorption of the worker within the corporation as mere functionary of the corporation, basically the end of "worker's rights". Unions still exist but are largely symbolic and at this point already dying out. Workers are totally dependent upon the corporation they work for and cannot rock the boat for fear of simply being dismissed; there has been a parallel rolling back of whistleblower protections that prevent workers from exposing illegal or immoral practices, including within the dairy and meat production industries which have recently succeeded in convincing lawmakers to make it illegal to secretly film animal abuses within their facilities. "

...An important point to add here is that corporations now essentially create culture. Culture itself became a thing able to be capitalized upon, from so many different angles. This is a right-oriented swing to the capitalistic commodification of cultural objects, icons, impulses and ideas. I say it is right-ward because created objects of culture or cultural modalities tend to be regressive, conservative, atavistic and placid in nature, rather than authentically revolutionary, emancipatory or novel. The Right is exampled in how corporately created culture objects today are designed to appear "authentically revolutionary, emancipatory or novel" without actually being so. To me, this is a further indication of the collapse of the Left at least in the arena of culture today... we have kids obsessed with anti-conformity wearing Che t-shirts and listening to Rage Against the Machine, after all. This whole counter-culture movement was engineered within capitalistic limits and is inherently conservative-right in its philosophical structure, not because this movement or its practitioners advocate conservative-right politics, which they often do not, but because the politics they do advocate and get involved in are basically empty expressions with no real power and no real intrinsic motivation or basis in knowledge or coherent subjectivity, essentially these people and movements are secondary empty expressions of capitalistic-corporate object-creation where in this case those objects are simply images, attitudes and ideas as mixtures of culture and politics. This has created a situation where the liberal side of politics has essentially lost anything like a genuine Left element, and is largely empty and symbolic now. Their cries for equally, emancipation, revolution against the injustices and irrationalities of capitalism, these are basically pro forma at this point, they dont really mean anything at all.

This further instantiation of a collapse of the images, attitudes and objects of culture and politics into a default conservative-right commodified modality, even and specially where these images/attitudes/objects appear as if they were aligned to the left, is one reason that I see there are not really any Left anymore and simply are shades of Right. Nothing is really seriously questioned anymore except within the "postmodern", and as you point out even much of that "critique" is largely senseless, merely reactionary emotional ejaculations of unthinking conformity-pressure.

Also I am not disputing that the nuclear family plays an important role. Again, I highly value the idea of family, but I see in practice that families are usually shit. People simply arent qualified or prepared to raise another life, and the fact of having to do so is a huge imposition that essentially fucks up the parents along with the child, because the whole system is essentially unconscious, unquestioned and assumed to be "good" despite no actual education or thought or standards going into it whatsoever. I am saying that the nuclear family is also a fucked up system of tyranny and existential closure and control, enforcement of repressive unthinking norms and taboo-like stuff just for the sake of it. As the nuclear family collapses further we would need to of course find an alternate new way of organizing child-rearing, to address those concerns in the stats you raise. But another factor is that families with only one parent tend to be poorer and low SES, which is probably in many cases the main or at least a significant underlying factor for all those detrimental things you noted with those stats. I wonder if one divorces the numbers of single parent families from SES concerns the same patterns of detrimental outcomes would appear.

There's no theory of the family, the nuclear family or dynamics involved, just like there is no theory on gender and sexuality, and just like there is no basic theory of subjectivity although your own philosophy is working on that. But I see the family, gender, these only exist because there were necessary in the past, not because they have any established philosophical value or justification. Clinging to these old forms without a philosophical justification, value or system of understand would be like building a space shuttle without a science of astrodynamics and jet propulsion theory. It just doesn't make sense to me, but of course I understand the historical necessity and its continuance into the present. I do, however, think that historical continuance should be challenged where possible and its errors and damaging unconscious irrationalities replaced with knowledge, theory and better forms of familial or generally social dynamic organizations, in particular around child birthing and rearing. But I don't think there are any realistic alternative organizations yet, which is fine; the old forms will obviously continue for a long time because there is no serious alternative, but I am more interested in questioning and exploring these forms themselves, toward the eventual end that something better is produced. I cannot accept things simply because that's the way they've been or because no serious alternative can as yet be proposed.

On Trump, yes I should have said that the media didn't create him but rather created the sensation of him. The name recognition and constant free press is what led to him becoming a phenomenon. Name recognition is the larger part of political appeal, which is one reason why politics is usually so fucking moronic. See a guy's name a thousand times and you're going to feel an inclination to vote for him, at least that's how it goes for most people.

"Also I am not disputing that the nuclear family plays an important role. Again, I highly value the idea of family, but I see in practice that families are usually shit. People simply arent qualified or prepared to raise another life, and the fact of having to do so is a huge imposition that essentially fucks up the parents along with the child, because the whole system is essentially unconscious, unquestioned and assumed to be "good" despite no actual education or thought or standards going into it whatsoever. I am saying that the nuclear family is also a fucked up system of tyranny and existential closure and control, enforcement of repressive unthinking norms and taboo-like stuff just for the sake of it. As the nuclear family collapses further we would need to of course find an alternate new way of organizing child-rearing"






There is no alternative, as there is no alternative to our primate biology. You could give the State a bunch of extra power so that kids could be raised communally, I suppose. Obviously that alternative nauseates someone like me.


Poorer households with two parents still do better than more well off one parent households, as far as child delinquency and stuff of that nature is concerned. Many statistics exist on this subject. Either sons or daughters raised by a single mother do even worse than the same raised by a single father.


Take a girl who has a past of failed relationships, a girl who purposely goes after the shittiest males, who they know at some level aren't going to remain faithful and are probably going to turn out abusive, and 9 out of 10 times the girl either didn't have a father or she had a shitty one. The male is imprinted on by them as the standard by which future males are assessed for being a romantic partner. If she had no father, there is a void they fill by looking for really exciting but unreliable males who won't be there, and if the father was abusive, they look for males who will treat them him shit because it allows them to psychologically fight back to gain a sense of control, and they relive their traumatic experiences that way. It seems biological to me.

Most of my writing is on subjectivity, which does transform and change through the interaction of individual and culture/society throughout history, but my thoughts on psychology are basically hard-evolutionary in their stance. Most of the material for our personal behavior, our gender relations or familial structure for example, is hard-wired by our primate ancestry. The whole reason why I like females so much and talk almost exclusively to females is that I hold them to contain fully one-half of the story of humanity, a half that I will never be able to access or speak about on my own, as a male. Everything about males I can learn on my own by observing myself, but that male half of the story only makes sense and attains its full meaning when combined with the knowledge females possess. It's integral that instead of deconstructing the gender roles we do the opposite, we more fully develop them philosophically so that at some point the sexes can truly come to understand one another. In order for a dialogue between the male and female psyche to truly begin, what we share must be developed- the subject, subjectivity as I am writing about it in its four stages of transformation.


It is important to note this difference I make between subjectivity and psychology. Our primate ancestors don't really even have a subjectivity, but they still have a great part of our own psychology- we share a lot of the latter with them. You can learn almost everything you need to know about human social behavior by observing fucking chimpanzees.


--"But I see the family, gender, these only exist because there were necessary in the past, not because they have any established philosophical value or justification."

This only makes sense as a statement if you take things like gender and family to be socially constructed. I oppose social constructionism in every way. They exist because they are unalterable physical realities. Their philosophical justification is the same as the one behind not expecting to go into outer space by jumping- gravity is an unalterable physical reality that will pull you back down to the earth. Every other animal on earth has specific gender rolls and familial structures that it has evolved, why people expect humans to be different perplexes me. The way we consciously relate to that unconscious nature is what characterizes our species and where our higher emotions come from, we do not have the power to change that deeper biological reality. Marx said philosophy must change the world rather than talk about it. He is incorrect, if talking about it will eventually take us to understanding it. Philosophy has to understand the world. This idea that you can change the world, our actual biological material, the structure of the familial unit or the way the genders relate to one another and exist, will never succeed: try and do that with gorillas or chimps, you'll make the same progress as you will attempting to do it with human beings. Our psychology cannot be changed- the evolved neurological structures responsible for what we see as various social organizations like gender relations or the family unit; what can be changed, what I have written of in its various changes, that is, subjectivity, transforms how we relate at a conscious rather than unconscious level to that physical reality that has been evolved in us. We start out relating to ourselves and this nature mostly unconsciously, and slowly progress through the topos to reach self-understanding as a species. Man's true nature is consciousness, which he alone has- how he consciously relates to himself and his evolved being, and that nature has not yet been fully reached. That is what my category of reification is: this conscious relation transforms both terms in the expression; the way we relate consciously to our biological nature changes both our consciousness, our conscious capacity to act, and the unconscious drives that compel us to act.




Families have become shit in the last 100 years because of many reasons. Public schooling is a big one- shithead kids spread their shithead ideas to everyone else's kid. If schooling took place at a local level it would be better for children's psychological well being. Things like bullying could be handled- in the public system there isn't much anyone can do about it. The simultaneous destruction of other values and concepts by Leftist ideology has also compromised people's basic morality and ability to raise children or even themselves. Feminism has destroyed the male role in society, which is a big part of it, so that men never learn anything about themselves and have no avenues through which to adequately express what their masculinity is, so you have these shit fathers produced that'd rather go re-live the virile childhood they never had by fucking playing around with a nice car or a motorcycle of something, constructing their stupid man caves. It amuses me that men get relegated to a single room in their house or need to constantly apologize and be a bitch for having a hobby. Males with misplaced anger and unconscious masculine psyches don't raise very good kids. Why you would blame the concept, the reality of the family itself is strange to me, when there are all of these other factors that can be blamed for compromising what was once a very productive unit of social cohesion. The problem is men have all the desire for sex and women have all the power to dispense sex, so what happens is males have to change who they are in order to appeal to women, they repress themselves- when this repression is encourage by society, you have feminism. The solution to that in the ancient world was really simple, males just used their physical and political power to suppress women, they beat them over the head with a club and dragged them into their cave, and that way they could have sex when they wanted but they didn't have to alter their nature or behavior in order to be appealing. Obviously that's not a solution. The only reason why the problem exists is that males do not understand females, and vice versa, and feminism is only making that misunderstanding worse. If females understood males they wouldn't want us to behave in a way so opposed to our nature. Males say shit like my wife doesn't let me do such and such anymore, whatever it is, playing video games maybe. What if a male told a woman, yeah I don't want you doing yoga anymore because I think it's fucking stupid a waste of time and I don't get it? Instead of feminism, it would be better to accept that sex differences exist beyond a merely social level and actually explore the underlying biology and psyche of males and females. Of all the things that have turned the family structure into something bad, it is the loss of the male role which is the worst.



There are many theories of sexuality and gender, both in biology and in philosophy, although a single unified theory does not exist. The theory behind the family is basically that we're talking chimpanzees and we self-organize into hierarchies that mimic those in our primate ancestors. The reality behind gender is that male and female brains are wired differently; gender differences are mostly biological and neurological, not socially reinforced through normalization. Masculine and feminine nature is as physical as the respective genitalia that symbolize them.

"Their cries for equally, emancipation, revolution against the injustices and irrationalities of capitalism"

Emancipation from what? Who needs equality? Their cries are meaningless only because their complaints are meaningless.


The blacks in this country are fucked for example, not because of capitalism, but because of things like the destruction of the family structure.


Poverty was declining by 1 percent a year in the 50's. We had liberal ideology influence the state to create programs to combat poverty through socialist inspired policy because I guess it wasn't being solved fast enough, and now the poor are completely fucked. The only reason the 1 percent exists is because, through the same state intervention, our economy has been limited in its expansive potential, so they have to keep all of their capital safeguarded in banks instead of reinjecting it through investment into the economy.

One thing on Trump. Everyone gets called a misogynist or a racist so much that they have just gotten sick of even trying to be all hyper-sensitive and inclusive, so they're electing someone who comes right out and says fuck Muslims and let's build a wall on the border. Trump exists because the Left has re-created racism and misogyny in such a way that basically everything can be classified as racist and misogynistic, so people are not even going to try and meet these absurd standards anymore. They are so sick of being called out on micro-aggressions that they are ready to do some macro-aggressing. He called Rosie O Donnel a fat pig- which she is, and that gets translated into misogyny, which used to mean the hatred of females as a gender, not the hatred of a specific woman, or in Rosie's case, pseudo-woman. Insulting one particular female you're having a personal feud with is not misogynistic. Calling a male a dickface is not misandrist, calling a woman a stupid cunt isn't misogyny. If I said all women need to be hidden in a hijab and executed after being raped to save their honor, that would be misogynistic. Rejecting illegal immigrants is not racist. Rejecting Muslims isn't racist- Islam isn't a race, it's a set of ideas, practices, and beliefs we have every right to despise.

I was reading about Alphago's victory, and came across this comment in the article:

----
Michael Cook, an AI researcher at Goldsmiths, University of London, noted in an op-ed in the Guardian that AI inherits human biases because it is developed by humans.

"When those humans are primarily white, male, middle-class computer scientists then that causes further problems," he wrote. "Right now it’s innocuous slip-ups, like not noticing that your selfie analyser is regurgitating your data’s white, Western standards of beauty."

That means researchers risk multiplying their own flaws if they're not careful about what they use AI for and don't think more broadly about how it can be used.
-----


That's the fucking dumbest thing I've ever read in my life.

It is apparent to me now that the concepts available for use in thinking and discussing politics, political economy, geopolitics etc. are inadequate to reflect the realities of these things. This was my suspicion for a long time, and one of the reasons that politics never much interested me; we simply lack a good conceptual vocabulary when it comes to this.


Quick statement of values regarding Trump: he treats all people of a religious group as exactly the same and without admitting distinctions within that group label, as if these people were a foreign army against whom we have declared war, which is just insane; he says he wants to increase the use of torture and go s lot farther with torture, which is not only not helpful in terms of military intelligence gathering but also immoral and against international law (he compares the US not using torture to ISIS using torture as if we aren't "harsh" enough like they are, thus depleting our own moral superiority by reducing us to the moral stature of what ISIS does), which is also insane; he says he would target and kill the families of terrorists, basically admitting he would kill innocent men women and children for their "crime" of being just related to a terrorist, which is also absolutely insane. I see the guy as a blatant narcissist and possible sociopath who is well on the way to destroying the political party he pretends to be a part of, despite not that long ago he was in the opposite party and giving money to democrats like Clinton. He is a dangerous and morally insane, philosophically bankrupt person who uses just about the lowest form of rhetoric to rule people's emotions that I've seen since watching old videos of Hitler. But despite all that, otherwise reasonable people still seem to like him for some unfathomable reason - mostly because he plays up the stupid image of an outsider, a rebel, a don't-give-a-fuck attitude and talks tough.. basically it's just an empty personality game of dick-measuring at this point, Trump is more fit for a politics of which kid gets to rule the playground after school.

That's my take on it anyway, as a quick sum up. Otherwise I don't have much interest in continuing the lines of discussion already laid out, I had a large reply written but didn't bother to send it, I can't see the use in doing so. I'll spend more time researching and thinking into the concepts and realities of what we call the political, hopefully with the result of actually being able to raise the discourse to a meaningful, sane and non-pathological, non-polarizing (false reduction of contents to black and white categories that do not in fact reflect the realities those categories pretend to reflect) level. It's just tiring and really stupid to keep plodding through the shitty half-formed, barely conscious "ideas" that currently govern the larger part of the possibility of political discourse.

I will just wrap up my position after a rebuttal on Trump being a sociopath.


Reasonable people don't like him for that rebel factor, they simply think he's correct in his assessment. It's simple. In the case of his sociopathy, he simply recognizes what war actually is. As far as Trump killing the families of ISIS members, that is necessary. Nazi Germany was defeated because we carpet bombed their cities and everyone in them, annihilating the infrastructure behind their war machine. Hundreds of thousands of non combatant men, women, and children were destroyed in that process. The actual male soldiers that are fought on the battlefields are replaceable, it doesn't matter how many you kill they will just breed another wave. It is integral to destroy their infrastructure and source of funding, their oil in the case of ISIS ( and Trump will bomb their oil-fields as well); it is also integral to destroy them at the level of the civilian class, to prevent another wave of fighters from being created. This is a merciless and indeed horrific act, but it is only through this act that the Nazis were defeated. This is the only way that war can be waged. The soldiers on the battlefield are not the real enemy- they are infinitely replaceable. If the Nazis were faced with the same policies being used today, they would not have been defeated. There is no such thing as half-war. If we are at war with ISIS, then we are at war with ISIS, and must bear the full moral weight that going to war entails. The vocabulary here is very adequate: you have to kill the mothers, so new warrior sons can no longer be created; you have to destroy their cities, so they cannot manufacture new weapons of war; you have to destroy their population, to prevent its reconstitution. This is why people say war is so ugly, because it is, incredibly ugly. I personally couldn't carpet bomb cities and kill all those civilians: but the fact that someone did is why Germany lost. No amount of philosophy will ever be able to think us out of this brutal necessity. If all you do is kill enemy soldiers you're never going to get anywhere. They kill a big name ISIS fighter or a couple of guys with a precision drone strike and celebrate like it fucking means anything.



And maybe this Muslim likes chocolate ice cream, this one likes vanilla, we're all snowflakes at a certain level I suppose. But the founder of their religion was unfortunately a child-raping serial killer and the ideology he came up with is a piece of shit. They caught the last guy involved in the Paris massacre the other day, he was being hidden in plain sight by essentially an entire community of Muslims. Like I said before, they form these little micro-communities in the places they are migrating to that the police won't even go into anymore. They knew the guy was involved in the murder of more than 100 people and they still shepherded him from house to house for four months. I can't lie to myself and pretend I want these people in the US. We have no obligation to accept their entry either.


He recognizes that letting tens of millions of illegal immigrants into your country is ridiculous, as every other country outside of the US and places in EU recognize. Try to illegally immigrate to Australia and they ship you off to an island made almost entirely out of bat feces. He recognizes the danger of the migrant crisis and that they must be blocked. He recognizes a cultural incompatibility between Islam and the West.




Things like gender and the structure of the familial unit are simply not socially constructed, they arise from our biology and are essentially unalterable. All the research I have looked into affirms this. The basic problem with Leftism, Marxism, and Feminism, is that they imagine that society is a construct that organizes the psyche of human beings, programming us in a way; or, as Marx said- history is the story of class struggle. The opposite is true, as the advances in biology and natural science have demonstrated. Society is an emergent organization, that mirrors our genetic endowments as a peculiar variety of primate. Society and social structures are not causes of behavior, they are effects of our biological design; gender is not a construction somehow normalized by how we raise people or interact, it is the physical difference in brain wiring, relative size of different brain modules, hormone differences, etc. between males and females. The entire catalog of leftist philosophy just seems to not recognize that we're fucking talking monkeys, that we have an evolutionary history that has embedded a specific psyche in our heads that expresses itself a certain way in society.


You could as easily change the social, gender, and familial structures of gorillas or lions as you could those of humanity. In philosophy we can become subjects, through abstraction-- philosophy is about subjectivity to recall my differentiation of psychology and subjectivity: but in politics and basically everything else, we are just psyches, one form of animal with one specific psychology. If we did not have this limit, we would never be able to form into anything. We would be blobs of redundant protoplasm. No form exists without limit, no structure can exist without finitude.


The nature of masculinity has been well developed over the thousands of years, we have a great cultural, literary, and philosophic legacy. I want women to drop the anti-scientific and insane feminist bullshit and work on articulating their own nature through a similar legacy. I want to advance the capitalist system into the next stage of its development. I want the moral relativist leftist shit to go away so a new ethos can be created for man and a corresponding culture Renaissance.



Therefor politics to me is simple: it is about preserving the State, whereas culture is about producing genius. Any combination of state-power with culture is to be avoided to me. Philosophy will never be able to think within the limits of political discourse, because politics is not an academic enterprise: politics is about how humans are going to interact in reality, and requires the acceptance of our biological nature in order to get anything done. When philosophy attempts to become political, because it can never fully accept the reality of our biological primate nature, it ends up producing nonsense, like feminism. As with the war example: philosophy recognizes that having to destroy hundreds of thousands of civilians is evil, but politics recognizes it must be done, otherwise the Nazis would still be around. That's why I don't want philosophers with political power, or philosopher-kings: even if a philosopher could avoid becoming a tyrant, it would be just as bad, because philosophy cannot accept limits, philosophy breaks through constraints, it reorganizes and recreates concepts, it leaves nothing unchanged. While our subjectivity- the way we relate ourselves to ourselves in Kierkegaard's phrase, can be changed, our biological reality cannot; this is why philosophy and politics, the state and culture, must be separated, to me.


Because philosophy has a tendency to recreate and revalue everything it comes into contact with, when it is merged with politics it often ends up destroying perfectly valid and valuable systems. That's why academia is destroying the very freedom of speech that brought it into existence. If philosophy and politics are going to learn to work together, the trajectory society is on right now is not going to achieve it. These feminists and super leftists are insane. The idea that gender is just something socially constructed, a basic premise of most feminist ideology, is incompatible with reality.


You're concerned with polarizing and lumping things into categories because you approach politics philosophically. In philosophy I also share that concern, my desire is to see everything in its individuality, singularity, uniqueness. But when you assess the human situation, when you approach politics in that way, you will err. For politics is about organizing, not the subject, not the souls of humans, but their biological primate substratum, and that primate tends to lump into very regular categories.


There's a group of people and on average they act a certain way and believe certain things. Philosophically it may be valuable to recognize them in their individuality, but politically it is necessary to note the general tendencies of the group itself and act from there, rather the group is men, women, Muslims, or Americans. This whole thing about ensuring we look at everyone in their individuality and ignore the tendencies of groups is politically suicidal.

Some more Islamic peace today in Brussels.

And to re-emphasize, I don't hate all Muslims. I despise the ideology of Islam for being a totalitarian expansionist theocratic piece of plagiarized Abrahamic afterbirth conceived by a child-raping serial killing cousin-fucking retard. (fucking a cousin is encouraged in the text of the Koran, especially if she's under 12 years old) Given the fact that Islam is a faith pernicious to civilization, it simply follows logically that those people who whole-heartedly believe in its text, rather they are brown, black, or white, will be less than ideal specimens of humanity. I'm well aware that plenty call themselves Muslims and don't take the text of their religion or even their religion itself very seriously, it is just a tradition and they were born into it. It's irrelevant. They aren't the one's mobilizing the ideology or influencing world history in its name. The Koran itself calls for an unlimited offensive to the purpose of subjugating the entire world under the Islamic law, so fuck it and everyone who believes in it. Like I said, a lot call themselves Muslims because they were born into a tradition, I'm not talking about them; I am talking about those who whole heartedly believe in and aim to live by the words of the Koran.


Also. The Koran teaches that one of the deadly sins is immigrating to a non-Muslim country. The reasoning it gives is that, exposed to non-Muslims, one might grow accustomed to them and drift away from Islamic teaching. The only excuse given for a Muslim migrating to a foreign land is for the purpose of subjugating the people there, proselytizing, spreading Islam in some way. They're encouraged to out-reproduce their host society in that case, among other things. It's not a conspiracy that Islam aims to subjugate the planet earth under a global caliphate, the Koran says that's a goal of Islam in black and white.


I can't stress enough the following point. Integration is possible when cultures are basically compatible, like the Romans and the Greeks. There are serious dangers in attempting to fuse Islamic and Western culture.


Just remember, in a lot of places I'd be swiftly executed for saying what I've said in this thread.

Don't worry, I'm doing some research and reading, and thinking on these issues. I still want to reconcile politics to philosophy, not only politics as it is but as it ought to be.

So to some of the key ideas, if we accept it the way as you lay it out we can establish the principle that philosophical considerations based on individual treatment of people, which I would argue from a moral (universal, rational and consistent) position, needs to be to some extent bracketed or deliberately curtailed for the sake of political realities. In this sense we must admit there is an unbridgeable divide between what philosophy is and what politics is; this comes to the fore also in the idea that gender, sex and perhaps other factors are "biologically fixed" (genetically absolute) and therefore participate in philosophy from the perspective of actually determining philosophy's possible ranges, not the other way around (philosophy cannot over-determine gender, sex, whatever else can be established as "genetically absolute"). Furthermore we have the issue of Islam and it's basically rape culture, for lack of a better word, at least in cases of ISIS and places like Saudi Arabia. Violence on the part of Muslims can be labeled "extremist" and seen as a reaction against western imperialism that has been ongoing in its more or less present form for a half-century, but one also needs to account for 1) what is it about Islam, if anything, that makes if prone to being victimized by imperialism and capitalist aggressions, namely is Islam culturally or socially or psychologically or technologically prone to inferiority of development, or are there truly religious war-like dynamics between Islam and Christian-secular societies, or is it a case of the west got there first (social development) and simply exercises power in this respect of having more power, and where does that break down along differences of arbitrary factors (climate, resources etc) vs significant ones (innate value of the culture and history, it's basically philosophical value and capacity), and 2) what is it about Islam itself that might be said to cause either violence as "terrorism" (from their view, "freedom fighters") or the rape culture thing (non-consensual sex with wives and bought or conquered slaves)?

It is clear that westernized Muslims are possible and that Islam is at least possible to be adapted to a more moderate semi-integrated model within western societies; but I have no sense for the inner reality of these semi-integrated more moderate instances, I don't know why goes on behind the scenes or how deep the integration goes. Typically religion is strong enough to provide the primary bond on a person even if they move elsewhere or associate differently, although that weakens and can break down across generations (I.e. Christianity fractured in the Reformation and later into secular Christianity we have today). Islam is a religion and like religions is prone to evolving over time and based on existing pressures, such as being present in a western non-Islamic society. But realistically the attenuation of Christianity took place over many hundreds of years, whereas Islam doesn't have that luxury of hundreds of years to try and figure out how to attenuate itself rationally assuming it would actually do so given the opportunity.

In a sense the west has created Islamic terrorism, but in another sense the religion of Islam is barbaric and seemingly allows slavery, rape (what they would call non-consensual sex with wives and bought or taken slave women), and basically no legal or cultural system of women's rights or equality of any sort, it seems that the attenuation of Islam may never be given the time and context-pressures it would need to realize a more sane and rational model. That is the case even though it is also a fact that western aggressions and imperialistic hegemony and "Pax Americana"-like realpolitik have basically created a situation where extremism is produced and encourages within many places around the world including the Middle East. The US sets up dictators or trains their armies snd supplies the arms, only to use those dictators as a later pretext for invading. Bin Laden was our friend, we hailed him as a freedom fighter and assisted him, he gave an interview on CNN only a few years before 9/11. Same with Saddam and many others.

So there are two sides really, or rather three, that I want to break down issues into-- Islam itself; the US-EU western imperialism and to what extent this is justified or represents an irrationality and perversion; and the intersection of these two, and what comes out necessarily from a consequence of that intersection independent of the two entities in question. I also want to examine geopolitical structure and political economy more directly and again toward reconciling these to philosophy, as I am convinced that these flow from philosophy anyway, if only from its absence. I'm also not yet convinced that gender/sex/etc. are totally biological, I think there is a social constructed role and a normative imposition based on atavism and conservatism within societies, and I think we need to better parse that distinction. After all the roles and ideas about both genders have changed substantially over history and can be quite different from one culture/society to another, indicating less of an absolute genetic basis for these. Besides, the argument that "it's natural" isn't necessarily an argument for its being better or even necessary, since it's technically possible to work against what "nature" made and forge things differently (to some extent we have already done that, with reason and thinking in general, splicing genes, breaking the circle of natural selection, etc.)... I see more of an imperative to break open the future in human terms rather than concede to the forms of the past necessities even if these are deemed natural (what is natural-necessary must still, I think, be justified in human-philosophical terms).

Anyway I will post more later on these ideas, it is really a ton and very 'heavy' and complex concepts to be working through.

Basically the individual, for me, is a subject of philosophic and moral concerns, while politics concerns groups and is a necessity due to the fact that groups of individuals have a natural right to organize themselves into a community with their own practices, values, and culture, which they also have a natural right to defend from the physical imposition of other cultures, either through actual warfare or something like mass immigration in the case of the present European crisis with Islam. This defense of the culture cannot be achieved without what we call a State, and politics is simply the science of forming, maintaining, and coordinating a State in a world filled with other States. Culture on the other hand emerges organically from the level of the contribution of the individual to the level of the group's response to that contribution, as a philosopher writes a text and gets a response, as an artist gets a response to his work. As the State protects one ethos or culture from other groups, so it also must protect that ethos from itself, hence freedom of speech, the separation of powers in the American constitution, or the provision for forming militias. When the State actively controls and organizes culture for itself, then we have National Socialism, then we have Nazis, and when it attempts to control and organize the material conditions underlying the formation of culture structures, then we have Marxism, socialism, communism. Right now in America we have the third experiment, liberal secularism, which simply creates a wall between the State and Culture, and in my opinion everything we see going wrong now is the result of this third path being inadequate, it has brought us to nihilism, moral and cultural relativity, vapidity, weakness. There must be a fourth experiment. Instead of building a wall between the two, we must reorganize their spheres of influence to create a feedback loop in which the State protects the ethos and in which the culture empowers the State- and to accomplish that, an authentic sense of communal life must be retrieved from the leveled discourse and impoverished alienation of the present era, to be pit against the nihilistic conformity of universalist ethics and secular morality and social justice-- an authentic sense of community that could be brought into existence, as my writing on the symmetry of alienation and the death anxiety posits, by integrating death into the structure of society, as the central item in a negotiation within Vico's historical triad.:


"The core of the following argument lies in linking the origin of the death-anxiety to pre-reflective
alienation instead of, as in psychology presently, a repetition-compulsion or
trauma whose antagonism with conscious desire emerges in reflectivity, for in
psychoanalysis the death-anxiety concerns only the individual and, as in Baudrillard,
death is necessarily excluded from social integration with regard to the species as a whole
(origin of capitalism): in this way the death-anxiety is grasped simply as the postreflective
neurosis originating in the pre-reflective alienation of the subject confronting its
own fragmented experiential-sensory universe, which I configure by appealing to
Holderlin's distinction between pre and post reflective division of human subjectivity
from the object, and which I use to counter the possibility of Heidegger for any kind of
dasein or passive revelation of Being to human subjectivity. In place of such passivity,
there is the activity of the daemon: its highest realization is love, more precisely
philosophic Eros, which represents a social integration of death, (since Plato, Death has
after all been the muse of philosophy) and I go over this conclusion in the last paragraph.
The social integration of death allows the subject to replace its alienated, solitary,
fragmented universe of experience with the alternative universe of a shared moral vision
bestowed by Eros to the Daemon, with love delivered to its own universe. That leads into
the second chapter about the transition from Greek-mythic consciousness to moral
consciousness, replacing the Logos with Law at the center of the silence-logos-myth triad
of Vico."

The Greek Triad was the original site of a negotiation with Being between silence and Speech, providing the narrative of mythic consciousness, of the Pagan godhead. Part of integrating death in heroic-daemonic love involves taking account of the advances made toward the transcendent topos in Judaism and Christianity.

" In the light of the Abrahamic religion the world
becomes the whirlwind that silenced Job- not something to be poietically refashioned in
the image of Promethean fire and the techne of knowledge, but an existential burden into
which one is powerlessly compelled, a dynamic movement whose activity continuously
aborts its own ground in the manner of the Kabbalistic-Lurianic shattering of the vessels
and which affords humanity the necessary abyss in which to discover itself, but never the
opportunity to simply allow "Being" to come into existence for the dasein of passive
open-ness as Heidgger imagines, for the task of revealing Being and allowing the world
to come to be belongs only to God. This ongoing dynamic tension and movement that
transcends its very object as is suspended within the structure of time itself at the
beginning of creation by God collapses any possibility for the narrative structure of
mythic or Greek consciousness to encapsulate the text: this is one of the secret meanings
in the first words of Genesis, barasit bara elohim, for barasit in this grammatical
construction must be paired to the corresponding noun yet "bara" is a transitive verb, ie.
"he created." therefor leading us to a grammatical paradox and erasure in that the verb
bara "he created" has no object, so that the sentence could be said "In the beginning of
[objectless expression] God created." One could also say: in the beginning of the creating
God created the [...] [erasure, no object given grammatically]. To apply a Lurianic
interpretation, this erasure indicates the Tzimtzum or self-concealment of God from
himself in order to create the initial negative space for creation to emerge within. Another
way of understanding it is that God itself is being designated as a kind of verbalization
and not as a noun- as an act rather than a being, and as itself the self-transcendent aim of
the Creation in-radiated within the creation. Heidegger reads the Greek tragedy as the
poetic formula for the original human orientation to Being, in which the polis or society
emerges as the fruits of technical application of knowledge, whereas in my account,
society emerges as the fruit of the moral framework in which the immanent-transcendent
topos is articulated. The Law of the Jews was the first mode of this dialogical integration
of humanity in the existential categories and burdens of the moral universe, with the
Christ supplanting the Law with agape, and the Gnostics fully developing the transference
of the name-given or nominative Being to the verbalized and active core of the
transcendent aim which is communicated in all the movements of nature and humanity,
namely the dual concealment and revelation of God."


Integrating Death also involves recognizing Eros in its finitude:

" The broken ruins of Greece or Rome call to the pleasure of our imaginative faculty that
Cassandrian whisper which was poured somehow, from who knows where, into our soul,
in the forgotten era of life's perfect unity, the integrity of an order implicate to nature
though somehow lost to the power of human reflection and which therefor cognizes itself
only in remembrance, only in these ruins, only in those exalted moments in which the
higher heart afflicts itself, in Dostoevsky's phrase, as our own hearts perhaps bend under
the weight of passion alongside these statues and proud obelisks as lie bent under the weight
of time, and overlook their own glory. It is to such a memory that the Platonics of course
ascribed the great drama of Eros, Beauty, and philosophy itself. Only through the
destructive, nihilating influence of this reflective logos can that sacred memory be
brought into focus, and, through the wide discontinuity of created things, as of man and
god, or freedom and necessity, and terms of this kind gradually progressing in scope and
depth, find a rich enough language for itself, by which it may be strictly delineated. It is
this fact which stands as the true genius of the Platonic philosophy, and in the present
understanding of the respective texts, the mighty dialogues, I find a great deal of
misunderstanding. The eidos or Idea, the Forms of Plato, stand as a fulcrum for such
broadening discontinuities, for a nihilating rupture into the unity of the cosmos by which
the infinite within us conquers the finite, in its pursuit for the unknown object of its love,
for its unknown source behind the whirlwind of time. We learn in Plato that this memory
of paradise, this love that does not even know what it longs after, is unreal, and has to be
discovered no object either in this world or the next, and that, in the end, so it happens
that the finite within us, namely Eros, is hardly powerless, and in turn does capture and
reorganize the erupting daemonic impulse we had taken as an impulse for the Truth, the
Eternal, and the Infinite, which, through the tragic depth of its love and finitude,
nevertheless proves to us that it is within human consciousness that the original source of
meaning, the perfect harmony of thought that forever remains un-thought, the very point
of philosophy's departure, is located, rather than in Nature, as the poets think, in Being as
the philosophers are deceived, or in Time, as the common man approves, which shatters
those Athenian monuments. This grasping of the heroic finite toward the infinite, and of
the infinite into the tragic depth of finitude, which Schelling refers to mythically as the
Will returning a particle of the remainder of the divine presence in the world into the
heart of self-consuming matter, and which Plato tabulates in the whole story of the
daemonic, of Eros' procession toward the world of Forms and return into matter, I have
taken it upon myself to systematize under the category of reification."


The younger Muslims in most places are more extremist then their migrant parents. In France for example, a fourth of the newest generation express support for ISIS. Not only is integration not working, but the children born in the West more frequently turn to extremism than their Syrian or Iraqi parents. How could that be? It must be due to the following. When the children get around age 18 and go into their rebellious phase, they return to the actual text of their religion, the Koran, and find that their parents are not living up to the standards and commands of the actual Islamic faith. When the new generation of Muslims turn to the basic text of the Koran, they end up becoming "radical" simply due to the fact that Islam in its pure unadulterated form is inherently radical, and rejects the coexistence of Muslims with non-Muslims, advocating for a global calliphate for example, or turning the anti-Muslims into tax cattle, to be allowed existence only by way of paying a tribute. The Christian Crusades for example were simply a defensive response against an aggressive Jihad that was initiated by Muslims in the Holy Land, and began only to restore Christian habitation in the Middle East. The Muslims started a crusade to convert the world to Islam, Europe started a crusade in response to convert the world to Christianity. It doesn't make the Christian Crusades morally right, but it still must be understood that Muslims started their crusade first.

It is true that religions change, but I believe Mohammed knew that and actively tried to build into his texts a defense against it. First of all, there is no Old and New testament Koran, so a Muslim cannot say, as many Christians do, that this or that unsavory passage was only in the past; the Koran's text is for all time. Also, while the Christian texts are deemed merely inspired, and survey the Infinite and God through the "dark glass" of human nature, and reflect a constantly changing and dynamic relation of man to the divinity, the Koran claims alone, of all the different faiths of the world, that its text was actually spoken by God word for word, syllable by syllable, into the ear of Mohammed. Thus, as a perfect text, it cannot be changed or improved upon.


With regards to gender, we learn more about masculine and feminine nature as history advances, but I have never read of or heard of a culture in the past in which women behaved like men and men like women, or even a culture in which women were drastically different than they are now. Society changes in scope and structure and so masculinity and femininity may express themselves differently, depending on the possibilities of their expression given the society. We know that every species of higher animal, ie. mammal, on the planet, has developed a very rigid and well defined behavioral pattern for the male and female, our closest primate ancestors included, and the idea that this fact would not hold for human beings alone for some reason seems very unlikely to me, especially given the fact that experimental psychology can so easily and so effectively predict the behaviors of women and men now, and that neuroscience confirms differences in brain wiring and relative lobe size between the genders, ie. women have more white matter and males have six times more grey matter, white matter being involved in connecting different kinds of knowledge and integrating many kinds of information as well as relating activity in the hemispheres, grey matter being involved in analytical processing of a single kind of knowledge or information.

The way it seems to me, individual and group/social are two largely independent (but entwined) entities, that co-create each other. The individual is a product of two things, its DNA leading to physiological structures of its organism, and the environment it is exposed to over time; the intersections between these two aspects are reciprocal and feedback each other in ways that spiral down into obscurity, for example a tiny and arbitrary environmental change at the right time in an individual's development can radically change that individual's future, activating or de-activating genes for example, and branching into new self-reinforcing logic tree structures of perceived possibilities that continue to unfold as time goes forward for that individual. To attempt to reduce life or human life to either the social or individual dimension alone seems impossible and erroneous to me. Without a social maturation field and subtle process of environmental influences there will develop no "individual" at all; likewise there is no "society" without the continued presence and influx of new individuals who instantiate and push that society forward over time.

This is why I cannot concede to an absolute or categorical distinction between individual (philosophy) and social-group (political). I see these as co-emerging and mutually dependent, also their entanglement as being fundamentally irreducible. Thus my focus on deriving politics from philosophy, which in your terms here would mean deriving the group-social structure (including how it impacts and creates-causes formations of individuals) from the conditions of individuals, namely the ontological, existential, and phenomenological realities of what life, consciousness, sentience, thought, and sentiment actually mean. Information pre-exists the individual and the individual immerses into the pre-existent information available to it upon being born and growing up; I think this is the real source of Heidegger's dasein, the fact that the individual is conditioned by and within an always pre-existent 'being' of information, ideas, habits, tropes, possibilities, etc. all of which contribute to what "being-there" can ever mean. The more pre-existent and unconsciously absorbed reality the individual is exposed to the more that individual can philosophically diversify itself and resist-deny to instigate greater delimitation inside and as itself, therefore creating more perspective, also more ideas and sentimental-emotional possibilities, and also therefore more routes to juxtaposing and reconciling one thing with another to ultimate produce a truth-impulse, or what we might call morality. To me, anxiety is the fact that this possibility and task is always present unconsciously-structurally and informs us at every moment, it is the specter of the task itself that haunts us and leads us to the conclusion that we are not ourselves.

Dasein in this way also speaks to the openness of being to its own self-possibilities, something other mammals and organisms don't really have. The "out there"-ness or supposed metaphysical stature of Being in Heideggerian parlance could simply be attributed to this "universalizing" condition of both the fact that causal realities for humans always pre-date human individuals as well as to the fact that information and society/culture are nebulous things and exist as instantiated diffuse-like across all individuals. So I want to understand politics as more than simply intergroup reconciliatory dynamics, I want to see politics as a veritable dimension of being and one that flows directly from the philosophical (existential, moral, ontological etc.). For example and speaking existentially-phenomenologically there are always certain ranges of possible forms available or unavailable and this is rooted factually or in a pure logical (tectonic) sense. My method usually involves converting the upper ontic threshold into pure tectonics, which I consider the opposite process of a material reduction or even of an eidetic Husserlian one. I associate deconstruction to my method and not to material reduction, just as I also associate deconstruction to your own daemonic anti-synthetic method of concept explosion and parsing. Basically I think the deconstructionists often approach from the wrong direction or proceed only destructively and toward entropic collapse, rather than as they ought to do and as their own method allowed to substantiate content reductions to greater thresholds of integration and truly phenomenological biconditional emergence and tectonic existential depth-productions that 'merge' not in the lowest reduction but rather in the highest convergences-- they reduce now down, but rather up, above thesmelves.

To the issue of socially-culturally integrating death, what specifically would this look like? I'm thinking of a science fiction I saw once where anyone who reached age 60 honorably killed themselves in front of family and friends, and this was a great honor and gave the individual meaning, a limit to their life, avoided suffering of prolonged age and avoided burden to family and society for caring for elderly and sick. Setting a limit like that is what comes to mind when you talk about integrating death, but I don't know if you mean it that literally or in what sense you see social or cultural death-integration?

On gender, I was thinking of theories of Amazon women, and of patriarchal versus matriarchal societies or leadership structures. Interesting note about brain sex differences. Looks like as one place I read put it, nature created two slightly different structures for being able to produce the same kind of intelligence and behaviors. Again, we now enter the realm of being able to alter our own DNA and through learning to attempt to push or alter otherwise stable or immutable structures and behaviors, intelligence, emotional learning, etc. We need a more comprehensive justification than simply the way things are/have been, because the impulse and power to change that givenness now exists to humanity.

I like how you lay out the infinite/finite. Reminds me a little of Lacan's Real/Symbolic distinction, how the pure Real is like a dimension that the symbolic posits as a consequence of applying its own logic to itself. That there is not really any pure nature as "Real" but nature is simply further removed orders of symbolizations.

Women have never been historically utilized as a warrior class, there are no Amazonians. Neither has there been any matriarchy, if there was then they all died because we don't have their relics. It is obvious why a society in those days would not send its women to go fight in a war. Without women they cannot reproduce new children to fuel the next wave of soldiers, women and more children are integral in providing the replaceable male units that become fighters.


As to genetic re-engineering, it is likely that the genome of an animal exists as a holistic entity, if you change parts of it dramatically I fear that other unexpected genes will shut off and terminate the would-be life-form.


There is no Heideggerian passive witness of Being in my philosophy, something he took from Holderlin's concept of the unity of nature before man gained consciousness and introduced the rupture of negativity whose painful memory all philosophy merely reiterates- which I also reject. Instead of Being appearing to primeval man out of the unity of Nature, there is a "catastrophic division of the surplus-energetics of Becoming into subject and
object, in the ceaseless whirlwind of forms at what I call the nucleus of wonder and terror," which encouraged man in the formation of the bizarre death-cults from before recorded history. Attempting to deconstruct the forms of our present society, rather they are masculinity and femininity or the familial unit or a specific political schema, in order to look back into an imagined unity of the cosmos outside of the constructed historical narrative, or for a perfection before the rupture of human consciousness into the universe, for Being itself, then, is in my philosophy quite dangerous.


" The pre-reflective subject suffers alienation when cast out before the external reality of
Being in its catastrophic division of the surplus-energetics of Becoming into subject and
object, in the ceaseless whirlwind of forms at what I call the nucleus of wonder and
terror, in a period outside of the normal temporal continuum of reflective consciousness
as Leopardi speaks of, and it is this fact, rather than Freudian repression, that allows Eros
or desire to become initially separated from its true object, so that the enjoyment of our
immediate conscious desires brings us no satisfaction after we have entered into
reflectivity: our true, unconscious desire, as constitutes the real momentum of Eros, as
opposed to our false conscious one, is not the desire to preserve our ego and continue to
live which Freud concluded, that is, to hold on to our desperate existence, since the death-anxiety
belongs to the post-reflective state, but rather draws its psychic contents from the
pre-reflective contents in alienation. Eros or love then is not a movement toward
recovering a lost paradise, or an impulse toward biological continuance, or the impulse to
overcome death by fusing with the beloved by means of organic reproduction, but rather
the grief over the loss of something which, given the nature of the external catastrophe of
Being, we never possessed, which is somehow in its paradoxical antecedence to the
appearance of our desire integral to us and to the structure of our existence."

So instead of recovering some unity of nature, that is, Being without the lens of history, from the destruktion of culture which Heidegger envisioned, I instead associate Eros with the transcendent, "integral to the structure of our existence," from which the Christian myths arose and surpassed the Greek ones.

"Goethe preferred to call the mysterious quality, that is, the immortal energetics of surplus
underlying our apparently logical and conscious behavior, or the Freudian instinctual
reservoir, simply, the daemon- a power which, in Schelling's philosophy, becomes a kind
of cosmic property, to be grasped as the inarticulate melancholy of nature, which infuses
every blooming flower with the longing for God, toward which it sprouts forth carrying
an offering of something left over of the primal will, the remainder as Schelling calls it,
which it would like in gratitude to return to the creator, wherever he may be. Yet there
exists in that order of nature no power that can give this back, for in nature there exists no
power capable of katabasis or a re-descent into the ground of its own Being, a fact easily
defensible even from the Aristotelian physis of energeia within the temporal continuum:
it is only in man that eros appears, that demigod who is capable of embracing the past,
grappling at the margin of futurity, and clearing the passive mantle upon which we are
denied, in Kierkegaard's language, immediacy, or who in fact is capable of creating Time
in the first place, within which Being might be revealed, though not by the passive
revelation of a dasein as in Heidegger, for time itself is its own active creation, which
bears simply the structure of distortion consequent to its alienation from itself and Being;
eros, who, combining himself with the daemonic, accomplishes the task of organizing the
surplus-energetics toward the absolution of the divine. The eroto-daemonic, in the heroic
frenzy, returns the self again and again back into the primality of will in order to carry its
remainder through the energetics of surplus into another step toward the creator, that it
may be returned to God by the only true prayer that has ever been uttered, which is love- for,
as Unamuno said, love is a contradiction if there is no God: this oscillation is
responsible for the Platonic duality in Eros between suffering and joy, between tragic
corporeality and inspired frivolity, between the division of the self through self-alienation
and the integration of psychic life through the fusion of self and beloved. The stronger
Eros becomes, the more it dooms itself to failure, on the side of alienation and somatic
regression into the death-anxiety, while, in its weakness, the surplus energetics or
daemonism is allowed to overcome the fixation of Erotic passion, which is mistakenly
referred to as the reality-principle in Freud, through an infantile regression into
narcissistic fantasy."


The individual designates the human subject, subjectivity, in my philosophy, which is the way we consciously relate ourselves to ourselves, to our material conditions and physiology, to other people. Thus by the very nature of what subjectivity is, it stands isolated fundamentally, from not only society but also nature, and Being. This isolation is pre-reflective alienation, which in reflection becomes the anxiety of death, death symbolizing a final isolation. If death is integrated not merely reflectively but psychologically, then there is no alienation, and a new form of human communal existence can emerge as heroic love over death. Christ is the closest thing to what I mean by integrate death.

One other point of contention; this notion of Heidegger of a passive witness to Being, which again he derived from Holderlin's late romantic vision of a unity of nature before humans gained consciousness and introduced negation into what was a perfect affirmation- he simply calls it open-ness, makes no sense. We are constantly relating our conscious self to our material conditions and physiology, to other people and our surrounding environment, so that we are constructing an inward universe isolated rather than opened to Being. Philosophy is about pursuing subjectivity's transcendental specification, a subjectivity not so limited to the immediate objects of our perception.


"The real-ego is an empty reservoir that contains in post-reflection the contents of pre-
reflective psychic excitations, namely as the core of an unconscious death-anxiety which
contains a point of orientation to the Ideal-ego and expresses itself consciously as eroticism
and form-creation: the real ego thus takes over the role of what Freud called the Id, which
he proposed as the container of man's basic instincts or drives, while the ideal-ego
designates the ego in its transcendental subjectivity, that is, in its reification of pre and
post reflective subjectivity. The drives are replaced by psychic excitations successfully
cohered by the libidinal threshold of the real-ego, while those which lie outside its scope
are solidified as the libidinal-motive complex, which reverses the form-creating instinct
and creates a repetitive compulsion toward destruction, ie. a death-drive, as expresses
itself in what I call the tragic-daemonic, and which distorts the process of reifying
subjectivity, creating a differentiation into the various lower topoi or subjectivities, ie. the
epistemic, ontic, and immanent, with their corresponding intraversions or enfoldments."


And one other comment on this:

Attempting to deconstruct the forms of our present society, rather they are masculinity and femininity or the familial unit or a specific political schema, in order to look back into an imagined unity of the cosmos outside of the constructed historical narrative, or for a perfection before the rupture of human consciousness into the universe, for Being itself, then, is in my philosophy quite dangerous.



Ie. If there is no alternative to something like masculinity and femininity that is better, than this gender structure requires no justification. There is no alternative, for no pre-historical unity of Nature, no passive dasein exists to witness Being outside the structure of the historical narrative. The project of deconstruction for me cannot therefor be pursued. We must elaborate the present structures transcendentally, through that four fold schema I posited as an alternative to Hegelian dialectic, ie. affirmation-negation, negation-negation, negation-affirmation, affirmation-affirmation. History cannot be escaped from behind, only forward.