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

Fixed Cross wrote:: I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.

Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.

This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with some other state, in some form.

I don't put inter-state warfare down to malice, in most cases I think such war is the result of economic factors internal and inter-related to states combined with a political escalation of subtle psychological factors amongst leaders and between leaders and their people, such that "saving face" requires continuing the escalation rather than diffusing it. The end result of such political psychological escalation is open war, but it isn't malice that causes this to occur, rather the psychological effect of political realities that are still largely unconscious and depend on things like not appearing to be weak or back down; and again coupled with economic problems within and between states.

Those economic problems provide the ground on which those political psychological (pathological) factors such as needing to save face and not appear "weak" end up driving a gradual escalation of tensions until the point where the high level of tension sparks a military encounter, at which point the same pathological factors that led to gradual escalation now force escalation of military hostilities.

I don't give leaders or countries generally the kind of credit to suppose that something like war would be the direct result of something like malice. Leaders and nation-states generally are still far too unconscious for that.

Quote :: At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.

I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn't at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.

Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.

The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn't a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn't mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.

Quote :: The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking? I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don't see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don't think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it's on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really "understands" these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.

Quote :: Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is - all behaviors are 'instinctive' - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.

What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.

This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.

Literally, all that exists, is standards.

If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.

This goes to what I posted in Archives, we need to identify the means and meaning by which our own cultural values are instantiated as standard. Physically removing people who do not conform to our values already exists, we call it the criminal justice system and prison. The law exists to define a line within which differences of values are tolerated and outside of which they are not, and the law does include plenty of determinations as to a person's values beyond their actions, as it should. Muslims living in the west going to their Mosques and praying in public isn't a violation of our laws, and I don't think it needs to be. Enforcing integration at the point of a gun is sociopathic and fascistic in my view, and the mere fact that we feel a need to enforce it like that already indicates our own values and our faith in them has severely waned. The west is secular and tolerates a huge range of differing values-sets, and those we do not tolerate must be established in law as illegal.

Whatever it is that immigrants to the west do that is so offensive to us, those things must be clearly labeled illegal or we have no rational basis for pointing a gun at such people and demanding they leave. I agree that freedom is our "religion", but freedom is not absolute nor "God-given", and it's meaning does change over time. I also agree that western nations should set reasonable limits on the number of immigrants allowed in, and some western countries have clearly exceeded such a reasonable limit. But I don't think that justifies resorting to nationalistic xenophobic fascism. Again, the impulse to such a form of nationalism is pathological even if immigrants do indeed pose challenges to our societies.

We need to clarify our intentions toward Islam-- the nationalists are taking advantage of a huge gray area here, and the left-liberals aren't stepping in to demand clarity but are using that same avoidance of specificity to advance their own agendas.

What will the new laws be that we write regarding 1) Islam, 2) Muslim immigrants, 3) the teaching of Islam to children. The last one is the most problematic because it is so pressingly important and also there exists no historical context or legal precedent that I know of for doing this. Is it true that in Muslim countries and culture there are really no books except for the Koran? I've heard there are some kids stories and kids books, maybe a few, otherwise is it actually the case there are no other books but the Koran? That is insane if true. We can use such examples to inform the new laws we will write. And we can use the immanent danger to children as another solid reason, but then we're stuck with the problem of differentiating between teaching Islam versus other religious beliefs. Do we really want to make it illegal to teach any religion to children? I don't think we could do that even if we wanted to.

Fascism is when the immanent perception of need is supposed to outweigh our more general lasting and deeper values, and to collapse contradictions to one side only, the side based on immediate fear and need to "act". I want to avoid subverting our thinking to such a need, but that doesn't mean I don't see how pressingly important these problems are for Europe.

Capable wrote:: I don't put inter-state warfare down to malice,

Nor do I - I put it down to bureaucratic power, which is basically a power not backed by ontos.

I dont see how globalism would work without massive increase in bureaucracy, rather than massive decrease, which is a first prerequisite to sanity.

Did you read the Law of Parkinson link? Its an Englishman work that anecdotally, but credibly proves how bureaucracy can not avoid becoming bloated. But we only need to look with our own eyes.

Open war on the other hand is just the explication of valuing. It is much preferable, because it is always temporary, as well as actually existent.

Quote :

Quote :: At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.

I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn't at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.

Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.

The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn't a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn't mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.

I said that humans can only organize in groups, as equals, as individuals. This is the exact opposite of having overhead decision making processes.

Groups are, as you know, formed around values. They are similar valuings grouping together to become stronger.
Values are by definition differentiated though - they are very much product of the environment. And this is beautiful.

I find diversity beautiful, good, righteous, true.

Quote :

Quote :: The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking?

How can we know this of humans?
I kmow for a fact that I emotionally interact with animals ona sophisticated basis, and that with most humans, this is impossible.

I know no beings inner world except my own - I find the belief that one can know another humans motivations and inner workd to be pure superstition - humans differ from each other more than they do from animals.

All creatures feel pain, all warm blooded creatures emote. Birds have very complex cognitive processes in time, as proven by their ultra sophisticated behavior. Look at a crow solving a puzzle.

Only I experienced the creation of VO, but a raven was sitting in the windowsill, keenly observing me. Between that bird and me was friendship.

I dont care for people who disbelief in my friendships - philosophy can take so many forms that maybe two or three humans happen upon. That's what I share with Pezer - the love of the wild. It totally trumps any desire to control my fellow species. ALl I wish to do is to allow people to experience the wild, which is all that is needed to end fascistic impulse, which is all that is really needed in general. But to this modest end, everything that the highest men can summon is required. Because what we are attaining, slowly, philosophers and artists and all vital humans, is the end of slave-instinct.

It is the slave instinct thsat requires government, rather than friendship.

Friendship will be the rule of my kingdom. It is the rule of my kingdom. Step by sterp I expand my kingdom, utterly uncompromising, always placing the individuals self-valuing above universal ideas, always thereby selecting individuals that can endure other individuals.

The only thing that ever goes wrong in a society is having too many dependent people.

Student debt is a means of creating dependency, of destroying human resilience to humanity.

Ah yes - humanity, the phenomenon that means only resilience to itself.
In its very highest form, the principle of government comes down to the same. It can thus never be imposed top-down without contradicting its only justification.

A contradiction well have to live with, but the influence of which I will be minimizing with every post or article or book that I write.

Self-valuing logic virtually precludes bureaucracy; there is only one way in which it can work, which is as an extremely proud, thus self-correcting function of a very fluid entity. Empires in their prime have functioned as such, but because these empires were built on plunder, that phase was always short.

We've never had a vital bureaucracy based on production. I think that is because bureaucracy is essentially derivative. It is simply the element of laziness. It works fine with pride as long as there are immense violent gains, but when the lands are stripped bare, bucreaucracy consumes first its subjects, and then its lower ranks, then its mid ranks, and then turns to military fascism, and then kills itself in a conflict between various honorless factions. It is the road to absolute annihilation, as we're seeing in the middle east, which is a function of the bureaucratic "Peace Process"....

har har.
This is why we must be romantic not to turn cynic. Or why only romantic philosophers survive.

Quote :: I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don't see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don't think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it's on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really "understands" these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.

All mammals understand death. All mammals have complex emotions. I content that they are usually far more complex than human emotions, and that these mammals are far more conscious of what it means to exist than any human who spends more than 4 hours watching tv.

Ive seen my cats, two brothers, grow up and die, Ive seen them as they saw the death of one of them approaching, I saw them preparing the dying together, I saw the good-byes, I saw the mourning, I saw the psychological transformation, the depth increasing behind the eyes, the thoughtfulness of his gestures toward my sister, who was also sad..

Elephants treat death in a way that proves they are far more aware of what it is than we are. No walking self-valuing is unaware of itself, awareness is nothing besides self-valuing in a changing environment. Rather, it is the speaking self-valuings that have partially grown unaware, static; precisely because they began misunderstanding awareness as a static state, as 'contemplation' or 'reflection' rather than the most intense acting, which energy expenditure wise, it is.

You could tell me all of this is projection - but I assume you know me, and human nature, to well for this. Either all of it is projection, or we learn to trust our experiences as the only reality we have to work with. And when that happens, we begin to discern what we project and what is truly there.

That is how self-valuing came about as an idea.

Ill respond to the other segment on another post.

The above is summarized more or less in this;

The self-valuing principle is the only universal. All phenomena that are brought into being by this principle permutating itself so as to create being in time, are particulars.

Values are particular, so are self-valuings; they are synthetic functions of each other. Values and self-valuings together amount to self-valuing in terms of acting, and will to power in terms of being.

The will to organize the global value-grid in homogenous terms is perhaps the strongest will there exists, at least the most tyrannical one - but it is a will that if it will not bend, and thus must ultimately break; as all that does not bend does break. Especially light.

Then again, broken light is hardly wasted light.

Capable wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:: If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.

This goes to what I posted in Archives, we need to identify the means and meaning by which our own cultural values are instantiated as standard. Physically removing people who do not conform to our values already exists, we call it the criminal justice system and prison. The law exists to define a line within which differences of values are tolerated and outside of which they are not, and the law does include plenty of determinations as to a person's values beyond their actions, as it should. Muslims living in the west going to their Mosques and praying in public isn't a violation of our laws, and I don't think it needs to be. Enforcing integration at the point of a gun is sociopathic and fascistic in my view, and the mere fact that we feel a need to enforce it like that already indicates our own values and our faith in them has severely waned. The west is secular and tolerates a huge range of differing values-sets, and those we do not tolerate must be established in law as illegal.

Whatever it is that immigrants to the west do that is so offensive to us, those things must be clearly labeled illegal or we have no rational basis for pointing a gun at such people and demanding they leave. I agree that freedom is our "religion", but freedom is not absolute nor "God-given", and it's meaning does change over time. I also agree that western nations should set reasonable limits on the number of immigrants allowed in, and some western countries have clearly exceeded such a reasonable limit. But I don't think that justifies resorting to nationalistic xenophobic fascism. Again, the impulse to such a form of nationalism is pathological even if immigrants do indeed pose challenges to our societies.

I think we need to clearly separate three forces, rather than two; there isnt just the immigrants and 'the west' - but there are immigrants, peoples, and governments.

For the past 60 years, governments in the west have excluded their peoples from decision making, while at the same time importing huge amounts of peoples with radically opposed values. As people defended themselves against female circumcision, condemnation of science, beating women to death in their own house, etc etc, the governments started labeling this as racist and xenophobic.

So we have three forces:
islam
international fascism
individuals.

Among all muslim peoples are individuals. By inviting people over without stripping them of their most horrible customs, we both destroy the chances of freedom loving Arabs and such, and we destroy our own values.

On the other hand, if Obama hadn't been such a fool of monstrous proportions, millions of coming immigrants would still have homes where they were born - so it is already too late - because France was such a big part in this disaster, Europe cant avoid absorbing these people in any sensible way - its all the result of meddling in the middle east - still none of that excuses in the least giving away a hairs breath of our freedom... that is precisely the wrong approach to take.

After all, we did not invade Lybia, or draw red lines in Syria. We did nothing to cause these people to move to our cities - it is rather that we are the only ones who can salvage the situation, precisely by not conceding to either the muslim priests or our own unelected institutions.

The EU and the US government arent anymore related to any standards of proper occidental quality. This is why they are falling apart. This is why Trump will win; he represents basic human values of the not fully civilized individual, of the raw culture-building forces.

"Culture and civilization are opposites." - Weary Locomotive
There is much sense in this. Civilization could be seen as the circumference of culture. When it gets too heavy, i.e. too sensitive to weakness, it crushes its heart, the cultivating self-valuing that produced it as a mere facilitator.

When a civilization begins to speak out universals, it is about to splinter. It has lost its particular focus, its 'spin', its perspective - it will no longer be able to cohere with other particulars.

Capable wrote:: We need to clarify our intentions toward Islam-- the nationalists are taking advantage of a huge gray area here, and the left-liberals aren't stepping in to demand clarity but are using that same avoidance of specificity to advance their own agendas.

What will the new laws be that we write regarding 1) Islam, 2) Muslim immigrants, 3) the teaching of Islam to children. The last one is the most problematic because it is so pressingly important and also there exists no historical context or legal precedent that I know of for doing this. Is it true that in Muslim countries and culture there are really no books except for the Koran? I've heard there are some kids stories and kids books, maybe a few, otherwise is it actually the case there are no other books but the Koran? That is insane if true. We can use such examples to inform the new laws we will write. And we can use the immanent danger to children as another solid reason, but then we're stuck with the problem of differentiating between teaching Islam versus other religious beliefs. Do we really want to make it illegal to teach any religion to children? I don't think we could do that even if we wanted to.

Consider that when Christianity held sway, there weren't any allowed books except the bible. A religion can not possibly maintain itself if books are freely published. Whatever is published is filtered and edited to fit precisely into the ruling code. So authorship isnt a cultivated quality. Literature isnt spontaneous, it's the result of centuries of deference to the free mind.

Im sure you are familiar with Salman Rushdie. He was just one guy who, despite mortal danger, decided to puyblish a book. He isnt safe anywhere on this planet.

Do you want to tolerate that? I dont. I even think it warrants nuclear holocaust and elimination of human life to prevent such codes from ruling.

All this is self-valuing. Placing real particulars higher than hypothetical universals. I act only out of love, and love only what I truly love. I dont pretend to love what tries to kill me. I happily send to its grave all that wants to kill what I love. I believe that the west is infinitely superior, and has the duty to eradicate childrape. No universals are in play here excpet self-valuing itself; universal monotheism simply is a negation of it. Only Judaism is valid as monotyheism, precisely because it is tribal, particular. It is their god. So they fucking leave us the fuck alone.

Quote :: Fascism is when the immanent perception of need is supposed to outweigh our more general lasting and deeper values, and to collapse contradictions to one side only, the side based on immediate fear and need to "act". I want to avoid subverting our thinking to such a need, but that doesn't mean I don't see how pressingly important these problems are for Europe.

We can only rely on one thing, which is our own values. Everything else is about to collapse.

This is what it means to be philosopher in a cultural cataclysm. The last man standing.

Like Tolkien, in the trenches of World War one, consolidated the values of his friends, who were dying around him, in a manuscript that eventually became the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, much in that way we must collect and assemble the highest values of our culture, and produce a grand narrative-architecture, within which sciences and culture can continue to thrive in freedom.

We are going back to a time of castles and wilderness. Philosophy is the only discipline that is happy in both. Our time is actually coming; but it is coming to only our most bold and proud aspect - in a word, Jupiter.

No man will ever rule the Earth. No human government ever will. The hearts of humans will always rule, and this is why 'the gods' are in charge.

Hence, Government of Muses. A muse is an intermediary between man and god. A muse makes sure that both exist.

If you invite something as hideous and coercive as Islam into the midst of your people, you must also allow all other types of bigotry and bias to run rampant, simply to protect life from this great bias against life itself.

It is all too easily forgotten that these gods of theirs all claim that man and this world are bad. This alone is enough to banish it from this world. But this does not mean banishing individuals. It means destroying gigantic power structures that have been rising for over a thousand years. It means terminating narratives that have run for millennia. It means, to so many, the end of times.

What one should tell an individual muslim immigrant here is: you are extremely welcome, to learn to be free here - if you speak one word of your sinister god to my children, ill wring you through the meatgrinder. That is how you show someone who doesn't know what freedom is the path to freedom; by clarifying its worth to you - given that you would kill and die for it. Only one who holds it as dearly as that can make it understood, felt.

It must replace the idea of god, or at least force the idea of god to coincide with it. It is a pathos, a courage, a constitution.

As I formulated in Pezers ILP thread, for a full fledged being, freedom means to be free to ones values... and nothing besides!

Parodites wrote:: Indeed as Fixed said, Trump's election will not bring the change that is required, but will open the political process to that change, which is necessary. We have an opportunity in the US to do this in a very civilized manner, through an election- as opposed to armed rebellion.

I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn't come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father's and forefather's blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they'll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.

Beautifully said. I have shared this elsewhere, among some other writing that you permitted. I do not worry that it will come to total chaos - civil life in most western nations of great international trade-networks is regulated in part by the significant layer of crime between law on the one hand and order on the other. Crime families that run local police stations are a veil that separates global elites from power on the ground, at least in democratic nations where the semblance of ground up influence is required to maintain civil society.

Capable takes the more difficult (bordering on impossible) approach - and this is crucial too as elites will continue to press for power, so the closer philosophy gets to relevance here, the more these elites can be curtailed to jobs that might actually be necessary, such as the containment of WMD. That is actually the only thing I can think of that justifies globalism in some way - it is curious that this view dawned on me reading a Jewish Kabbalah site that explained nuclear technology in these terms.

All functions of government are meant to ward off some tyranny. Of war of hunger, of poverty and ignorance... or of political tyranny in the direct sense, either autocratic or ochlocratic - of harsh capital distribution, of all kinds of persistent discomforts and threats. But in no other way was it ever necessitated other than as as a measure against something. All the aspects of these things, peace, prosperity, culture, fairness, etc etc, these are all products of local human ingenuity and soul on the ground.

Mostly, government came to be as violent repression and extortion, simply out of the haphazard way in which nature distributes qualities and virtues. Mostly, that is what it remains. All the good that it claims is the work and initiative of the people it extorts. Governments are the parasites of cultures. They exist because the parasitical possibility is an implication of the self-valuing nature, but we need to get rid of the silly belief that they preside over them. We elect a scumbag to represent our more scummy instincts in an arena where no creator can breathe. Eventually it'll die out.

A government is essentially a crime organization that is so big that it can force people to call it "representation". This is exactly how Mafia works ('protection') - but just bigger, and representing more slavish folk.

Italy will never be enslaved, precisely because their crime families represent roots to a more vital time, of more powerful governmental codes and values. Ive come to regard crime as preferable to systemic moral coercion, which is why I support Trump.

Last edited by Capable on Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total

For the same reason that government can never get rid of all crime, crime can never get rid of all government. Government and crime share bureaucracy in common, the mafia families have plenty of their own bureaucracy too. Petty chaotic crime is unable to ontologically structure itself into something socially significant and lasting; this is the problem that both government and the mafia have solved.

It is a problem of diminishing returns from either angle: if you want to get rid of crime or government corruption it is easy to start and deal with the biggest move obvious instances, but as you get closer to perfect elimination the task approaches impossibility. Malice, as you said, is part of human nature and bureaucracy is a perfect system for regulating (not eliminating) malice.

I see bureaucracy as a necessary part of human life. If not for it we would not have such things as computers or the internet, for an easy example. We would be restricted to mere localism and barter system type quasi-anarchic modes of life, which to me is fucking pointless. So the trick is to see how bureaucratic forms can evolve over time; this is what capitalism represents, I think. And my position toward globalism is entirely motivated by the fact that I see globalism as inevitable, so my personal feelings either way are entirely irrelevant. I might hate or love the idea of globalism, but globalism is going to be the case either way. Globalism is basically just the logic of the nation-state with no exteriority (with the exteriority posited internally rather than externally). Yes this raises definite problems and risks, I agree. So I want to look at how to mitigate those risks and solve those problems.

In my view time (history) only moves in one direction -- forward -- and never backward. Like a mind, history is always looking back and recollecting things, reanimating them in the present moment but this is always done at the express logic and behest of the present moment posited forward toward its predictable future/s. The past only lives in the present because the present is the condition of possibility of that past-recollecting; and the ways in which the present is able to posit-predict its possible futures is going to determine the ways in which the present recollects elements from its past. If we look at the last 2500 years we see a clear progression of history. I have not studied anthropology and pre-ancient Greek history enough but I assume that if we were to extent that to say the last 10,000 years the same would hold true... but even if it didn't, modern history of the last 2500 years is sufficient to demonstrate the case that we are now on a more or less linear track, and globalism represents the limit of that linearity in so far as positing itself under the old models of interior/exterior mediation of forms. Society itself needs to be rethought once a truly global situation presents itself. And with the re-thinking of society comes the re-thinking of the subject and its psychology as well -- Marx for example understood the globalizing nature of capitalism, and Marx thought that this global capitalism would reach its limit and then collapse into world communism. The only justification of capitalism is that it organizes production so efficiently that it is able to produce all the objects, machines, technologies, capital etc. that will later be distributed throughout the world in a communist State; his idea of communism was a post-global capitalism situation and not really the kind of nation-state communisms that we saw in the last century and which mostly all failed. (Not saying that I agree with his idealization of the world communist state, of course, I think he was utopian just like Nietzsche was, namely precisely where they were positing their higher values in imagined future forms of a theoretically pure or total absolution.) Capitalism will always eat such communisms, but only until capitalism reaches its final limit and collapses; that is Marx's idea anyway. But Zizek uses Hegel to point out that it is impossible to envision this collapse and reformation in advance, that any attempt to achieve a revolution is doomed to failure yet it is precisely that failure and the how and why of it that is the condition of possibility for the later realization of the ideal of the revolution as such, albeit in some other form (modern capitalism is the realization of the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, we have won out freedom "from" the old labor systems but this freedom is only a freedom "for" converting ourselves into subjectivity-as-labor as such, the self as its own commodity, for example.)

Another interesting point here about nature and its relation to human being: "Imagine all of nature waiting for the invention of (human) language so that it can finally be expressed how bad it is to be a vegetable or a fish." Lol. This point is a Heideggerian one regarding dwelling: rocks have no world, animals have a desire for a world that is not present to them, and only in human being is there the possibility for truly Dwelling (for having a world). To employ Zizek again, the idea is that we should not be asking what is human language that it cannot step outside of itself to perceive nature or animal "in themselves" as if we could never escape the ontological horizon of our own meaning therefore such a stepping outside is impossible, therefore we can never know nature or animal "really"... No, the idea is that we should ask "what is human language to nature", what is the invention of language from the perspective of the non-linguistic natural world and how does the arrival of language allow that natural world a new means with which to articulate its truer reality or essence?

The idea of course now is that self-valuing can mediate this distinction; because nature is a self-valuing and because an animal is a self-valuing and because also a human being is a self-valuing it is now possible, armed with a theory of self-valuing as such, that the gap can be bridged on account of the true ontic similarity between all beings of all kinds in that all beings are always already self-valuings and therefore in some way both obscure and immediate are able to "know" each other. Perhaps a crow knows that a human is a self-valuing, for example. But this glosses over the idea that there must be radically different kinds of self-valuings and that even if one kind can always approach another at the basic level of form (being a self-valuing) it is still possible that no actual content could be communicated or transferred there; but I believe that self-valuings admit of degrees and progressive development not only formally as Heidegger said that man is that being for which its own being is an issue, but more significantly because man is that being for which its own being has become able to be an issue for it ---why "able to be", what does it mean that this holds for a human and not for a crow or a fish or a vegetable? I think that the consciousness is a substance and that self-valuing prescribes the basic form but not the actual contents within that form. And that it is the actual contents that, in sum and as accumulated hierarchically over time into metaphorical, metonymic logical structures within being, are really what defines what a being is or what consciousness truly means.

So I'm less concerned with the pure form of "all being is a self-valuing" and more concerned with what are the actual contents and experiences that have so far been accumulated to a given self-valuing and what does this say as to the potentials and powers open to that given self-valuing? I think it is on the basis of shared contents that truly significant (and ontic or abstract-transcendental) relating between beings is possible, and not simply on the basis of a shared form (of being a self-valuing). It is as if the shared form is just a condition of possibility for relations of shared contents to appear. In this sense I think we can say that being or consciousness is literally its contents and nothing besides. And so that raises the question: what are the contents of the consciousness of a crow, or a dog, or a fish, or a vegetable?

To the last post first; I would say the content of a crows self-valuing is far closer to mine than the content of a typical Hillary Clinton voter. I mean that - as indeed of course humans seem more alike in their capacities, also for holding things in the mind, but crows can actually solve puzzles that people with low IQs can not. Animals also have extensive memories, and gorillas can learn to paint figuratively. That last fact is proof of representational and abstract consciousness. But so is the crow solving the puzzle.

I am leaning to the idea that them brain is really more of a filter than a construct of drives.

Likely it will simply be impossible for us to come to terms on this view on animals - I expect Parodites will agree with you... but I do not see the regular human as capable of existing in ways remotely similar to how I exist, am conscious of myself - this is precisely why I turn to specific animals -- cats, wolves, squirrels and crows most notably now - they inhabit a world of values and instincts that resonate with me, that vitalize me, that clarify things to me.

Here and there, a human with a historical mind exists. Absent that historical mind, human consciousness is not, to my understanding, much more complex or involved than animal behavior, except in that it forms more complex knots - but these arent functional.

So far Id say human complexity vs animals has mainly resulted in a diminished self-awareness, and a strange construct of 'awareness as such', a kind of collective conscious that does not really partain to much except its own permutations and lust for itself... valuing humans in its terms.

truly I do not consider the human species as homogenous at all, least of all in terms of awareness and historicity. My experiences with creatures tell me that awareness isnt sufficiently hierarchized in terms of species, but also needs to differentiate specimens inter-species.

I agree that is pretty cool of the crow to do that. I've seen gorillas smoking cigarettes, chimps using sticks to get at insects inside logs, and there was an experiment that supposedly demonstrated dogs can use logical deduction (the dog is walking down a hall following the scent of food, when it is confronted with two passageways as the hall splits in two directions. The experimenters have set it up so that the smell of the food stops before the split, and no smell of food continues down either passageway. The dog would sniff the first passageway and, not finding the scent, immediately dart down the second passageway before even testing for the smell there... the obvious idea that the dog deduced "if not this one, then that one" which is a purely rational deduction).

I certainly agree that animals can do these sort of things. But I don't really think this speaks to my larger point. A crow doesn't know what the Earth is or even that there is an Earth, much less other planets, gravity, it cannot solve arithmetic equations, it cannot formulate in philosophical or conceptual terms something like justice, love, hope, truth, art, beauty, or freedom; such ideas are simply beyond that range of non-human animals as I see it. But certainly animals possess the kind of instinctual organic basis in which these conceptual ideas are themselves originally rooted, namely pleasure and pain differentiations and trying to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain, and making self-valuing distinctions of which other animal or situation or food is more valuable than another, etc. Animals can definitely do those things. But I think humans do those same things as well as build atop them. And this is the reason why some humans aren't even as "pure" in their self-valuing as the animals: humans are capable of making mistakes, of not acting according to an immediate values-need for example, precisely because humans have surpassed that level. The capacity to make a mistake is an active, positive capacity whereas the capacity to solve a puzzle is just rote learning. Undoubtedly that crow had to go through extensive training on how to do those things it did, putting each piece of the puzzle together and then in what we saw it performed this all over again but in a slightly different order or arrangement of the steps.... yes indeed that is impressive, but I don't think the crow is able to make a mistake in the way a human can make a mistake. Making mistakes is divine, it isn't a mark against humanity that we are often stupid, ignorant, pathological, because the fact we can do these "deplorable" things is simply the fact that we have developed something more than rote immediacy of animal consciousness and are now in the middle stages of trying to unpack and learn about this "something more", we haven't perfected it yet but we are in the process of doing so.

It is as if, you watch an ape being taught by its parent how to use a stick on the anthill to get the ants, well the ape at first just smacks the stick around randomly and doesnt perform the finesse needed to get the ants, and so you declare that the ape is somehow less evolved or lower in consciousness than other animals that simply use their long tongues to get out the ants much more effectively. But the young ape is learning something higher, and just because it isn't quite there yet doesn't mean it isn't already entirely beyond those other animals that use their naturally specified tongues or whatever to get to the food. The difference is categorical.

Precisely humanity's deplorable, pathological, unrefined, ignorant qualities proves that humanity is already beyond the level of the rest of the animal kingdom. Not very many animals will act with cruelty toward another for no reason other than to be cruel, humans will do that and so will some other primates, but that is all the examples I've heard of. Likewise other animals do not go to war for ideas or because of the joy of war, to self-actualize themselves, they will fight for concrete reasons such as territory or access to resources. Mobilized war and human psychopathology are deplorable not because humans are less than animals, but because humans are still in the much larger process of learning about precisely how humans are always already much beyond the animal level. At least this is how I see it.

I am not criticizing your connection to animals at all, I have this connection too. I am just not using such a connection as a means to demean humanity simply because humanity must, in addition to being "immersed in the immediacy of pure natural instinctive awareness" or whatever kind of idealized state of nature we might imagine they exist in, actual work and suffer and error in the process of discovering who and what it really means to be a human, to be oneself. The error in man is beautiful, as Holderlin's "where danger is there grows the saving power", humans are in a state of danger for which there is no parallel in the animal natural kingdom anywhere. A crow does not have an existential crisis, is what I mean.

I also reject the opposite polarity as yours, the one that says all of nature is brutal pain and suffering and horror, and that only the human world overcomes this and introduces any semblance of meaning or value into existence. I think these two views represent polarities and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "state of nature" is not something that I idealize, simply because I imagine having to live in the wild scrounging for food all the time, being cold and dirty and in fear of predators, probably usually hungry; even if I were incapable of aspiring to any kind of human values or quality of life, that still sounds miserable. But neither do I think that nature is one massive horror show of suffering insanity and constant death and meaninglessness, a "rabid rat trapped in a cage forever devouring itself" as I remember Inmendham called it in one of his videos. That isn't correct either; we should try to develop a philosophy of nature, a true theory here. In such a theory I would tend to come down more on your side Fixed than on the other side.

I see humans are entirely natural, except that we "broke the wheel of evolution" as I think Parodites said once, and because we are no longer subject to natural selection (since just about any human and regardless of the state of his genes can procreate). But our selection mechanisms are different ones now, we can align them to truths and to fact as such, at least as far as we are able to tell thus-far (yeah we make plenty of mistakes here, but I think over history we are getting better, closer to truths).

Here is an easy example of what I mean: imagine someone like Einstein or Shakespeare or Nietzsche, highly intelligent and refined emotional and creatively, with tons to contribute so much so that the future of humanity can be altered just by this individual person's work... except this person lives in a state of nature type anarchy society, and one day they are assaulted by a gang and killed for their cash... the false paradigm of anarchy would say because the person could not defend themselves physically they "deserved" to die, because as we know this paradigm believes that might makes right. But that isn't correct at all. The value of Nietzsche or Einstein or Shakespeare or any number of great genius people is infinitely more than their capacity to physically defend themselves from others, and the standard of physical defense is infinitely lower than the standards by which the genius individual operates and can contribute to. Imagine a world like this, a humanity where "might makes right" it somehow or another to some degree instantiates as moral truth; that would be a fucking disaster, hardly anything good could arise out of such a world. Certainly humanity would evolve at a snails pace under such conditions, and indeed the slow curve of progress that was early humanity until the last couple thousand years represents this fact: culture and knowledge, higher values, were unable to be valued directly in the ancient past because indeed might made right in that past, humans were still very close to the state of nature and dominated each other physically or through surrogates of physical violence (fear, psychological tricks (religion), etc.). Now finally we have started to climb up the curve of progress and escape that state of nature.

The state of nature is just fine for animal life because animal life is unable to aspire to higher values; an animal pursues pleasure and avoids pain, and would rest in a state of comfort, but otherwise isn't able to value a higher quality of life, or values as such. Animals do not care for knowledge, for truth, they cannot really build anything like culture at all. This is also why I still disagree with Parodites' view that human society is a reflection of nature, because while it is true that part of human society is indeed this reflection, there is much more about human society that is far beyond that level. The state of nature for animal life, the natural societies of animals entirely lack what we might call culture or higher values, overall knowledge or progression toward truth, precisely because they are locked in the survival of the fittest game of might makes right, so that higher values are unable to appear (and even if they did appear, they would vanish just as quickly). Humans struggled for probably 50,000 years or more in that kind of state to gradually, gradually overcome it by the tiniest of increments until finally we founded culture, language, and were able to somewhat escape the state of nature into something ontologically higher on the continuum of being.

I agree with the respect and love for animals, I consider my dog to be my true companion and indeed we understand each other very well. But I think were I differ from you is that I still hold humanity in highest regard, and I consider whatever is best about animals is precisely what defines human being already, even or perhaps especially where human being is capable of erring in terms of it. We should show more respect to animal life because what is best about human being and ourselves, this is also shared, at the foundations, with the animals. And you are right in the sense that we can never really know the inner world of the animal, the crow might have a fully developed subjectivity, personality, forms of knowledge, a kind of understanding of values like justice etc., I cannot say for sure that it doesn't. And regardless if it does or not, its form of life should still be respected, and not only because we too share in that form of life of the animals, but because our human form of life is not necessarily the highest or best one; we preference our own form of life because it is ours, in proper self-valuing fashion. The 'objective' measures that we use to defend that anthropocentric valuation notwithstanding.

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

About Trump's Muslim ban- he revised it a long time ago to be a ban from specific regions in the world, not a religious ban- regions of the world with a known history of sponsoring terrorism. Regions of the world where ripping a girl's clitoris off is common- a crime that goes basically unpunished by European and British authorities who don't want to be racist and prosecute Muslims.

And one quick thing on globalism:

"You can't solve this problem, so you, the people, have to surrender your power to us, to our political elites and social institutions, we will counter these problems on your behalf..." that is the kind of thinking behind the worst catastrophes of the last century, rather it was communism addressing poverty or now globalism addressing climate change. In a text on Zizek, I find the following, directly admitting this elevation of the political elite to illusory heroes to save the masses from themselves:

Speaking against democratic values: "There is a name for the politics that glorifies risk, decision, and will; that yearns for the hero, the master, and the leader- that prefers death and the infinite to democracy and the pragmatic; that finds the only true freedom in the terror of violence. Its name is not communism, but fascism. In his most recent work, Zizek has unarguably revealed himself as a kind of fascist. He admits as much in Violence, where he mentions "the re-emerging left-Fascist whispering at the borders of academia, where I guess I belong."

This is fucking disgusting, to be blunt. That a person like Zizek not only admits the thought-policing fascist scheme which the Left basically represents now, which would have me thrown out of academia for what I've said in this thread, which would bring back book burning if it could, along with this heroic elevation of political classes who ask us to give all of our power to them- so that they can betray us, and even seems proud of it... I have very little respect for the guy, and zero respect for his politics.

This country, the US, was founded on exactly the opposite principles: it was founded on the de-centralization and the separation of government powers. It was founded on: no heroes, no masters. And this country became in 200 years the most powerful force on earth because of it, only so that I now have to endure people preaching the virtues of taking a completely opposite path, people saying "fuck localism," or to translate it, fuck having a functioning community, fuck having a politically empowered public, etc. Give all your power away to them, these political classes. That, in order to combat climate change or poverty, we must surrender our power to a centralized government, to larger and more powerful institutions, is a religious idea. You also mention that somehow without these piece of shit administrators that parasitize us and betray us we wouldn't have computers and the like. How? Centralized government and Statism are the enemies of enlightenment, philosophy, and civilization. The state has held civilization back, not pushed it forward.

I do not perceive the leveling to have been completed yet, as Fixed does. You want my vision of the future of society, the completion to this leveling, at the coming dawn of the new, post-globalist era of western civilization? Europe continues its globalist policies, imports another billion Muslims, gets rid of borders and the idea of nation states, centralizes the power of its people in larger social institutions, and experiences economic meltdowns and civil unrest, to eventually become a third world, decimated kingdom of ghosts and broken dreams. The US does what Washington wrote of and told us to do centuries ago- it uses its unique position, separated from the rest of the world by an ocean, with an entire continent to itself, to isolate itself completely, becoming perfectly independent from the rest of the nations, then inherits the world after Europe collapses over a new pact with Russia taken over the corpse of Europe, clenching humanity between a new East-West alliance. Contra Zizek, you can see the collapse in advance, I do see it in advance. This is the inevitable future, not globalism: because globalism doesn't work. Europe will never be a united states of nations because of its population density, because of its economic position, because of the fact that racial and cultural differences in humanity are real and social integration will never take place at the level required to push these globalist policies through to their conclusion. Europe will fall in the coming wars, the US will not only survive, but find the courage to conclude its true destiny, inheriting the Western mind and its legacy for a new continent. The left-right, capitalist-communist idealogical paradigm will be left behind, (I mentioned how capitalism won the battle for the soul of modernity in my first post in this thread) with a new post-ideology paradigm emerging between America and Russia, between our anti-globalist anti-statist system and the Eastern nationalism with its return to tradition, utilizing the familiar forms of the Church and christian symbolism to reconstruct a new national identity. The Russian constitution explicitly denies the existence of ideology, our constitution explicitly denies the existence of centralization. In this new paradigm, it is impossible to determine where the left and right are- this election cycle is just an intimation of this new karma. The new political axis will form between the political emancipatory potential of communities and the metapolitical emancipatory potential of traditions, not between left and right idealogy, not between the economic division capitalism and socialism. The axis and division I conceived between the State and Culture, will be brought to exist, as the alternative to globalism. The next aeon will begin, a new era for western civilization. It would be wise to mobilize our philosophies and the general philosophy of self-valuing toward filling the space of this new political axis that is forming, to become the logic whereby the new determination is made as to where one falls in it, as opposed to where one falls in the dying left-right axis. That is what I am concerned with doing anyway.

The light of Being has, as in Heidegger, been snuffed out by the accumulated forms of Being on the part of Western intelligence, (with postmodernity offering a glimpse into the abyssal end of history, the emptiness of neon lights and malls and Iphones) by the traditions and cultural forms which Liberalism has busied itself with rejecting, so that the final oblivion of Being has been reached, and nihilism touched upon all things; but, on the other side, the rejection of these forms, the Leftist push, has paralyzed the spirit of humanity upon the precipice of our karmic aeon, and deprived us of all emancipatory potential. This deprivation is what makes globalism and the end of history appear to be "inevitable." This is why, as these old forms were done away with, no new forms arose to take their place, no "pure forms" as Capable imagined. Man turned out unable to fill the throne that he relieved God of. Nothing filled the place of God. But a people with no history or culture had taken an entire continent for themselves and attempted to form a new kind of society based around empowering the masses and stripping the political elites, while the Russians in the East worked off the failure of the German reich and attempted to piece together a new nationalism, a new national identity, with the tattered remains of Christian symbolism inherited from the church orthodoxy. And in the middle, Europe embraced the end of history, the Messianic fulfillment, leftist secular humanism and globalism, only to be undone by it, only to be mistaken. As the Europeans evacuated their nations of their cultural forms and traditions, as they accomplished the destruktion of culture, the Russians collected the shards of western intelligence in an attempt to peer through them from behind history into the light of Being, to dispense in the revelation of pure Being the foundation for the next karmic aeon to dasein, and salvage an ethos and new racial identity for the nation, while we, in America, outlined a new, thoroughly non-European form of government, to provide the masses with true political force. On either side of Europe, between these two formulas, between antistatism and nationalism, the new political axis will take shape as the left-right axis and globalism's alternative.

The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture. The Americans especially have to sacrifice their leading position in the world, their economic power and independence, we have to export all our jobs to other countries, bankrupt ourselves on aiding them, send the fucking Jews 100 million dollars a day: Obama is right now trying to transfer control of the internet to the EU, by giving away our US controlled company that dispenses all the domain names.

But the real truth is: there is no place for Europe in the new dawning karmic aeon, the next political paradigm. Europe is dead and it's head will finally be cut off in our lifetimes, and the globalist vision it has been at the center of blown away like the pitiable ghost it always was.

The first blow against globalism was struck with Brexit, Trump will win for the second blow, and not long from now this current system will fall.

Nobody wants to return to a state of nature, that's not what anarchy means. We can have a stateless society, a society where the masses administer their own government to themselves, as opposed to giving their power away to be concentrated in the hands of an elite administrative class and centralized federal government. This is what the US was planned to approximate. It was the only government designed on philosophic principles, the spheres of power among the branches of government balanced mathematically in advance, to ensure the greatest freedom and emancipatory potential for the masses. Every other nation and government emerged out of the chaos of nature, arbitrarily.

"The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture."

I laughed at this. Word to your mother, I did not realize the cluelessness.

Fuck Wagner.

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

That Europe thought it could deny America its destiny is not the absolute punchline, it is not the most laughable thing. We have the three political fronts for the battle over the soul of modernity at the 20th century: communism, fascism, and capitalism. Capitalism won for the reasons I mentioned.

[Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form. ]

This complex it formed: between capitalist economies, corporate power, the media, our electoral cycles manipulated as they are by the media, science, fetishistic technology, and the military through globalism....- this complex of social forces, is leftism. That is the punchline to the joke, leftist secular humanism isn't even an ideology. The political, ideological axis between the right and left isn't even real, it never was real. It's a complex of various social forces that have integrated themselves into a single force, a single will, it's not an ideology. It's been using the myth of ideological struggle and that it has provided the end of history by concluding that struggle in order to keep itself in existence.

Additional afterthought: Heidegger thought that Leftist idealogy, with its annihilation of Being in the forms of being (culminating in technology replacing culture) originated with a core of enlightenment rationality implanted in the original Greek dialectic by the Asiatics, then later modified by the Jews in Rome, which has now broken forth and taken control of the whole thing. But truly, science and rationalism are merely another set of social forces transformed by and integrated within the complex that capitalism's victory has enabled. So this was his mistake. And Nietzsche's: the nihilism he saw rising had already been formed, hiding in the myth of ideology: the Leftist, leveling secular humanism has no intrinsic core, it is a totally phenomenal apparition- the struggle of ideology has not ended, because it never began. Nietzsche was himself the last man, for he was the last man to believe there was ever any struggle of ideas behind the dialectic of history. God did not die, he was stillborn: the dialectic of history that began in Greece never had a dispensation of Being to dasein, never had an intrinsic core, and because of that, this devastating complex of social forces has formed and taken control of the momentum of civilization. This leftist secular humanism has given us an apolitical world- it has shown us what the movement of history always was; a world where political decisions have been replaced by bureaucrats managing the masses of humanity in a purely economic and administrative capacity: Nietzsche was the last to truly believe there ever was a possibility for grand politics. This is why I envision my counter logic to the historical dialectic and my metapsychology, self-valuing, American constitutional political philosophy, and the Russian project of salvaging nationalism, ethos, and identity, as all converging on a metaphysical attractor point, which is gravitating all the marginal history, all that European culture has diffused and thrown away, to itself, upon whose precipice a new karmic aeon can be derived, upon which a new history can begin. A history grounded on the constant reification of cultural inheritance in higher forms, on the continuous derivation of epistemes or guiding images of thought as expressions of various communities' emancipatory potential and identity, each one proving itself not so much in a debate or struggle against the others but in a nomadic bid to prove how effectively they can each capture the momentum of history for themselves.

Because America and Russia both provide a means at attacking and overcoming this social complex centered on capitalist economics, ie. Leftist secular humanism, they represent the two sides to the true axis, and we must concentrate our philosophic vision on the task of negotiating it and working within it, on navigating it, in order to successfully cross the line into the next era of human civilization.

They always wanted to squeeze America out of the world stage specifically, with Russia secondarily. Our two constitutions are at odds with the intentions behind the globalist push for world domination. We have nothing to offer them. That's why the US fails on every agreement it reaches with foreign nations. Obama said explicitly that "America must give up certain freedoms and power, to realize this level of international cooperation..." or something like that, as he gives control of the internet away. But we have much to gain, as Europe falls.

The new era will confront this one, not like a debate, not like a battle of ideologies as existed in the 20th century and culminated in the cold war, but like the possible confronting the actual, like spirit confronting material. The time for debating is over, there is nothing left to discuss. Now it is much more simple; those who can see the line, cross it. Those that cannot see it, stay behind. The fact that the cold war was cold: the fact that the bombs never went off, is proof that the ideological struggle was just an illusion all along. They should have dropped, and they didn't.

Everything that Europe threw away to reach its present vision of the end of history- all the discarded stones, those are the cornerstones of the next era. Russia understood that, hence their attempt to reconstruct a new Russian national identity through the rubble of Christian orthodoxy and Christian mystical symbolism; hence the Nazis attempting to reconstruct the identity of the Aryan as it existed prior to being co-opted by the Asiatics in Greece and then the Jews in Rome. There is something to that, this dwelling in the marginalia of Western history, feeding on tidbits of historical knowledge and identity for fear of starvation entirely. But it is not the whole story; the emancipatory potential of the masses in America allows a common project to emerge out of this, (due to our localism, the power and independence of our communities both from one another and from the state) whereby this fragmented marginal history can be truly organized into functioning identities, while the statism of the east, of Russia, is an encumbrance to be overcome- the state has sway over culture there, their identity is organized from the top down, and so their history will never become cohesive, will never become an episteme or guiding image for thought.

Nobody is going to help in the new territory that opens up when crossing the threshold into the next karma, the new aeon. The most the philosophers heretofore can do is help point out the way, but I am stepping over it because I've found the way, even if the risk of something going wrong in this transition means a nuclear holocaust or climate change disaster or the aliens finally get tired of us and annex our planet. I'd welcome a nuke over this shit.

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

So in this axis, despite our overt differences, America and Russia both pursue a way out of this unipolar globalist state, a way out of the end of history, a way out of the diffusion of culture Valery was talking about and the destruction of identity and the forms of Being's revelation Heidegger was seeing, a way out from the oblivion of being, a way out of the nihilism Nietzsche was seeing, a way out of the loss of all national sovereignty to the globalized monoculture, a way out of all of it. Capable is correct in that globalism is an organic development, it is nature speaking again through humanity, inasmuch as the complex I noted around capitalism was a natural development; it is the flattening of time by inertia, and so no mere debate will abrupt its course. What is required in order to pass the threshold into the karmic aeon I envision, is no mere political struggle, no mere economic struggle, no debate, no twitter war, no viral youtube video, but rather, a metaphysical struggle- a struggle against nature, a philosophy.

The world economic crises we are seeing are just the beginning. Part of the globalist push is that we can delay the total meltdown of the world economy by pulling everything together. But again I reiterate, America is in a unique position, it can utilize its geographical position among other things to gain what our forefathers intended: total economic independence. Let Europe burn, the faster it does so, the better.

" Man either crushes his heart underneath his deed or his now accomplished work
and thereby perjures his conscience of things, or in the last case his hand is found to
tremble, as he stands back arrested at the highest moment of his act, at the serene calm in
the consciousness of necessity, wherein he was to meet with his very triumph and, like
light poured back into the dead embers from which it issued, is found luminance without
heat, and fire that reveals but does not burn. It is by the most tremendous deeds that
civilization has lost the most, that man has been compelled to take upon himself the
heaviest sacrifices; yet, it is only by the heaviest sacrifices that any future for man can be
determined. "

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

Heidegger thought that Leftist idealogy, with its annihilation of Being in the forms of being (culminating in technology replacing culture) originated with a core of enlightenment rationality implanted in the original Greek dialectic by the Asiatics, then later modified by the Jews in Rome, which has now broken forth and taken control of the whole thing. But truly, science and rationalism are merely another set of social forces transformed by and integrated within the complex that capitalism's victory has enabled. So this was his mistake. And Nietzsche's: the nihilism he saw rising had already been formed, hiding in the myth of ideology: the Leftist, leveling secular humanism has no intrinsic core, it is a totally phenomenal apparition- the struggle of ideology has not ended, because it never began. Nietzsche was himself the last man, for he was the last man to believe there was ever any struggle of ideas behind the dialectic of history. God did not die, he was stillborn: the dialectic of history that began in Greece never had a dispensation of Being to dasein, never had an intrinsic core, and because of that, this devastating complex of social forces has formed and taken control of the momentum of civilization. This leftist secular humanism has given us an apolitical world- it has shown us what the movement of history always was; a world where political decisions have been replaced by bureaucrats managing the masses of humanity in a purely economic and administrative capacity: Nietzsche was the last to truly believe there ever was a possibility for grand politics. This is why I envision my counter logic to the historical dialectic and my metapsychology, self-valuing, American constitutional political philosophy, and the Russian project of salvaging nationalism, ethos, and identity, as all converging on a metaphysical attractor point, which is gravitating all the marginal history, all that European culture has diffused and thrown away, to itself, upon whose precipice a new karmic aeon can be derived, upon which a new history can begin. A history grounded on the constant reification of cultural inheritance in higher forms, on the continuous derivation of epistemes or guiding images of thought as expressions of various communities' emancipatory potential and identity, each one proving itself not so much in a debate or struggle against the others but in a nomadic bid to prove how effectively they can each capture the momentum of history for themselves. (Ie, a cyclic, as opposed to linear, timeline.)

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

So indeed a big difference between me and Fixed's view is that: I see the leveling of Europe to not only not be finished, but to have not even truly begun. All that happened was, the fire was lit. The migrant crisis is an insignificant murmur of the actual civil war to spill into European streets. The economic bubbles are pre-quakes; the earthquake hasn't happened yet. The illusion that the cold war solidified will be broken, we and Russia will wake up from the dream of ideology, and nothing will be left to hold back the bombs. Indeed the light of Ousia, of Being's pure revelation, of the Event, will be seen again on earth, probably through the flames of nuclear holocaust. And I see this as necessary to initiate the next era of the West, to lay the foundation for a new karma, a new aeon. I fully support the Muslim invasion (to Europe of course, not to the US) and anything else that can hasten this collapse, and over Europe's corpse we and the East will come to bear terms for the new covenant, a new social contract of sorts.

Once that complex of social forces that people unconsciously call leftist secular humanism formed, enabled by capitalism, and won out against fascism and communism, that marked the illusory end to the illusory struggle of ideology, ie. the end of politics, and the first moment of the 21st century. For this secular system was never political, and its economics replaced all political force with the force of capital. The termination of Europe and the globalist program it initiated, will spell the defeat of this otherwise unbeatable complex.

Capable wrote:: For the same reason that government can never get rid of all crime, crime can never get rid of all government. Government and crime share bureaucracy in common, the mafia families have plenty of their own bureaucracy too. Petty chaotic crime is unable to ontologically structure itself into something socially significant and lasting; this is the problem that both government and the mafia have solved.

The advantage of a crime family over a typical intrusive modern day government is that the former does not make claims to values, only to power.

But the two are related, in that government is nothing besides the continuation of a primordial crime, as Zizek phrases it nicely.

Quote :: It is a problem of diminishing returns from either angle: if you want to get rid of crime or government corruption it is easy to start and deal with the biggest move obvious instances, but as you get closer to perfect elimination the task approaches impossibility. Malice, as you said, is part of human nature and bureaucracy is a perfect system for regulating (not eliminating) malice.

Indeed. It festers.
Whereas in more natural human life, malice is weeded out.

Bureaucracy follows laws almost identical to cancer.

Quote :: I see bureaucracy as a necessary part of human life. If not for it we would not have such things as computers or the internet, for an easy example. We would be restricted to mere localism and barter system type quasi-anarchic modes of life, which to me is fucking pointless. So the trick is to see how bureaucratic forms can evolve over time; this is what capitalism represents, I think. And my position toward globalism is entirely motivated by the fact that I see globalism as inevitable, so my personal feelings either way are entirely irrelevant. I might hate or love the idea of globalism, but globalism is going to be the case either way. Globalism is basically just the logic of the nation-state with no exteriority (with the exteriority posited internally rather than externally). Yes this raises definite problems and risks, I agree. So I want to look at how to mitigate those risks and solve those problems.

I dont think it is fair to attribute scientific development to bureaucracy. In fact I dont believe there is much of a relation - I see bureaucracy in tech mostly as the attempt to make money off geniuses work, or make weapons out of them.

I know plenty of people who built their own computers from scrap. Well, used to know them in the 80's when I was a kid. Who knows what they're building now.

These were also the people that built most of the internet in Europe. Just a network of students and hackers. A bunch of them now work for a company called xs4all. I certainly do not consider universities to be esse4ntially bureaucratic, as much as todays establishments pretend this is necessarily the case. That precisely is what has led to the death of education and the loss of Europe. Why I have turned to internet philosophy, and why my and our power is so immense.

All the old powers of mind are either dead or like writhing on the ground. I consider our clan nothing less than the monarchs of the coming intellectual order. You people are the only ones I have ever read or met in this age that have the capacity for intellectual integrity, the hardness and depth for it. Of course I am well aware of the megalomania that speaks out of this - - bit I am not the one sending drone armies to bomb schools to bring "world peace"... I dont think Im the megalomanic one, even if I would claim to be the origin of the universe I would still not be as megalomanic as Hillary Clinton or such very-far-from-humans. Ive never killed a single man. let alone half a million. Plus, the actions that I do perform usually have results more or less in concordance with what I aimed for.

We can not seriously continue putting trust in these butchers, and the system they propagate.
Globalism is, in realistic terms, nothing besides the instrument in the hands of a group of unfathomably dark butchers.

Quote :: In my view time (history) only moves in one direction -- forward -- and never backward. Like a mind, history is always looking back and recollecting things, reanimating them in the present moment but this is always done at the express logic and behest of the present moment posited forward toward its predictable future/s. The past only lives in the present because the present is the condition of possibility of that past-recollecting; and the ways in which the present is able to posit-predict its possible futures is going to determine the ways in which the present recollects elements from its past. If we look at the last 2500 years we see a clear progression of history.

My values force me to object here. I consider everything that happened between 400 BC and 1400 AD to be regression.

Quote :: I have not studied anthropology and pre-ancient Greek history enough but I assume that if we were to extent that to say the last 10,000 years the same would hold true... but even if it didn't, modern history of the last 2500 years is sufficient to demonstrate the case that we are now on a more or less linear track, and globalism represents the limit of that linearity in so far as positing itself under the old models of interior/exterior mediation of forms. Society itself needs to be rethought once a truly global situation presents itself. And with the re-thinking of society comes the re-thinking of the subject and its psychology as well -- Marx for example understood the globalizing nature of capitalism, and Marx thought that this global capitalism would reach its limit and then collapse into world communism.

Well it will, except the "communism" is civil war, man against man, war penetrating into families. In Europe this is already under way, has been for a decade. Parodites says that it has yet to begin, but this isnt true. Europe is already dead. This is why I am here. Sure, a lot of violence and shit will still follow, but what was once proud and alive is now forgotten. War will be a revival of life there, not the death of it.

Quote :: The only justification of capitalism is that it organizes production so efficiently that it is able to produce all the objects, machines, technologies, capital etc. that will later be distributed throughout the world in a communist State; his idea of communism was a post-global capitalism situation and not really the kind of nation-state communisms that we saw in the last century and which mostly all failed. (Not saying that I agree with his idealization of the world communist state, of course, I think he was utopian just like Nietzsche was, namely precisely where they were positing their higher values in imagined future forms of a theoretically pure or total absolution.) Capitalism will always eat such communisms, but only until capitalism reaches its final limit and collapses; that is Marx's idea anyway. But Zizek uses Hegel to point out that it is impossible to envision this collapse and reformation in advance, that any attempt to achieve a revolution is doomed to failure yet it is precisely that failure and the how and why of it that is the condition of possibility for the later realization of the ideal of the revolution as such, albeit in some other form (modern capitalism is the realization of the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, we have won out freedom "from" the old labor systems but this freedom is only a freedom "for" converting ourselves into subjectivity-as-labor as such, the self as its own commodity, for example.

I consider Zizek a brilliant author and epistemist, but completely savage and blind as a political philosopher. Communism only ever worked within parliamentary democracy, if we're talking about not mass-murdering but being useful. There are that I know only 2 countries where it ever worked; Holland and Italy. But remember that communism is only the psychedelic format Marx threw over simple workers revolt out of England. If there has not been a Marx, workers right would have been much stronger now, as a result of mere humanity, rather than psychedelic ideology of bloodthirst.

The Concet of capitalism is only value-exchange; the alchemical knowledge that values increase as they are intelligently exchanged.

The system has been derailed quite a bit, as the concept of value is far from perfectly understood by the middle men who have to justify the actions of the top men, who likely often damn well understand, and use that knowledge, but the system works like nature works. It is pure chemistry. Communism is only a mechanical, clunky, very clumsy idea, it has no chemistry, it's stupid and murderous without limit.

Zizek and other communist are utterly in the dark about value. This world will not progress toward anything without value ontology.

Fixed, trying to hit on all the points that you raised:

If bureaucratic government is the original "criminal act" that makes claims to values (as opposed to the mafia type crime that supposedly does not make claims to values (I'm not sure about that)) as you say, then I would say that bureaucratic government is a superior form of mafia criminality simply because bureaucratic government is reaching toward values. A point where I disagree a little bit with Kant is on his idea that simulating (faking, through polite conversation for example) values that we do not really hold can lead us to ultimately embracing those values and thereby becoming more refined, sane, moral; this isn't the justification, valuation as such needs no justifications like that. Values self-justify.

And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production "bureaucratic" to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.

Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. "Keep trying, try better, fail better".

Cancer is a loss of the principle of limitation at the organic level, repetition for its own sake; an empty symbolic obsession for its own sake. We often repeat this error at the level of psychology and sociopolitics. But we can cure cancer without killing the patient -- the very idea of a society without class distinctions, as I think Parodites mentions above, is just the basic communist idea as such. The impossible ideal that serves to mobilize reality toward its higher state.

The kind of globalism you mention that the butchers use is not the kind of globalism we need. This isn't even globalism at all, it is the impossibility of globalism (see my other post on the philosophy of culture). Tools are appropriate to butchers because those tools work; we should not be trying to reverse history and undo the existence of such tools, we should progress in that tool-development so that we become the masters of said tools.

I see there was much work still being done in the dark ages, I don't at all write this off as pure reversal. Christianity needed the dark ages as a long enunciation of the depths of error within Christianity (the Romanized "Jewish Buddhism" that Christianity is). Such periods are necessarily dark because such ugly errors cannot be worked out directly or consciously.

I can't speak to the state of Europe, but I imagine something like a new dark ages is upon it. Not its death, but its deeply unconscious process of working through certain ugly errors.

I agree with what you said about communism being a stupid clunky system compared to capitalism. Communism is either a pure ideology or a merely absolutely practical drive to overcome classism at the "earthy" level. I respect this latter aspect of communism but not the former aspect. Capitalism is indeed about values-exchange and yet the pure core or repressed truth of capitalism is that market forces left to themselves would destroy themselves, some kind of "stupid bureaucratic government" is needed to pose a limit to pure market forces. Look at market speculation today, we have whole countries economies hinging on a market system that can be sunk almost immediately by mere rumor, we have huge bubbles right now (artificially high stock and commodities markets) that is due to the excessive psychic impulse behind capital-transacting at the level of individual speculators-- market forces are not some kind of Divine as libertarians think, they in fact are an exacerbation of the economic Tragedy of the Commons; but of course markets are good and necessary, its just that their pure logic unchecked leads to massive, world-level self-destruction. Capital for its own sake replaces proper values-determinations that should really be guiding economic transactions, yet those values cannot be properly accounted due to the system we have now of not only billionaire-level swaps of speculative capital for immediate short-term gain (the wiping out of time, the end of long-term valuing; we can see examples of this in modern corporate charters, by which shareholders can actual sue CEOs if those CEOs prioritize long term growth and stability over immediate quarterly gains) but also the fact fhat computers are trading millions of shares in a microsecond. This isn't globalism, it is "nationalistic" (fetishized and narcissistic individualism) capitalism without proper political (human) delimitation. True values can still appear, but only very narrow kinds of such values, and the general prohibition of values appearing is much larger than is the sphere of values that are able to appear within this system we have today.

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

Clarifying my position on the leveling of Europe:

I mentioned that the current karmic aeon has been paralyzed by the weight of its own history, and that the masses must realize a new episteme from the creative potential of their collective soul (an Asiatic mirror for my idea of the episteme in this scheme is the mantra, which is an auditory semantic-memetic sigil chanted in order to provide a point of gravity around which to begin generating the seeds of a new karma for a new soul) with which to generate from the preceding aeon's surplus energetics- from its daemon, the foundation for the next karmic aeon. This current paralyzed karma, our current dying aeon, is identified with the Messianic order that runs like a memetic infection from the decadence of the post-Hellenistic philosophers to our leftist secular humanism and its idea of linear time and social progress: the European karma was overlaid in Greece by a strain of Platonizing egyptianism imported from the East, which was taken up again to further poison the West by the Jews with their Abrahamic god, a blasphemy against the cyclic conception of time intuited by the original proto-Indo Europeans: this destructive karma is what broke the wheel of the Roman Empire, the first Reich, from within and later the Third Reich from without. It will break Europe when the true completion to the leveling is finished: the dying karma has been reifiying itself in tighter circles of time, through the collapse of the Roman Empire, to the collapse of the Reich, to the final collapse of Europe, the most important regression and repetition of time. [The pride and vitality of Europe was forgotten as far back as Rome, the completion of the leveling requires much more than forgetfulness.] Both the Reich and Russia attempted and are attempting to piece together a new national ethos and identity with the broken shards of European intelligence amid the sea of non-European karma that has been heaved on top of the Western soul, in order to dispense from behind history, in the revelation of Being unfettered by historical distortion, the foundation of a new political order to dasein: but the Freemasons brought America into existence upon a set of metapolitical philosophic principles which were intended to provide the masses with the capacity to express their emancipatory potential against the tyranny of the state. Putting the two designs together, we see that expressing that potential through the reborn national identity, instead of using the power of the State to impose that identity as the nazis did, as all the three Reichs did in their own way and Russia presently, will alone offer the means of defeating globalism.

The epistemes. We generate the idea of stasis as a negation of the observable motion that characterizes the natural world, and so it is that all our concepts originate out of negative-reflectivity, as a series of primogenial antitheses formed in relation to the Kantian sphere of empirical datums corresponding to observable reality, as we are given to understand in the epistemology outlined in Plato's Phaedo. Yet, the border between negative reflectivity, its intellectual contents, and the empirical sphere penetrable to the logos, is not perfectly established until reflection reproduces its own negativity as an object of thought, as an episteme, and so it is that the concepts we have formed, like stasis, are eventually re-absorbed into the sphere of the logos, wherein their thetic arrangements, motion in this case, are organized- ie. the meta-language of philosophy dissolves into the object-language common to conventional human witness: at that point a new antithesis develops for negative reflection and, just as the concept of stasis was formed in relation to the empirical datum of observable motion, now a new concept, namely entellecheia, forms as an antithesis in relation to stasis, with a corresponding transformation of motion taking place, the later becoming energeia, so that a wholly new series of antitheses have developed- entellechia and energeia from stasis and motion, with the conceptual tension preserved or reified rather than dialectically relieved, namely in a higher order of terms approaching the episteme. The dialectic (agnosis) only describes the process of modification through which the empirical datums like motion are transformed, while a new logic (gnosis) must be developed in order to describe the process by which the epistemes are created from the reification of negative reflectivity's contents, like stasis in this case. To further explore it, I use the two forms of logic employed in the West by the Greeks and the Jews. The ten sephirot stand as the ten fundamental point-principles in Jewish thought- the ultimate abstractions. For example, the sephirot Keter or unity. These abstractions combine in different arrangements in a dynamic process of reconfiguration rather than an Aristotelian category-logic or a dialectic, which is the major difference in Greek and Jewish philosophy. The Jewish logic is simply life itself, the dynamic process of configuration and organization, and pathos and logos are not separate. The philosophic point principles which the sephirot represent, are also the basic human emotions, or alternatively the ten basic numbers 0-9, etc. This ability of Jewish logic to transfer information in a text on human life or ethics directly to a seemingly unrelated text on the nature God, back to a text on number theory, etc. and then a discussion of sexuality, is kabbalah. The cabala and Judaic logic of the sephirot are equivalent to a semiosis of the generative moment of speech itself- indeed, the full text of the Talmud is taken as a single, long divine name for God by the ancient Jews. The Kabbalah is a kind of synthetic logic that interpretatively combines and recombines all linguistic datums across all domains of knowledge which nonetheless requires in the Organon of the Aristotelian categories and its basic counterpart, namely Greek logic, which delimits rather than interprets knowledge, a means of restricting the infinite potential of its constructive hermeneutic. As Abulafia recognizes all languages as mere shards of the perfect language that must be fit together rather than merely translated from one to another, a way of fitting Greek and Jewish logic together is needed, as well as the Greek mythologos and Jewish prophecy. Greek logic is simply agnosis; Jewish logic, gnosis.

Now, the distortion of European karma by the East and the Abrahamic faith was not arbitrary; the history of that distortion corresponds to the unfolding and the agnosis or differentiation of the topos or epistemes in Greece, from which point man has progressed through the three foundational epistemes- the ontic, immanent, and transcendent, while the history of the episteme, the history of gnosis, itself is very different, to be concluded once the negative core and intrinsic lack of the former history lived out in the dilution of European intelligence is itself understood, reified, and reproduced as an object of thought. Only the Event can bring that reification and understanding. The event that concludes the leveling of Europe with such poetic clarity that its negative core is reproduced as a positive object of thought, as the episteme for a new karmic age. The Event that is to come.

Tower Posts : 791 ᚠ : 856 Join date : 2011-12-11

And to be blunt about the Event: A world economic crisis of unprecedented scope combined with civil unrest thanks to the loss of national sovereignty and the migrant crisis will precipitate a third world war between the EU superstate that has yet to fully form but is well in the process of forming, the US, and Russia- a war which will culminate in at least the partial destruction of the European continent by nuclear and conventional bombardment, with the US and Russia in the end coming to a new political arrangement and a territorial agreement after bartering the remains of Europe between themselves, forming two new political forces, a Western and an Eastern empire, with the US expanding its new imperial force over the greater part of the remains of EU territory in exchange for Russia taking more territory in the East, to even greater than Soviet-era levels of occupation. The coming event is not something I wish to happen or am advising people to actively engage in bringing about, but rather, a prediction: it will happen, I am only interested in comprehending its meaning.

The right-left paradigm is liberalism; it is liberal secular humanism- one is either to the right or left on those issues now characterizing the modern political discourse, those issues revolving around the premises and values of liberal secular humanism, ie. the universal rights of man, social progress, racial and cultural equality, feminism, etc. Because liberalism is just the concealed mask for an entirely non-ideological complex of social forces empowered by capitalism's tertiary function, the left-right paradigm (which pretends to be the political expression for what is in reality an apolitical system) is nonsensical. The fact that it is nonsensical and doesn't mean anything- that it in fact never meant anything, is something the world is simply waking up from- hence Brexit and Trump. Communism and fascism (the far, far left and far, far right of the left-right spectrum grounded in liberal secular humanism) emerged as political alternatives to an order (ie. the liberal progressivism that came to dominate American politics and fueled the globalist regime of Europe) that was mistakenly interpreted as political itself: as the later was never an ideology or politics, the political and ideological alternatives to it that fought in the 20th century are also nonsensical. The end of history was a myth that allowed man to continue believing there was an ideological and true political struggle underneath all the death and war: none of it was ever political, and the nonsensical reality of the left-right paradigm and its alternatives that stained the 20th century with so much blood is the dream that man is now waking up from. Hence what I wrote:

[ Insofar as kinesis is a movement of the
imperfect toward the perfect, following Aristotle's definition, the kinesis of the polis is a
movement from present material conditions toward eudaemonia or happiness, from
reactivity coordinated within an organism toward the timeless perfected activity of a soul,
but since this movement takes place on a passive ground it can never arrive at its object,
for the polis, in its organization of re-active forces, creates the very dimension of time or
kinesis which it wants to escape from- a dimension we call history. History is the
reckoning of its own end.]

That passive ground is what is being removed from the equation, for its own intrinsic negative core will be reproduced for thought as an object of thought; the kinesis of human civilization toward the eu-daemon will then be truly enabled. Hence my own version of self-valuation:

[ The perfect, timeless activity of philosophy is that which supplies the passive ground of
value or meaning, it is in other words the creative act, but philosophy is not constituted by
the value it creates. This is the central problem of Plato's Phaedrus. This asymmetry is
inexplicable at present, standing beyond the scope of Nietzsche's various schema, and
requires a new language, which I inaugurate with a term "reification". The Will-to-Power
is then quite simply the fact of this asymmetry, which must be corrected for by the
creation of a value whose affirmation is the affirmation of philosophy, of valuation in
Nietzschean terms, itself. In what I have written of the Daemonic, the real-ego and ideal-ego,
as time and eternity, or freedom and necessity, transcend themselves within one
another but also transcend themselves as a relation, thereby stabilizing this asymmetry,
for this later transcendence- the transcendence of the relation, which I call reification,
(just as I identify relation with language) also constitutes the form of the logos, that is, the
form of philosophy itself, in its perfected activity, in its self-grounding. ]

To the above -- yes, the form of reification is as you say, and I've been refreshing on Hegel and found already the perfect description of this in Phenomenology of Spirit, which is many pages and I will re-type here to post soon, but the point Hegel also makes here is one that we must carry forward to the polis as such: most people can only actualize this reification by "denying" it, which means specifically that they do precisely what I've been saying is the root of ideology and which apparently Hegel already described way back then in this book: sinking themselves into the contents of their consciousness, contents as such, which is precisely the form of non- or pre-philosophical reason and nothing besides, and this "unconscious reification" is the activity of universality in so far as we cannot help but perpetuate a fidelity to our own Ends even as those ends are, not even denied, but not at all are these people, this polis, capable of realizing that this is what they are doing. Modern liberal humanist values are these realizations, these unconscious reifications that achieve their ends because they resist and deny those ends, which means that paying fidelity to the "false" ideals here (false only from the perspective of a "higher" philosophy) ends up pushing that truth in the false and which grounds it. No merely empty moralism on the world scale has ever been just emptiness, simply for the fact of propagating itself at the world level.

Philosophy demands too much, this is philosophy's error: to expect the seed to be that tree which it will only yet become, to judge the seed as a failure precisely because it is a seed. Humanity today, the polis, Europe, modernity as liberal humanism as a mask for pre-political drives and "archaic psychologies" is this seed, and the tree it will grow will shed that fruit which is and has been for 2500 years in the works. Russia lacks the masks; Russia is still directly Marxist in believing that the pure drives themselves can succeed as masks for the Christian, while Europe has achieved the realization that new masks are needed and are already upon us. The truth is in the masks and in the need behind their realization, not in some kind of "pure Christian soul", which is the irony for Russia since the mask they employ is pre-existent even to the false Christianity that "truly" grounds the Russian ethos.

It is true that Russia and the US are alike in this way, but Europe has already transcended that. The power games at the level of "the real" of the US and Russia are not a transcendence but a stalling, a stasis as the relative youth of both US and Russia at the cultural levels (Russia and US were both made in the late 1800s to early 1900s) still cannot deal with the much more developed culture of Europe, whose cultures are actually roosting in US and Russia who now instantiate it at the political and "real" levels. Europe is ancient from both the perspective of Russia and the US: the joke is that Russia and the US were both made by Europe, Europe created each of these world powers. Russia and US really only exist today at the symbolic level, attested to by the fact of the orgies of military prowess and drive-psychology out in the open and asserted by Russia and the US as if any of that constituted a fucking personality or an ethos, which of course it does not. At the ideal level it would be hard to say that Russia or the US even exist, evidenced by the silly political games of dick-wagging and the fact that US cultural hegemony constitutes a fucking coke bottle. Only Europe continues to drive something like values from within Capital. What is the EU, then? A German joke, or a capitulation to the silent logic of vegetative law?

Europe has created Russia to the east, US to the west. In Russia is the grave of Kant, Eastern Europe is still "Russian", Marx is still the love within the Russian heart even as Nietzsche competes with his "post"-modern formulas of radicals reconstruction of the values-constructs and US culture bleeds into Russia from all over, Russians still make that culture thoroughly their own. Putin is the internal principle of tension holding the subjectivity of Russia together from the early 1800s to the 1920s, but that tension cannot last forever. Precisely where the greatest shows of crude power are, there you may look for the collapse that will come. A nuclear bomb is not non-philosophical, it is anti-philosophical.

Speaking of nukes. The US, Britain, France and Israel have plenty between them to erase Russia from the fucking map in any event of open warfare. Even without Israel which might not be counted upon in such a situation, US nukes in Europe plus those owned by France and UK are plenty to decimate Russia forever, yet of course Russia could lay waste to all of Europe as well. It's a nonsensical horror story, it has no meaning.

Europe is still the Mind that governs the "bodies" of Russia and the US. A body does not survive without its mind. Neither Russia nor the US have been able to build a mind for themselves, and for good reason: both are still, unlike Europe, thoroughly Christian. Liberal modern humanism, so called, is just a system of guises and mask-logics with which to force the faint stirrings of Mind into both US and Russia, and by extension to the rest of the world. Equal rights, tolerance, transparency, non-pathology, and creative playful liberation, these aren't political values, they are the values of consciousness as such.

» The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law (2)
» The philosophy of Brexit and Globalism
» Globalism will probably win (which means we will all lose)
» Ontology
» Summary of value ontology