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

Good post.

Seems the Middle Path has over-grown with weeds.

An interesting question would be, why didn't the merely ethical ancient Greek society exhibit that same phenomenon before Christianity created the metaphysical foundation, since society rapidly expressed the phenomenon after that foundation was lost?

The Greek polis was organized entirely differently than modern Christian and post-Christianity society. The whole structure of the polis existed as static elements, a "demos," and there were not political antagonisms that could concentrate and mobilize segments of society against one another, which is what our whole political structure does, concentrating them as the Republican party does, and mobilizing them against each other as the Democratic party does. This pre-Christian static political structure I've mentioned before in this text below:

( Socrates first started creating a tension by identifying marginalization as a social force, thus they killed him for corrupting the youth.


And the second reason why Greek society didn't express it, is because they didn't have tertiary or third stage capitalism, global capitalism, to solidify a base for concentrating segments of society by means of artificial politics (ideology) despite their true political differences. )


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

And to give a concrete example of what I mean by stating that the Greek polis existed as a monolithic static demos (without a right and left, without a polar axis) without internal political tensions that could either be concentrated in the Republican manner or reinterpreted ideologically in the Democratic manner, (tensions which are the essential product of our modern social structure) :


Women might have had comparatively less rights then as opposed to now, but they had a place in the Greek polis, they fulfilled a function inside of the structure- they didn't have a concept of marginalization because that only makes sense in a modern society. Now they have all the rights as men, but they do not have any place in the social order and fulfill no role, thus they are all neurotic and more depressed than ever. The same was true for all classes of individual.


And that is the paradox: in order to have a role or space in the social structure conceived in terms of the Greek polis, you cannot have rights equal to everyone. In order to have equal rights for all classes, there can be no essential functions for any classes of people.

In ancient Greece, the aristocracy was a social class like every other class- one that had a definite and essential function inside the greater structure, the polis. They weren't just rich leaches on society like our corporate-globalist "aristocracy" is. Slaves weren't just slaves, so on and so forth.

Socrates initiating the reflective analysis and deconstruction of the instincts was equivalent to questing these social roles and their dispensation within the polis, thereby identifying marginalization as a social force insofar as he could demonstrate that those roles had no foundation. And they didn't in fact have one, at the time. Christianity later provided it. Hence that section in the text:

[ Philosophy, however, certainly
avoids becoming the enemy of the state, despite the fact that it has been firmly accused of
such treachery, and, insofar as it locates its most definite object, namely sophia or
wisdom, in the transcendent rather than the immanent, that is, in the divine wisdom
before which the finite cognition of man can proclaim only that it knows nothing, so it is
that philosophy can even prove itself the most pious servant of social life, for sophia,
insofar as she is loved- insofar as she is philosophized, becomes the passive ground or
value upon which the polis can begin mobilizing, in the form of a moral schema rather
than a limited ethical praxis, the whole scaffold and rank-ordering of her objects toward a
kinesis of the eu-daemon, in which the perfection of man consists. ]



This is why Socrates was such a destructive force for the Athenians, they had to kill him. But he paved the way nonetheless for Christianity to develop that metaphysical foundation out of which the properly humanistic society of the Renaissance era appeared, and with it, America and all the ideas of US constitutional philosophy: out of which a philosophical justification was provided for the dispensation of functions in the polis, and psyche imprinted with dike, the soul with justice- America was supposed to embody this just polis/society.

The left-right paradigm is a virus that appears on top of that base and compromised its noble ideal, with the rise of tertiary world capital, the world wars, the death of God, and the termination of the Judaeo-Christian moral project.

That professor Peterson outlined very clearly how marginalization works: you isolate a segment of society in which some people are doing comparatively better than others, which is basically going to be any segment of society that you look at, and then without caring at all about the reasons why those differences are the case or if they are rational, irrational, natural or unnatural you define those on the bottom as "slaves" and those on the top as "oppressors". Then you can affiliate yourself with those at the bottom and stoke their jealousies and resentments, thus creating a political force that can be targeted at whoever or whatever you want, usually at those doing comparatively better in that little segment of society or based on any standard of measure you want.

And Parodites I agree with your assessment, that to have a place and function in society necessarily precludes the kind of absolute equality that leftists dream about.

Yes, that is a good view on marginalization. However, in a capitalist state, everyone is doing fairly well, so you must resort to distorting people's impressions via ideology, especially Marxist analysis, in order to convince them that they are doing badly, ie. feminism.

In sum: The republicans inserted a capitalist-globalist core in order to re-align all political opposition and stabilize a political structure in the midst of the dynamic reconfigurations of the right-left paradigm.

The Democratic strategy to counter the Republican one I've outlined, the Democratic strategy which amounts to dissolving the actual political tensions and replacing them with ideology grounded in Marxist dialectical materialism and marginilization, allows the store of available static chunks of the population, usually minorities and the young, to be expanded through identity-politics and class warfare; feminists, BLM guys, all these little liberal sub-cultures gradually appear and absorb populations into static monoliths that can be mobilized against one another and against the Republicans.

The republican strategy creates social cohesion at the expense of bolstering globalist economics. This democratic strategy however is basically Bolshevism: this social breakdown creates a chaotic environment- we're seeing it now, and then after everything falls to pieces, the State steps in and takes over completely, as it did with the communist revolutions.

^ Thus the Republicans, via that inserted globalist-capitalist core, are aligned with big money. The democratic heads are aligned to the state, to the politician class, whose power they aim to extend by means of sewing social chaos. Then we have the neolibs and neocons, who represent the connection of the two, ie. corporate corruption of the political class, from which the trade deals that prop up the globalist structure in reality are born, like the TPP.

The conceptual duality nationalism versus globalism was what really acted like a key for me, unlocking a broader conception and deeper more rational valuing while I was still partially plugged into the matrix. This concept is powerful because it resonates so well to our current situation and paradigm; the conceptual duality is "global" itself, it can be universally applied and so carries thought forward to the higher degree at which point we encounter our own threshold of mental and emotional capacity and pre-programmed ideas, namely we traverse our own limit and are then thrust back into ourselves as if by some kind of antigravity.

Then the limits resonate for a while during which time we can do direct work on them, expanding them here or fortifying them there.

I thought of another good example of Parodites' insight about function versus equality: voting. In Ancient Greece you could actually have a direct democracy where voters came together and debated issues and then voted on those issues, because only a select group of citizens could vote, thus it was their function to remain informed about pertinent issues and facts to society. Nowadays with the equality of voting, where everyone can vote, that is no longer possible and voting decays into merely an indirect statistical expression of the "will of the people" vis a vis whoever ends up being elected is now by default an expression of that "majority will". This isn't bad per se, but it does change the nature of our society. Thought has moved from being a function of a certain segment of the citizenry, to being a function of elected representatives and whoever they choose to employ as subject-matter experts. Thus "the people" stop thinking, and all sort of think tanks and policy organizations and special interests appear to fill in the void left by the citizenry abdicating the function of actually thinking about what is going on in the world around them.

But in a way I like that universal voting instantiates the statistical representation of society at large, at least it has some philosophical appeal to me. I wonder how this difference in how voting works is connected to capitalism and globalization of capital. I'll have to think about that some more.

There is yet another important point to consider. The insight about tertiary capitalism and the geographic nature of production and trade allows for a devastating criticism of globalism, since globalism is the distribution of production, labor and capital beyond the bounds of the locales or nation-states to which those things are tied and in which they ultimately operate; under free trade you have US companies transferring their production and labor force across the oceans to India or China, or south to Mexico, and this is literally increasing the space required for goods and services to transit the production-trade circuit and infrastructure, not even to mention that introducing new languages and cultures into that circuit returns it to the days of pre-WWI Europe, when nation-states could not adequately negotiate the production-trade circuits amongst themselves due to the vast cultural, linguistic and geographic differences from one area of Europe to another.

Globalism not only transfers wealth away from the present hubs of capital production but it also skews the entire system, literally undoing what it is about America that made it so prosperous and free in the first place. Globalism and free trade are quite literally attempting to transform America into another European state as part of a neocolonialist system that is so broadly extended across the globe that the function of locality vanishes altogether and the system itself simply absorbs excess capital through dozens of complicated mechanisms of transfer and dumps that capital into the upper echelons of the system itself, sort of what the old European nation-state monarchies were always doing. It leads to a contradiction of on the one hand non-exportable capital and on the other hand the diffusion and dissolution of capital from economic locales of production and consumption-- the average person loses his capacity to survive and guarantee a life for himself and his family; in losing the locales' centrality within the broader economic scheme humanity literally loses the ability to self-value.

Thrasymachus wrote:

That professor Peterson outlined very clearly how marginalization works: you isolate a segment of society in which some people are doing comparatively better than others, which is basically going to be any segment of society that you look at, and then without caring at all about the reasons why those differences are the case or if they are rational, irrational, natural or unnatural you define those on the bottom as "slaves" and those on the top as "oppressors". Then you can affiliate yourself with those at the bottom and stoke their jealousies and resentments, thus creating a political force that can be targeted at whoever or whatever you want, usually at those doing comparatively better in that little segment of society or based on any standard of measure you want.

And Parodites I agree with your assessment, that to have a place and function in society necessarily precludes the kind of absolute equality that leftists dream about.

This is indeed a very good, a concise and complete explanation.

The antithesis of meritocracy.

Merit and value are opposed by the path of least resistance, which is a parasitic path.

Yes, about voting; we were designed loosely on the Greek model and conducted elections the same way. But the electoral college is still in place and ensures that, not the demos itself, but the polis as a structure is equally represented by the federal government, as the popular vote is pretty meaningless, because the different states all perform a unique function for the polis in terms of national economy, and have unique sets of problems due to differences in their climate, etc.

When our politicians talk about globalism, they use their own vocabulary: multi-lateral institutions. What that means is, our trade deals do not take the form of an actual one-on-one bi-lateral deal between us, the US, and another nation, rather it is US and Mexico or US and China, but rather, it is usually an unreadable, opaque, 10,000 page long agreement with innumerable unrelated provisions like extending copyright law, that a whole host of nations are all a part of and commit to, so that a lowest common denominator effect happens due to the presence of the nations with shittier economies, and in the end the deal ends up benefiting no particular nation or population, [the diffusion and dissolution of capital from economic locales of production and consumption] but rather bureaucrats and corporate shills (globalists] that are part of or head the institutions and companies that are involved in whatever deal it is. We can either pitch in with all of these nations involved in the "multi lateral institution", or simply not be a part of the deal at all, thereby excluding ourselves from the global hemispheric economy that they want to build. And because such deals, like the TPP, are so complicated, and so many countries pitch in on the deal and become part of it, it becomes impossible to modify or renegotiate it in any way as the process goes along- it would take years: the TPP took seven fucking years, and Trump struck it down in about 30 seconds after inauguration, kek. This is all justified by our politicians because as Obama says, the US must sacrifice some of its national sovereignty [get a shittier deal] in order to be a part of multi-later institutions that benefit the greater global good, [corporate globalist shitheads] or whatever he fucking said, it was something like that, my brain just filters out bullshit.

What Trump means when he says "renegotiate our trade deals" is: opt out of these multi-lateral obfuscatory arrangements and create new one on one deals between the US and whatever country it is we're doing business with. Replace the multi-lateral commitments with bilateral deals, quite simply.

Trump realizes the obvious fact that we have the most powerful and robust economy in the world, why would we want to pitch in with all these other nations on a single deal and therein limit what we can accomplish in terms of trade by the lowest common denominator in the "multi-lateral institution?" With one on one deals and bilateral commitments, our economy actually becomes our most powerful weapon.

Chinese state media calling our withdrawing from the TPP "an act of war."

Lol, the Chinese have like 300 outdated nukes, they'd use half of them combating the states surrounding them after declaring war on the US, and then the rest on our carriers. They can't nuke us. Russia could, but Trump is going to get Nato to quit antagonizing them.

Hopefully, but Theresa May already told Trump sanctions should stay on Russia. Let's hope Trump disagrees.

Also, if Russia didn't go to war with NATO in the last three years, I suspect they never would.

Parodites wrote:

Chinese state media calling our withdrawing from the TPP "an act of war."  

Lol, the Chinese have like 300 outdated nukes, they'd use half of them combating the states surrounding them after declaring war on the US, and then the rest on our carriers. They can't nuke us. Russia could, but Trump is going to get Nato to quit antagonizing them.

Clontin was Brzezinskis last hope to go to war with Russia. He knows very well the cost to the Americans, he only uses them to avenge Poland, I think.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Hopefully, but Theresa May already told Trump sanctions should stay on Russia. Let's hope Trump disagrees.

This is important; the antagonism between England and Russia runs so deep and is so scary in its sophistication, that this is basically the one thing I can't discuss. I just don't know.

Look at Mays face. That lady is a hawk. In a good way, but she's going to represent the Crown.

Now that America is back, the British Empire is back as well. Of course Brexit came first. These powers have never been resolved against each other save through neutralizing it in the sompy swamp they made of Europe, perhaps implicitly to that purpose.

Now that nationalism has been restored without the socialism in it, things are going to radically get more dynamic and complex. For every nation has its own laws, I mean selfvaluing attributes, and as the nations start to rise one next to the other no longer under an institutional umbrella but a diplomatic-rationalistic one like the Westphalean Agreement was for Europe, the art of diplomacy, the dance of power essentially, will attain new glories, and philosophy will be part of that. No diplomacy without philosophy, that is certain.

A diplomatic enclave is what lives between the artificial lines, what is truly unbound except by intelligence and the pressures of differing necessities, - a diplomat is not unlike this difference-as-ontos and his diplomatic immunity is the only thing that can guarantee its existence. A law unto itself, even if subservient to the interest of a nation. Paradoxical, but it shows the spearhead of selfvaluing, power; intelligence.

Parodites wrote:

Trump realizes the obvious fact that we have the most powerful and robust economy in the world, why would we want to pitch in with all these other nations on a single deal and therein limit what we can accomplish in terms of trade by the lowest common denominator in the "multi-lateral institution?" With one on one deals and bilateral commitments, our economy actually becomes our most powerful weapon.

This is some impressive footage.

I shared it on Facebook, where I have unlocked my account for a few days. I also shared that post you specifically called important. I know its style alone works like... piss on an infected wound in this case. An ointment. You can see how liberalism and all sorts of desires to be pissed and shat on and in are natural companions. It's their way of self confrontation, selfvaluing-purification.

The funniest thing I ever heard about Freud is something Sauwelios said, that Freud figured children interpret their shit as currency. That they share it by throwing it in a primordial bargaining attempt.
I don't know where he came up with that, I suppose his daughter threw her shit at him, and he tried to reason this into her appreciation of what he had to offer her.
She's supposed to have died a virgin, anyway.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2p5n3j

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/airports-us-immigration-ban-muslim-countries-trump

Awestruck...
this is a selfvaluing boosting back into action.

Suddenly it's worth something to be an American again.

You can see Amsterdam immediately highlighted.

"I love Amsterdam" is most often expressed, I bet, with a sardonic contempt for the lack of standards, which has led to some unexpectedly easy gain.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375404-trump-may-nato-russia/

RT wrote:

It seemed like prudish May, the daughter of an English vicar who has been likened to a staid headmistress, was careening for a public relations disaster with the brash billionaire reality TV star turned president.

On her way to Washington DC, she even hinted at bracing for an odd-couple challenge, by telling reporters, “sometimes opposites attract.”

Curiously, when the two leaders gave a press conference in the East Wing of the White House, it seemed that the “headmistress” had indeed put the unruly Trump on his best behavior. American media remarked with astonishment how “subdued” the president was. He was personable, polite, kept to the script, and managed to not insult anyone. Trump, the tetchy big-mouth, had been tamed, it seemed.

Importantly for May, she can claim mission accomplished. She came to Washington for two main reasons: a commitment from Trump on bilateral trade between the US and Britain and to get the American president to give his full-throated support for the NATO military alliance. She can say she got both.

What I said.

Once you've acquired a taste for power, it's hard to lose it.
The few moments when yous see how they think of themselves they seem a notch tighter than even the US.



No empire had as much as the English, the US doesn't remotely have the ambitions to dispose of the world as arbitrarily as the British did. It is rather the human reaction to such exuberant arrogance, a withdrawal of all the power into one nation, in the way Parodites has described.

A higher daemonism is occurring. Dormant, truer values and valuings are being released, now that strength is possible again. Health and vigor no longer need to shun the light of day -
a lot of stark images coming up.

Parodites wrote:

This is pretty important, something I was thinking about, with regard to the details of how we got here:


The right left paradigm itself alternates, the model of the Rep and Dem party alternating from big to small gov and so forth is simplistic.

There is a missing center of gravity as I have said before, in this right-left paradigm that emerged out of liberal secular humanism at the end of the Christian epoch. Christianity provided the metaphysical foundation for the values of humanism, like equality. If we are all made in the image of God, there can be no such thing as one third of a person or half a person in accordance to the races; all races are equal, etc. This left-right paradigm exists, without that foundation, as a continually alternating polarity, the right and left constantly trading places.

The Republican party first understood this- the Southern strategy. The Republican party put itself in place as this missing center. Nixon was a paleo-conservative type, and reached out to conservative Democrats who were left disorganized and without a real party due to the fact that the Dems had over-extended themselves via mass social appeals for reparations and reconstruction. So the Republican party started to absorb and put together contrary elements of society, it had the Lincoln era classical republicanism, Nixonian paleo-conservatism, anti-State interventionism that it absorbed from the dixiecrats, and then it added even more- from the libertarians it absorbed the pro constitution pro gun thing that characterizes a lot of it today, expressing itself recently in the Tea party, then it absorbed social conservatism, anti-gay marriage kind of thing, Bible thumping, all supported with a basic wall street globalist type base in big money. So the Rep. party, by positioning itself as the missing center, absorbed into itself through the paradigmatic alternation, a host of seemingly opposing segments of society, who don't have much in common besides a capitalist-globalist free trade economics underpinning it all.

The democrats? The democrats have only one thing left they can do, try desperately to appeal to the young and to minorities, so they push out these bizarre theories of social alienation, feminism, anything they can to convince them to ignore all real political concerns and dissolve any real political opposition. The democrats have been forced to exist through appeals to minorities and the young. Because this integrating power on the Rep side has an incredibly hard time absorbing segments of society that have no political opposition like minorities and the young. Politically opposing segments are easily absorbed, but without that political tension, the rep. can't cohere them into its structure.


So Trump comes along, and he basically explodes that void inside the Republican party that allowed it to absorb these contradictory elements, allowing the young to get back into the Republican party as well as minorities. Two things happen, the democrats lose the only thing they had, all their social and political capital is gone, while the globalist underpinning of the Rep. gets cast out.


But how did Trump blow that void up? By introducing two concepts that could create political tension in the static groups, minorities and the young, that the democrats were utilizing: Nationalism vs globalism. Genius!

I find this interesting as I have a quite different take on these things, though I'm not sure if it's entirely at odds with yours.

In my view Right vs Left has always been Nationalism vs Globalism. But let me first clarify or at least qualify the former terms.

Right vs Left is basically no more than pro-stratification vs pro-equality. However, this simple fact still allows for great complexity, as there are many different planes on which one can be pro-stratification or pro-equality.

Nevertheless, the principal plane always remains Us vs Them: those who are pro-stratification insist that We rank above Them; those who are pro-equality insist that They are equal to Us (or We are equal to Them!).

The principal answer to the question "What is good?" is always "that which is old and that which is our own"; this is really a single thing, as what is old but not our own is new to us, and so is what is newly our own.

Already in the 1950s, I think, Leo Strauss pointed out in class that America is a strange bird with regard to Right and Left, Conservatism and Liberalism--giving the example that one of the most conservative groups in the country was called "Daughters of the American Revolution". In France, the revolutionaries were of course left-wing. But in America, there was no ancien régime; the ancien régime was in Britain, was British. America was founded on equal rights such as those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The most extreme American conservatism, therefore, can point back no further than to that foundation. And I think the Republican party has always been conservative in this sense.

In insisting on the abolition of slavery, Lincoln was conservative, not progressive. It was the Confederates who were "progressive" in that they deviated from those founding principles.

Nationalism vs Globalism is basically rural vs urban. The most progressive parts of America are port cities like New York; also L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, and the like. Likewise, Athens' harbor, Piraeus, was considerably more open to the Sophistic Enlightenment than Athens itself; and Athens, in turn, much more than, say, Sparta.

In France, the conservatives stood for throne and altar, and "altar" meant Catholicism: the word wonderfully conveys how much of a Paganized Christianity Catholicism is. The Catholic Church is of course highly stratified.

Still, as in all such organizations, the lower orders still count as superior to even the highest orders of rival organizations. African-Americans, for instance, may be niggers, but they're "our" niggers (not in the sense that "we" possess them, of course, but in that they belong to "us", to the in-group). "America first!"

Same goes for the young.