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

We should be clear that only those who have worked through Christianity have minds; Christians themselves do not and cannot have minds. This is just philosophy. The entirety of Europe is essentially always already this having worked through Christianity, that is literally what Europe is made of, post-Christian refinement. The US people are so interesting because of how they are combinations pre-philosophically of both Puritan repression and "immoral" joissance-like freedom, a sort of weirdly enlightened yet stifled "egoism". Americans are children, and children are pretty cool. I suspect it's much the same with Russians although I've never been these so cannot confirm that.

Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can't just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it's all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators. The European soul is much deeper and older than is the soul of Americans, I suspect it's the same with Russians too that their soul is still highly youthful. Youth is good, but we can't mistake it for some kind of philosophical telos capable of guiding truly mental efforts and values. Youth is great. But the love of youth stifles youth itself, since youth only exists to eventually give birth to trees from seeds. Complex ideological systems prescribe limits in which youthful energies are forced to turn upon themselves in interesting ways, so that minds can somstimes develop out of that, youth transcended as it is supposed to be. And we should also realize that youth achieves its fullest being in the knowledge and perspective that age brings. The being of youth is read backwards from the position of post-youthful subjectivity, in such a position youth is truly able to be realized meaningfully, if the heart is both strong and light enough in its wisdom for that. Trump for example is someone whose aged heart is neither strong nor light, therefore he is not post-youthful wisdom (philosophy) able to read back the being of youth in the present moment, so instead of that Trump is just a child in an adult body, like many people are. His many fits and tantrums and bullying behaviors are just the lashing out of a kid with family problems at home.

Emotions are not non-philosophical, emotions are the seed-logic and guide growth. Mind is delimited by what it is not, its "other" is a mirror in which self-reflections can developed. "Guilt is only the first form of knowledge; and pride, not even the first". In this sense the German joke might be an expression of a more refined pride, and can be read ideally as the stirrings of mental activity but read materially as just the "oppressive parent figure" who children are supposed to lash out against. Bodies are never aware of minds, the mind is just, to the body, an alien principle that forces it here and there. Equating mind with body as Nietzsche/Foucault/Deleuze do from one direction and eastern mysticism does from the opposite direction is just a convenient mask to justify this situation to the body, to form a small sphere of mental activity that never needs to generate in itself any guilty feeling, and so isolates itself from what could properly be called "Spirit" in Hegel's sense. Geist is mind-spirit, the body can accept this fact only when it forgets it, when it "falls into it" as the pure activity of the free play of contents at the drive-level and this is even below the contents of the unconscious reification that we were talking about, although those contents at the pre-universal level give raw impetus and cathartic potency able to negatively work universalism into and as world activity although again as a kind of delimitation of excesses, as Christianism.

" 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".
"




I don't see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It's just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.

About automobiles. Let's take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren't using more solar power right now.

Modern liberal humanist values are not values, they are merely the complex of social forces enabled by capitalism's tertiary function that I talked about some time ago. They are not a mask for anything; they are a barren womb. The generation of epistemes is a process divorced from the metamorphosis of concepts in the dialectic, that dialectic is not the womb out of which the episteme or transcendent relation emerges, which is why Hegel and his geist will deceive you:

" 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, "

This relation transcending as relation is what I was talking about with stasis and motion transcending itself as a relation through entelechy and 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. "




You said: " Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can't just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it's all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators."

Your defense of this totalitarianism is obscene to me, but I take it as a result of misunderstanding rather than character. As I've been saying, liberal secular humanism isn't an ideology. Liberal secular humanism is just the mask for an apolitical complex perpetuating the myth that there was ever an ideological struggle by posturing itself as the end of that struggle. Globalism, a European force with a European origin, which was forced upon America by the corrupt politicians you seem to think are necessary, is what has been making deals with tyrants and dictators and fucking off in the middle east. Is that the great "European mind" that still governs the US? It's an octopus with its tentacles in the empty heads of the corporate rulership that has been forced on the US, that's all. Our founders told us to do exactly the opposite. We were supposed to utilize our geographic advantage and create a continent independent from the rest of the world, where the masses were truly empowered and the polis was mathematically balanced in the branches of government, a true society to carry on the Greek spirit that was snuffed out so long ago before ever attaining its destiny. And that was stolen from us.



You said: " 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."


You have misunderstood much of what I have said.

Europe hasn't transcendent shit. Europe is a regression that is in its death throws. Europe has diffused the core of its original Hellenistic insight through the infection of non-European ideas from the East and then the Jews, through the dialectic- it has identified philosophy with the dialectic, and the original insight that was lost is being reified in the agon of these collected shards of true Western intelligence- through the episteme, shards and seeds which Europe threw away and the US and Russia have been collecting. And through them a new ethos will be created, an episteme for a new political order. Christianity is simply the process of this diffusion, a waking up from the infection of non-European ideas, of foreign karma, which was perhaps needed in order to create the dream of history within which to mature these shards and seeds in secrecy until the time was right to establish a true independent order among the world-powers. In order to get back to the beginning of it, to reawaken the original intuition that transformed the barbarian Doric tribes into the first philosophers- we must go through to the end of it, hence history is the reckoning of its own end, and Christianity is simply the womb within which this has been taking place. Christianity was the mask, the dialectical womb for the episteme and the final revelation of Being, the final emancipation of philosophy, and it has not yet been thought through or gone beyond by anyone: liberal secular humanism is just a corporate byproduct of cokes and Iphones, of economics masquerading as politics. And Europe has thrown Christianity away to exchange it with liberal secular humanism! And the infection of European ideals and globalism is attempting to convince America to forsake it as well. And this liberal "culture" you claim Europe to have: is less than a joke to me. It's an anti-culture.


Haha, Trump a "bully." See, this pretend higher than thou "culture" to me just sounds like a prating old woman, a school teacher's moral loft. Europe is an intellectual vacuum, the original heart of Hellenistic enlightenment has been totally diffused from it, the empty dialectic of history has absorbed it and ground it away with the rocks of foreign soul, and the womb of Being's true revelation, namely Christianity, has been imported to America and Russia, and America will liberate the episteme that has quietly matured in it once the masses realize their emancipatory potential.

Parodites wrote:

" 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".
"




I don't see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It's just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.

About automobiles. Let's take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren't using more solar power right now.

I agree, I see it this way also. American capitalism at this level fully demonstrates the power of free market forces. But the point is that this power is so radical that it ultimately undoes itself, as once you convert so much human labor into mechanical or technological labor thus concentrating labor and displacing workers, the burden of the unemployed is just a cost to society; an available pool of unemployed potential workers drives down the cost of labor which is good for capital owners but there is no inherent mechanism in that situation of having a large pool like that that would inherently drive production in new ways: those unemployed workers can just as easily be used to dig sewers or work on assembly lines or whatever else that already perpetuates existing economic relations and products, it doesn't inherently develop new relations or products. And in the increasing rate of displacement in modern capitalism we have millions of people becoming obsolete because their labor is replaced with non-human labor, all the largest corporations today employ relatively few workers (Google, Apple, etc.) with the exception of Walmart and fast food, but soon those workers will also be replaced by robots and besides that work-labor is menial and should be replaced anyway.

I'm not at all against free market destruction of old industries to make way for progress, but my point is just that at a certain point this destruction runs away with itself; machines and computers can theoretically displace almost all human labor, it's just a gradual process we are on of doing that, the economy and society as a whole can only handle a limited displacement because too much unemployed reduces spending by consumers, raises prices, drains social reserves of capital for welfare, and can cause civil unrest and increase in crime. It's a balancing act, and the economy can more or less find that sweet spot on its own, yet at the point we are at today with automation technologies the ultimate logic is that 90% of people will have no surplus labor to sell to the capital owners, this 90% will be essentially unemployable except in ways that utilize the lowest standards as humans can be pushed into extreme menial poverty-producing work simply out of desperation, so that the cost of sudh marginal cheap labor can actually be lower than the cost of running robots and computer systems.

That isn't s good end, to have 90% of people either unemployed or employed in the lowest kind of work simply out of desperation. This is something I remember reading in Marx, he criticizes Smith's idea of the economy because of how Marx saw there is an inherent imbalance between the position of the worker selling his labor power and the capital owner buying that labor power: the imbalance is precisely that the worker is immediately desperate for a job, while the capital owner already owns capital and by sitting around renting it to workers he isn't desperate in that same way, he can always liquidate his capital and move it to other enterprises or simply into cash, market investments, etc.

Also my point about government bureaucracy was actually about bureaucracy itself and not really about government: bureaucracy appears in the private sector as well, every corporation is a small bureaucracy, a "little government" of sorts. The Internet may self-regulate like nothing else in the history of mass mobilized technology yet to build computers, electricity, to make code, to homogenize systems and code to each other so the Internet can be more or less universally accessible by any device, all of that takes serious corporate-level bureaucratic organization, the imposition of strict hierarchical structures upon workers and which structures are heavily administrative in nature. Likewise, to make sure computers don't explode sometimes or leak dangerous radiation, to make sure companies aren't polluting, etc. we need bureaucratic administrative systems at the level of society as such and which systems are divorced from a profit motive, so that the goals of those systems can be pursued without recourse to conflicts of interest and corruption that would ultimately reduce the effectiveness of those systems in pursuing their goals (making sure products are safe, making sure companies aren't polluting the environment or hurting workers, etc.) There is a division in economy here, the point isn't that the government should take everything over, that would be a disaster; the point is that neither should the market take everything over, that would also be a disaster.

To your other post, the difference between our views I think reduces a lot to our different understandings of what "liberal" and "dialectic" mean. To me, liberal means the values of equality (all are "created equal"), human rights including freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance (the actual societal and economic (but certainly not "absolute") instantiation of the notion of equality, namely equality under the law), and creative expres​sion(science, art, philosophy-- learning as a value in itself), emotional sanity (romance, friendship, basically not seeing other as mere objects). To me these aren't even political values, they are purely rational values, they are literally the values of self-consciousness or "mind" itself.

There is another dimension of liberalism called neoliberalism, which isn't at all what Ive outlined above and which you seem to mean when you use the term "liberal". As I see it: neoliberalism is an excess of true liberalism that was made possible as excess by the rise of modern capitalism, the converting of capital as such info direct sociopolitical value, the takeover of the political by the economic as you said. We agree here. But I divorce liberalism as Ive outlined above from its more recent excess of neoliberalism; they aren't at all the same thing. People like Clinton use the image of liberalism to push their neoliberalism, for them liberalism becomes a convenient mask to hide other agendas entirely, and yet they are still required to wear that mask in public and to at least a little bit pay fidelity to the mask. That is the key: the Clintons and other neoliberals are playing a dialectical role of synthesizing two opposite forces, the forces of true humanity (politically identified by the liberal values I mention above) and the forces of neoliberal domination, objectification of humans, crude physical power, capitals accumulation as an end in itself, etc.

I want to have a dismantling of the neoliberal dimension too, but I don't think that can just happen overnight or by some world nuclear war, because the internal conflict must be totally realized namely capitalism must be reckoned with true liberalism, true civilized rational human values. What are your civilized rational values, do you have any? You mention the Hellenistic project; equality, freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance, creative development of sciences and ideas and art, all of those things I just mentioned were present in Ancient Greece. Yes they had slaves but that is just because they didn't have machines to convert human labor into autonomous labor, as we have today. From what I understand the Greeks didn't even treat their slaves that poorly.

I think you and I want the same thing, more or less, unless you reject the values I outlined above, in which case what are your values here?

As for the dialectic, there are two ways to read it: that things develop as a result of their inherent internal contradictions, or that the developments is external as two different opposing ideas come together and are only overcome by being enveloped by a third, larger idea that retroactively reorganizes and defines those two original ideas. I see both forms of the dialectal logic are at work in humanity and the world. But I'll keep reading Hegel and let you know if and when I find in him the principle of the daemonic and the excess, and the logic of reification as you've laid out. It seems to be erroneous that Hegel is often thought of as proposing a totalized Absolute toward which history progresses, as if the internal tension of difference in the material-ideal could ever be totally dissolved; I don't see him saying that at all, his point seems much subtler than this, as I was explaining in my newer post on self-valuing. But as I said I'll keep reading and report back what I find.

Hegel thought that the dialectic emerges because matter is imperfect. That's the reason history exists at all for him. Because matter, because Being itself is imperfect, so nonbeing emerges as its negation. Then the two terms struggle and synthesize creating spirit or geist, in a process attempting to extract the original imperfection, and we go on and on. Absolute spirit is the perfection of logic toward which history is progressing in Hegel. Not that subtle.



Exactly as you said- freedom of speech and treating people equally under law aren't values. It's just basic social contract stuff. Those are not my values, because they aren't values. They are things I agree to under a social contract because without them society could not function. Liberal secular humanism, out of which both the common species of leftism and neoliberalism have emerged, is not that simple: it involves the myth that the struggle of ideology has ended and that it is that end, it involves the myth that Christianity has been surpassed and God has died, etc.

Neoliberalism is connected to what I called liberal progressivism, which communism and fascism proposed themselves as alternatives to in the great war of the 20th century. It's evolved into the SJW feminist black lives matter shit because it is naturally focused on rejection social forms associated to the true ideological conflicts in Christianity, it is focused on turning over the power of the masses which they concentrated in their religions to the hands of the State- all these ideas of having gone beyond those forms of society, the nuclear family, marriage, Christian based things- all that is just brainwashing by the State to convince people its good to renounce their emancipatory potential and turn their power over. But both it and the liberalism you speak of as equality of races and relativity of cultural values- they are both expressions of one thing: liberal secular humanism, born of the Enlightenment era. The left-right paradigm is an expression of that basic source in liberal secular humanism, which Nietzsche championed as the death of God. That basic source is as I read it just the result of "Identifying philosophy with the dialectic itself", which I talk about at the end of this message. Through it, politics has been brought to an end, as capitalism in its tertiary stage was enabled by it to form a devastating complex of social forces, connecting military, media, science and globalist regimes together under one will.




" 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."


These globalist European motherfuckers are the ones that infiltrated our system through corrupt political classes and convinced us to become their central puppet in the bid for a globalist superstate, by granting access to our military to foreign nations, fucking around in the middle east and moving around the chess pieces in the game of power for the benefit of our European allies, sending tens of millions to Israel every goddamn 24 hours, etc. This military dickwaving you are talking about is the result of the globalism you defend; it is the result of European manipulation, not American spirit, which is based in completely opposite intentions.


The anti-Americanism and pro-globalist, pro-idealogy, pro fascistic, pro-European, pro politically correct liberal stuff is difficult for me to take, so restating myself as objectively as possible with no personal feeling about it: Christianity is the dialectic of history: it has absorbed the material of foreign non-Western cultures. Identifying philosophy with that dialectic has produced liberal secular humanism and its "values", which are actually nihilism, enabling economics and the social complex formed around capitalism to masquerade as politics. But the epistemes born of the reification of our cultural inheritance I talk about are connected to a completely independent process of emergence, the epistemes- ontic, immanent, and eventually the transcendent episteme, are the result of reflectivity reproducing its own negation from that leveling dialectic as a positive or guiding image of thought. By reproducing the negative core driving the dialectic for the dialectic, the dialectic is dissolved and transcended by the episteme. Thus Christianity will eventually reproduce its own negation as its object of thought and reignite the flame of Hellenistic insight, the transcendent episteme to serve as the fulcrum for a new wheel of time.

In Hegel's system you cannot even begin to claim that the negative core is in the dialectic: the negation appears only after the affirmation of Being is made, which contains the original seed of imperfection that the dialectic is attempting to dig out of matter. So in Hegel, the dialectic is generative- it is what is making the philosophic ideas, it is creating them. But in my system it is leveling them, it is an artificial process began in Greece that is destroying the primordial intimation of Being that Heidegger didn't understand and which transformed the ancient tribes of Greece into the first philosophers, and the true process of philosophic creation has been stalled culminating in the diffusion of European culture, and will only begin again after finishing the project of Christianity as I mentioned above.

Your use of entelechia and energeia seem to mirror Hegel's use of material and ideal, the logic is that actuality is always already the "work" for the sake of the ideal which it can never truly reach or realize in practice (because of how energeia and entelechia remain eternally apart) but nonetheless which can be reached and realized as the transcendence of the relation between these into higher forms. I think Hegel might agree that the original tension is preserved, yet even in that preservation new possible forms and ideas are emerging, new "epistemes" if that is close to your use of the word here. New modes of human subjectivity. The way an Ancient Greek saw the world is quite different from the way we see the world, our respective subjectivities are different in part because of how the older relations between entelechia and energeia as categories of the self have transcended over time as new contents develop and push new forms. I tend to see this development as somewhat minimal, in that the rational values of consciousness are still the same now as they were back in Ancient Greece and those old Greeks were still understanding those values to some extent just as we are today. The mind must basically reckon with non-mental reality, pure physical need and imposition of crude force; this imposition is always trying to drag life back down toward its lower dimension of energeia without entelechia, but could never really succeed in doing that because of how the physical material are already organized "ideally" to begin with in so far as we are speaking of being as human being; and this points to the accumulation over time of cultural artifacts as ideas that increasingly fill out, with both clarity and confusion, the content-spaces of expanding human consciousness.

My understanding of the reification is that it is a preservation of the original tension and the application of that tension upon new domains. The classic example of the French Revolution being one excess posited as reaction to another, leading to the pendulum swinging from too far in one direction to too far in another direction; the tensions (internal contradictions, essential split of entelechia and energeia) latent to the original position reappeared in the tension of the new position as reaction, and these are precisely the same tension in both cases, yet the transcendence here is that the tensions are negative or passive in the original moment and become active in the present moment. The "synthesis" occurs when the new moment's momentum collapses and a still newer moment appears, one that works the tension as activity partially back into the passive ground of the original moment, yet not as passive as it had formerly been in that original moment. The tension is still there, a political and economic tension for example, but it has moved a little from passive to active, meaning that the tension is slightly more able to reshape existing relations in society and the world.

After the French Revolution and even after Napoleon it wasn't as if the original tensions which led to the revolution were now gone; they were simply moved a bit more out in the open, as new ideas of legality and democratic participation were allowed to seep into the idea of monarchy. This isn't an immediate relief of the tension, it is using the tension in a new way to reshape existing sociopolitical and socioeconomic landscapes. And those landscapes in turn also end up reshaping individual subjectivity in the sense that individual subjectivities are always in a large way locally produced by the forms and dominant ideas and relations of the society in which the individual comes up in. To me this all speaks to what you say about reification, but correct me if I'm wrong.

It's important for me to point out that I didn't say those things weren't values, I said they weren't political values; I said they are rational values, values of reason as such, values of (self-) consciousness.

Do you not agree? What do you think are the rational values of self-consciousness as such, qua self-consciousness? I know you don't believe in social construction, but do you really think these I listed (equality, tolerance, freedom, creativity, emotional sanity (non-pathology)) are merely social contract theory and nothing besides? That sounds like pure social construction theory to me; the social contract doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the rational requirements of self-conscious being qua that very self-consciousness itself, applied socially as it always is going to be since there is no "pure individual", in a self-conscious species the individual is a created thing (thus the very meaning of the ideal, entelechia, the universal, etc.)

Edit: I feel obliged to also point out that I am not a totalitarian.

One example I can think of easily where government intervention produced great results, and when dealing with massive unemployment shows how the government is a key player in helping this situation out, was the Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC was created by FDR during the Great Depression, it gave work to millions of unemployed men in creating infrastructure, conservation and forestry. The government is basically a giant pool of money in this sense that it can fund large scale projects like this. Millions of people got real work (they weren't just digging holes and then filling them back up again), conservation of the environment was progressed literally and in the understanding of the public, and the workers gained valuable marketable skills that were later used in the economy at large after the program ended. Much of the infrastructure that was build by CCC still exists today and is used every day, easy example is state and national parks. I've heard interviews with old guys today who were in CCC, they were saying that it was a great experience for them, they learned real skills and got paid so could support their families back home.

I want to see more stuff like this today. The dogma of those like Trump and the modern-day GOP/tea party movement is that such projects are inherently bad, wasteful, economically disastrous, yet in the case of the CCC it was a huge success. If I detest any idea thoroughly it is this idea that government is inherently evil; yes government can be evil, but so can private citizens and corporations, and none of these entities need be evil but may be given certain circumstances, yet may also be good as well. The extreme anti-government idea today in modern Right politics is pure ideology, it is another radically hyperbolic claim among so many others and Trump is just dumb enough to say it all out loud without a filter, so we can get a nice glimpse inside this particular brand of pathological thinking. Just because I reject the idea that government is inherently bad or evil doesn't make me a totalitarian or a fascist, nor does it make me an apologist for the actual evils of governments.

In my system, the core of negation is driving the dialectic (in Hegel it is driving physical reality, it owes itself to the imperfection of matter itself) to constantly reify conceptual tension in higher terms, from stasis and motion to energy and entelechy and onward. Because the dialectic for me lacks the affirmative core that it has in Hegel, it cannot stabilize the relation and arrive at a synthesis. Without a synthesis, the dialectic cannot generate new concepts, it can only reify the original tension in higher series of abstractions. But if the dialectic reproduces for itself its own negative core, an episteme is generated: so far two have been generated, the ontic with the Hellenes after grappling with Asian and Egyptian concepts, then the immanent by the Jews working off the Greeks, with the transcendent appearing in Christianity but not yet accessed. When the episteme is generated, the dialectic is annulled and the original intimation of Being which Heidegger longed for is grasped, shining through our historical, dialectic distortion, if only as a fragment: the circle of history is drawn back and re-initiated and a new subjectivity emerges along with a new karmic aeon or order of the world, again, so far two have been completed, the Greeks and Jews, with the ontic and immanent episteme. The transcendent episteme will bring us back to the full witness of Being: which, as opposed to Hegel, has no imperfection- the original insight witnessed by the Doric tribes was a perfect seizure of transcendence into the world and turned them into the first philosophers, they willed Greece into existence on its foundation, which we have lost to the distortion of the historical dialectic, which only appeared because the original Greeks let themselves be infected with foreign systems of thought- imperfect systems, which introduced negation to what was a purely affirmative mode of thinking.


Europe with its aristocracies and tyrants and monarchies and now the EU... The US was founded on the first temple dedicated to the people; from our founding documents there was outlined the system of government through which a new order of the world would be established, a self-administered polis, the first truly free populace, free of political elites and centralization and ideology- the first populace free to think for themselves and generate true values; that's our culture, not fucking coca cola. Coca cola is what we were left with after our globalist leaders betrayed us and sucked up all our power. But in this new continent, the dialectic which has diffused the European soul can still be broken through, and the episteme generated for a new age. But the tools needed for that transformation of the soul of the masses, Christianity, have been damaged, through liberal progressivism, and our politics manipulated by Europe, through its globalist reach from out of the Reich's failures- the fucking krauts set up the basis of the EU when they seen they were falling. But Europe's failure is already assured, America can still rise, and claim the destiny that has been denied to it by the scheming world powers, its destiny of novus ordo saeclorum, to inherit the soul of the West and become the central cultural beacon in the world, with Europe declining into an afterthought, a refuse, an atavism, a failure, a ghost, as merely ceremonial as its monarchs are.

And in this new order of the world, once the transcendent episteme is realized, man will return to what the Doric tribes witnessed, and the last age will resemble the first. Spontaneously there emerged in the ranks of the proto-Socratics fully formed philosophies, and a similar cultural explosion will take place- in America, not Europe. Europe renounced and gave up its future.

As to what my values are? Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to god. The US was based on a self-governing populace. The kind of EU style top down centralized government- indeed, that is always evil.

The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.

I think the one thing I don't see yet is how the core of being is affirmation. Nietzsche definitely thought this, I used to think it too, but I don't see it that way anymore. Pure affirmation in itself would be meaningless, an endless circle collapsing to nothingness without a constant input of contents to keep that circle going. I think the self and being as such is indeed affirmation, but not "at bottom"-- at bottom this affirmation is a logical structure of self-reference that requires constant input from the outside in order to maintain itself coherently, in order not to collapse into non-existence (madness in the human sense). Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder? That seems the only possibility for pure affirmation, yet that project would only come at the end of being and never could be the case at its beginning, for the simple reason that once the self-affirming logic obtains it begins eating its experiences in order to convert affirmation into 'real substance' and if it did not do this then it would simply sit there, not doing anything.

How exactly do you see the core of being as pure affirmation in itself? The way I see it is that affirmation arises as a consequence of the relations among contents, a kind of "storm" in being.

Parodites wrote:

The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.

But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a "will" even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don't think they do.

This will isn't one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.

Capable wrote:

Parodites wrote:

The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it's involuntary, it's tyrannical. I'm opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.

But the point is that the will of the people is never adequate to the realities (natural, social, economic or otherwise) in which that will must manifest itself. The people can never fully and perfectly (without errors, remainder, inconsistencies) actualize such a "will" even if they had one in such coherent terms, which I don't think they do.

This will isn't one thing, one coherent being, rather I see it as a collection of many different things often in contrast to one another, necessarily so. Human being is a sort of actively self-modulating compromise among all those variously different parts.

The US constitution and founding documents were designed in order to provide the masses the instrument by which to express- as perfectly as possible, that will. It has been corrupted as I said by the centralized federal government. The founders also hoped we would even make further improvements to it, as opposed to fuck it up like we've done.


As to affirmation:

Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder?


Schelling had a vision of man returning the remainder of the divine to the divine through the vehicle of matter; he buried his will in the under-will of the universe in order to return it to god, though he based that on Jewish theology. In this case the whole point of the creation of the world itself and human history literally was just that: to self-enclose the divine and return the remainder, to allow god to absorb himself in his own divine radiance without remainder.

And my idea of the transcendent episteme is about absorbing the contents of the dialectic within itself by reproducing its own negative core as positive objectification. This will take place through the drama of Christianity, going back to Christ representing the psychic incorporation of death, in a positive orientation of man to nonbeing.

And by my own admission, my views on Europe's eventual collapse and the idea that we should just bid it farewell into the dustbin of history- that's a radicalization to my thought I don't expect you to accept, it's just my personal feeling about it. I favor America's rise over all other powers of the world. The generalized point is simply that the torch of the West is passing to the Americas because Europe gave up the tools of its liberation with the globalist centralization and repudiation of Christianity in lieu of liberal secular humanism. Perhaps it can save itself, limp on and join the Masonic brotherhood too one day if only in spirit. At least the British brex'd themselves before they wrecked themselves.

And basically, this election is couched in two paradigm shifts that are occurring: one is political, the other cultural.


First: the left-right paradigm itself is collapsing. There is no left-right anymore. The underpinning of liberal secular humanism on which that political axis of the left-right is based is demonstrating itself to be the product of mere social conditioning and manipulation, of the tertiary stage of late capitalism I keep talking about, and an instrument of the alliance between the media, the military, and science (Think of that bullshit Michio Kaku type global civilization nonsense) with globalism. Think of this: why is there an "alt right" and not an "alt left" right now as well? It's because the liberal secular humanist basis of the left-right paradigm is itself collapsing, and because it is itself based in values the left claims to advance as its very identity in the name of social progress, with its degeneration there is nowhere remaining for the left to "alternate" to, the left has no more conceptual space to fill- there is nowhere further left for there to be. The alt-right isn't really right, it's a symptom of this asymmetry built into the political axis that is only now becoming obvious. There was never a center in the dying political axis; it was the result of social conditioning and never a proper ideological structure. It was a grand conspiracy set up to guide us into the globalist superstate and away from the fulfillment of the social forms dominant at its inception, hence Europe's repudiation of Christianity, the collapse of marriage as an institution, the destruction of the nuclear family, and on and on.

Second: A cultural revitalization that takes the form of Russia piercing together a national identity with the shards of Christian orthodoxy, and the rediscovery of the emancipatory potential of the masses in America, with rising calls to decentralization and a return to true constitutional philosophy. A new political axis is evolving based around pro statism/anti statism and pro nationalism/pro globalism. There is no left-right anymore, now there is nationalist-globalist and statist-antistatist axis. Instead of center, moderate right, hard left and all that, you can now only be described in terms of a nationalist statist or a nationalist antistatist; a statist antinationalist, a globalist statist (the kind of globalism espoused by both neocons and neolibs, by the Bushes and the Clintons, its an international alliance) or a globalist antistatist. (the kind of globalism where you erase the borders between nations and deprive all national sovereignty- rather than an international alliance, you have an actual superstate like what the EU wants to become.)

Quick point on Trump: Fixed raised the great point that at least Trump lies like a human, and not like an "institution" or I would say, as a robot (as Hillary and most politicians lie, Obama included).

This is a fantastic insight. This really captures the essence of his appeal perfectly. This is why his supporters do not care that he is lying, and this is also why his opponents do not care that he is also telling truths as well (he is by default "always telling the truth" even when he openly lies, simply because he lies like a human being; and from the other side he is also by default "always lying" even when he speaks truths, simply because of how he refuses to employ the standard robotic lying of the "systemic violence" of institutional psychology).

But my real question to all this is: yes, but do we really need such broken personalities in order to galvanize a mass political attempt at speaking truth to power? If so, what does this tell us about politics and humanity today?

It's more about the fact that the social complex in late tertiary capitalism- it's hold on our political machine, is too strong to simply speak them out of power. Trump is simply the only person with enough pre-existing media presence and monetary resources to do this, to challenge the political establishment and open the way for a new order to emerge. He also has been planning for 30 years to do this, waiting for the opportunity when the current political paradigm was at its weakest to put his plan into action. I'd rather it have been someone else, there's people who could do this better than Trump, maybe not the actual winning of the election because like I said he has a skill at this apparently but people that could allow the real philosophic undercurrent enabling all this to happen to speak through them more eloquently and completely, people more knowledgeable about politics and the like, but Trump happens to be the person who had both the physical ability to win and the will to do so. More than anything else he is a mouthpiece or avatar for these paradigm shifts, not the actual origination to them, he's the muscle not the brain behind it.


About affirmation: My system of topos, dialectic, and episteme, is in essence the philosophy of how Being's original affirmation becomes self-enclosed without remainder. So the three epistemes- the ontic, immanent, and transcendent, correspond with the rise of post Hellenistic Greece, the Judaic religion, and Christianity. But each of these three epochs has an ontic, immanent, and transcendent episteme subdivided in it. That's what I mean by enfoldment. Christianity was latently enfolded all the way back before even the Jews arose. So there was an ontic, immanent, and transcendent revelation in post-Hellenistic culture, that last bringing about the transition to Judaic enlightenment about the immanent, faceless God of Abraham. And each of those subdivisions has its own further sub-sub division of ontic, immanent, and trasc. episteme. And so on and so forth, down into seconds and microseconds and the Planck scale. History- time itself, is this intellectual structure of enfoldment. Every moment in the dialectic of history can be unfolded into one of the epistemes or re-enfolded. This is what I mean by cycles of time. And with each transition, from the Greeks to the Jews to Christianity, these cycles get tighter; the enfoldment more severe, the subdivisions more interconnected, and the last transition that will soon come will allow us to escape from time from within time as we reproduce the whole residual theophany of the transcendent object behind history, which will cast no further shadow into the physis of nature, the bound monad. The enfoldment will become self-enclosed entirely in its severity and the pure affirmation of Being realized, without remainder, without the shadow of the real, breaking the diamond of the world-ontos on a beam of light without imperfection, without the negation fueling the dialectic of human history as a distortion of the affirmation, of Being.  Technology will serve to facilitate the expression of transcendence and preserve it, a tool the ancient Doric tribes did not possess.



While I'm against the technocratic Messianic ideal aligned with the pseudo-politics behind the globalist superstate and planetary government, unlike Heidegger I'm not against technology itself. Our technology will serve to engrave the transcendent revelation of Being upon the Anthropocene, whereas the ancient Doric tribes only had writing and oral traditions.

About the Zizek quote in your signature- this speculative dance of capital I am going to briefly talk about after I restate what I said a long time ago about the three stages of capital:

[ The problem is that the surplus wealth must be centralized in the hands of a few, otherwise it will become too evenly distributed for any re-investment to be made in a kind of two stage process I will describe, whereby capital is being moved around, from a first stage in which free labor is converted into capital, and a second at which capital is re-converted into labor- specifically working, or utilized labor. This equation is very important, because if we as a species fail to work out the balancing act implicit in it between free and working labor, between expansive and contractive/centralized or monopolized capital, then a lot of us die; this is the structure that keeps society from falling apart. And we've gotten it incorrect on our first two attempts at it, the world wars.


You can see this movement of the surplus wealth in two recurrent stages. Capitalism in the early phase is marked by the emergence of free trade and the rising of innumerable small businesses and entrepreneurs- this is where the world was before WW1. At this stage the surplus wealth created by all these little businesses is fairly well distributed. Marx theorized a point of no further expansion possible, "State Capitalism," in which these small businesses- the little Bourgeoisie, will be absorbed over time by the proper bourgeoisie out of which the elite class precipitates as the bearers of centralized wealth; this centralization takes the form of Mcdonalds, Apple, Microsoft. Monopolies absorb the small businesses, that is, the little-middle-class of successful smaller scale entrepeneurs who have done well for themselves, and re-concentrate the much more distributed surplus wealth created in the early explosive stage of capitalism. Now, in this later stage, in state capitalism, a very small number- the proper elites, have gained enough control over surplus wealth to simply charge people for rent and make money without expending much if any labor. This is the necessary step that leads to all the surplus wealth and therefor power being stripped from the common masses and handed to the select few, that it may be re-invested in the next cycle of innovations. This next cycle creates within itself a kind of pseudo-controlled mini first phase capitalism again, that acts explosively as many smaller businesses crop up over night to take advantage of the various new avenues that have opened up with the new tech produced in that cycle, ie. everyone going after domain names in the dot com thing in the 90's, or the profusion of more different kinds of cellphone than you could count in all shapes and sizes before the Iphone appeared. This bubbles out for awhile and then pops, the surplus wealth is reabsorbed, and so on, ad infinitum, each time strengthening and further concentrating the surplus wealth in the last cycle into fewer and fewer hands, a smaller and smaller "elite" class, the designated 1 percent. Now, because this didn't happen when free trade was first established, before WW1, the surplus wealth was too evenly distributed and dried up; the products of this failed first phase however were not iphones and web domains and sneakers with lights- they were bullets, bombs, and machine guns, and all of the surplus wealth, now in the hands of the people- an unemployed and impoverished people after the failure to reincorporate the surplus, used it to create the first war of the people rather than of small trained armies: they used the wealth surplus and the means of production to manufacture the necessary agents to kill themselves instead of recentralizing and investing it in a new cycle of innovations.


This is why, as you say, pure capitalism is impossible- pure capitalism meaning an infinitely distributive and unencumbered period of first phase free trading and small businesses. Socialism simply aborts the second phase and replaces it with government intervention on the economy, and that has the effect only of drying up the surplus wealth created in the first phase, as the democratic and governmental modification on the economy, the workers controlling the means of production- for all taxation and government intervention has that effect of shifting control over productive capacity to the people if only indirectly, cannot properly mobilize the surplus wealth toward the development of the next cycle of technology. So socialism is not viable for that reason as well.


If you collect taxes and use it to build a road, through governmental intervention on the economy, then you also have a bunch of businesses and innovation that was not created and could have been created with the same money- but only if society is in a state of economic equilibrium, because if there are a bunch of unemployed people at the time, then now their unused labor capacity is being utilized to construct the road, and labor is not being diverted from anything that would have been getting done otherwise. That is one justification for socialist policies. Yet it actually is being diverted from expansion, for the following reason. Through this tax, money is collected from workers operating in an expansive state of the movement of capital, in that mini unencumbered free trading bubble reproduced within the second phase, and then redistributed to those currently unemployed and converts their unused labor capacity into public goods like a road, so that as I said, what is happening is power and productive capacity is being re-bestowed to the people, aborting the second phase or state-capitalism from completing itself in the movement of capital that would redistribute the wealth surplus to an elite class who would be able to reinvest it properly and create tech and sector bubbles which mobilize a fury of human labor toward new innovations and maintain equilibrium. As the first phase converts free labor into capital, the second phase must convert capital into working labor: this socialist intervention converts free  labor into "nothing", ie. as opposed to working labor, my concept of working-labor meaning more or less capitalistic expansion: it converts a previously unemployed guy in a state of unused free labor now building a road into an invisible piece of fiat currency- for unless the wealth surplus is centralized at the end of the second phase in the cycle then it dissipates, and each piece of free-labor that is being taxed by a construction job for a road is just that- a dissipation of the wealth surplus. Obviously we need roads, but this is the effect of acquiring it and anything else through taxation. Taxation is simply a dissipation of wealth surplus, a prevention of its being centralized in preparation for its reinvestment by the elite class. Taxation and socialist policy prevents the formation of the little-middle class, so that the middle class proper spreads its cumulative wealth so much that the elites have no way to siphon off surplus wealth into their monopoly, and thus no capital concentrates anywhere, and cannot be reinvested. In short: working-labor must be kept equal to free-labor with reference to the third term of capital; working-labor (or expansive trade) minus free-labor (potential trading, ie. my work for your money) must equal capital, (the material that can be expansively traded, which includes human beings in a state of free-labor) and this equation is accomplished by centralizing surplus wealth and reinvesting it in new technologies at the end of each of these two-phase cycles. Socialism is basically adding free-labor to capital and saying it equals working-labor, but it does not, because free-labor is already contained implicitly in the value of capital.



This two phase recurrence is the problem for both a pure capitalism- the first phase without the second, as well as socialism, and I'm not aware of any solution. If the first phase is pushed too far, then countless small businesses distribute all surplus wealth to the extent that it can no longer be collected in one place and reinvested in new technologies, and capitalism hits a dead end and regresses- that is what happened to bring on the first world war, as, in the fascination of the human species with the new free trade idea, we were finally woke up from its dream into its nightmare; if the second phase is replaced by a governmental intervention, if taxes are utilized to give control over productive capacity to the people, then the surplus wealth from the first phase gets starved and dried up- the attempts to shift this productive control to the people on a large scale amounted to the failed communistic regimes, and ended in the second world war. Now in the US at the present time and in other places in the world we are attempting to apply a very small amount of intervention or socialist policy, not completely aborting the second phase, and modern socialists like Sanders want to accomplish that by laying taxes on the elite class, the 1 percent in particular, and this has and will have only the consequence of making the starvation of surplus wealth much more slow than it would be in an overtly socialistic or communist state, and through attrition will take us into another war, as we will find this method works as badly as the other two.  A small business can get by on balancing costs with revenues whereas a large business that tries to do that will simply get bought out or out-competed by a more ambitious large business producing more total surplus value. The only real solution I can see to the problem is that a large enough field of capital and economic agents exists such that both processes, stages 1 and 2 can co-occur alongside each other at all times; therefore limited bubbles coming into existence and collapsing without disturbing the entire society and economy as a whole, but also being effective at spurring expansions and bubble-based inflations to such a degree that productive increases produce society-wide significance. "


Indeed this has led to a third stage which I haven't mentioned yet. The rise of the banking system.


I found out yesterday that Lenin had a similar analysis of the cause of WW1 as mine. The surplus value created in what I call the first stage of expansive free-trade he called a product of colonial imperialism and said that this surplus could not successfully be exported from one nation to another, and this led to war.


So the first stage, that of expansive free trade, creates a large surplus capital value but it is so widely distributed among competing small businesses that it cannot be centralized and that is the reason why, as Lenin said, it cannot be exported; because it cannot be exported, it is instead concentrated in monopoly companies and re-invested in new technological enterprises, while these monopolies recreate expansive bubbles of free trade and smaller businesses within themselves in order to re-absorb and further concentrate any wealth still external to them, creating the "1 percent" class; the third stage appears as international banking systems, which coordinate transfers of this concentrated wealth on a larger scale and deal with the exportation problem between nations. This banking system is supported by alliances in general and unites the various capitalist countries through tenuous relations of debt- ie we owe a lot of money to China, therefor China can continue manufacturing because it knows we will buy its products, and the global economy can keep functioning with the US as the center of the debt and the international bank system. This third stage leads to the US, as the center of this debt, losing its own manufacturing capabilities, as the companies move their means of production to other nations and the globalist EU becomes empowered more and more. ]


So you see that the "speculative dance of capital" or the volatility of the stock market exchange is actually just a corollary to this tertiary function of late-stage capitalism where the international banking integration emerges: with less integration, (countries can manipulate their currency to intentionally provoke this difficulty in integrating) the stock becomes more volatile, as the smaller economic excitations in the second stage become more easily manipulated as they fail to produce exportable capital.


1. Free trade. Explosion of small businesses and creation of a large amount of homogeneous distributed nonexportable surplus capital.
2. Larger businesses absorb the smaller ones and concentrate wealth so that it can be reinvested in creating new tech. and exportable capital.
3. The international banking system emerges, which negotiates this transfer of wealth. Wealth not transferred in this stage through the global economy is easily manipulated, leading to a volatile stock market, the "dance of capital". This manipulated wealth is a residual defect in this system and only exists on paper. Hence the danger in getting rich by playing stocks. When the integration in the tertiary stage starts occurring again and concentrated surplus capital becomes exportable, all that imaginary wealth evaporates. That's what an economic bubble or crash actually is, it's the tertiary stage kicking in again. But each bubble has just been venting the super-volcano so that it can all go on a bit longer- the true bubble will pop soon.

That first stage was pushed as far as it could go and failed, hence WW1 like I said in the repaste. Then the second stage was developed and pushed as far as it could go, failed, WW2 occured, and then the third stage emerged with the globalist superstate taking form around it. And now this third stage is being pushed as far as it can go, it's going to fail, WW3 will take place, and then we'll see what happens going forward.

America's geographic and economic independence is what led the globalists to corrupt our politics and turn us into their primary instrument: grounding the tertiary stage in America ensured that the system could always recover from any crashes, as America's independence would protect the greater hub of global capital from diffusion. But America is now waking up to the parasite, and that the globalists only wanted to push us out of the world stage as a sovereign state and make use of our power and advantages for their own ends. They turned America into simply their protective shield around global capital, hence they are the ones that replaced our culture with a Big Mac.

Here is my take on these important issues:

Wealth concentrates upward simply because this is the nature of capital to be inherently organized toward increasingly totalitarian status. Most people either do not act on a totalitarian impulse or simply cannot act on it meaningfully, but the small number that do have that impulse and act on it end up drawing capital to themselves like a gravity well. Before modern capitalism wealth was always in the hands or held at the behest of the political-military aristocracy, totalitarian form-as-such; this is simply because force is used to compel capital transfers to those who have the use of force on their side. The genius of capitalism was to find a second mechanism for how large scale mobilizations of capitalism could occur, namely through strictly economic (inherently non-political-military) exchanges, and thus led to a rise of new powerful entities in society, the wealthy business owners and eventually large corporations. Ostensibly these are separate from political-military powers, of course that isn't absolutely the case but capitalism did create this counter-object of the economic-as-such against the historical object of political-military-as-such, when it came to how large scale mobilizations of capital might occur.

Capitalism separates out economy from politics, again it does this regardless of the obvious fact that economics and politics are still highly entangled; the separation is still very real.

WWI was caused by many things, most notably by strong nationalistic sentiment and colonial ambitions, basically by a misplaced sense of pride that could be easily damaged. German "weltpolitik", British imperialism, Austrian racism against Serbs, Russian meddling in the Balkans, entangled national defense alliances, German provocations in colonial territories (Morocco, Congo), naval arms race between Britain and Germany, and the slow spread of the idea of socialism throughout Germany, Russia, Italy, France and Austria. But basically it was a hell of a lot of "national pride" that created the situation of tense buildup of hostilities and political minefields to where the assassination of the archduke to Austria by a Serbian nationalist, in Serbia, was enough to spark the fire.

Plus, in the typical blindness of nationalistic fervor, most countries and people felt like a war would be quickly over, with their side winning obviously.

The beauty of NATO and the EU is that it is meant to solidify such a large bloc of European powers together that this kind of complex, nationalistic, racist, rivalry and entangled alliances situation wouldn't occur again. If one opposes such large blocs of economic and military cooperation and wants instead a return to 19th and early 20th century isolated nationalism then one simply calls for another major land war in Europe. The real problem isn't these new blocs themselves, the problem is that they aren't strong enough and may break down: EU is already having serious problems and if other countries withdraw it could collapse, and NATO is a target of Trump's and other disaffected American nationalist conservatives who think we should go back to the good old days of isolationist protectionism, not realizing that any large land war in Europe is something that affects America just as must as it affects the Europeans.

This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. If one's beliefs are implicitly nationalist oriented like that, then it would become impossible to psychologically value any other national and cultural group except for one's own, and thus in today's system of large cooperative blocs like EU and NATO it would further be required to feel strong antipathy for other nations and cultures, in order to defend oneself against what seems to be a personal threat against one's diehard nationalist fervor.

I'm speaking objectively here about the beliefs and paradigms of these various ideas, and not about anyone in particular. I always separate out ideas from the people who "believe" them, and I want to direct philosophy at ideas themselves so as to provide better opportunities for individuals to adopt and work with ideas.

Now, all that was the cause for WWI. WWII was basically caused by a failure to rethink the playing field and the logic of the "only game in town" after WWI was finished; namely, extreme nationalism still existed and Germany had been decimated and not allowed any chance for serious economic recovery after WWI. Colonial aspirations still existed in the Middle East, N Africa and Asia with western powers fighting over who would effectively control these developing or undeveloped areas. Germany had been cut out of the game, and wounded pride had nowhere to go except into desire for a Fuhrer. Just imagine, Germany had been the philosophical powerhouse in the 19th century, it's philosophers fundamentally altering the world with new ideas and ways of thinking, yet now Germany is reduced to almost nothing after WWI. You always need to give people a way out for their wounded pride, and a means to recover their self-valuing after it has been damaged, otherwise you feed radicalism, spite and irrationality. Nationalism itself is a mild form of this very same axis of radicalism-spite-irrationality, created by how societies by default fuck with and suppress people's self-valuing. Just as, which I've written about recently, ideology is the general more mild case of "schizophrenia" (paranoid delusions, also at times hallucinations) just as schizophrenia is a specific more severe case of "ideology".

Back to capitalism, yes I agree that these cycles of boom and bust end up concentrating wealth further upward, again I see this as basically the totalitarian tendency of capital: capital is itself neutral so will be used to potentiate anything at all, which means that the wider aspirations for employing larger reservoirs of capital will naturally create that very possibility by virtue of what capital already is; namely, average people who do not aspire to totalitarian mobilizations of capital for their gain of person power of force-use will only mobilize small amounts of capital, while people who want that kind of totalitarian status will mobilize larger amounts of capital. What was needed was what capitalism brought, a new way of motivating the desire to mobilize large amounts of capital other than for personal political-military power of use of force. But eventually even this "free" system of "pure" economic mobilizations of capital becomes political-military in nature because of how, at the upper levels, the political and military mobilizations of capital further the economic mobilizations of capital (think neocolonialist global capitalism, outsourcing, etc.). So even as capitalism introduced a great new dimension into how social and labor capital can be organized, at the upper echelons this sill merges with the old systems of political-military mobilizations of capital. Thus as wealth "naturally" concentrates upward it also naturally tends to become more totalitarian in nature and even "free capital" ends up feeding the existing political-military orders.

Specific to the UN, EU and NATO: the only reason to reject these sort of blocs is that one thinks large scale warfare is preferable to inter-state and inter-personal tensions sublimated into economic activity. By "economic" here I also mean scientific, cultural-artistic, and ostensibly humanitarian activities. When a situation of large scale war is absent then the people of various nations are free to cooperate with each other across national borders for enhanced economic, scientific, cultural, and humanitarian work; when war is the case this kind of cooperation dries up or is restricted to certain peoples who happen to be in alliance with each other at the moment. "Peace" (from large scale military mobilization and warfare) is a basic condition of a rational, sane world of self-conscious beings; warfare is not some kind of necessity of cleansing of the tensions but rather a low form of catharsis for those tensions, a catharsis that only indirectly addresses those tensions themselves and the real causes for them. War had been necessary, yes, but only because humanity is still so many apes fighting over pieces of the ground and fighting to defend their petty wounded prides. The necessity for war is a symptom of a relatively low stage of self-conscious species evolution, although only philosophy can really understand this because of course we have no other self-conscious species to compare ourselves to or draw from to see what that kind of evolution really looks like over eons. Philosophy must derive this curve of the evolution of the self-conscious species in general. This is an absolutely necessary task that only philosophy can accomplish.

I would rather work toward that task than capitulate to low-stage (in that overall evolution of the self-conscious species in general) logics that see war as inherently necessary or good and global cooperative blocs as inherently unnecessary or bad. Yes global blocs and organizations also serve to instantiate old-style political-military capital mobilization at a higher level of subtly totalitarian power, but a good tool can be used equally for noble or ignoble ends: we should not abandon the nascent projects of forming collective will, ideas and action amongst people and nations simply because it takes a lot of work to push back against that tyranny, we should be trying harder in our pushback, we should reaffirm the value of the evolution of the human species toward better ideas and larger capacities to cooperate and operate at "global" (nationally cooperative without the presence of war) levels. Otherwise we are going to return to a WWI and II state except this time the advent of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, drones, probably military tech we don't even know about, all of that would raze humanity to the ground and simply lead to a collapse of civilization on the worldwide scale, a return to isolated tribalisms, petty local dictators, a loss of the ideas and cultural and scientific products of civilization that have been accumulated for the last 2500 years. No amount of American or Russian "national pride" could ever justify that.

We should be working to improve globally-oriented systems, by bolstering national-level incentives for cooperation and economic activity that is outside the sphere of the political-military, to bring out the best and most civilized, rational instincts in humanity. I will never work for a tyrannical fascist globalism, but neither will I stop working for the idea of a true globalism, one founded on the absence of war and the presence of those core rational values of a self-conscious species that I mentioned in a former post. Those values hold and are grounded in the necessary logic of what self-consciousness means and requires. Self-valuing at the level we humans are at and can ascend to requires asserting such values; we can debate the specific forms of the values and which should be included or given greater priority, and how to translate those values into the world practically and continently, but we must accept the existence of such "primary values" as a basic condition of our philosophizing at this critical stage of attempting to philosophize toward the political.

We should give people and nations better, higher means of defending their pride and asserting their self-valuing then simply through recourse to political-military outlets. But that will require an enforceable suspension of warfare amongst nations, enforceable until such time as the ideas have evolved to the point where human beings no longer see any interest in asserting their self-valuing physically against others in displays of brutal use of force and violence.

Your causes for the world wars I simply do not accept. As I've been writing, there was no ideological reality behind the world conflicts- there was never any real politics, politics was just an illusion following the decay of Christianity (and the loss of any potential fulfillment of the transcendent episteme) into liberal secular humanism and the false political axis now being broken apart predominantly in America, and virtually the entire logic behind the wars was economic in nature, culminating in capital's tertiary function and the rise of the global superstate. My explanation of capital's various stages of transfer explains both the impetus for the wars, what enabled the wars, and the mechanisms by which the wars were fought. I am not championing a third war, but it will inevitably follow the third stage of capitalism that we're in as the other two wars followed the first and second stage- because like the first two, it doesn't work, at least in the long term.


As for this: "This idea that America should sit back and happily watch Europe burn is so disgusting to me, I can only interpret it as a kind of psychological compensation for the belief-set that holds to the isolationist protectionist racist nationalism. "


What, am I racist against other white dudes in Europe? Their model as I've been saying has closed the transcendent episteme to the dialectic of history at the philosophic level, and at the level of the world stage their model- globalism, has bankrupted my country, hijacked our politics and eroded our original constitutional philosophy that guarded us against tyranny, destroyed our culture and turned us into a fucking brand name, a big bank, a Big Mac, among many other ills, so fuck Europe. This country was founded by people who despised European culture- a culture of monarchs and rituals and moralisms, to such an extent that they were willing to risk death crossing an ocean and put up with savage natives in order to start a new world. And the globalist system has done nothing but strip away American sovereignty and power as well as the sovereignty of the very nations it comprises in order to give political power to a bunch of shit-eating unelected beaurocrats. That this superstate was formed in order to prevent escalating war is a myth; it was created merely to bring capital into its tertiary function. And predictably from that model I am proposing, it has deprived the masses of all emancipatory potential and empowered a useless political class of bureaucratic administrators. Britain left the Eu for that reason- they were being oppressed, by tyrants. Not because they were racists.

No I am not at all saying you are racist. Even if I thought that, which I don't, that isn't at all my point. My point is that the idea of nationalism itself inherent includes the extended idea of racism ether in overt or covert form, and that the idea of racism is a stupid and non-philosophical idea.

Belief in one's nation's superiority could theoretically not include any kind of beliefs about the superiority of one race over another, but in practice the way of thinking that the idea of nationalism represents perpetuates other kinds of ideas; racism, sexism, inability to rise above contingent biases, this is as I see it a form of thinking that manifests in different ways. I am not saying that in a practical sense one race, culture, gender, nation cannot be more accomplished in certain areas at any given time, but I am saying that the form of thinking that treats such differences as essential and essentially meaningful as within the sphere of a larger reason, is itself a bad form of thinking. I know you probably disagree with that, but it's fine for us to disagree on this point. Of course I do realize that real differences exist, for example I am on board with your idea that intelligence is somewhat heritable just as I am on board with your idea that males and females have somewhat different innate desires and find different sort of things pleasurable and rewarding. But philosophy requires that we universalize ideation and think from the higher position of reason-- not in order to deny those differences but to sublimate them into higher ideas and meaning. Also it is required to do this for the secondary reason that human pathology and low-quality (non-philosophical) thinking naturally thrives within the form of thought of which racism etc. is a part.

Your association of racism and nationalism is a result of the distortion of the current dying political axis. In the new axis, beyond the left-right divide, racism has no meaning anymore.

The old political left-right axis is grounded in the values of liberal secular humanism, which arose with the decay of Christianity: perhaps, as the result of its decay. The ideas that defined your position in that axis like rather or not you agreed that faggots could get married or there was inequality between the races- were always the myth of ideology, a false politics. Because of this: in US constitutional philosophy, things like that, or rather or not pot is legal, all of those liberal secular humanist principles are simply things to be decided by individual communities, ie:

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

I would add that the institution of marriage was never one of the State and had to do with religion not politics. The state became involved with it in order to create a binding contract between couples for the sake of their children's wellbeing.

The real politics was always hiding in rather or not you thought the federal centralized government could impose things like this from the top onto the local communities and the will of the people, rather or not you were a statist.

The new political axis has three poles: statism, (top down centralized government) globalism, nationalism. (ethic or cultural nationalism, the ethos, the will of the people from the bottom up through the emancipatory potential of communities instead of institutions.)

I would, in this new axis, be an anti-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist- the true meaning of American constitutional philosophy; you would be exactly my polar opposite, a pro-statist pro-globalist anti-nationalist, the European way; The Nazis were and Russia is a pro-statist anti-globalist pro-nationalist type, and then Plato's Republic and Fixed with the idea of philosophic rule but no tyranny from the top down government would be a kind of anti-globalist anti-statist anti-nationalism. The obverse to this final term would be all positives, which is logically nonsensical. A pro-statist pro-globalist pro-nationalist doesn't make sense and is a contradiction in terms. If you're for statism and globalism you can't be a nationalist; if you're  a nationalist you can't be for both statism and globalism. Because of this logical termination point, this political axis is truly centered and self-consistent: it is centered on nationalism, with pro and anti nationalism replacing left and right, liberal/conservative.