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

There have been philosophers collectives before, such as the Vienna circle and Socrates' crew, but what never happened in those circles is the dynamic we have had going on perpetually, where one person proposes something, and the next is able to directly build on that.

Normally, interactions in these circles would not be: "That's true, I didnt even think of that - this in turn opens up/clarifies x" but rather "No no my dear fellow, methinks you have overlooked my little nuance "A" which prompted you to take the formula out of context! You fool! Ho ho ho."

Ive noticed it is exasperating to some who visit here, to find that people can both agree and be constructive.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Ive noticed it is exasperating to some who visit here, to find that people can both agree and be constructive.

Well, I do try to disagree whenever I can do it and still be honest.

All great unions, both political and philosophical, emerge out of necessity, in response to material conditions demanding their formation.


I don't know if the Athenians emerged out of such a necessity.


Check out this Shia-Pet La' Bitch and his "he will not divide us" livestream.


Seeing it hijacked by the Trumpenmacht and disciples of KEK is good.

our memes echo in eternity

The best Tv-show/movie of all time is on for the next 4-8 years, and it's interactive.

Addendum to what I said about language being a participation in the divine:


The logic of Apollinaire's Acousmate, or being-echo.

Hugo defines three; the inner voice, the outside world, and political events. This immaterial multiplicity of signification must be organized into the syntony of material univocity, which assumes its perfect form in the mimesis of cultural and political history. Yet the risk of losing presence is magnified with each reverberation, and Baudelaire's desert appears; the vague, neutral site of empty signification, into which the signifier loses all aspects of its three distinctive voices.

The presence of the divine creates the necessary space within which the "acousmate" can reverberate and multiply into these three voices, to be organized as an internal phenomenology of the subject, an external objectification in the world, and a mimesis of cultural history and political reality.

Without it, without this sacred-space to participate in, Baudelaire's desert appears, and left and right politics as the final abortive acousmate embodies it in the failed utopia of communism and the desert of consumer capitalism, both of which do not provide the syntony necessary to cohere the immaterial multiplicity of signification by means of the material unity of the signifier.

Media is already distorting Trump's immigration ban, calling it a "Muslim ban".

So Trump basically says, "these seven countries cannot be trusted with regard to the people that are coming here from those counties, so for a temporary period we will not take any more people from those countries until we review security."

Nothing wrong with that. But of course the media, radical judges and SJW's everywhere are going insane.

I found this nice concise statement,

"The Department of Homeland Security responded to the judge’s ruling on Saturday morning, saying agents would continue to enforce Trump’s orders. “No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States,” the agency said."  

Yep.

Then you gotta love the DFLers in congress saying Trump's order is "a violation of our constitution norms". What the fuck is a "constitution norm"? Basically just whatever the fuck they want it to be, so they can use political correctness as a pressure to make people do whatever they want, without actually having to see what the Constitution really says, or doesn't say, on the matter.

Indonesia I believe has like 200 million Muslims, or maybe it was Malaysia. Doesn't matter, he didn't ban anyone from there.

Irrationality has become the new "constitutional norm" apparently. But Trump is still going to do whatever Trump does, lol.

Facebook, meet reality principle.

Trump ripping on Mccain, doing what Trump does.


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

Parodites wrote:

Your view isn't at odds with mine Sauw.

The left-right paradigm that arose out of liberal-secular humanism and the values that it tried to preserve without the foundation in Christian metaphysics that gave rise to them, which now determines our politics, is without a foundation or a center- it's artificial, and constantly reconfiguring itself and alternating. It is manipulated as the Republican party manipulated it, for the benefit of certain entities. Trump was so able to perturb it precisely because he expressed a political antagonism that isn't artificial, that is, one that arises from real material conditions, ie. nationalism vs. globalism. (This antagonism did not exist so far back as the Greeks. There were collectives then, but not like our globalism- in fact, superpowers didn't even exist because no nation had the technical means of rapidly expending force across the globe as at least the US now possesses. Plus they didn't have a capitalist means of creating such a monstrous political union as globalism evinces.) The question is rather or not a center to the dynamic political unrest of postmodernity or post-post modernity or whatever this is, can now be discovered, to solidify a new non-artificial axis around nationalist and globalist politics.

I think you're wrong in your parenthesis, though even that may be partly right and I'll have to qualify what I said before. The Sophistic Enlightenment (and its reaction/esoteric continuation, the Socratic or Platonic movement) was universalist (even if only still tentatively so). Christianity, as Platonism for the people, connects that Enlightenment all the way to liberal-secular humanism. We may say globalism is the actualization of what was already prefigured by the Sophists (and the half-uprooted Jews!) way back when. As for a center for this rediscovered dichotomy, aren't such centers precisely what has taken it to the present level of degeneration? As Blake said, "whoever tries to reconcile them seeks to destroy existence./Religion is an endeavour to reconcile the two." (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.) Platonism was such a religion; Plato compromised between the progressives (the natural scientists or Sophists) and the conservatives, i.e. between the (proto-)universalists and the caved-up republicans (where the Republic, the State, was the polis, of course) by setting up as the standard a universal republic, an ideal state. America is really a rendition of that; when the Founding Fathers say "we hold these truths to be self-evident" etc., what they're basically saying is that they cannot imagine how anyone could not, like themselves, see outside the Cave and behold the Ideas--most notably the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm reminded, though, of this passage, which I find very interesting:

"In their hearts the Prussians and the French were not fighting for colonies or for economic gain or for human rights. At Verdun, the British, Austrians, Russians, Americans and Turks had no place. What touched the Verdun warriors to their depths was the fate of Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhine. In the words of the Prussian war-song, the question whose answer admitted no compromise was whether Prussia would be the protector of that sacred stream. [...] Bismarck's Second Reich was an anachronism grounded in the will to create a strong Prussian monarchy at a time when politics seemed destined to become global and egalitarian. To be sure, both the Prussian Reich and the French Republic were modern, that is, they were understood as dependent ultimately on human freedom and will, not upon some superhuman order (Jefferson's and Lincoln's appeal to such an order, to 'nature and nature's god', makes their America not modern in this crucial sense--and therefore irrelevant to Verdun). Like most moderns, the French used this freedom to create egalitarian institutions grounded in universal human rights. The Prussians, however, used their modern freedom to create monarchical institutions rigidly subordinating their individual freedom to duty to throne and Reich." (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, "Homage to Verdun".)

I don't think modern globalist egalitarians tend to understand their ideal Republic as dependent ultimately on human freedom and will. I think they tend to understand it as dependent on human compassion or care. In doing so, however, they are significantly more superficial than their nationalist enemies. For they don't have "a height that is above their compassion" (Nietzsche, Zarathustra).

"As aware of Hitler's deficiencies as any intelligent British subject is of those of his queen, Hess nevertheless insisted that life is meaningless unless men create, as it were ex nihilo, the infallible tyrant to be revered by them." (Neumann, op.cit., "Politics or Nothing!")

Maybe I should now post my "letter to Zoot Allures".

Fixed Cross wrote:

I think there is a flaw in that. The liberals of the past years have spoken exclusively in terms of "us" and "them".
The entirety of the resistance to Trump comes in the form of "they" ("the fascists") have their way, "we" ("the good guys") must destroy them.
Madonna wants to blow up the White House because "they" (we) won.

Similarly, Communism, Socialism and Marxism operate with the "we" of the proletarians, the downtrodden, the poor, the meek, versus the "they" of the Owners.

The "us vs they" rift has never been more powerfully manifest than in the hatred of the liberals for the elected president and his voters.

All this is indeed a paradox. But in theory, at least, "they" will no longer be inferior to "us" when they're no longer "fascists", Owners, etc. Then they are also "good guys", proletarians, meek, etc.

I figured it out. All these people are confusing their emotions with reality.

I mean literally they think their own emotional reaction constitutes what is real. This is bizarre in the extreme. Look at it: you have probably millions of people right now all aggregating together as part of what is basically a Facebook mob-culture where a dominant emotion is present to any given moment in space and time, in this case of the immigration ban we have the emotion of outrage (hate, incredulousness, and fear); all these people are forcibly attuned to the same emotional frequency by the sheer force and quantity of the media-mob, and precisely for this very reason of being attuned like that, they have come to sincerely believe their emotions constitute reality. This is how they can hate Trump so deeply and so irrationally, he is literally (from their perspective) ripping reality away from them.

I can think of a couple other examples of types of people who confuse emotions with reality: babies, and naive/angsty teens. In the case of babies it's natural that they associate their feelings with reality, it's all they really know; in the case of the teenager he/she is struggling to ground a conception of self within the hyper-sensitive emotional sphere that is hard wired to attune to issues of "fairness" and "right and wrong" in the simple black and white.

But now we have actual adults, supposedly sane mature people regressing to the infantile and teenage stages wherein reality is confused for one's feelings. You can't reason with such people because any attempt to help them process out of their emotional tunnel is taken by them as if you are destroying who and what they are- they have given over an independent sense of self, self-responsibility, to be programmed by outside forces. Unbelievable.

[ Christianity, as Platonism for the people, connects that Enlightenment all the way to liberal-secular humanism. ]

I have a different concept of Christianity, to speak generally. Socrates revolutionized philosophy in a way that enabled Christianity to form, though I wouldn't call it Platonism for the people exactly. Ie:

[ 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.]

Socrates [Plato] opened a space within which Christianity could form, but I do not believe it has as much of an inheritance from Platonic philosophy as many others do.

So instead of seeing the pre-Socratics as natural scientist types as you do Saw, I see them as embodying the definite and static functions that each class of person served for the polis as a structure- Socrates, in accomplishing the above, essentially gave the Athenians a way to question these roles and functions, as Nietzsche says, "the instincts," and in doing so compromised the integrity of the state, which was a monolithic, static entity before. "We are Rome, We are Greece, despite differences in class." The ideal-state that Plato proposes as a Republic, is one in which the roles are not an embodiment of the static political structure, but are some kind of inscription of dike upon psyche, a dispensation of philosophic justice. Christianity evolves this ideal into a metaphysical foundation for certain values, out of which the "just society" finally appeared especially in the Renaissance era. You would go to a sophist to learn how to perform one of the definite functions.

Like I put it here:

---

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 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.


---







The Enlightenment was a period of time when the loss of a metaphysical foundation for the values humanism espouses and Christianity created began to occur, ie. Kant. Liberal-secular humanism emerges with an inherent deficiency, from which a crisis we call postmodernism develops, when the nebulous political axis opens up in the void between signifier and signification, subject and object, essence and existence. Nietzsche was appropriated as a means of addressing that "postmodernist" crisis, [the whole existentialist movement appears] which I read very much like Heidgger's crisis over philosophy's self-grounding. How exactly that nebulous axis appears I said something about below.

[ The crisis of the collapse of morality's metaphysical foundation is the crisis of mimesis and signification.

Leftist politics in the artificial paradigm grounds itself on a peculiar ethics of victimization and marginalization. It uses dialectical-materialist critique to identify a power structure within which a dominant and passive force compete to fill up the utopian center of the empty signifier- which tries to stabilize the mimesis of culture in the absence of God, the metaphysical foundation of Judaeo-Christianity, with the passive force or marginal group in this structure gravitating the dialogue towards communism and state intervention and the dominant force gravitating it toward totalitarianism and racial purification. Thus Hitler and Lenin were both "leftists."

^ They may call this "peculiar ethics" compassion, insofar as they are stupid.

Right politics inserts capitalism as the missing datum in the empty signifier, but the logic of capitalism, like that of Freudian sublimation, merely reproduces desire ad infinitum in its own objectification; this is the power of the negation, of negative-reflective consciousness, which sustains the accumulation of contrary social elements and amasses a scaffold of political antagonisms and juxtapositions, as the Republican party has done in the US,..
--

I absolutely feel bad for people who were caught up in the immigration ban, if they were wrongly detained or deported. Anyone can feel pity for someone in that situation, especially if they are separated from their families for example. Likewise I would critique Trump for perhaps not thinking trough in advance the process and logistics behind implementing the immigration ban, since it seemed to have come too suddenly for airports and security personnel to really know what to do on some cases. However, those are logistical issues, they do not go to the core of the issues here.

Trump did what he has to do or what he believes he has to do. Nations have a right to have borders, and no one has a right to demand or impose upon another nation just because they feel like doing so. If any person is in another country in which they do not have citizenship then they are there on sufferance, and must expect that at some point the hammer is going to fall, especially if they are in that country illegally. I mean what the fuck, when did the basic concept of citizenry and nation go out the window? Oh yeah, when the SJWs and neolibs teamed up to create a Facebook-Mindrape emotional vortex to try and fundamentally ruin what the United States stands for, most especially the values of reason, freedom and self-determination.

Sauwelios wrote:

Maybe I should now post my "letter to Zoot Allures".

I posted it:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2653458#p2653458

Note though that it's the sequel to a Dutch-language post which I still have not translated.

I think what he did was smart as a way of quickly restoring the laws to their purpose. He sacrificed the comfort and emotions of these people, and some of their honor, no doubt, to speed up a process that, if all the things that could legally compromise the decision were played out in advance, it could take his whole first term to prepare it. Now, the lawmakers are forced to give counterweight and actually work for positive change - to get the right people in. It kills lethargy and puts the whole state apparatus at work for very clearly definable aims.

What he is doing as well is breaking the immunity of Islam to real political scrutiny.

So instead of seeing the pre-Socratics as...

* Meant to say, instead of seeing the Sophists as...

Also, about that parenthesis specifically, I read globalism as necessarily having a unique economic component to it that we're only seeing today, in order to qualify as globalism. In the same way that there were national powers with great reach in previous eras, but they weren't technically superpowers, as the way it's defined now includes a necessary technical ability to access large parts of the globe very quickly.

Sauwelios wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

I think there is a flaw in that. The liberals of the past years have spoken exclusively in terms of "us" and "them".
The entirety of the resistance to Trump comes in the form of "they" ("the fascists") have their way, "we" ("the good guys") must destroy them.
Madonna wants to blow up the White House because "they" (we) won.

Similarly, Communism, Socialism and Marxism operate with the "we" of the proletarians, the downtrodden, the poor, the meek, versus the "they" of the Owners.

The "us vs they" rift has never been more powerfully manifest than in the hatred of the liberals for the elected president and his voters.

All this is indeed a paradox. But in theory, at least, "they" will no longer be inferior to "us" when they're no longer "fascists", Owners, etc. Then they are also "good guys", proletarians, meek, etc.

But I no longer buy this. I now think that my childhood instincts were right, as I have seen their instincts unchained - these people arent out to level, they are out to kill.
They kill out of deprivation. It is not that they want reality to be leveled to their stupid level, but that they want to destroy it, because it has brought them forth, and every strong part of it reminds them of how wretched - inconsistent - worthless - they are.

The Left is instinctively for a good part self-loathing that yearns for total destruction -
the list of Leftist dictators and their casualties has within a single century become more menacing than any ideology, conquest or political movement before it. That should stand as some kind of proof -

there is apparently a lot of us vs them in the left - whereas in the right, it is rather "us, and - who?"

Fixed Cross wrote:

I think what he did was smart as a way of quickly restoring the laws to their purpose. He sacrificed the comfort and emotions of these people, and some of their honor, no doubt, to speed up a process that, if all the things that could legally compromise the decision were played out in advance, it could take his whole first term to prepare it. Now, the lawmakers are forced to give counterweight and actually work for positive change - to get the right people in. It kills lethargy and puts the whole state apparatus at work for very clearly definable aims.

What he is doing as well is breaking the immunity of Islam to real political scrutiny.

Yes you're right of course.

HOW2CUCK4DUMMIES

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

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sauwelios wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

I think there is a flaw in that. The liberals of the past years have spoken exclusively in terms of "us" and "them".
The entirety of the resistance to Trump comes in the form of "they" ("the fascists") have their way, "we" ("the good guys") must destroy them.
Madonna wants to blow up the White House because "they" (we) won.

Similarly, Communism, Socialism and Marxism operate with the "we" of the proletarians, the downtrodden, the poor, the meek, versus the "they" of the Owners.

The "us vs they" rift has never been more powerfully manifest than in the hatred of the liberals for the elected president and his voters.

All this is indeed a paradox. But in theory, at least, "they" will no longer be inferior to "us" when they're no longer "fascists", Owners, etc. Then they are also "good guys", proletarians, meek, etc.

But I no longer buy this. I now think that my childhood instincts were right, as I have seen their instincts unchained - these people arent out to level, they are out to kill.
They kill out of deprivation. It is not that they want reality to be leveled to their stupid level, but that they want to destroy it, because it has brought them forth, and every strong part of it reminds them of how wretched - inconsistent - worthless - they are.

The Left is instinctively for a good part self-loathing that yearns for total destruction -
the list of Leftist dictators and their casualties has within a single century become more menacing than any ideology, conquest or political movement before it. That should stand as some kind of proof -

there is apparently a lot of us vs them in the left - whereas in the right, it is rather "us, and - who?"

This analysis conforms to my own observations as well. People on the right tend to fight for values, often mistakenly or often for mistaken values, but they are fighting on the behalf of something positive and real, a value that motivates the machinery of their self-valuing. Whereas people on the left tend to fight for the 'right' to never need to fight in the same way that those on the right are fighting-- basically the left today has taken up the cause of the end of history, they no longer want to need to fight for anything and so this one last fight of theirs is at the behest of that singular desire.

Granted that there are still positive leftist values, and the left (liberalism) wasn't always like this. Liberalism used to be quite 'conservative' except that now it's taken over by entropic ghosts, not real value. Just look at the "emotional vortex" effect I was just talking about a few posts ago, is such a thing the consequence of having one's self-valuing being motivated by real values? How could it be? At best we can say there are the shadows of former values, now absent the present reality, that are clung to in the same way a crying child clings to his blankie when his parents are arguing in another room. It's utter mandess, the left, I honestly see no REAL values within it anymore.

But it is probably possible that it had been pushed into this position, and of course the people themselves on the left, those scouting Facebook and going to marches and all that, they still have the capacity to self-value, that is necessary; it's just that this capacity of theirs is being co-opted by something that isn't really a function of values. Why did this happen? That would be an interesting and necessary analysis to undertake.

Advanced cucks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ

it's just that this capacity of theirs is being co-opted by something that isn't really a function of values. Why did this happen? That would be an interesting and necessary analysis to undertake.


Yes, as I have said, the real globalists in "charge" are not ideologically motivated, they are mostly driven economically. The leftist ideology is utilized to get people to serve them while believing they are doing something good.