What is the breakthrough point? It is recognizing what is the collapse of reason from what is not; it is threading the needle of refusing neoliberal political correctness to not also devalue the non-pathological moral consensus-valuing grounded socio-rationally; it is recognizing that the people are depowered from both the left and the right although in different ways; it is recognizing the psychoanalytic truth of the deep embeddedness of ideological forms of thinking and valuing that remove philosophy in favor of a new consensus, one manufactured on both the rebellious and status quo sides.
This is all a Nietzschean breakdown. "There are no facts, only interpretations" as Nietzche said. Of course there are also facts too, but his point stands and echoes today with Nietzsche's triumph of impressing value-structure as such with a will for revaluation, although often only an unconscious will that does not know itself. Everyone wants a little repression as the price we know must be paid for having our convenient, partial alienation-space in which to live our lives in relatively stable non-traumatic fashion, but no one wants to admit that. We still hold to the universal value of "truth" in the sense that Nietzsche meant the word "truth", namely a plane of consistency or a symbolized Real, a kind of functional virtuality-fantasy (functional in the sense of at least somewhat able to be mapped upon the 'objective' conditions of our lives and collectively speaking as societies).
Sloterdijk talked about the globe of the earth as also the globe of the modern capitalist "in"-world where we exist inside the sphere of the first world, the power-centers of global capitalism. The sphere perceives an inside and an outside. We on the inside adopt the most efficient psychological positions in order to mediate daemonic facts to ourselves and in such a way that this mediation can continue without end-- our subjectivity is this mediation as such, we philosophers unlike everyone else can at least come to understand this. The narrative now is that of the universal "enemies" is whoever can be accused of not minding oppressing and hurting others, while the universal "allies" are everyone else who is ignorant of the results of the Stanford Prison Study; but that isn't a justification of tyrannical practices, it is a noble attempt to problematize something non-ideological but which nonetheless so easily lends itself immediately to ideological pressure at the slightest touch. Politics today is that lending to the ideological of the more deeply non-ideological, and this is another "psychoanalytic" or pure daemonic fact we mediate to ourselves either in the form of desires as such or simply as more consumption of ideologies.
I'm going to make a prediction: I don't know the timeline but I would guess somewhere in the next century all of these present political and ideological demarcations such as left and right, liberal and conservative, slave versus free, emancipated versus subjugated and even ruler versus citizen will all go away, and a whole new order of language is going to appear. I say this for the simply reason that 1) this is Nietzsche's time, the critical revaluations are upon us everywhere, and 2) the present terms and concepts have obviously failed. Trump and Clinton mean nothing except to express this failure, to give it a face and a rallying point for even more doubling down on the illusions and errors but most especially on the need for these. Precisely this is what I mean by free values, that if the world over the next century survives as anything other than an environmentally devastated, nuclear wasteland we will see by then radical breaks with the old ideas and philosophies and a near-total rethinking of all the forms of life. Today's broken-fragmented and ineffective values are just the washed-up parents of tomorrow's new values, and new valuers.
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning