The timecube might as well be the spacecube since even when I’m not “here” I’m still here in my mind! Made a concerted effort to study Montesquieu without any political bias, without any “today”, as we owe it to these centuries-dead bigbrains to try to understand their perspective on their own terms. Also listened to parts of the impeachment hearing, so this probably defeated the purpose of my original goal to some degree.
Montesquieu departs from the ancient taxonomy of regimes and isolates monarchism which he says is based on honor (and ultimately self-centeredness), despotism which he says is based on fear, and republicanism which he says is based on virtue (and ultimately honesty). This taxonomy is interesting genealogically speaking in regard to the origins of America, given that he heavily influenced our founders.
We’re clearly living in a despotism where citizens both fear honesty and fear being honest. Republicans, “O how far we’ve fallen” from that original meaning, yet roughly it does seem to be the case that they are more honest than the democrats, and slight as it may be, it should count as something. There’s of course a hierarchy of republicanism going from the mainstream to what has been pejoratively labeled the alt-lite, to the alt-right, and what we could call a minority of the hyper-honest that tend not to affiliate themselves with any labels. Regardless of the differences between us, we “republicans” are usually more in agreement with each other than we are with what I choose to call “the ignoble lie” party, the left, the democrats.
So when I listen to this impeachment hearing, even though Trump isn’t even alt-lite, and I’ve been scoffing at the alt-lite for years, I still see it as the ignoble lie party trying to do away with me essentially. We republicans no matter what virulence of republicanism should all look at Russiagate and now this as dishonest people trying to get rid of any one of us, Trump is just the main scapegoat. He’s a symbol of Rangordnung, of honesty about Rangordnung, and they want to remove him as a symbolic message that says No, Equality is real, and you are not a real argument against it. That’s what all this is about. Again, subtexts and pretexts explain most contemporary politics- we’re not living in a Republic as formulated by Montesquieu. In a regime that is not based on the virtue of honesty all one can expect is hinting, euphemism, clinging close to the surface, double-talk, ketman, rationalization, outright enforcement of delusional thinking, you know the list. We’re unequivocally living in a despotism, or what, how would you describe your hesitance to talk about some of the things I get into? Wouldn’t you call that fear?