It reminds me of supposed “interviews” I hear on NPR. They ask John Q. Citizen what candidate he likes and why, and he states the candidate’s name and the issue they support, and that suffices. It’s just emotion, it’s rare to see a rational account being given, the reasoning for why they believe what they believe. This is what we call democracy.

Figuring out how the dialogues form one book–a Bible in a sense–is the task of a few lifetimes.

How many of our pundits and experts today still need to catch up to someone who lived 2400 years ago? Why should we care about someone’s political philosophy (Republic) if they haven’t given any signs that they’ve devoted a great deal of thought to the nature of the world, the nature of the soul (Timaeus)? “We can’t be bothered about that.”

Another series from the great courses that I found inspiring was Famous Greeks. Here is a torrent if you don’t feel like dropping an exorbitant fee on it through The lecturer, Rufus J. Fears, also has a series on the Romans which is just as good. While I’m sure I’ll be interpreted as mansplaining for saying it, if people weren’t so sensitive they’d push the great man theory of history during women’s history month, ironically ironically. No, not that kind of iron. Who do they even have to be inspired by? Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, how thoroughly boring, Amelia Earhart? (womp womp), Mother Teresa? Ok I can see that. Not much to draw from. Can they relate to men though I wonder? Do feminists secretly want to be the next Alexander? I bet AOC fantasizes about that. No no of course not, every woman aspires to be as groundbreaking as Betsy Ross, as innovative as Oprah. If they got over their manhate-resentment they could set their ideals higher. In the meantime, most of them still need to learn how to cook, just throwing that out there.

Thinking about the Habsburg jaw, just not in the usual sense one thinks about the Habsburg jaw

It’s a symbol the mainstreamed-peasantry uses to cover-up that period of history, and how human-castes were viewed then, because guess why. It’s like I live in my own world here and you’re as familiar with everything as I am (I don’t even have to interpret the psychology of this for you do I) and then you live in your own world when you’re not on this site – how do you do it?

“Phew, I’m so glad we don’t live in that time anymore, we’d probably all have jaws like that!”

People who cover-up that age using the jaw-symbol have that jaw of the spirit though. Certain families didn’t want to pollute their line with the same people who write all of them off with that jaw-symbol. Jee, I wonder why they’d be hated?? “We’d rather inbreed than breed with you, what’s that tell you?” “I do not blame you, my liege!” This obsequiousness hasn’t gone away, what’s different now is we have nothing whatsoever resembling an aristocracy to be obsequious toward. Yet does that stop their groveling? We have a people in power now who’ve gotten plastic surgery on their habsburg-jaw via intensive ideological conditioning of their subjects.

I haven’t kept up with German over the years, only remembering the basics, because I chose instead to study German works translated into English since I didn’t find there was too much lost in translation. When I glance at what hasn’t been translated of Schmitt’s I’m starting to regret that

If you know both languages I would strongly urge you to consider translating one that strikes you, even if you’re a novice. We could do with an underground pdf collection. Consider how publishing agencies work these days, you know without a doubt that a few of these haven’t been translated yet because they’re too dangerous to publish. Or consider Jünger instead, if that’s more your cup of tea

Remember, one of the only right-wing Nietzschean texts of the 20th century, Der Arbeiter, was only translated a couple years ago. Germans, Russians, Chinese, if we want to decenter, subtilize, and confuse the USG, polyglots are a godsend. As an incentive I might add, if you sit down and really get to know the text well enough to translate it with confidence you’ll probably acquire a perspective that all the English-speaking world is blind to, and that’s a reward unto itself.

Alright you know the routine, time to feed the Freudians

You one of those people who believes their not allergic to any idea? How about this?

Remember a couple years ago on xs I talked about sitting on a throne of feminist books and swaying back and forth like a pendulum with a milk carton filled with cement tied to my dick? I want to cut out a chunk of my brain and replace it with a computer chip, this “flattening” concept doesn’t make me sneeze in the least.

Not like I’d ever ask you to flatten your breasts… I guess that’s the difference between you and me!

Let’s not forget the D I A L E C T I C though

Kegel, bitch, it’s a verb.

That’s the continuum- extreme leftism yields a down syndrome politician, extreme rightism yields Schmitt living all by himself in Indonesia. Good, glad we settled that. It’s immodest to speak of either- “please just don’t say that.” From here we could potentially establish a true centrism. Without a neechen sneer that’s impossible. My first thought- Schmitts as politicians, one of their duties being to facilitate the education of the down syndrome folk as far as that is possible. “How do you avoid the globalist problem of the neglect of nationalism?” In other words, say that we put so many resources into advancing Chile to our 12th grade level. What if that meant that we would have to keep our 18th grade citizenry from 20th grade? And yes inb4: super-knowledgeable citizens would be a beautiful thing, you’re just coping. I’m sure the Schmitts would figure it out. First thought- cheap computers. Everyone has their temperament, obviously mine is to prioritize getting the people I live near, and thus have to endure, to a higher level of intelligence and spirituality. Anyway the point of this post is that spectrum. I don’t think it’s inaccurate as far as teloses go, you can derive your own synthesis from it.

Being-with-others in my recent sense is another way of talking about the will-to-unity which is the basic drive which precedes and powers any given verbal game of a leftist. Whenever they politick, no matter how hifalutin as in the manner of Zizek, dub over it. “Will-to-unity will-to-unity no no no will-to-unity listen listen being-with-others being-with-others got it? Will-to-unity because will-to-unity and furthermore being-with-others being-with-others.” They’re less arguments than they are actions. Votes without the ballots to lead to votes with the ballots. They try to populate the somewhere else that isn’t you in your mind with those verbal votes so democracy in your mind votes to send messages to “you” so that you verbally and eventually literally vote for being-with-others-will-to-unity-ism. There’s a lawgical confusion here. Being-with-others is implicitly being-with-others against being-with-others-against-others. Sorry if this is annoying, you need to screw with language to express an idea sometimes. Put differently, on the surface being-with-others is the stance that we shouldn’t be against others, yet being-with-others is against those who are against others, so it concedes that who they’re against is right about something. So really the question for both camps is What kind of beings should we be against. Can’t get around that. And the answer to that question? You know the list. Unless you’re on it, in which case you probably have evolutionary reasons to forget it. From the hyper-anti-demos stance I dabbled yesterday, most people fall into the being-with-others crowd on both the right and left, the left is just the purest incarnation of that spirit. Pedants reading this post might be thinking “Maybe Schmitt is more ontologically perceptive than Heidegger?” Does seem so, at least in this context. See, if we were really really strict we could say that not even Heidegger is allowed in Indonesia, only those as perceptive as Schmitt. That’s obviously crazy-talk, there’s a place to draw the line. Where we draw it today should be moved a lot closer to that attitude which would tell Heidegger sorry.