It’s still weird to me that some people know what I try to get at. Never have had a conversation IRL about most of this, and usually only see symbolic infractions in the cyber world. Some I see pointing and they’re saying “I get it, I just don’t want to get the guillotine for getting it.” This is another futuristic kind of “iceberg”- how much conversation will progress on these matters once people don’t have to worry about being persecuted for talking about them. That’s a looming question-mark out of my control. I like to imagine having conversations with certain people, they’re only imaginary though- I don’t know what a human being with freedom would actually say to me. I’m sure people have discord chats or whatever about a lot of the stuff that might otherwise get them banned. It will be different when it’s a public conversation. Where anyone can join, so the chance of alien outsiders drastically increases. Yep who knows what that convo holds. “Let’s not speak symbolically, let’s speak objectively.” When will this day arrive? “They” never want it to happen–well, unless the off-chance is possible that most of them are Larrys and are doing their best to be gradual so as to prevent bloodshed. Wouldn’t be totally outside of the realm of possibility- I learn from Nietzsche and he’s wiser than most if not all prog-profs I reckon. Yeah it would be good to have a discussion, if not a debate, with certain people. Humanity can only progress so far when esotericism is wrapped in caution-tape.

What’s always struck me as a similarity between ancient Chinese and Greek philosophy is the idea that everything should be in its right place. This has been in the background of my thoughts when I’ve questioned our overlords. The fact that half our congress is “made up” of lawyers doesn’t quite grind my gears as much as the known and unknown influence “our” bankers hold. What is the being of banking? I mean when get down to the simplest details, what is it? Keeping people’s money in a vault? Armed guards, brutes could do that, couldn’t they? Its basis doesn’t seem too complex, I don’t think I’m being over-reductive- what is a banker compared to a Lord Byron, to put it into perspective. (I like the idea of poets for statesmen, they seem to be among those who know being best). So what did these people do to earn their control, that’s my question:

And what could be done, what should be done, with tyrannical usurers?

Can the legislative, judicial, or executive power do anything about them? Who checks them?

This is the “primal scene” or origin of our state religion. It all began here, with bourgeois travel. Put on your safari gear and watch the ones in safari gear watching them. What was their initial reaction? They surely were discriminating. Grown adults living in the kinds of forts that kids in our countries make for fun in their backyards. Even today, travelers are discriminating to a degree- now, interpretation of the non-occident is filtered through the adamant stance of cultural relativism. It’s either that or you might as well be Hitler after all. Discrimination is only allowed if it’s a positive appraisal of the non-occident, for instance one could say with some fairness that many peoples are more community-centered and family-centered than us- they don’t have our protestant atomization problem. What isn’t allowed is negative appraisals, i.e. one profoundly off-limits question is, If left to their own devices do they eventually return to living in these “forthouses”? I could name a few cities in the US where this is manifestly empirically demonstrable. Only a demon would bring that up though.

So the ideology of globalism begins with these travels. Over the years strict discrimination declines more and more. Until finally we reach the present where we actively discriminate against discrimination itself (with the one clause in the rule being that discrimination against the white patriarchy is lauded and applauded).

Like I hinted at in the previous post, discrimination against women and minorities is only the surface phenomenon, there’s also a subtler ontological interpretation of this process. In informally banning discriminatory standards in order to be gentle and polite to certain human-types, we’ve effectively done away with discrimination in regard to everything else as well- namely culture. This is the hidden effect of “anti-discrimination laws”- it’s the enforcement of relativism, it’s a sneaky sort of epistemology that is being pushed. So there’s a direct line going from the experience of the common westerner first seeing those forts with their own eyes to this nihilistic view of truth itself.

It’s amusing to me the cognitive dissonance many tend to have when I start acting like a fascist psychopath. They really don’t want to publicly admit that there is indeed a time and a place for that!

No no we’re going to stick with the old-fashioned way, elections and bureaucrats will solve all the problems of modernity. Ok moron. Does anyone actually truly believe that?

The ones I always intend to address are fellow misanthropes. If you hate America now, all statistics point to the fact that you’re going to hate it even more a couple decades from now. So what to do? I’ve already told you what needs to be done, what can I get away with on this “blog”? For the over-sensitive, let’s say it can be a formal procedure. We have a board determine who is corrupting Americans, who is making them stupid, and we either arrest them or remove them from their given institution. Not going to get that with the existing laws in place. Laws don’t tend to be about aesthetics and culture. There is zero doubt whatsoever that there are many people out there right now that are making the souls of all our citizens uglier and uglier. There’s a connection between truth and beauty- souls are made ugly by lies. So we determine who the liars are and get rid of them, sound like a plan? Oh, no? The morons want to proceed with another ineffectual election and rely on useless bureaucrats until this country is even more of a dumpster fire? This is exactly the attitude that’s going to force people into the brutality and blind violence option, sorry, keep doing you though, I for one wouldn’t mind if… never mind forget I said that.

It’s necessary to understand what precisely all the cultural megaphones are blaring into the ears of the citizens. It’s that discrimination is evil. And discrimination is at the root of all morality and aesthetics. I hear them speak proudly on NPR about the value of “anti-discrimination laws”, this is so sickening to me. Discrimination against women and minorities is just the surface level. What the prevailing Americanism essentially is is anti-discrimination in general. What this means is there’s no difference between good and bad, or beautiful and ugly, or smart and stupid, or truth and lies, both sides of the duality are melted into equalization. It’s the enforcement of standardlessness. If people had standards they’d probably never turn on a TV screen in general for anything. Tough to hear. The opposite of standardlessness is severity. If people had standards they’d probably unfollow most of their friends IRL and online, once again, tough to hear. Spend some time in the realm of the forms and this conclusion is clear. 95% of anything that’s ever said is gossip, speaking generously. It’s voluntary dehumanization. The people aren’t going to change until the institutions that preside over their lives change. To change the institutions you need an Institution to judge them. It doesn’t need to be constituted by fascist psychopaths, I’m content with the label Platonist myself. Suffice it to say that we need to be more strict toward our opinion-management crew. They’re polluting the minds of the entire country. If nothing is done eventually people are going to start to be shot. I’m not trying to will that scenario into existence (of course not, of course not), that’s just what I anticipate if we stay on this path.

This is one of the most pressing debates on the right to have IMO:

“Leo Strauss rejects secularization theories in explaining the modern world. He traces the origins of modernity to the “anti-theological ire” of Machiavelli, Bacon, Descartes, and Hobbes—meaning, their anger against Christianity for its denigration of the world and its terrible religious wars; in reaction they asserted man’s complete autonomy from all transcendent standards, the sovereignty of man in the cosmos, and a worldly vision of material success that deliberately estranges man from eternity… Is it possible, then, that modern democracy is mainly a product of the scientific Enlightenment which is wholly atheistic at bottom? One could argue that the underlying premise of modern democracy, the theory of natural rights derived from a “state of nature” in which men are born free and equal and create their own government by a social contract, cannot be derived from secular Christianity. It is too radical. It implies human autonomy, or man’s complete mastery of nature and control of his destiny, which is an implicit denial of divine providence. This view is closer to atheistic humanism than to secular religion. But if the idea of autonomy and mastery is not compatible with Christianity, then the origins of modern democracy should be traced to other sources, the predominant ones stemming from nonreligious or antireligious philosophies. The appearance of “transformation” would then be illusory; it would be due to a historical irony in which Christian believers naively appropriated ideas from modern philosophy (like the state of nature or the scientific conquest of nature) and then incorporated them into their theology by mistakenly equating them with Gospel imperatives to “love one another.””

Robert P. Kraynak, “Nietzsche, Tocqueville, and Maritain: On the Secularization of Religion as the Source of Modern Democracy”

Some of the only serious people on the right I know are eccentric Christians. I can’t help scrutinizing their foundation–their behavior, their belief in objective truths, on the other hand, I can’t help emulating as a non-christian theist. All my talk of “foundations in nothingness” isn’t conducive to unshakable epistemologies (duh) so there’s balance needed theonomically speaking- “permanent revolution” is an expression of the same problem in political language. Anyway, NRx seems to firmly be on the side of the narrative that Christianity is the root of the problem and as you can see above there’s some reason to doubt this. The debate could be framed as so- Is Christianity the problem or is the departure from the true essence of Christianity the problem?

Anecdotally, the last time I read the New Testament I emerged more sympathetic to globalism. Maybe instead of a philosophy book I’ll go through that next, that would be a fun exercise on a site with such a name as this yes? The study of law is so boring, someone’s gotta do it though, and I see that as a necessary bridge to get to posthumanism. Lots of necessary bridges, incidentally- I’m not pessimistic enough anymore to think that the first aphorism of BGE’s “The Religious Mood” is .. correct.

Well, what would you say is the true essence of Christianity if you were put on the spot? And then what would you say the true essence of the enlightenment is?

Not saying my instinctive response so as not to bias anyone. It would be pretty sweet if Jim was right and we can just go back to Christianity, that solves the foundations in nothingness problem, well… As Grand Inquisitor he’d probably burn anyone with that thought at the stake. So maybe I am sympathetic with the enlightenment in a certain sense, it’s just in dire need of Theological-esque grounding. Yes once again I’m scientific-religion posting. I don’t see any alternative to the atomization, ennui, hedonism, etc. problems.

I think about this statement a lot

It’s enigmatic because Heidegger never really said much about politics. I infer that Strauss was indicating that the dimensions of the problem of a world society can be extrapolated from his meditation on being. (Suspend “The They-self” and the rest follows I think.) I’ve been trying to sketch out those dimensions, it’s been fun, I’m certain there are lots more hidden dimensions, probably for me to discover when I finally take psychedelics with Penelope eh heh heh

Too cool to be published, meanwhile I wither away at my day job and cowards who are dumber than a box of rocks live lives of luxury. I’m not being everyone’s dancing monkey for four years in a row. Give me a billion dollars then we’ll talk. Humanity has failed me too many times for me to care much anymore.

There are Rangordnungs about lots of things, women in general even. If I said some things that I think about that subject certain ones would want to murder me and then each other so I try to keep it to myself.

I never name any names because I don’t know any names, for me though it’s a question of morality and intelligence. Feminism is an intelligence-cult much like NRx so it’s reasonable to me in those terms, on the other hand, I don’t think women are too intelligent, eh! sorry to say it. Want me to lie? I like their general trajectory though, unfree women aren’t attractive to me personally. When freed they have no sense of morality is the patent conclusion here. They try more and more to give reason for their freedom rather than demonstrating why they should be free. Let’s see a female Ovid instead of bitter screeds about oppression. All I see in the environs is “free us!” mixed with being a typical imbecile, hey want me to lie? So… free you to be an imbecile? That’s my takeaway.

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?