I take this phenomenon as their admission that they’re cladistic-christians.

I’m cynical enough to suspect that none of these theorists had some kind of christian epiphany on the road to Damascus. It’s more to do with a machiavellian calculatedness that finds that the materialism of Marx alone does not suffice to motivate the rabble to gulag the reactionaries.

Imagine reading the following in an explicitly Leftist text and not seeing it as a total joke, sheer hypocrisy

“We’re the underdog, we’re the underdog!”

The new philosophical interpreters of Paul merit our attention because they have exposed themselves to the danger that threatens our world.


Finally, it is my impression that Christians and non-Christians have, for the most part, despaired of our capacity for neighbor-love, especially if the neighbor embodies ethnic or religious differences or is an avowed enemy. So strongly are the populace and its perceptions molded by the hands of capital and its political servants.

You don’t say???

In this midnight of the twenty-first century,

Cry me a river! The left has totalitarian control and the culture industry churns out book after book with this style of rhetoric- We’re being absolutely crushed, we need help. [Published by Columbia University Press]

Can just mine this material forever for laughs

for several decades now, a profound sleep has descended over most of the world

At this dark moment, more than ever, we should recall that, according to Paul,

Saw a post that’s making me think of the idea of authority. How daunting would it be to find yourself in the presence of a Saint to whom you had to be a confessor? Doesn’t seem like we have any kind of authority anywhere near that in today’s world. Could you tell a lie in such a presence? Could you hold anything back, could you hold back your weightiest concerns, your most pressing concerns? What would you confess if you were in the presence of a Saint?

This is to ask a purely hypothetical question though, because does anyone even believe in saints? Seems the natural attitude is too cynical to believe a given saint is truly a Saint. I wonder what negative effects that has on us, the both not believing in them and them not existing. Outside of the rare experience where you’re in their presence, at which time you’d probably be profoundly honest, not having those people to look up to probably hinders our own development. Read the other day that there used to be a trend in Germany to regard ancient Greeks the way Catholics regard Saints- not wrong, in my experience. Still, they’re not living people, so their “authority” isn’t as robust as it ideally would be. See how “authority” doesn’t necessarily have to have the pejorative connotation it often does? Who do we have for authorities these days? My first thought for whatever reason is the FBI. I’m old enough to remember when they were “cool” – you remember those days? Now who trusts them at all? They were supposed to be our saints of the government in a sense. The Pope? He’s kind of just a meme. Then, we’ve learned how annoying celebrities are during quarantine with their moralistic advice videos. Rather dull without your laugh-tracks and scriptwriters, eh? Still, I remember a time when they were a sort of living sainthood, not anymore, at least for me. The left had Bernie there for a minute, now they have an anti-saint who happens to be part of the party they find to be the saintly one. Trump could be a saint, if he drained the swamp. As things stand now, all politicians, him included, are by definition not saints, here in upsidedown-world.

The days when the Bible was the authority, I wonder what that was like. Do most Christians, even, today still read it through the modern lens of demythologization to some degree? I don’t know how they could have escaped, I bet the Amish just because of their mere awareness of the outside world haven’t escaped. The idea is that it was created by human beings. Who is more than a human being I guess is what I am asking. And what happens to people in a world where saints are so few and far between? “Saint” Augustine himself is seen as a human being in these times. I think this all betrays a higher faith, rather than an atheism- we’re all only looking for what is truly divine. Many have found that in the decentered state-religion, it’s like the inhuman corporation version of a saint. They trust that as the Authority. Others have found what is truly divine to be attempting to revoke the sainthood of the state-religion. Moldbug vs. the Cathedral, these are only two contemporary manifestations of our saints- it goes back farther than “Saint” Calvin, for instance the following is from the communist Badiou’s book on St. Paul

It’s the disciples of Paul vs. the disciples of Nietzsche today.

Yup, what we all know is that blonde children are bad, and that lying jews, begging mexicans, muhdik niggers, and slutfeminists are what we want in the country in the future, blonde children are terrible and we need to make sure they never appear on this earth ever again.

Demythologization is the key word. You can’t expect to apply that process to religion, then replace religion with politics, and not expect people to continue to apply that process to politics. Think of it like the rumspringa of the Amish. You’re “allowed” to see the outside world and then decide for yourself if you want to return. Our political order doesn’t permit anything like that. The atheism or heresy that is demythologization is not allowed in any way. If you see the outside world and return you better not speak about it in public, else your reputation is over. Your Faith, apparently, was not strong enough, and you don’t deserve to live in this cloistered land of ours. What they fear is that the mainstreaming of demythologization will cause a revolt in society that will lead to the guillotine essentially, so they try to keep that all hidden. Just as a reminder, the Myth is that jews, leftists, women, and POC are virtuous people, without any flaws whatsoever. If the majority were to learn that this wasn’t the case, it disturbs them what might happen. Even if many would probably return right back to their religion after seeing what the outside world is like, they don’t want to risk it. So they’d prefer people remain in ignorance until their goal of one-humanity is achieved. I think this enforced ignorance is correlated and not just correlated with the perceived lack of virtue that people who have been outside have seen in them. They keep people ignorant because they are not virtuous, and part of the reason they keep people ignorant is because gaining knowledge would entail how much vice is involved in their imperative to keep people ignorant.

Their Plan is to create One Humanity so that demythologization is superfluous. There’s no myth there anymore if everyone is the same™. What this hides is that the One Humanity of the future is going to be swirled up with all the unvirtuousness of the mentioned groups. Yes, everyone will be more or less the same, and by same what they really mean is same in lack of virtue.

Just show up on my doorstep with tears in your eyes, we’ll see what we can do, we’ll get away from it all for a while. Believe it or not, I wouldn’t mind remembering what it’s like to be inspired by love rather than hate.

Sound familiar?

I’ve been doing genealogy for so many years that I’ve forgotten that that’s what I’ve been doing.

As the name itself implies, genealogy is a distinct method of practicing philosophy that entails examining the historical origins of preset day philosophical concepts, ideas and discourses along with the institutions that sprang from them. By tracing the “lines of descent” of a present interpretation to an earlier one, philosophical genealogists effectively demonstrate the long sign-chain of interpretations that were responsible for producing the current idea. In this way the genealogist demonstrates the “origin” or perhaps more precisely put the ‘soil’ from which our contemporary concepts, laws and social norms developed and even in what direction such concepts may be headed.

There are a few books out there that can help you understand the method. They never, NEVER apply the method in the way that I do though (muHAHAHA).

Nietzsche doesn’t really outline it as a method either, he more does it than talks about it too. Many of the prominent French “poststructuralists” considered themselves genealogists, they just suspiciously always aligned with and reinforced the values of the European Union, soooo pathetic. And their followers are no different today.

Nietzsche’s genealogies are arguably a lot more radical than anything I talk about–Socrates as decadent, Paul as falsifier, to name only a couple–it’s just that in our time the political has replaced the philosophical and the theological, in other words no one really cares if a couple millennia ago people were deceived–much more visceral are the events that took place fewer than a hundred years ago. You don’t see people going around calling Trump a Socratic or a Paulite, rather he’s a Nazi or a Fascist. Ironically, I don’t agree with neech about Socrates, I just appreciate the attitude of suspicion that he bestowed upon us. You could think of my activity as consisting of using that suspicion against him in order to find value in Socratism and then proceeding to use that Socratism against the established order, so a genealogical socratism you could call it.

At least in this phase of consciousness, genealogy seems timeless. The form rather than the content. There are probably mantis-people on other planets who apply the method to their own history, to their own Year 1’s. If there was a war in 2030 and my side won, I’d still want the people of 2100 to be aware of the genealogical method, because it broadens consciousness. Even if they used it against the History that we decided after the war, I would like them to understand both sides. I imagine some galactic civilization that has collected data from a thousand advanced planets, has created an exact science of “Year 1’s”, how they are sustained in consciousness as the Beginning, and also how they are shown to be arbitrary, and I can see even them being confused about their own Year 1, it being too hallowed and sacred, that even though they have so much knowledge of how it works their cognition regarding their own cannot change- that is the effect history seems to have on the mind, it locks focus. Genealogy unlocks it, or at least can unlock it in some, creating a double-perspective.