It’s so nice not thinking about politics. I’m gonna start running a travel blog. No, I wouldn’t make observations about the natives. It would be interesting to take neech-mind to different locales though. Americans are no doubt the most interesting politically. If I were to go elsewhere it would mostly be to contrast them with Americans. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the Soleimani hit. Remember when it first happened and I described it as an ephemeral nothing essentially? Well, what did it turn out to be? Americans don’t know how good they really got it. Imagine if Pence was droned and we didn’t retaliate. Let’s just say, I don’t even want to empathize with Iranians because that must be a difficult experience. So, what I’ve been going on and on about is that we do not want to “un-develop” into a second-world country at the whim of someone else, because that’s the kind of thing you don’t want to happen. Or think of Kim, needing to get the approval of another country to have nukes. Uhh…? I don’t want us to be in that kind of place. And that’s the direction we’re moving in with the doctrine of egalitarianism in place. Gradually shifting toward being at the mercy of others. And like I said about the gutter thoughts about the Chinese “that no one, not a soul, has”. You want a people like that to be calling the shots? Hey, as much as I hate the Constitution I’d prefer that any day to the Quran. And an Islamic America wouldn’t even be the most unfortunate destiny possible…

Why does Adolf have to be the one who encapsulates best what is at stake?

Who else shares this sentiment? I’ve been flippin through lots of books, can’t find many.

If in a thousand years from now China is still using modified euro-tech then we’ll know who was right I guess? Sounds like a risk worth taking. It’s absurd we even have to have this debate. Why isn’t it the question of whether the arabs have to be wiped out? “Should the Creative ones continue to exist?” Not the dumbest question in world-history that most of the west has given the dumbest answer in world-history to or anything, just keep eating those three meals of zogchow a day, everything will be fine.

The cladistics of progressivism older than Calvinism? I’m not sure you want to think about that.

Is being terrible such a bad thing? There’s a time and place for everything, right?

The prog-minions squeal with delight, “Exactly! We use it against people like YOU!”

You’ve forgotten how to judge correctly. Out of all those power-nodes we’ve been formalizing you sublimate your primal being toward the ones formalizing them, OK, you’re really smaht, hah?

Theologically speaking, the leftist is an active participant in the natural ignorance God has placed on humanity. All those nodes, with few exceptions, work together to keep people blind, and the demos carries out their bidding gleefully. They’ve all sworn an oath to never admit that their true enemy is the will to omniscience.

Day after day I call for postmodern regicide, and all you sooty buffoons can do is toss rotten vegetables while indulging in fed-sanctioned bread and hollywood-industry circuses. Behold! Peasants with wifi! Genetically incapable of shame, and with zero attention-span! Groveling before their plutocrats instead of decapitating them!

If private-life had been preserved, and only public-life sacrificed to leftism, there probably wouldn’t have arisen all these movements against it. Like how I said that in Rousseau’s time equality was known to be conventional and not natural. In our time leftism has hegemonic control, not only in our relations with strangers and acquaintances but also with family and friends. One is expected to swear allegiance to the social contract every moment no matter who they are with, including when the self is with the self. This is from the falling-away of theology and the guaranteed sense of transcendence (however paltry) that was its great, seemingly irreplaceable, strength.

Junger was lamenting over this in the 40s, and it’s only gotten worse since then

So you know there’s always a Machiavellian hermeneutic to see things through. The death of god, or nihilism, however you want to term the phenomenon, was also a death of the priesthood, death of prayer, death of confession, all which have in common the death of a higher power that the ego is humbled in the presence of. It isn’t a correlation, it’s a causation, the rise of leftism and the fall of religion. If people prayed and consulted something above themselves that isn’t human, something above themselves that isn’t a mere human institution as we see in all those power-nodes from that chart, the PC in one’s own mind would dissipate into nothingness on a daily basis. If we had a priesthood that authorized this daily practice, of “looking above”, leftism at least in its mainstream form would be gone tomorrow. The reason that theonomy is part of the trichotomy is because it’s informally illegal in the cathedral- one with the state-religion is secularism. What we’ve done in the west is replace our priesthood which represented a gateway to the transcendent with a priesthood that coerces worship in various concepts that are autonomous unto themselves and not subordinate to any higher power. And if you disagree because something above you tells you to disagree then you’re a Satanist and it’s “moral” by their standards to drive you out of society which is “civil” by their standards. The way occidental buddhists (I guess you could call them) like me “pray” is through the study of non-trivial media, the “media” of yore in many cases, and also the interpretations thereof. This is one possible option, I’ll even offer a truce with my Christian friends that if they read more pagan heathens (lol) I will pray more, what we share is a practice that saves our souls from the goings-on of the world, might as well learn from each other, and create our own world, which acknowledges the divine. The true enemies of leftism are technologies of self-transcendence. My interpretation of the “basic idea” of both philosophy and theology is that if we’re not finding the divine in ordinary human existence then we’re confused. Looking at that Junger quote above, I have to deduce that if you have to align with the tenets of leftism even among the people you’re most intimate with, the elites themselves are confused on some fundamental level. When being-with-others as a neighbor, maybe that is allowable, forgivable, because it’s good to be polite with people you don’t know yet. Being PC with your best friend, your spouse, to name the starkest examples, seems like a world-historical confusion of the most tragic magnitude. To have a prog-superego sitting across from me at the breakfast table for instance after I had read something like the following the night before

and to guffaw while reading the newspaper, and to be scolded for it, that just means you’re not in on the joke sweetie. No one wants to spend time with someone who isn’t in on the joke. The oligarchs, the bluechecks, and all the rest, don’t want people to be in on the joke (most aren’t in on the joke themselves).

If you heard someone say this would it excite you?

What we need to do instead is study the Platonic dialogues; in the immediate instance, we need to study the Sophist, all of it, and in minute detail. (Rosen)

If not, please don’t be mad at me for saying it (you will be), I don’t think you deserve a vote. There are different types of souls. A simple way to determine who is a 21st century sophist is to ask a similar question to the one above. If the only things that excite you are social media, netflix, and democratic politics (which seems to be the norm) then you ironically have no place in democratic politics. People participate in it with their voice because they care about creating a healthy political order, right? If they truly cared about that then they’d accept this (they won’t). Just be grateful that I’m this explicit with you- everyone else with this opinion maintains silence to avoid alienating people.

The following line of reasoning is what put my cynicism about democracy in hyperdrive a while ago

Wisdom must be qualified by consent, it must be diluted by consent, i.e., by consent of the unwise. The political implies, in other words, something like a right of un-wisdom, a right of folly. This is the paradox of the political, that such a right of un-wisdom is admitted. The polis–the people–demand the highest respect without deserving the highest respect. (Strauss)

I mean, is he wrong?

“No, and we don’t care!”

Yeah, I know all too well.

Imagining shaking hands with a commie girl to agree to be just friends and the handshake being erotic. Cognitive dissonance. I dare you to say the reverse of this in public if you’re a commie girl with cogdis.