Going to have to look more into the first theory here:
The roots of secular leftism? I can see them presupposing that in a twitter board-meeting out of the earshot of the birds. “Given that altruism is not natural it must be enforced.” I sense a hysteric frenzy that demands, What could possibly be wrong with altruism?!
Talk to them on their own terms we will.
I see a selfless concern for the well-being of others on both the left and right. The left one is obvious, I’ll let you use your imagination. For the right, these “others” they are concerned with are in the future. In our climate rightists have to selflessly risk their reputations for the well-being of these future others.
Start with the fundamental fact that we have South America and North America, and the quality of life is higher in the latter. The left, in being selfless for the well-being of South America, is blind to the others in the future who will live in a Brazil-esque state that people now are trying to escape when they travel to the US. Rightists are concerned with the well-being of the people who will lose the choice between living in South America or North America. If the left lets anyone who wants to move here move here the distinction between South and North will not exist anymore. The left is in denial of this. They’re too concerned with the people here and now, it distracts them from thinking too far in the future- it’s a maternal over-caring that needs to be tempered–or else.
Even I have a pang of conscience when I distinguish between North and South America, we’re all concerned about the well-being of others. Let’s say that leftism is a spectrum of concern. I will sacrifice my concern for South America for my concern for the preservation of a North America.
So as much as it makes me wince to say, it’s easy to be deceived by the smokescreen of Republicans. Their optics effectively confuse the left. The right has its own noble lies, mostly to avoid persecution. If one expresses one’s concern for North America over South America in too clear a language the torches and pitchforks rise like clockwork. All this to say that Trumpism is indeed a white supremacist ideology, and once again it’s easy to be deceived that it is not. Oh, it is. What else could it mean if half the country thinks it’s “great” to build a wall between them and South America? What the left absolutely fumes about this for is because it is a reminder of hierarchy in general. Which is to say that if those South Americans are deemed to be “not great” i.e. bad, what does that then imply about certain demographics of citizens already living in North America with us? See, this simple mainstream political formula is cryptically a shattering of prevailing feminist and anti-racist ideologies. The desire for a wall is an implicit message that people aren’t equal, so it builds not only a wall on the physical border between North and South, it also builds walls in people’s minds- it says “We want certain demographics to be kept away from us within our own country” and also “We recognize that we need to acknowledge certain demographics are less civilized and less rational than us”.
And is the right wrong to say that? The left implies without saying it that they are right that certain types are less civilized and less rational- where the left disagrees is on the explicit acknowledgment of that fact.
One way you can spin it is to say that some of us are too proud to submit to the norms enforced by these morons:
In other words, we’re too autonomous. We see what they want us to believe to be the truth and the proper mode of life and we have a pride in our own, independent way of seeing things. Most don’t have this pride so they submit and do what they’re told.
So, three entities in the political sphere: the decentralized powers of opinion-enforcement, those with moldable, swayable subjectivities, and those with a self-grounded stubbornness.
Most are proud that they don’t have any pride, proud to submit to the state-fabrications, I know of several in the environs who have this proud pridelessness.
They’ll always be proud of themselves for eschewing individualism no matter what anyone says.
I’m redacted because many of the pranks I formulate are live-options, no Ashton to step through the door to say gotcha! What I call an actual gotcha.
“Noooo this is the end of history, there’s no alternative to the way things stand now.”
Transferred from one digital solitary confinement cell to another to keep this illusion from dissolving- this isn’t how discourse should be. The anon-phenomenon is a profound symptom that all our prestigious institutions don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Do you remember the show Punk’d? It’s so stupid compared to the shit I’ve pulled. Just feeling cynical lately about the futility of sharing “pranks” when the public isn’t allowed to access them. You can’t prosper in this world unless you’re a domesticated idiot. Just want to say goodbye to humanity and leave them to their trifles.
Everyone practices political philosophy, almost no one studies it.
And what does a state secret busy itself with? Naturally enough, trying to figure out what “the state” … is.
They don’t want people thinking too much, especially about political ontology.
Does our state provide people with security? If you believe my above line to be true you might conclude yes, too much security.
If you jive with the sarcasm in that Brazilification post you might start to wonder if our state’s oversecurity is missing that spark of reason that Hobbes speaks of as being at the beginning of the state.
Beginnings, that’s what ontology is the study of. How did the state begin, why did it begin, and is our present state doing what it set out to do when it began? If many people are starting to smile at the idea of creating a Singaporean neo-state, well…
“Leo Strauss agrees with Schmitt that any fundamental critique of liberalism must begin with Hobbes.”
Going to trust a couple of my favorites and begin at the beginning 👋
How did you find yourself in this group-text, anon? This is supposed to be a state secret.
Mere right-wing panicmongering, just forget about it.
Arendt articulates the subconscious hesitance of the status quo:
On some level most people want to avoid permanent revolution. This can be a healthy instinct. In times like ours, not so much.
The arbitrariness of political orders as such that the French Revolution made visible doesn’t “haunt” anyone in America really because it’s so well-hidden. A few university courses on what the author of this quote terms “political existentialism” could change that.
So much religious guilt is displayed today. Some of these girls want to explain themselves, when nothing they say will ever lead one to forgive them.
Blame the society for creating them. Even if you do they’re still cat-lady material so it doesn’t really matter. “Society is responsible.” Okay, I’m sorry, that isn’t going to change the fact that they’re cat-lady material.