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?

So what I’ve noticed is that I’ve been running an orphanage within an orphanage of sorts, and if I exit stage right for a matter of hours most of the kids are overwhelmed with amnesia of what has been said and return back to hive-consciousness. My presence shouldn’t be the thing that keeps you away from being a retard. If you need to be reminded several times a day not to be a retard, maybe that is just your destiny. I know this is no way to speak to children, well, what else is new. Even this will not snap the retards of the spirit out of their, likely ancestral, fate, to continue having mental deficiencies, and I really don’t care anymore, I have other things to do than snap my fingers in front of people’s faces to jar them out of the cultural hypnotism. Call it providential retardation.

If nihilism = the death of god and nihilism is bad (yes there are still people that need to hear this latter part) it’s somewhat mind-boggling that we are so strict in the separation of church and state. Shouldn’t non-nihilism be enforced? The pre-reflective folk altruism, that I’ve been trying for months to demonstrate is its own form of nihilism disguised as the form of non-nihilism par excellence, is enforced after all, so why not enforce an actual, robust form of non-nihilism, which is the belief in severe transcendental ideals?

The christian god is doubted into non-existence by the forces of science, art, and promethean human technicity in general, and then this vulgar state religion takes its place, and all heretics who seek to refine it or uproot it are burned at the stake. Rather than severe transcendental ideals, ones which ideally in my opinion would lead to our escape from the monkeymind, we have this paltry vision of pseudo-divinity commanding us to run a planetary orphanage for all these walking stains of soot that should probably best be left to die off in their natural habitats anyway if taking them in only leads to us being brought down to their instinctive level of non-consciousness. What kind of religion is that! The state should enforce something a bit more ambitious, I don’t think that’s too much to request.

So begins Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, a book he worked on for twenty years.

The epiphany that immediately strikes me when I read this is- The US must have gotten the nature of nature wrong in the beginning. Can’t blame the citizens for being loyal.

Or could it be that we’ve evolved since the 18th century and are consequently new beings that require new laws? This seems to be the implicit message in Moldbug’s initiative to uninstall the USG.

Let’s be reasonable though- say we did start a new country in the former territory known as Indonesia, and we rigorously selected a certain demographic to inhabit it. Would we truly even have a democracy problem in that scenario? So maybe it’s not that we as a country have changed since the founding stock, and more that only a specific type has (unless they existed back then too and were similarly marginalized who knows) and they are attuned to the antithesis of demos-equalism, Rangordnung, on a spiritual level and in various respects (my pet favorite is the SMILE-program as is known, there are also many other offshoots of this general tendency).

So when we extrapolate from the initial formalist enterprise of isolating various institutions, we move next to isolating the laws they work within, and from there to “nature” or the “creator”. What this type of Western person disagrees about is the nature of nature, or for tradcaths and the like, the nature of divinity. When we talk about government we’re always having a discussion about the most fundamental questions as well. Whenever someone casually inquires “Is democracy good?” they are implicitly inquiring “Is the nature of nature such that democracy is good?”

Well, one telling symptom of our times is that I can’t imagine a few of our congresspeople getting into an intense debate over any of this. It seems most government operates on the surface and like most people takes a lot for granted.

All this to say that if we’re serious about creating a new patch someday, these are some of the fundamental questions to ponder and discuss in order to create a regime that won’t devolve into the third-world within 300 years like the US seems destined for.

Imagine in 2020- “What’s the nature of nature, Bernie?” “…” “Donald? What do you think?”

Gnon forbid they let a chaostroll ask the questions.