As I posted previously, there’s a subterranean aversion to permanent revolution, which explains the typical unwavering faith in democracy and constitutionalism. The US and West in general seems to be at present mired in the flip side of the coin of permanent revolution:

A certain amnesia has its benefits. Without it, a year after drafting a new constitution what will stop people from wanting to draft an even newer one? So there’s an intrinsic forgetfulness involved in a post-foundation setting. Our countries are too forgetful of this, our political origins’ origination in a somewhat arbitrary act of founding that is in no sense permanent, and that prevents us from beginning a new order, a more balanced order that takes into account ideas that run counter to the enlightenment which our founding was based on.

This probably strikes many as fantastical, “the insanity option” I called it, well a few years ago most thought the idea of Brexit was insane too, and if Brexit does go through it will likely have a cascading effect on the rest of the currently ideologically-confined, postwar West. Imagine that Brexit takes place and the US emerges from its revolutionary-amnesia and wonders what to do next. The things I’ve been posting about are my idea of a provisional blueprint if that happens. Just good to prepare. We might not want to go full Schmittian extremism, i.e. the “rip it all to shreds” route, so here’s a look at a middle-road option:

Ah how to get back into that centuries-dead “founding experience”…

Might be prudent to keep this middle-road option in mind if we were to create a neo-patch elsewhere as well. Excuse my pun- we wouldn’t scrap the constitution entirely, we’d merely make “liberal” use of it. Just to be safe at first ya know, because of that permanent revolution state of mind which seems just as threatening to a society’s stability as revolutionary amnesia.

I wish I could spend a day as one of the upholders of the noble lie, just so I can know what it’s like. It’s in a sense Platonists vs. Aristotelians:

The Platonists hold justice to be higher than philosophy (truth-seeking) whereas the Aristotelians identify philosophy with justice. Justice is another way of saying the political good. Their perspective is that truth-seeking is the enemy of the political good. They will not state this perspective, rather they will publicly identify their version of the political good with truth-seeking, even though while some of them know very well that their true perspective is that justice itself to some degree relies on lies.

The Aristotelians, being Socratic dialecticians themselves, then wonder if the notion of justice as being based on lies is itself just.

Annnnd as you can guess, the Platonists continue to safeguard their version of justice by responding to this question with silence, or by outright denying that their version of justice involves lies and lies about the lies. This is leftism down to a science, and it’s made to hide.

Pictured here, my mystery friend (who is also a giant rat) and I after we fake our deaths only to appear on the other side of the world, unbeknownst to our enemies

It helps to understand the evils of leveling if you look at it in the context of the categorical imperative. Is leveling good in all times and all places? Would you will leveling for eternity? In other words, is the good of leveling a transcendent law?

Take yourself out of present-day America. Pretend you’re the presidente of Cuba, and say that North Korea has started making hostile threats to you over some disagreement about the basis of Marxism. You continue to insist that you have the correct interpretation until eventually Kim threatens to nuke you. Now, apply this idea of the good of leveling to this scenario. Leveling is essentially the elimination of the best to make it fair for the rest. You need to build a nuke otherwise Kim won’t take you or your interpretation of Marxism seriously. Is now a good time to give full reign to the policy that the best should be eliminated? Or would you instead conclude that the best should be facilitated (especially in the realm of nuclear science)?

If we in America reach a post-leveled, Brazilified condition we will have a new standard for what counts as “the best”, to be sure, yet what will it mean to be the best at that point? Best compared to previous generations? Certainly not. So if Kim’s son in the next generation starts waxing bellicose toward us, what will be the quality of our best scientists in the now Neo-Brazil? And if Kim Jr., with his policy of anti-leveling for decades, has now created a superweapon and threatens us with it, will our scientists be competent to create a matching if not better one? It’s brutal for some to hear, I know- South Americans, Africans, and Arabs aren’t exactly known for science (or anything else requiring brains for that matter) so I would have to determine that in this hypothetical future arms race, the country without the policy that leveling is good, would win.

You could also use a tamer symbol than nukes and imagine if 2100 America were to offer its best chess-player to play against 2100 Russia’s best chess-player. And after 80 years of us genetically synthesizing with third-world peoples, while they avoided them altogether, who do you think will have the neocortex to win that match?

So from this thought-experiment it’s obvious that the good of leveling is not a transcendent law, something that should be implemented in all times and places. The next question is Should it be implemented in any time or in any place? The elimination of the best, the elimination precisely of the most civilized, most rational spirits, seems like the negation of a transcendent law if anything. Indeed, wouldn’t it be saner to postulate that the policy of anti-leveling, more precisely, the facilitation of higher civilization, higher rationality, is a transcendent law for all times and all places?

Nothing new under the Sun:

What’s unique to our historical situation is that our “Nobility” (various power-nodes) consists of Levellers (they level the People). The People in my thoughtsphere are usually working on leveling them for leveling the People.

“as if the safety of the People requir’d an equality of Persons”

What we’ve been setting out to do is to demonstrate the questionability of the hierarchy between the Nobility (Cathedral) and the People. If the Nobility is leveling them does it really have their “safety” in mind? Thus there’s a hidden, funny sort of “equalism” between the Nobility and the People, and one might go a step further and aver that if they put the People’s safety at risk, the Nobility is even lower than them, and should be swapped out by the People who would do the opposite of leveling.

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.