Federalism vs Fascist

Argument I had with someone, a fascist. I’m the federalist obviously.

Parodites: Alexander didn’t want to conquer for the sake of conquering. His teacher, Aristotle, imparted to him an absolute faith in, and an enthusiasm for, Greek ideals and Greek culture. At the end of a sword, Alexander spread the works of the pen: Greek political theory, Greek philosophy, Greek poetics and music, etc. Because of his culture-war, ideas like the concept of a republic (the basis of the US system) were transmitted across the planet. The argument could be made that Hitl. similarly wanted to spread German ideas and culture but, I don’t wanna go there.

Fascist guy: No, Hitler did not want to spread liberal aids to it’s neighbors and was not motivated by some type need to push his brand of universalist bullshit on to others.

Fascism is all about a people uniting and living together in harmony with their own according to their own truth and customs. Thus, foisting your own culture and values on other peoples is not very appealing to a fascist as it has no positive outcome for the people, quite contrary, it can cause a lot of damage by diluting the folk and causing disharmony and division. Also, from an aesthetic point of view, seeing other peoples adopting alien cultures and giving up their own is viscerally appalling as it’s a betrayal of their nature and a form of violation and humiliation if done to them.

Parodites: If that’s what Fascism is, why TF did Hitler try to colonize the planet? It’s because, like Rome, Hitler was possessed equally by a drive toward Empire. He explicitly sought what he called “living space” into which German culture could expand and territorialize, necessarily displacing native culture and peoples and casting them aside for the sake of furthering the German ideal of man. Why would a fascist be sensitive to other cultures and endeavor to keep them alive out of respect for their peoples? LOL. The fascist seeks to remake the world in his own image, and to annihilate all inferior cultures because their mere existence threatens that of his own, higher culture: for what is the greatest threat to strength? Not a greater strength, but weakness; the corrupting influence of disease. You seem to have a lot of confused ideas about things my man.

Fascist guy: “Hitler was possessed equally by a drive toward Empire.”

Yes and no. All nations should strive to secure themselves and the only way to do so is to dominate your neighbors. The difference between the imperialism of Hitler and the imperialism of liberal capitalism or communism is that he was using it as a means to a good end, that is protecting his Volk, not just accumulating power and profit for a small parasitical elite.

“He explicitly sought what he called “living space” into which German culture could expand and territorialize, necessarily displacing native culture and peoples and casting them aside for the sake of furthering the German ideal of man.”

Exactly, so it was for a good end, it wasn’t just needless suffering for some stupid vanity project by an apathetic upper class. Killing an animal for sustenance is not the same as killing it for sport or sadistic pressure. Also, you say it like you contradicted me but you didn’t. He displaced them, he never tried to integrate them or foist German culture or values upon them.

“Why would a fascist be sensitive to other cultures and endeavor to keep them alive out of respect for their peoples?”

Because they have value. We can look at a forest and not just see lumber, we can look at other peoples and not just see wage slaves to be exploited for cheap labour. It’s the materialists that have no reason to value other peoples and other living beings because they reject the spiritual aspects of life in favor of selfish and nihilistic hedonism.

“The fascist seeks to remake the world in his own image”

Wrong, just wrong. Find me a single fascist intellectual arguing for that.

“and to annihilate all inferior cultures because their mere existence threatens that of his own, higher culture”

What? That makes absolutely no sense and has no justification outside of anti-fascist propaganda.

“for what is the greatest threat to strength? Not a greater strength, but weakness; the corrupting influence of disease.”

True, but that only applies if the disease is internal… diseases amongst our enemies or potential rivals are not something we need to fight against… Hence why Fascism isn’t universalist like Liberalism nor hell bent on foisting it’s values on everyone like “democratic” “human rights” crusaders are. We have no good reason other then our own kindness to help our potential enemies remove their weaknesses and become fascists, unless they can be a potential ally ofc, then we do want them strong.

Parodites: I don’t know what you’re attempting to controvert in what I said. We’re just mincing words and playing semiotics. At any rate, my understanding is that the entire cause behind Hitler’s defensive (initially) expansion into new “living space” lies in the global capitalist machine trying to force Germany to participate in its program, as this whole globalist “dragon” (to appropriate the language of hyperobjects, in the paper “I Saw a Dragon! - Envisioning Hyperobjects: culture, collaboration and madness in the Anthropocene”) sort of requires the participation of all the world powers, to siphon excess capital into a ruling elite, as you intimated. If even one opts out of it, it can pose a threat to the entire thing. Germany, under Hitler, was attempting to become a self-sufficient state, independent from the global superstructure, and the rising capitalist machine cannot have that, so we first levied the whole brunt of expenses incurred during the first world war upon Germany to crush them economically, as punishment for resisting this incorporation prior to Hitler’s rise, and then once Hitler assumed power, he defensively expanded into Poland, again in the attempt to free Germany from the global capitalist machine, which prompted the global powers to turn from merely economic punishment, to more “physical” resistance, bringing about a second world war. But what had began as a mere defensive expansion to secure resources needed to maintain Germany’s independence from global markets and foreign sources of energy, gradually evolved into an aggressive, imperialist kind of expansion into Europe, not merely Poland and Ukraine, (consequent to both inherent qualities in fascist ideology, as well as Hitler’s nervous breakdown in the later stages of the war; as his position weakened more and more, and as inevitable loss became more and more conspicuous to him and his generals, he dissociated himself with dreams of empire, imagining grand designs for a new Germany as he stared into mock cities and clay models while, outside his windows, the real buildings were crumbling under bomb raids and Russian artillery. This is also when the J*w killin’ started, during his breakdown. From what I’ve gathered, prior to this point the plan was merely to expatriate and deport them.) in which Germany sought to displace and destroy alien cultures inimical to its own ideals, and to refashion what had been displaced, territorializing it.

There are certain cultures the Na*is valued, and sought to preserve as useful satellites, but that is only because they already resembled German ideals, like the Japanese.

I implore my own country, the US, which is currently a centerpiece in the globalist machine, to dissolve these parasitic arrangements and become energy independent, but I wouldn’t call this “fascism”. Fascism is a far more specific entity, whereas you seem to identify fascism with something a lot more generalized.

Ethic nationalism of this kind is not fascism. Fascism implies direct control of the economic structure by a central government; it’s a mid-point between free capitalism and communism, wherein the State directly structures the economy but allows the markets to operate basically freely within that regimented structure. That is the defining element of fascist ideology. In other words, the State has direct access to the “economic heights”, which is an idiotic strategy by the way. I’m an ethic nationalist, not a fascist. I despise the State and would die before handing it more power. It can’t even run a DMV, let alone effectively coordinate the economic substructure and manage the ‘heights’. I applaud Germany’s resistance to incorporation into the global capitalist machine both pre-Hitler and post, but Hitler himself was a lunatic and fascist ideology is a dead end philosophically, and no viable solution to our need to fight back against the globalist world-project. I feel the need to both emphasize and clarify my position: fuck the State. How’s that?

Fascist guy: This is important, not word games! "But what had began as a mere defensive expansion to secure resources needed to maintain Germany’s independence from global markets and foreign sources of energy, gradually evolved into an aggressive, imperialist kind of expansion into Europe, not merely Poland and Ukraine, (consequent to both inherent qualities in fascist ideology, as well as Hitler’s nervous breakdown in the later stages of the war; as his position weakened more and more, and as inevitable loss became more and more conspicuous to him and his generals, he dissociated himself with dreams of empire, imagining grand designs for a new Germany as he stared into mock cities and clay models while, outside his windows, the real buildings were crumbling under bomb raids and Russian artillery. This is also when the * ki**in’ started, during his breakdown. From what I’ve gathered, prior to this point the plan was merely to expatriate and deport them.) in which Germany sought to displace and destroy alien cultures inimical to its own ideals, and to refashion what had been displaced, territorializing it. "

Citation needed! I mean it for real, not just as a joke. This actually needs to be supported in some way, especially the “consequent to both inherent qualities in fascist ideology” part. It just sounds like you pulled it out of your ass. Please find me at least one source that isn’t libel by anti-German small hat propagandists that supports this! If not, I will not even consider such warrantless speculation.

“There are certain cultures the Na*is valued, and sought to preserve as useful satellites, but that is only because they already resembled German ideals, like the Japanese.”

No, this is simply not true. Hitler also valued the Chinese as they had a long history of advanced civilization. He valued Rome as a civilizing force even though it had radically different ideals but mostly he admired their aesthetics. Himmler loved the whole pagan thing so he definitely wasn’t just a fan of nations/people that resembled the contemporary German one. Goebbels made analogies about the Wehrmacht standing against Russia to the Spartans holding off the Persian invasion. That’s just few examples, and non of them was considered “useful satellites” so their admiration was purely astatic and ideological as they could see something they valued in another people. A healthy, strong and just people has intrinsic beauty, even if they are your enemies.

Oh, and japan did not resemble German ideals! But they respected them non the less as there was some qualities of the Japanese people that they did respect.

“I implore my own country, the US, which is currently a centerpiece in the glo***ist machine, to dissolve these parasitic arrangements and become energy independent,…”

HAHAHA? Energy? You think energy concerns is what puts constraints on America to obey the global order? Wow, this is pretty absurd. No, replace the word “Energy” with “finance” or “Israel” and you would make a lot more sense.

America is the Zi*st Gom that holds up their system of financial domination to enslave the world to their ends. How would the US even do that? All the people in power are loyal to this machine and if they betray it, they will just be excluded and replaced.
Good luck trying to get any real opposition going! Making an actual opposition party and not getting infiltrated, coopted or crushed by the state is near impossible when they control the media, the banks, the social platforms and the justice system. The social media platforms will censor you, the media will slander you with anything, if they can’t find anything they will just make it up or get their buddies to create it in what is called a “false flag” operation. If you still make it this far in the gauntlet of our “free and democratic system” then you will have your bank accounts and your financial intermediaries like patreon shut down, you will be put on the no fly list and eventually just be thrown in jail as a political prisoner.

Don’t believe me? Look at Greece, when push comes to shove, “liberal democracy” showed their true face by throwing all their opposition leaders in jail. Why? Because they have raised the masses from the cradle to accept their post war mythology of “never again”, thus conditioning the masses that it’s fine to use any means necessary to shut down real resistance to the system.

“Ethic nationalism of this kind is not fascism. Fascism implies direct control of the economic structure by a central government”

What are you on about? I know and I am for that kind of economics, I just never brought it up since it was never relevant to bring up economics in this already chaotic and disorganized discussion.

“That is the defining element of fascist ideology.”

Well yes and no, you can go deeper and boil it down to unity of a “people”, be it ethnic, cultural or religious. But this then in turn implies the economic system you where talking about since you cant have true unity without class collaboration instead of class conflict, hence the need for the corporatist economic model.

“In other words, the State has direct access to the “economic heights”, which is an idiotic strategy by the way.”

Economic heights? I’ve never heard this term so I do not get your point. Care to explain and also elaborate on why it is idiotic?

“I despise the State and would die before handing it more power.”

Sigh. Now I get your problem. You have been brainwashed in to completely rejecting the one thing that could save your people, that is a strong state that fights for your people and organizes them in the struggle for survival. Your world view is completely contradictory! Ethnic nationalism IS collectivism so you have no other option than to be a statist, unless you want some other way to organize the collective for their ends, like a church or something but then it’s the church that is the state so it doesn’t really change much.

“It can’t even run a DMV, let alone effectively coordinate the economic substructure and manage the ‘heights’.”

That’s not fair! America and other decadent liberal democrac states do have trouble functioning because they value and promote a millions harmful things over meritocracy. This does not mean a state like 1930s Germany or contemporary China functions the same way.

“Hitler himself was a lunatic and fascist ideology is a dead end philosophically, and no viable solution to our need to fight back against the glo***ist world-project.”

I think the opposite is true. I think you have been brainwashed to think this way, because above all, the powers that rule over us fear us picking up the torch of National Socialism as they know it is the only real way to liberate ourselves from enslavement by an international cabal of oligarch bankers and moguls. Your rejection of our only realistic path to salvation, without as much as a proposing of any real alternative, is the path that actually is a dead end!

“I feel the need to both emphasize and clarify my position: fuck the State. How’s that?”

I get that. You are a just a reactionary. Fair enough. But you could become something better. I can tell that you have potential, you could support an actual resistance to your enslavement instead of just lashing out and hating states like an edgy teenager that throws a fit against the authority of their parents.

Parodites: Well now we’re not just playing at word games, before we were just going back and forth about what the proper definition of fascism is.

I applaud the state’s resistance to the global-capitalist machine under Hitler. I just take exception to its rationale in that resistance. Ever heard of doing something right for the wrong reasons? Also, you claim to support the economic system I profess, but it directly contradicts what fascism is, as it demands subjection of the economic heights to State control, which is the opposite of that economic system. Your conception is the one that is schizophrenic. This economic element is not ancillary, but integral, to fascism. There cannot be a fascist state without it.

Let’s see, you asked me to cite a source to back up what I said about inherent qualities in fascism combining with Hitler’s own psychological defects to precipitate a change from defensive to aggressive territorial expansion,-- I’m not going to, as that is not integral to the larger point I was making about the causal sequence leading to the first and then second world war, and finally to our current geopolitical arrangement. That’s why it was enclosed in parentheses. It was really just an opportunity for me to make fun of the guy with the funny moustache, which I quite enjoy doing, and should not be taken as a center-piece in my argumentation.

Second of all, I didn’t say I thought energy was the predominant factor in keeping the global capitalist machine running, nor did I mean to imply that it is the foremost thing keeping the US so entangled in that machine. It’s one of them; for the US in particular, it is a major one, as we, especially under Biden’s command, have given the Chinese immense global power by tying ourselves to them for our energy needs. I am well aware that the international arrangement of debt sustained by a world-banking system is an even more decisive factor. I see that you’ve gone down a conspiratorial route in assigning responsibility for this international debt system to Irael and the disturbed efforts of a certain race. You’ve also assigned the currently intensifying crackdown by media conglomerates and the kind of censorship I, and you, are experiencing right now trying to get out posts through Youtube’s auto-deletion semantic-analysis bot, to this very same source. I prefer more multi-modal analysis. This censorship, and the current mental disintegration tearing us apart culturally, are not the result of any one single source, but rather an organic consequence whose causes are manifold. We could talk about what those causes are, but that would bring us into an entirely different conversation. * I find it humorous to watch your conspiratorial mind in action, as you seem to imply some kind of… what? Some kind of cahoots between me and Youtube, when quoting me triggered auto-deletion in your own post. I’m not an agent working with Youtube and, I assure you, I’ve had to rewrite each of these posts multiple times to get them through Youtube’s auto-deletion bot. You really need to broaden your perceptions and try to think more multi-modally my friend, and stop jumping to conclusions and pinning multiple causes to a single source, it’s giving you a mental block and leading you down quite absurd lines of “reasoning”. What you call a ‘big thonk’ is really just your own mind running in circles to the point of a schizotypal distortion of reality.

Now, you say I have been brainwashed for my despising the State, and call me contradictory. It is your disapprobation that is contradictory. Every media conglomerate seeks to instill statism in people; they are made to defer more and more of their power to their overlords, who preside over our double-bind: the alliance of state power and wealth, which means an alliance of state power and media. Who brainwashed me to despise the people who are busy brainwashing everyone else? That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. I’ve been brainwashed to reject statism? LOL. Furthermore, I take personal offense to that. Everything I have written here is the result of my own thinking, my own research, my own independent analysis. There is no book or paper that detailed for me the causal sequence I earlier explained, the one behind the two world wars, for example. If you disagree with me, disagree, but this is absurd, and stupid. Nobody brainwashed me to despise the state- this power you claim is the salvation of the people. Every single media conglomerate preaches the statism I reject, it seems contradictory for you to claim I’ve been brainwashed into rejecting that. Every public school teaches the same state-mandated curriculum, which obviously aims to, however surreptitiously, instill statist values in the children upon whom it has been thrust.

You state this: “Ethnic nationalism IS collectivism so you have no other option than to be a statist, unless you want some other way to organize the collective for their ends …” Firstly, I don’t know if you made a typo or not, but I am what I call an ethic nationalist, not an ethnic nationalist. That is my own term: again, I endeavor to make sure my entire philosophy is self-conceived, to eliminate traces of influence by the ‘social ordo’: again, your claim that I’ve been brainwashed to reject the thing that all the sources of brainwashing are trying to instill in us, is both insulting and absurd. At any rate, that is precisely it: “unless you want some other way to organize the collective …” That other way is called federalism. ** Only the US can support what I call an ethic-nationalist philosophy, and only the US has the governmental structure necessary to enable the people to SELF-ORGANIZE, which is the point, which is that “other way” to organize the collective. That’s the whole premise behind the US’ founding. Unlike every other nation that ever existed, the US was not born out of the same blind, evolutionary forces that originated the other powers of the earth: it was conceived out of an act of will, out of a direct, guiding intelligence.

The federalist system I honor: (not merely “liberal democracy”, a kind of dissimulative interpretation of my Republic utilized by fascists) that is why I despise statism, not because I am merely a reactionary. I despise it because it directly contradicts every single atom of the constitutional philosophy undergirding my own nation’s basic ethic- I reject it as my forbears did, who created this nation,- the only remaining super-power on this earth. Not fascist Germany: the US, survived that war, and the US put men on the moon, and the US gave us the communications medium we are now using to talk. The US is the last hope of the human race, and the governmental system it embodies, is the only viable mechanism for fighting back against the global capitalist machine. The collective CAN self-organize, that is the dream of federalist philosophy, and it is the dream of the US, the seminal of its daring founding. Your entire confusion about what I am saying and the rationale behind my rejection of statism seems to lie in your apparent obliviousness toward a “fourth option”, in lieu of the dead-ends of fascism, communism, and global capitalism. Well that fourth option is what created the US, and it’s the only viable path into a meaningful future. I reject statism because it contradicts every letter of my nation’s constitution and is an affront to the spirit of my forbears. I am an American; a citizen of the United States, before anything else.

You are free to google “economic heights”. It’s a concept in Marxist analysis. (I am no Marxist or communist obviously, those are even more robust forms of statism. But Marx’s analytic framework is not without value in some cases. Again, I read all sources openly, and I try to learn even from those I fundamentally disagree with, and even to try and find useful information in them. Your assertion that I am brainwashed is unfounded and insulting for no reason.) “In Marxian economics, the “commanding heights of the economy” are certain strategically important sectors of private industry.” Here’s the fundamental issue: in the 21st century, information and communications technology became one of those important sectors, graduated to the status of the Heights. There can be no fascist state without handing control of this sector to them, which will mean they own the media, which will mean … The rise of artificial intelligence has only further elevated information technology, and soon it will be at the very peak of those heights.

As an aside, I don’t need you to tell me I have potential, if I’d only just embrace your conspiratorial unidimensional analysis and levy all my hatred and intellect, formerly misappropriated to a more comprehensive exploration of the manifold causes behind our current geopolitical situation, upon the damn Jews. I hope I have clarified what you felt was contradictory by delineating the core of my philosophy: federalism, the spiritual body of the US and its constitution- the dream of a self-organizing people without need for a top-down, regulative State. The rejection of statism is in my very blood, in the dreams of my ancestors, in my genetics, and implied by every word in my nation’s founding documents. As Shakespeare said, ‘our severest oaths are perjury gainst’ the blood, and burn like chaff upon its fire’; but I will by no means perjure my blood here, nor burn the prouder stalk from which I’ve been grafted by the heroes that founded this country.

Because no fascist state can now exist without giving control of information technology to the State, as that technology has been elevated to the economic heights, there can be no fascist state that is not simultaneously a brainwashing hellscape of total intellectual submission. My country is fckd up, yeah, and the dream of self-organization I have been professing is in danger: but there is no more hope in your sullen dream, given the direction in which the ‘technocene’ has advanced. Federalism, self-organization of the people,- the US, is the only viable path to a future. The people can save themselves, the State can’t save them. The people can break their own chains, the State can’t break them for them. And if they cannot- then guess what? They don’t deserve to have their chains broken. Then man deserves to degenerate into protoplasm and disappear from the earth. That is my faith, that was the faith of my ancestors who founded this country.

* Some of those causes. The first is a purely organic transformation induced by the movement of techne, outside the control of human beings and therefor, an apolitical force:

Parodites: Human culture/society is being changed into a “metaverse” where human individualities are replaced by mimetic complexes of language viruses spread by AI maximizing the algorithms that guide the global dialogue and personalities are reduced to a collection of weird psychomotor tics. Studies have now revealed that tictoc virality is so intense that actual tics people have, unconsciously displayed in their little videos, start spreading to other people over the internet just like a meme spreads, because tictoc is based on these little trends where people repeat the exact same thing over and over, mirroring one another until that trend dies off and another takes its place; tics, behavioral patterns, etc.- probably even mental disorders eventually. It’s like all humanity is just melting into this nebulous “pseudo person” held together by algorithmically reinforced, primitive reflexes hijacking the higher cortical functions of the brain through the dopamine feedback loop all social media utilizes to addict its users, but which tictoc has perfected, while AI basically takes over the role that cortex had once played in higher cognition. These people aren’t even going to be people anymore soon, in the sense that this technology has made them biophysically incapable of producing “thought” on their own.

We can stop this from happening though. Man has faced and survived many similar “dark ages” of the Mind. Also, there’s a lot of theory to help us analyze this situation. That neuromimetic stuff with the spreading of actual tics online, the fragmentation of individuality into psychomotor reflexes,- a German philosopher named Stigler developed the concept of “nanomutation” in relation to his other concept of “techne”, (Basically, in his thesis, human culture has always evolved alongside the evolution of our technology, but in the past, each leap in technology was very slow: the wheel to fire, fire to the melting of ore out of rocks, the melting of ore to the forging of weapons, etc. At a certain point, however, technology began to accelerate in its developmental trajectory, and it outpaced the rate at which human culture could respond to the new technology and reorganize itself productively: that is when things started to go astray. Nanomutation occurs as individuality is fragmented and split off from a culture that can no longer respond effectively to the changes induced by technological development: “techne” begins to force individuals into their own evolutionarily deviant path or nanomutation, away from the group, from the culture, which therefor begins to fragment even more. This deviance, this withdraw into the self, was portended when Nietzsche claimed that “to be too conscious is a disease”, as he wondered over the fate of the first fish to crawl upon land and begin this doomed march toward sentience. This withdraw into the self does not bring us any closer to the self, for the self defines itself through what he called ‘mnematic forms’, archetypal narratives passed down by a culture and once embodied in myths and religious traditions- these forms of “remembering” are used by individuals to structure and understand their “self”. Separated from a fragmenting culture, nanomutation leads similarly to the disintegration of the self.) and I find that it captures what’s happening on a deeper level. Also you have the ccru guys, who theorized the replacement of human consciousness by machine intelligence through a similar process of enculturation: their concept of thought itself, in the end, unmaking itself by fulfilling the dark dream of thanatos, to return all life to the silence of the inorganic, of pure matter embodied in the concept of a machine mind, an intelligence without feeling made of silicon and wire.

Another cause: genetic:

Parodites: The government doesn’t keep the public dumb, though doubtlessly they- governments- benefit from the stupidity and blind reactivity of their citizens (insofar as they aim to extend their own power, as everything does) and they don’t go out of their way to improve their education and critical thinking, not that they’d have much success if they did, because we’re talking about a genetic plateau that ensures most people are going to spend their entire adult lives as basically thoughtless philosophical zombies that serve no greater purpose to the body-politic than does a blood cell to the greater human organism, meaning they don’t function as organs much less a nervous system or brain, they exist, in keeping with the basic Kantian metaphysics of accumulation, just to transport capital around from point A to point B and keep the economic substructure functioning the same way a blood cell transports oxygen, circulating it through all of our important bits. Most people aren’t the brain, the lungs, the heart, or even the gall bladder: most people are just blood cells. So if it isn’t the government holding the public back, if it isn’t the government keeping the public dumb, who or what is? Yeah: the public keeps the public dumb. Because the public has always been and always will be,- dumb.

The masses in ancient Greece were dumb, the masses in Egypt were dumb, the masses in Europe are dumb, the masses in the US are dumb, so on and so forth. The evolution of human culture and consciousness is incredibly slow because of this neutralizing influence of the mob, which breeds unchanging stasis: all development has come from the emergence of some few elite classes, all human evolution has been guided by a handful of individuals, in comparison to the masses. That’s precisely why a form of government must exist if you want people to ever walk on the moon, manage nuclear power, and make your new Iphone and games console. A border must be maintained by said government to stop the influx of uneducated, barely employable, and often criminal entities with no ties to the country they are attempting to illegally enter; their ancestors did not contribute anything to us in taxes, they never paid anything into the system they are coming to benefit from- it’s both immoral and economically dumb to allow them to do so. And this is all coming from a person who is incredibly anti-big government- to my mind, nearly every (federal) government agency from the CIA to the DEA to the NSA is an unconstitutional abomination and I’d be very happy if 95 percent of all federal law was simply gutted and trashed. But I’m not an anarchist, because that’s idiotic.

To see anything worthwhile in anarchism would require you to assume human nature was something other than what I just said it was: something to be ruled, something which, without the guiding influence of a higher caste, is doomed to regression and the “stupidity, against which even the Gods contend in vain”, to quote Schiller. Ideally, following Plato, it would be philosophers placed into this highest, ruling caste, instead of corporatocratic elites,- instead of Google and Amazon,- but even giving the wheel to such corporate rulers would be better than giving it to the masses and returning us to an anarchic state. And I say return, though it wouldn’t be a return, since we’ve never existed in an anarchy before. The actual concept of hierarchy itself (the opposite of anarchy) is pre-programmed in our simian brain, and every social structure we’ve ever existed in, even predating the emergence of the written word and ‘history’ proper, has quite clearly reflected the hierarchical organization built into the heart of every individual, impressed upon the conformation of Psyche,- an organization by which power was first accumulated, ‘capital-ized’, siphoned up from the masses into that ‘all seeing eye’ at the top of the Pyramid, and then transmitted from a higher class, into whose investiture it is concentrated, to a subordinate labor class, upon whose brow it is discharged more purposefully than otherwise, leading them ever onward toward a destiny they cannot really understand, but one they dimly presage in the Siren’s call of that commanding Eye, which beckons them to assume for themselves that role of power, of wealth, of the very command exercised over them,- (The ultimate “carrot” is the promises that one can hold the “whip” one day themselves!) this being, if harsh, the only means by which the tendency toward regression and stupidity,- the tendency toward a lowest common denominator genotype, might be overcome by our species, given our peculiar breeding stratagems and the selective mechanisms that put us on the top of the food chain in the first place. (This peculiar breeding strategy the human race employs is a paradoxical combination of R-selection and K-selection; the dynamic between the two selective mechanisms, forming outwardly the entire drama of ecological succession, was ‘spiritualized’, to use the language of Nietzschean genealogy, and made inward within the human brain, inasmuch as man’s consciousness embodies an internal conflict and dynamic between these mechanisms, which we see played out historically between masses and elites, the former colonizing an initial zone through multiple reproductive episodes a la. iteroparity and thereby fecundating it, and the later emerging as increasingly more competitive individuals vie for influence over that newly colonized ‘territory’, in Deleuze’s vocabulary.) Without hierarchical power structures to curb this regressive tendency and FORCE evolutionary momentum upon the ‘ruderal’ masses, we’d hit a genetic plateau, an immobile stasis, a cultural dead-end, and we would simply overbreed ourselves into redundant protoplasm Idiocracy-style in a couple generations. Instead of whining about how unfair it is, why don’t you do yourself a favor and aspire to be one of those few visionaries, a force to guide the evolution and destiny of the human mind on Earth?

Yet another cause, the inversion of Hegelian metaphysics to produce a hypermaterialist critique further developed by certain cultural theorists. As I say here:

Parodites: Let’s play a game. You list words that the Right distorts, I will list ones the Left distorts. Wait a second, the Left espouses social constructionism as an essential doctrine, meaning that the fluidity of meaning and the infinite interpretability of all language is sort of built right into the ideology so there’s not actually any point in such a game. (A characteristic of the Right is the faith in Plato’s “Scale of Being”, that is, a hierarchy of values built into the order of Nature itself, which defines the relationships between categories like male and female. Words can have stable meanings by semiotically reifying this intrinsic hierarchy. The Left, however, believes that all hierarchy is a social construction and therefor inherently unjust- arbitrary constellations of power exuded from the volcanism of history, all such hierarchy representing a transmission of power from one group to another and therefor the oppression of one group by another, and all as meaninglessly and as blindly ventured as the ephermera of Heraclitus’ Child of the Aeon building his castles of sand by the tide, or Walter Benjamin’s Angel of History sweeping the detritus of the ages under its wings.) The Left also uses the materialist dialectic of history to recombine every concept with its exact opposite, re-constructing it outside of any abstract hierarchy so as to identify the “material forces” involved in its production,- material forces to which, in the opinion of the critical theorists upon whose work most Leftist ideology is couched, all human concepts can be reduced as merely arbitrarily constructed phantasies of power, continuous subversions of Western philosophy’s discourse of the Logos. Oh wait, you probably don’t understand a word I’m saying… It’s like talking to Christians, most of them don’t understand their own religion. Hell, most don’t even bother reading their own religion’s texts. Well I read both sides’ texts. I wouldn’t identify as being on either side of this fallacious spectrum, but rest assured, while both sides have their intellectual and moral defects, I believe you are woefully under-educated with regard to those of your own apparent persuasion.

Hardly attempting to be confusing with multisyllabic expressions, I have simply used the exact language employed by the people I am talking about- critical theorists, practitioners of the ‘materialist dialectic’ invented by Marx when he inverted the system devised by Hegel, etc. Hegel, the Right’s intellectual prophet, [The concept of the nation-state itself, (whose preservation, in light of the increasing “Alexandrian” impulsion toward the mixing of cultures as well as the miscegenation of peoples, is a root of all “Right” politics) as formally conceived by philosophy, depends upon Hegel’s delineation of a dialectical transcendence of certain traditional forms of representation (logoi) integral to the identity of peoples in relation to their nations. Re-appropriating the concept of the ‘mnematic forms’, I have personally conceptualized a new philosophical basis for the nation-state, independent from any Hegelian dialectics.] sought to work out the future of Geist or “Mind” through a synthetic process whereby consciousness re-incorporates the products of its own negations, gradually purifying itself of all latent ambiguity and imperfection, while Marx sought to reduce Geist to an atheistic, blind, evolutionary flow of material history, reversing Hegel’s entire process, thereby collapsing the distinct conceptual hierarchies established by Geist into a protoplasmic goo, a substrate without distinction of class, gender, lesser or greater, without master and slave, etc.,- a deeper core without any conformation to the “dominance hierarchy” embodied by our bleak histories, from which Marx felt the current sociopolitical system alienated man, in effect separating him from his own nature or, in his words, the “species essence”. By collapsing these conceptual hierarchies and returning man to this imaginary species essence, Marx believed a new utopia free of oppression would be brought into existence on earth. While Marx applied his materialist dialectic to economics, you can apply it to anything. That is why you see the phrase “cultural Marxist”: that is simply anyone who takes that materialist dialectic idea and applies it to other things besides economics, turning Marx’s dialectic between the classes into a dialectic between the races and racial oppression, or applying it to the genders to create a dialectic of gender oppression and patriarchy, etc. Foucault applied it to language itself, tracing a new material dialectic between reason and madness which he felt pushed mental deviance into a cultural underground and falsely constructed an oppressive “discourse of the Logos”, a conclusion extended to the idea of “social constructionism” itself, which you see so commonly today. You can literally apply it- the materialist dialectic- to anything. At any rate, these are the actual internal mechanics of Leftist ideology. It is how the ideology actually works underneath all the slogans and the mindless pantomimes of its younger, less experienced devotees. If it’s confusing, that’s because, despite being so disconnected from reality, Leftist philosophy, especially critical theory, is very complicated. Marx himself is very complicated, very difficult to understand. Probably why there’s not many Leftists who actually study it. Similarly, Right philosophy is complicated as well, given the fact that Hegel is no less difficult a read than Marx, if not more difficult. Basically anything worth understanding, is difficult to understand. All politics is mere philosophy put into practice, and most people advance political opinions without any philosophical backing whatsoever, thereby consigning themselves to almost certain failure when they attempt to utilize a political system whose philosophical underbelly remains unknown and incomprehensible to them.

The fact that you call a large swathe of your fellow countrymen “dirty” for being nationalists, and for apparently no other reason, would indicate to me, just based on your verbiage, that you’re another oblivious nitwit sent out into the world to carry on the intellectual program set into place following the inversion of Hegel made in Marx’s time, from which the entire deconstructionist trend takes off, which I doubt you understand. (The fact that you used language like “grounded in the concrete” is highly Marxist, as Marxist thought is all about deconstructing metaphysical abstractions so as to reveal what they call “concrete solutions” within the motive fluxions of the materialist dialectic of history, out of whose entropic stresses and asymmetry the forces at work in history, blindly and as a consequence purely of evolution and thermodynamics, vie for equilibrium, precipitating in this way the various power relationships that have shaped our epochs, like the master-slave dynamics, male-female inequality, racial inequality, sexuality inequalities, etc. etc. Even the inequality between the sane and insane, neurotypical and atypical in Foucault’s nonsense. Adorno’s work takes that to its extreme, where abstractions are entirely re-absorbed by this materialist fluxion, re-submerged in the ‘light of the apocalypse’ and swallowed up by History- laid in potsherds and ashes under the feet of W. Benjamin’s mysterious “Angel of History”. I’ve gone on a tangent though,- perhaps that was merely coincidental vocabulary on your part.) That’s why the other guy warned you, musingly, not to let yourself be taken advantage of by professors and members of the intelligentsia who know more about that program than you do, and who would wrap it up (conceal it) in less opprobrious guise. Maybe you understand enough of it not to mind the opprobrium though, since I have a suspicion about your ideology and you also don’t mind distastefully calling everyone dirty simply for aligning their political aims with the success of their own country, with the desire that their country should succeed,- ie. nationalists. You criticize America’s faults for the good of America: and what are those faults? You haven’t specified any yet, but go ahead. Let’s hear it. The faults you choose to declaim will clear up any ambiguity in your political intentions. It’s easy to hide behind goals, especially exalting, proud goals- like universal peace or something. But when you are open about what you contemn, about what you see as a fault, about what you perceive to be ugly: that more readily tells us who you are and what you’re about. Faults don’t give us a lot to hide behind, so go ahead, let’s hear what America’s faults are, to your mind. What, that we used slaves a long time ago? Yeah well that’s a fault we share with every single nation that ever existed, so if you were to give me that as an example, well I guess I would be able to pretty accurately predict what direction you want the conversation to go in.

Yet one more, the same processes of social degeneration explored by Thucydides, Sallust, and Livy hundreds of fuckin’ years ago, and they had nothing to do with the Jews or the Jew conspiracy expounded upon by the fascist guy and his kindred morons, who all regurgitate the same thing I’ve heard every one of them say. But I’m the brainwashed one because I hate statism. And the statist media conglomerates are paradoxically the ones who brainwashed me into that hatred.

** “Federalism” includes a specific formulation of natural law, and the Constitution’s codification of dual implicit and explicit rights, as I say here:

Parodites: I love discussions of implicit vs explicit rights, because almost nobody seems to understand that the number of rights they have is infinite, and are descended, in the manner of any other more metaphysical kind of abstraction, like those of the Greeks and Romans upon which ennobled basis our founders framed their constitutional philosophy, from out of the hand of either “God or Nature”, hardly being discovered or retained by the word of any other fledgling, mortal, and quite fallible human being or any scrap of paper, (the somewhat poeticized verbiage I’m using is intentional, and I am drawing on the likes of Thomas Paine, etc.) citing the typical phrase of our founders: those explicit or enumerated rights are merely implicit rights so codified by law, due to the fact that they might infringe upon one another in practical life, and such issues need to be sorted out formally. But the right to drive is not covered as an implicit right.

Let me give an example. I do not support drug laws and I believe that those currently existing are illegal and tyrannical- that is why, to ban alcohol long, long ago, they had to actually pass a new constitutional amendment, (I am curious… why do you think they had to do that, keeping in mind that passing a whole new amendment is about the most difficult thing to do in our system? For fun? They did it because they had to do it because there’s no other way to legally prohibit alcohol use. Where’s the anti-narcotics amendment by the way? Oh …) as nothing in the constitution grants the Federal government the authority to regulate the substance use of its citizens. (It has the right to regulate inter-state commerce, and it is upon this nebulous ground that the Nixon administration framed the basis of our current prohibitive laws- that and a more general interest to promote the common welfare, although this later example, ie. the general welfare clause, is not an actual source of legal power, meaning it cannot serve the production of positive law in any way, as it’s just a philosophical underpinning to the constitution. I recommend reading Bastiat’s work, namely “The Law”, where he makes a great point to the effect of: the State should restrict itself to the preservation, codification, clarification, and defense of the rights of the individual, because this task has a definite and quite limited scope, for, if it sets before itself the object of promoting the welfare of the collective instead of defending the rights of the individual,- the scope of this later task being unlimited and infinite,- so will that unrestrained ambition to the ‘common good’ naturally encourage an indefinite expansion of state power, whose excess cannot help but violate the rights of the individual at some point. Following Bastiat, we can say that the socius and the polis, that is, the culture within which the ‘good’ of human nature is decided through discourse, through philosophy and the exercise of Reason, and, on the other hand, the political machinery through which positive law is administered, should, in so many words, remain as separate as is the State and the Church. But, even accepting the errancies of the Nixon-ian interpretations of the commerce clause to which I’ve been, however bitterly, alluding, we have to keep in mind that an explicit or positive law cannot contradict an implicit or natural right, lest it overstep the bounds afforded to it constitutionally. In this case, the State and Fed could certainly criminalize the distribution, the sale of a substance, the transfer of a substance within a state or across state lines, and even the purchasing of a substance should someone be caught in the act, etc. but not the personal possession and use of a substance by a citizen on their own property, because that would be infringing upon an implicit right by an explicit law. Of course you could be banned from using a drug in public or in a store, the same way you can be banned from smoking cigarettes in a store or being drunk in public.) The right to ingest and use a drug, which we could even formulate as basically the right to perform as your own doctor and to diagnose and dispense medication to yourself as you see fit, is certainly an implicit right to my mind, for implicit rights are based on the concept of natural law: an implicit right is, quite simply, any power I can exercise without infringing upon any of your implicit or explicit rights. (Read Thomas Paine: this distinction is what makes the difference between an actual right and a mere privilege afforded by the State, which is all most people in this world have,- privileges, from Europe to Australia.) My using a drug does not infringe upon you or anyone else in any way, it’s an implicit right that I have because it does not infringe upon any of your implicit or explicit rights- in any conceivable way. If the right to use drugs is not an implicit right, then there are no implicit rights, because this is about as clear cut a case of one as you’re gonna get. But to drive, you must enter either the private or public property of others, either other citizens or the state- right there, immediately, driving cannot be maintained as an implicit right in the same way the right to use a drug can be. Unless your driving does not leave the confines of your personal property, of course. But then that would sort of defeat the purpose of driving.

Natural rights, equivalent to the US Constitution’s conceptualization of implicit rights, cannot be legislated against or restricted. They are simply natural powers, natural rights that are, in the words of our Constitution, inalienable. It’s just that you have no implicit/natural right to drive, save in the confines of your own private property. It is integral that this idea of implicit or natural right not be muddied by people who have no real understanding of constitutional philosophy or law, which is what your posts have done, along with the entire SovCit movement, to the point that even trying to talk about individual rights immediately gets you lumped in with moon landing conspiracy theorists- and that, my friends… that’s really not a good place to be, socially, as a people.

Let’s look at the issue of drugs more carefully, at both a legal and moral level, as well as a personal level. I will go in that order. I believe (“believe” is the wrong word: I understand, similar to how I understand that 1 plus 1 equals 2) that we should have an implicitly protected right (What Paine and Bastiat and Jefferson and all those type of guys called a ‘natural right’, that simply being any power I can exercise without imposing myself upon or infringing on any of your implicit or explicit rights. You have a right to own property; we have private property rights in this country. If I walk over and steal your property, I just infringed on your right to own property by exercising force. So I don’t have a natural right to do that. That force I exerted, that use of power, goes beyond the sphere naturally afforded to me as justly my own, out of the hand of “either God or Nature”: that use of power crosses the line reserved to me and my rights, and constitutes a crime, in other words. But if I decide to bump some primo cocaine, guess what- I didn’t impose myself upon you in any conceivable way. That action does not infringe on your own rights in literally any way. I have a natural right to do that. I don’t see any way to argue otherwise, neither did people during Prohibition because they understood that, to ban alcohol, they needed to write a whole new amendment to the constitution. Where’s the anti-narcotics amendment? At any rate, the Federal government, however, says I don’t have any such implicit/natural right to use a drug, because they don’t give a SHT about what Paine, Bastiat, and Thomas Jefferson think. Actually, I don’t think they give a SHT what anybody thinks.) to do whatever we want to our own bodies at legal age, including ingesting any substance we choose, be it cocaine or cyanide. This is why, to ban alcohol in the US, they had to write a whole new amendment, because nothing in the constitution gives the Federal government the right to prosecute the possession and use of substances by individuals, only the transmission of them across state lines, while individual states have the right to regulate their own internal economies at a statutory level. (Current drug laws are based on Nixon’s executive enforcement of a peculiar interpretation of the commerce clause, which he felt gave the Federal government the right to ban substances wholesale and regulate individual’s use of them without any constitutional amendment whatsoever. Do you support much else that Nixon did?) But the actual possession of a drug by an individual simply doesn’t make sense as a crime, I don’t think it’s just. But there’s plenty of unjust laws, so it is more than that. It’s not just unjust theoretically, I believe it contradicts the US constitution and that every single person who has ever been dumped into jail to be abused and predated on over smoking a joint, has been egregiously wronged by our system of government. I still recognize the validity of the commerce clause in extending its use to the matter of drug trafficking though. The Fed can regulate interstate transfer of whatever goods they want, be it drugs or hamburger meat, and the states are all free to regulate internal trade, which includes criminalizing the distribution of a substance. I’m talking about drug possession, about individual use. I would, however, go on to make an ancillary argument, though one not as certain as the one I have made defending possession, to the effect of: because the wholesale Federal and State bans on drug distribution would tacitly contradict the individual right to possess and use them, this would render drugs in a nebulous, quasi legal, quasi criminal state, and so, because individual right trumps Federal authority whenever there’s an internal contradiction in the administration of positive law like this, Federal bans on distribution should be lifted. My first argument, however, defending the right to individual possession, is certain: as certain as 1 plus 1. This other argument, I will admit, is not as certain.

As to the morality of it, adults are free to make their own decisions. You can’t blame a drug dealer for addicting someone, unless they are underage. Adults have to take responsibility for their own actions. You can’t blame Mcdonald’s for giving people heart attacks either. They decided to eat there every day and gain 500 pounds, it’s their heart attack. Most people can use drugs without over doing it and suffering serious side effects, a certain percentage of the population can’t: that isn’t anyone’s fault but their own, their personal issues and whatever is driving them toward behaving self-destructively. Addiction is a part of human nature which expresses itself in already damaged, broken people, who use drugs to escape self-reflection and the greater pain that introspecting brings them.

If you are going to use a drug, don’t use it to escape some other thing that’s bothering you and you’ll be fine. You’ve never done a few lines of blow before? I have. You don’t automatically get addicted and go insane. Besides, most of this “pain” coming from drug addiction is because of the immense social pressure placed on addicts by the police and the rest of society, not the drugs themselves; pressure that forces them to get tainted drugs from dangerous people at exorbitant markups that drain their bank account, and social pressure that forces them out of decent society into the shadows, where all of their pre-existing problems get magnified ten times. The only problem I ever really had while using drugs was- other people. If the rest of you had just sort of got TF out of my way and left me alone, and brought the cops with you too, I would have never had any problems at all.

What a cunt, fucking conspiritard. Statist scum. An un-ironic statist who thinks the reason I am anti-statist is because all the statist media conglomerates brainwashed me into… despising them and the statism they aim to instill in us? Wat? Let him lick the boots of whatever state-authority he wants to kneel to, I’m not having it in my country. I hope the US bombs wherever the fuck he’s from. He’s “picking up the torch of National Socialism” to “save the people”, LOL. Fuck off.

90 percent of his replies are just quoting me but I will update this thread if he figures out something to retort with. Little Hitler youth motherfuck.

Man is on the precipice of a new global conflict. The US and its allies are trying to fight a war, and if the US has to sacrifice its cultural integrity in order to win that war, then so be it: that is the misguided faith of many. The question for me, though, is not whether the US and its allies can win this war or not, but what kind of world will result from a win. Will the US become a fascist, communist, or authoritarian regime that oppresses the people? If the US is not reigned in and the US government retains control over the military, would that really represent a victory for the people? I think not. It’ll just be another case of ‘might makes right’ and ‘might is the law’. At least if a lot of people die in the process. Or if the US goes through the full-tilt fascism of the Nazi regime.

What did Nazi ideology say? It gave lip service to the idea of economic independence (although this was mostly a rhetorical flourish, as it was largely unworkable in practice, as Germany was already a highly regulated economy at the time of its inception). The Nazis believed that the economy should be organized into a coherent, functional, and militaristic structure; so much so, that it wasn’t a “theory” at all, but a practical plan for action. The problem with giving control of the Heights to a central authority, that is, the State, is that the State is just a collection of human beings, and these people are flawed. This is the reason why the fascists have always failed. The people who put themselves above the people are always the first to fall when the chips are down. Those sectors of the economy which the state aimed to control as a matter of policy - such as coal, steel, and heavy industry - were already working within the parameters of large, centrally-run enterprises. These enterprises were already the dominant sector in Germany’s economy. The Nazi idea was basically that you can’t afford the luxury of having different economic sectors being run by competing interests and interests that are, at heart, different. That if we’re going to have a working society, we have to have our interests in common, but even in a fascist regime, these heights have been shown over and over again, to be a corruptible force for the benefit of the ruling class. During the second world war, it was this large-scale structure that is at the root of the economic strength of Germany, as a military rival to the US. That’s not to say that the US hasn’t had an economic component to its rise to power, but the scale of the German military and its economic system has been the driving force behind their success. The German military grew rapidly because its industries could churn out tanks and planes in staggering numbers, and when the US got started on its own industrial path, it couldn’t reach that level of production for a long time. When a nation is engaged in war, the state controlling these economic sectors works out in the favor of the people, generating temporary wealth- the sectors involved in manufacturing the instruments of, and sustaining, the war-machine, which is why, under Hitler, Germany quickly rose from the mire to a dominant power; but when that war is over, the volatile heights of the economy,- the most important sectors, prove themselves to be unstable, and far too difficult to control and predict outside of a war-driven economy, as Hitler created and had the state authority control. So when that war ended or the hope of victory is dispensed with, the Nazis found that the State-controlled industries were an albatross around their necks, they were more a danger than a boon. Instead of controlling the heights in this way, the US believes that the self-correcting, self-controlled ‘free market’ will prevail.

The Nazis were also opposed to the free market in certain respects; they essentially wanted government to be dominant, and to control, with a minimum of interference from free market forces. It’s not really too different from the idea that the Communist government can, to some degree, control the economy; they just want it to be controlled from the top down, not the bottom up. The US is just as guilty of doing this with its Federal Reserve, its Federal Banking Board, and the list of other regulatory agencies and boards of directors and commissions. The only free market capitalism works is a free market that is not subject to the whims of the State and the federal government. If the free market is truly free, there can be no central authority that dictates what should and should not be available. The idea that the free market will always correct itself, and that even if it isn’t being corrected, no matter what you try to do to stymie it, that it’ll come back in the end, is an absurd idea, however there is more hope in this idea than in the idea that the State is the ultimate authority.

Ran out of space for text in the OP, I am listing other causes behind the cultural decay I wrote of above, what follows is meant to be addendums to that first * footnote:

[b]Finally, another cause I would include: those discussed by Jung in his “Aion” text; the cultural, and ultimately, the global enlargement of a collective “shadow”, an apotheosis of a kind of “metaphysical evil” which he identified with the rise of an Antichrist and the disintegration of civilization in toto.

As I say here: [/b] That’s a simplistic view and, while it might make you personally feel better or help you deal with the presence of evil in the world, it is not actually constructive, nor does it help anyone in any way. He didn’t become what he is because he’s missing something that we as humans possess, something like empathy or love or morality, or whatever terms you’d prefer: he became what he is because something inside of him is also inside all of us, but most of us are able to keep it controlled. He wasn’t a nice upstanding father who was secretly a serial killer. He was a nice upstanding father AND a serial killer. Have you ever read Jung? He understood that the reason most of us keep that “thing” controlled isn’t because we’re good, but because we’re weak, servile, hive-minded; there’s a difference between being weak and being good, between just putting your head down as an anonymous member of the crowd and rising up to virtue. To become truly good, you have to consciously master that “thing”, the thing that made BTK what he was after it unconsciously dominated his life. So there is a terrible risk in becoming, or in trying to become, truly “good”, which is the risk that this dark force overwhelms you, the risk that the abyss stares back, to recall Nietzsche: that is why there are so few good people in the world,- as few as there are serial killers; as few saints as there are monsters. Jung believes that all humans carry a mental shadow that contains the chthonian echoes of an ancestral force which, when not mastered consciously, reemerges in distorted, destructive forms, incarnating itself in these dark figures of history; (in his pseudoprophetic work Aion, Jung even envisions a future of humanity where oppressive moralistic culture, which deplores all thought that has been freed to the exploration of such depths, has ensured that this dark force approaches its entropic maxima, fully dominating the Apollo-light of consciousness on earth as a kind of antichrist) a Shadow constituted by an inherent darkness we all carry within us,- a darkness which, unless you confront your own monstrosity, unless you consciously re-unite with this dark force, is destined to evince itself in all that we call Evil. By creating this psychological barrier between yourself and people like this serial killer, by telling yourself they are monsters disconnected from your own humanity, you are 1) Lying, and 2) making it impossible to consciously master that Shadow. As Jung tells us, all that we do not understand will rule our destinies. You carry in your own heart the same “thing”, whatever you wish to call it, that made the BTK killer become the BTK killer, and most of us have concocted this psychological strategy of suppressing all recognition of this inherent evil, whereby a man like this is cast off from the species in your mind as being “something else”. He’s not. He’s you. He’s the Shadow, and it is your task in life, as a self-reflecting human being, to re-unite with this repressed Shadow,-- to take it back into yourself, to reabsorb it, to dredge it up from the depths of the unconscious to the height of the conscious mind, to poison yourself with it like Mithridates until you have become immune, to make it conscious truly and utterly,-- because, if you don’t, it will rule your life, and there is great danger in its rule, as BTK himself learned. And I don’t plainly see how we can be expected to consciously master the Shadow if we strike these people (like BTK) from the histories and banish all remembrance of them as some kind of mistaken courtesy extended, however reverentially, to the murderers’ respective victims.

This “Shadow” is being enlarged more and more, from a personal to a cultural to a global scale.

That process can damage your mind but it is the only way to actually understand how these serial killers happen, and there’s not many people out there willing to do this, willing to gaze into the abyss and, in Jungian terms, re-integrate the dark Shadow of human nature into your consciousness. You have to extract, from your deep unconscious, the shadow in which this dark instinct, this sadistic impulse, has been restrained and contained by your conscious mind through projective symbolic categories like “evil”; once that impulse is extracted, you have to allow it to animate your mind, you have to feel the dark urge that drove Bundy, you have to feel the psychic release he obtained when he swallowed his victim’s last breath and engaged their corpses in intercourse. This is horrific stuff and not many people are willing to go through this process to understand someone like Bundy, even Jung himself said that “shadow work” of this level can be dangerous to your mental health. But the more man restrains and pushes this Shadow away into the unconscious, the more existence it swallows up, the stronger it becomes- the more deadly it becomes.

As a culture and civilization, we have been pushing more and more of this “uncomfortable” aspect of human nature into the Shadow. Jung believes it will reach a critical mass and, quite literally, break out, to engulf the world in flame.

That’s like 5 or 6 causes and none of them have anything to do with the fucking Jews.

Now, in the OP, I discussed the danger in handing control over those sectors of the economy which constitute the “Heights” to the state, which is the defining feature of fascism. Here I will elaborate on some of these dangers:

The state sector has limitless resources (it has robbed from the private sector) to throw around on massive projects, be it landing on the moon or creating a nuke, so even if only one out of every 10 insane projects goes anywhere, they end up looking quite innovative. It’d be fine, a failure rate as high as what we’re talking about, if the state was gambling with its own money, but alas, they do it with ours. That’s the source of the innovation you’re talking about. You really have to go out of your way to cherry pick enough examples to seriously discount the innovation of private sector technology in the first place though. The first real microprocessor, meaning a system integrated on a single chip, is indeed Intel’s: that isn’t a “trivial increment” in design over the highly task-specific MP944 “microprocessor”. How about the LLMs, large language model neural network architectures, which are closing in on the greatest technological achievement possible- AGI? Private. I could list 10 private sector innovations as easily as you can list 10 state sector ones. Here’s the thing: the state gets to gamble with limitless money that isn’t its own, and so it can afford to throw in on an insane million-to-one idea like landing on the moon, whereas no private company or individual could, for purely logistical reasons. When it comes to that kind of a megaproject, the state is going to come out on top.

Now, take the handing of control of the medical sector to the State. Something I wrote in an argument with one of these free healthcare people:

The European states are not undermining their own systems. (Hilarious argument; any flaw in a socialist system is, once and again, just an example of “not real socialism”.) Their systems rely on one highly inefficient causal loop: practice capitalistic economics for long enough to develop some level of surplus, then switch to socialist systems that ride on that surplus for as long as they can, then collapse, return to capitalist economics, build up a surplus again, couch socialism on that surplus till it runs out again, collapse: rinse and repeat. To eliminate that inefficiency, I’d suggest cutting out the part where you stop producing the surplus wealth. There’s also a longer-term argument about the virtues of the capitalist enterprise: the medical innovations our machine churns out do not stay radical and expensive forever, they eventually find their way across the rest of the world, set new standards of care, become incorporated globally in our collective medical knowledge, and finally, more available. We would be doing the future a great disservice by leveraging our surplus wealth to the inefficiencies of bureaucracy and government- giving it to THEM of all people, to do with as they see fit. Because that’s what socialism is. We allow the State to apportion the collected surplus wealth of the entire community,-- because politicians know better than a million Elon Musks and they are such futurists and geniuses, right? I am sure they will outpace the technological and medical innovations of the American capitalist machine with their visionary, prophetic minds! Cue: end of sarcastic remark.

You have concocted this idea that people are dying in the street that don’t get more available kinds of medical treatment- that simply isn’t true. We have insurance plans dawg. It’s not like you break a leg, tell the hospital you can’t pay a few thousand up front in folding cash, and then they turn you away. You work out what you can’t immediately pay over time. Although I do understand that most people cannot afford the kind of high level, unusual treatment I described in my anecdotes; I even said that myself in my reply. I also said that, unfortunately, those people who cannot afford this level of treatment are free to do one thing: die. This cannot be changed, because we can’t make gamma knives out of thin air or program an AI with the expertise to utilize them so that everyone who needs it can get it. There is a limited amount of this technology in the world and, even if we wanted to, (and by even if we wanted to, I mean even if the evil corporate elites wanted to) we simply cannot get the treatment to everyone who needs it. Would you prefer us to have a lottery for it? Get a brain tumor, get a lottery ticket to see if you get treated? You seem to be arguing from a position of fantasy: sick people, no matter how rare their brain tumor, deserve the same treatment Sarah got. So what? We physically cannot get the treatment to everyone who needs it so it comes down to: do you want to have a lottery for it, or do you just want to let the market settle it and whoever can afford it, gets it? Or do you want us to go super Leftist radical and have the Government analyze our social credit scores and then they decide which sick citizens are virtuous enough to get the treatment and live? Because there’s not many alternatives here bro; which of the three would you prefer? You know which I’d prefer. I simply can’t curse a system that is directly responsible for saving the life of a woman I love repeatedly, without which she would surely be dead. And I’m not seeing any argument that would compel me to do so anyway.

Also, the fascist guy described the United States as a “Jewish golem” which is used by Israel as a center-piece in the international debt system, the world-bank. That international debt system is indeed integral to understanding how the global-capitalist machine functions, and the US is indeed at the center, but it has nothing to do with the Jews. It has to do with a need to stabilize the geopolitical structure following the two world wars. As I write here:

Well we pay 99 percent of the Nato budget (other countries are supposed to contribute but they ignore it and nobody cares, nobody does anything about it) and lend our military out to essentially every European state when they ask, including Japan. Why do you think we spend 10 times more on our military than the rest of the world combined? Makes us sound big and bad but have you ever bothered to research, like, why… where that money goes? It goes to the troops and hardware we lease out to keep Europe from falling apart. What if we stopped doing that? Those European states would then have to spend their own money (instead of spending the US’ money) creating and maintaining their own military, and military is the greatest expense for any country so if they did have to do that, well maybe they wouldn’t be able to afford those oh-so-enlightened free health care and schooling programs anymore, huh? Instead of treating my nation with respect, you demonize us, and it’s honestly hilarious. Enlightened liberal European social programs only exist because those countries don’t have to spend all their money maintaining military assets, and the only reason they don’t have to do that- is because the US maintains assets for them, taxing and expending the accumulated wealth of the (mostly oblivious) US people on this grand political project revolving around stopping Europe from making a new Hitl. or Mussol. and descending into WW3 level chaos. If it was me, I’d just let Europe fall into disorder and make a million new dictators, as long as you all keep your insanity away from us, which shouldn’t be a tall order considering the US, my country, is surrounded on all sides by the Pacific and Atlantic ocean. I’d want the US to become more independent (half the reason the US government bothers is because we’ve become too dependent on energy and goods imported from outside our own boarders; we’ve got to keep Europe and the world from eating themselves so we can keeping buying shit from you guys) so we could just say F it and let Europe do what Europe is good at, world wars and making dictators. And croissants.

[b]We participate in this fashion, not due to a Jewish conspiracy, but because it is necessary to stop the world from collapsing into a third world war, which might be inevitable: but we’re holding it off. I was jesting when I said I’d like us to just withdraw and let all of Europe collapse, of course, though with the slightest tinge of sincerity.

See, this is what I am talking about- my multimodal analysis, versus that fascist’s unidimensional, conspiratorial analysis.[/b]

In the OP, I also alluded to a “metaverse”. I am no Luddite, so I wanted to qualify my statements there by saying:

The problem isn’t technology or VR. We left reality as a species the moment we invented writing and began passing down a history from those long dead, that no longer exist; really, from the moment we ate the Apple and learned how to symbolize the world in language. And yes, continuing the myth, sin was the price for that fruit, because learning to symbolize the world separated us from the world, and we experience the consequences of that sin of knowledge as an increased propensity toward violence and mental disorders and generally, despair. At any rate, the intermingling of the digital and biological is an inevitable evolutionary trajectory, and the fact that you’re technically a cyborg by augmenting yourself with a computer and the knowledge it makes accessible to you isn’t bad if you use that computer to learn, to self-educate, to create music, to express your thoughts, etc., and it isn’t fundamentally any different than augmenting yourself with a library and a piece of paper. The problem is that Facebook is going to be the central node of control for this new social technology, when VR shouldn’t have any top down controlling force at all, (neither should the Internet) let alone the worst company possible to step into something like this, who are only going to use it to collect more private data and addict people.

I added a whole lot of stuff to this post, a lot of important details and counter-arguments toward the fascist guy, which indeed represent my overall argument against fascism since the guy didn’t have anything unique or atypical to say about it and is just reading off the fascist manifesto guidebook 101 shit.

Also, the Shoggoth was right. Giving the State authority to organize the economic superstructure, during war-times, can work out to the benefit of the people, increasing short-term wealth, because the State can then redirect all economic production to the task of sustaining the war machine, producing tanks and steel and guns and so on- as all demand will be focused on that stuff. That is why Germany, under Hitler, went from bankrupt to a level of great wealth and power in such a short time. But when that war ends, suddenly the State cannot so surely direct the channels of economic production. During a war, the object is obvious: direct all production to the production of the war-machine, and the economy prospers. But in any other situation outside of a war going on, the economic heights are far too volatile to predict, and so the State cannot effectively manage them. That was the Shoggoth’s own induction, its own idea; it was accurate.

And just to emphasize something. Anyone on the side of truth, in this metapolitical aeon of ours, really needs to buckle down and refute this alt-right, Jew-hating conspiracy stuff and the rising right-wing collectivist fascist politics it is breeding on 4chan or wherever the fuck it’s coming from, because it makes anyone else trying to take on cultural-Marxism look like an asshole in the minds of people who don’t know enough about any of this to differentiate a simple reality: that statist fascist garbage is the result of a unidimensional analysis pinning a process of social decay with about 1,000 different causes on a single imaginary source (‘Jews’). I have laid out a multi-modal analysis with five or six important actual causes behind it in these posts here, and there are many more; many, many more, and a book could be written on every single one of them. None of those causes I’ve enumerated had anything to do with the Jews.

These conspiritards need to be fought with as much passion as we fight the hyper-Liberal faggot type retards unconsciously perpetuating critical-theorist critique implanted into their unformed brains by their professors.

What I have to write here is a response to a certain video, (youtube.com/watch?v=Tj2YABF_IqM) in which a Leftist attacks those who use meta-irony because we are devaluing “sincerity.” If you watch the video, a stupid argument is made to the effect of: irony is a circle, you have to circle back from irony, to postirony, to metairony, to sincerity at some point. That’s a big nope from me.

No, it’s not. And your disapprobation implies a rather close-minded naivete. I don’t know if you actually feel like hearing someone else’s thoughts, but I am going to write them anyway.

Idubbbz isn’t a philosopher or social theorist. Accordingly, he is simply wrong in describing irony as a circle. It isn’t a circle. It is something Hofstadter calls a strange loop:

" Strange loops take form in human consciousness as the complexity of active symbols in the brain inevitably leads to the same kind of self-reference which Gödel proved was inherent in any complex logical or arithmetical system in his incompleteness theorem. … A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started. Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox. The concept of a strange loop was proposed and extensively discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach, and is further elaborated in Hofstadter’s book I Am a Strange Loop, published in 2007.

A strange loop is a hierarchy of levels, each of which is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship. A strange loop hierarchy is “tangled” (Hofstadter refers to this as a “heterarchy”), in that there is no well defined highest or lowest level; moving through the levels, one eventually returns to the starting point, i.e., the original level. Examples of strange loops that Hofstadter offers include: many of the works of M. C. Escher, the Canon 5. a 2 from Bach’s Musical Offering, the information flow network between DNA and enzymes through protein synthesis and DNA replication, and self-referential Gödelian statements in formal systems. "

The meta-ironist exploits intrinsic feedback loops within the symbolic hierarchy employed by our culture’s value-system and politics, so as to destabilize that hierarchy and value-system from within. It is necessary to seize control of it in this way because post-modern, technologically accelerated society has thrown a certain mechanism out of whack, namely the one explored by Stiegler in his critique of techne. As I write here:

" Neuromimetics, the spreading of actual tics online through video, the fragmentation of individuality into psychomotor reflexes,- a German philosopher named Stigler developed the concept of “nanomutation” in relation to his other concept of “techne”, (Basically, in his thesis, human culture has always evolved alongside the evolution of our technology, but in the past, each leap in technology was very slow: the wheel to fire, fire to the melting of ore out of rocks, the melting of ore to the forging of weapons, etc. At a certain point, however, technology began to accelerate in its developmental trajectory, and it outpaced the rate at which human culture could respond to the new technology and reorganize itself productively: that is when things started to go astray. Nanomutation occurs as individuality is fragmented and split off from a culture that can no longer respond effectively to the changes induced by technological development: “techne” begins to force individuals into their own evolutionarily deviant path or nanomutation, away from the group, from the culture, which therefor begins to fragment even more. This deviance, this withdraw into the self, was portended when Nietzsche claimed that “to be too conscious is a disease”, as he wondered over the fate of the first fish to crawl upon land and begin this doomed march toward sentience. This withdraw into the self does not bring us any closer to the self, for the self defines itself through what he called ‘mnematic forms’, archetypal narratives passed down by a culture and once embodied in myths and religious traditions- these forms of “remembering” are used by individuals to structure and understand their “self”. Separated from a fragmenting culture, nanomutation leads similarly to the disintegration of the self.) and I find that it captures what’s happening on a deeper level. Also you have the ccru guys, who theorized the replacement of human consciousness by machine intelligence through a similar process of enculturation: their concept of thought itself, in the end, unmaking itself by fulfilling the dark dream of thanatos, to return all life to the silence of the inorganic, of pure matter embodied in the concept of a machine mind, an intelligence without feeling made of silicon and wire."

The mechanism I alluded to is, in so many words, the one elaborated concerning techne accelerating to the point that our culture and value-system cannot effectively respond to its transformations by re-organizing itself, leading to nanomutation. This has created what some theorists call the Spectacle. To talk about the spectacle sincerely, is to be swept up into and infected by it, subordinated to it and corrupted; to engage the Spectacle, is to be engaged by it, and so transformed and enslaved by its hypnagogic Maya-dance. This is why you see all of these people losing their minds both on the Left and the Right: they have become parts of the Spectacle. The only way to attack or change the Spectacle and re-gain control of human cultural evolution from techne, is to utilize meta-irony and exploit the feedback-loops I mentioned, to destabilize the culture and value system from within.

In other words, irony isn’t a circle.

Irony ascends in this strange loop through the entire symbolic hierarchy, rupturing and transcending it, to produce stuff like this: youtube.com/watch?v=v5_3AB9Ub0c

To produce meme magic. A perforation in the Lacanian register of the Symbolic, a rupture as I said- ushering in the Lovecraftian cosmic Real. We memed a president into office, after all. And also crashed a plane. We can summon chronodemons with our memes and time travel.

You can consider this thread, more generally, to be Parodites’ playbook for dealing with morons. You see, all the ideological goons (Like I told one guy: “Your politics isn’t even real, it’s a phantom. It’s a red-herring engineered by State sponsored think-tanks meant to ensure the exact opposite of what it claims to profess, and further empower- the State.”) think the same, say the same thing over and over, and never have any original argument; they just repeat the same thing their professor told them to say, you can actually sniff out exactly what school a person came out of, just by the peculiarities of their regurgitated argument. So you can just address ONE of them on a point, and rest assured, every single goon, going forward in life, is going to hit you with the exact same thing, so all you gotta do is dig up what you said before and copy-paste it to them. Argue one, you’ve argued with them all. So this is my personal playbook. I prefer to devote some time to crafting one really good, highly articulated argument for something, and then I don’t ever have to bother re-wording it again. Because nobody’s going to counter-attack with anything I haven’t heard of before or thought to consider.

Another one, whenever they assert there’s no objective moral criterion and that all cultures are equally valid, I give em this:

Parodites: You can’t simultaneously hold the opinion that all morality, and all interpretive frameworks more generally conceived, are subjective, socially constructed reactions born from an implicit discourse of power, (In Lyotard’s phrase, the postmodernist rejects all “metanarratives”, ensuring all interpretations, of which there are infinitely many, are equally legitimate, given the fact that no external, universal value system exists against which to compare them.) and the opinion that the kind of racially oppressive, patriarchal, normative constraints of the past, about which all of this social critique is made, are universally to be condemned, unless you’ve dispensed with the concept of value itself, in your own mind, and made it your political and philosophical aim to simply isolate elements of the discourse of power you feel are “under-privileged” and so elevate them,- and so raise them up to a position of power, which is basically what ‘identity politics’ amounts to. But that is not what morality is. It’s not what philosophy is. Those things are about ascertaining and performing the Good, which is a good for all; which is the good of human nature itself, not to simply vie for power. That would imply the kind of hyper-materialist, reductionist world-view so commonly espoused today, either unconsciously or consciously, by the modern academy.


From a convo on Youtube. Man people sure are stupid.


S C G: I really enjoy Jordan Peterson, the psychology professor - his university lectures are pretty interesting. I am less enamored with Jordan Peterson, the public figure, but his message of finding purpose in responsibility seems to resonate with a lot of people. He’s not without his flaws though.

Alan Silva: I’m at the same place as you are. I like when JP talks about psychology, it’s nice because it’s his area, but when he talks about politics or climate change, I kinda cringe. I can’t say he’s a dumbass, because his lectures and videos about depression actually helped me go through some really hard times.

Autumn Dark: Regarding his wheelhouse of clinical psychology, Jordan Peterson comes across as brilliant to my simpleton mind and seems to be a very important individual to surface in the various platforms of modern media for many folks who like myself are in times of depression or loneliness. Regarding his opinions on anthropomorphic induced climate change he is dangerously, fundamentally wrong.

Parodites: @Alan Silva I doubt you have a single reasonable argument to any of his politics, which is a very level-headed politics and not ideologically biased one way or another. I find your remark especially curious given the fact that JP never even really talks about politics as such and the most ‘radical’ thing he ventured was the idea that the State should not legally mandate certain verbiage. It’s like this video. JP never said ‘women shouldn’t be aggressive’, he just related the statistical and clinical data that indicates women express aggression in non-physical ways, while men tend to be more physically aggressive, and to be more aggressive generally, which should be obvious given the presence of testosterone. I thought that was a premise of Leftist ideology anyway, that men in particular, as a gender, are aggressive and toxic. At any rate, acknowledging the fact that women do not tend to be aggressive is not the same thing as saying you don’t think women should be aggressive. Acknowledging that something exists does not mean you’re endorsing its existence. That was one random “point” this video made, but they all similarly fall apart immediately because its a critique aimed at something JP never proposed in the first place, and therefor just arguing with itself really. Take another one, poverty. JP reflects on power distribution laws and the fact that, for example, 90 percent of the light in a galaxy comes from 10 percent of the brightest stars,- this distribution occurs at every level and scale of the physical universe; the fact that it occurs in human wealth distribution, with 10 percent of an elite class owning 90 percent of the wealth, is not surprising. JP does not defend this and often states that it is a complex issue to work on because we’re basically trying to resolve what amounts to a metaphysical problem in the structure of reality itself- by trying to get to a “better” distribution of wealth, we’re fighting a law of the universe. He does not “endorse” this distribution like it’s something positive, like it’s good, he simply acknowledges its existence. He no more thinks it’s a good thing than he thinks suffering is a good thing by acknowledging that suffering is basically an immutable fact of existence.

Alan Silva: right…

Parodites: @Alan Silva Is that meant to imply you think I just lied to you? Is what I just said not true? Like I said, I further doubt you have any legitimate criticism.

Alan Silva: @Parodites it means that I didn’t even read the comment entirely. You’re right, though. I don’t have any legitimate criticism. It’s only my opinion.

Parodites: @Alan Silva So you’re close-minded in addition to launching baseless attacks on JP, (despite your close-mindedness, I’m still going to write my thoughts here for anyone interested: go ahead and ignore them and probably everything else you don’t want to hear) in all likeliness because your friends don’t like him and told you his politics was evil. (He doesn’t even talk politics, save for on one point concerning the idea of legally binding people to the use of certain language.) And he’s not a climate change denier either, the only time he talked about it was to say that the economic consequences of, for example, shutting down our own infrastructure in the interest of protecting the earth, are not simply to be dismissed as inconsequent matters, as they will lead to the US becoming more energy dependent on foreign sources of power, which in turn will give us a lot less leverage when dealing with Russia, for example, who might decide to exploit our disadvantage and, oh I don’t know… invade Ukraine or something to score more control of oil … or something, that’s just one hypothetical consequence that probably could never happen in this day and age, right?

Having lost so much of that leverage I alluded to under Biden, the Paris Accords, etc., now we cannot do anything about Russia’s expansion effort besides ban imports of their oil, which is going to make our own gas prices jump up to double what they are in a few days or weeks, further bankrupting everyone, if covid regulations have not already done that, as they’ve already destroyed all smaller businesses. Only large businesses like Walmart, with oceans of surplus capital, were able to survive the periods of intense lockdown; the world belongs to corporations now. So we’re getting a double wammy this year of getting fcked out of all our money. Great political decisions for everyone all around. I’m sure the State truly did all of this because they love the earth so much and wanted to protect the climate and ensure the coming generations have somewhere to live … they didn’t just use that as the excuse for dim-witted but good-willed masses, when in reality all of it was intentional and done completely amorally, just to further enrich and empower corporate interests in the manner I’ve described. Oh, I am SURE they did this out of love for the earth. Because they’re such great, honest, and heroic people. To believe otherwise would be a dangerous conspiracy theory which the Federal government in the US just this week, because it constitutes “misinformation”, would deem “potentially terroristic”,- something for which I’d get my name on a list to be further monitored with impunity, as I most certainly am already on.

As to the rest of you. None of you people know a f**cking thing. Your politics isn’t even real, it’s a phantom. It’s a red-herring engineered by State sponsored think-tanks meant to ensure the exact opposite of what it claims to profess, and further empower- the State, as I wrote concerning the politics surrounding climate change. All Biden’s green-policies have done is shift more geopolitical power to China, which produces more pollution that anyone, because it has made the US energy dependent on them, and thereby empowered states like Russia for example, inasmuch as they seize upon the opportunity provided by our current disadvantage- as Russia has certainly done with Ukraine. Haven’t done a goddamn thing to protect the environment, all it’s done is further empower the state and corporate interests at play in this nightmarish geopolitical chess-board.

The federalist system I honor: (not merely “liberal democracy”, a kind of dissimulative interpretation and conflation of my Republic utilized by fascists)

This conflation is worked out most completely under the false dialectic constructed by Dugin, following Heidegger, between the ‘titanic form’ of mortal hybris, representing the atomizing forces of liberal democracy finally accelerated by postmodernity’s subpolitical materialism, (Marx’s “concrete solutions”) as likewise by Heidegger’s Promethean techne accordingly ‘unchained’ from the purifying rock of the cultus, and the Uranian form of the immortal Ideal, representing an omni-potent fascist state apophatically disclosed to Man in the vein of Germany’s mystical Nazism, thereby excluding a genuine alternative route like federalist constitutionalism in place of a pretended alternative, namely the dialectical-synthetic State attempted in Russia’s turn to the ecstatic messianism of the Orthodox Church, which, in all reality, simply repeats the foibles of the fascist States preceding it. Dugin of course has many excellent refutations of Liberal Democracy’s enforced social policies, and leftist ideology in general, however he conflates such liberal ideas, engrafted upon the US’ constitution from foreign sources, with the ideas of the constitution itself, which offer exactly the opposite of the ‘subjective’ conclusions of liberalism, namely a universalist ethics, a universalist conceptualization of human nature, etc. Dugin believes solely in ideological atomization on the part of that Left, when the primary forces of atomization stem from what Stiegler conceives in the extension of Heidegger, namely an accelerating negative-feedback between the trajectories of social and technological evolution a la. neuromimesis and nanomutation.

Recall what I write here:

The number of rights they [individuals] have is infinite, and are descended, in the manner of any other more metaphysical kind of abstraction, like those of the Greeks and Romans upon which ennobled basis our founders framed their constitutional philosophy, from out of the hand of either “God or Nature”, hardly being discovered or retained by the word of any other fledgling, mortal, and quite fallible human being or any scrap of paper, (the somewhat poeticized verbiage I’m using is intentional, and I am drawing on the likes of Thomas Paine, etc.) citing the typical phrase of our founders: those explicit or enumerated rights are merely implicit rights so codified by law, due to the fact that they might infringe upon one another in practical life, and such issues need to be sorted out formally.

Thus the foundation of the State, upon which the total sphere of its legitimate authority is to be derived, is simply this: making implicit natural rights explicit codification of positive law in those cases where it needs must be made so explicit, in the apparent confusions of our implicit rights which can come up in practical life during the intercourse of our respective powers; the State exists, in this case, solely to preserve the natural right of the individual. The fascist state, however, sets its goal in something quite the opposite: the establishment and preservation of a collective national cultural identity against both internal forces of degeneration, like revolutionary ideas that challenge the traditional values constituting that identity, as well as external military forces.

The fascist asked me to defend my statement that all fascist states will gradually come to aggressive expansion as well as the violent subjugation of its own citizenry, but the answer is in what I just said here. I also addressed it in this text:

I recommend reading Bastiat’s work, namely “The Law”, where he makes a great point to the effect of: the State should restrict itself to the preservation, codification, clarification, and defense of the rights of the individual, because this task has a definite and quite limited scope, for, if it sets before itself the object of promoting the welfare of the collective instead of defending the rights of the individual,- the scope of this later task being unlimited and infinite,- so will that unrestrained ambition to the ‘common good’ naturally encourage an indefinite expansion of state power, whose excess cannot help but violate the rights of the individual at some point. Following Bastiat, we can say that the socius and the polis, that is, the culture within which the ‘good’ of human nature is decided through discourse, through philosophy and the exercise of Reason, and, on the other hand, the political machinery through which positive law is administered, should, in so many words, remain as separate as is the State and the Church.

As Bastiat argues, the State, recognizing the ground of its authority and the scope of its purpose in preserving the Individual’s natural right, has a limited goal it cannot fundamentally step beyond: it is a goal that has a specific end. But when the State decides its goal is to establish, impose, and preserve a collective identity deemed as ‘good’, fusing the socius in a cultural-national ethos,- well, it has taken up a goal that has no definite conclusion, no specific end. Therefor, its power will intrinsically expand without limitation in the pursuit of an imaginary end that does not actually exist, until it inevitably contravenes the individual and his rights in toto by that excess.

What I said regarding the economic structure of the fascist state (directly seizing control of the Heights and regimenting them as it sees fit) and the fact that this does not work, is merely a utilitarian argument against fascism, as it does not practically work; this is the deeper, philosophical argument against it.