Support Trump Rallies Globally

@ Meno

Perhaps, you now know why I asked you several times already in July 2017:

Source. viewtopic.php?f=33&t=192210&p=2671040#p2671168 .

Source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192622&p=2671669#p2671669 .

Source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192622&p=2671724#p2671724 .

You answered not more that this (and this was not really an answer to my question either):

Source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192622&p=2671724#p2671698 .

You have the dual citizenship privilege, which also means a dual nationality privilege. You are not a spy, are you?

Arminius:

Of course I am not a spy, but I might as well admit an allusion to ’ The Spy in the House of Love ’ by Anais Nin, as an example of how words can be twisted to mean other things.

I am trying to refer to the dilemma on the Charleston spech, as to how difficult it is to be in the middle, whereby the effect is either magnified, or diminished, according to whose impression one tries to rely on. That said, the speech touched on an important mainline dilemma facing the whole world, of seeking some view on whether to align to globalism or regional nationalism. Divided, one gets the sense of being a spy in the opposite camp. It has not been this severe, as a test of identifiable assumptions into the nature of types and affiliations, and using a prefabricated architecture of excluding the middle, only resurfaces the issue at a later time

Perhaps there is no ultimate answer to it I only through exercising prejorative power, to will a character ,which has strong binding forces of such identification.

Within duals of all kinds, where the.third appears as a center of an ideal state, the whimsical nature of its myth can be at times appear as a twilight, at other times a dawn, the tragedy.od its.birth innately hiding as a tour-de-force, exploding at any time, especially in times extreme doubt as.to.wbat the facts versus.the.contrively faled truisms.

Internal dulalities, sub-specie exist regardless of the size of any group.

In former times, there were the dualism of nations and regions, later the dualism of nationalism and regionalism, then the dualism of internationalism and nationalism, then the dualism of globalism and regionalism that has become what it has always tended to: the dualism of globalism and nationalism. So the last dualism is the current one.

The goal of globalism is the destroying all nations, thus also all cores of the nations (families for example, especially because of the tradition, genealogy, history etc. - everything that constitutes a nation). “Antifa” and other extremely violent organizations are of course paid by the globalists (glozis).

You are diviced? “Divided” is not the correct word, I think, because you are not really devided. You are privileged because of your dual citizenship, which still means a dual nationality. If you were divided, you would have decided for only one citizenship (nationality).

That having been said, the goal being the destruction of nationhood will cause the destruction of personal identities, if nationhood is a major criteria of that.

How does novels like 1984 forecast a world with gross personal identical, non-descript identities for such goals? Is such a forecast of techno-repression based on the effects of science having such an effect,rather then one based on politically motivated planned goals? In other words , does science and the humanities , conflate to an indistinct point?

That would go a way to explain Trumpism’s apparent inseparability between levels of ‘reality’.

I am writing this to give some credence to Trump being a post modern politician.

I got You. Until there is no choice, one cannot choose.

At that point of not choosing, one has to be chosen.

At what point such being chosen becomes a recognizable set,[ (Cantor&the common vernacular of being set, or set up-), becomes useless, senseless, or in the Leibnitzian language=Indistinct, - the logic of that language will be reduced phenomenologically to exclusive use ]. Eidectically, Nothingness will comprise of pure will, the unseen substance.

The above is just musing, not for a democratically formed understanding, no need to take notice, although random choice, may incurse, into it.

Couldn’t sleep, needed to think things through, in reference to divisiveness, conscious awareness of ,
Universals, in particular to choosing, by way of rational decision , OR, as in my case a gut level feeling between one or the other- globalism or, regionalism. Can it ever really rise to the level of an absolute choice, or need it always retain an element of relative doubt, hence generating some degree of privilege?

Is Trump crazy, as some surmise, in not being able to get this through, except by some inverted aphorism?
Could computers ever get this across, thereby surpassing human intelligence? Or, if they fail, will others be deprived of a utility of choosing , and remain as determined to be privileged?

Need not they be forever subjugated, and their true freedom forever be expressed in commercially available venues?

So elegant you are, to be able to incite such violence in a soul grasping, yet unable to retort likewise, from the roots, the genealogy to the expressed, or unexpressed multiform effects. I cannot see it in terms of repetition, unless continuing to invoke the logarithm of difference. So must I continue be chained to a rock, with viscious birds eating at my liver?

Where to from the cubism of Ulysses, to the underworld of remembrances of time before, ad absurdum? Why were the gods so weak as to end in that tragedy, especially papa Zeus? He was a horny toad, that is why, his excesses deprived his soul of seminal constructive thinking, unable to control the formation of a whole bubble, thereby like cancerous duplications, we have come to live in a myriad, soap bubble world. Each reflected in other bubbles, that is until the burst, so quickly. Until children blow many others.

And vice versa: the destruction of personal identities (as well as family or other “core” identities) will cause the destruction of nationhood.

Are you sure that you got me?

I think so. Another double entendre: for to get you:

1 to understand

2 to defeat or overcome

I meant the former

Since I think I understand You,rather then overcome You, it is just the beginning

Beginning are initial moves to set mood, position, and atmosphere, in order to get to a credible way to seek a superior point from whence, debatable and different positions can be brought to line. The way to get to this line, Kant be important thing, and not whether one position or the other is
the superior attained goal.

The reason is, that what matters most is the way to get there, the recipe, were it to be lost.

So far.its.still debatable whether.one or the other is of.more primary concern: mind over matter, or the other way:
If you don’t mind, it won’t matter

It’s actually a tripartite meaning, the last meaning of ’ to get’ is to receive, being a more literal form of gaining more then merely understanding,
-to literally receive something.

#-o to artistic license. :evilfun:

Yeah, thats why it was qualified as an inverted aphorism.

#-o To editing license. :evilfun:

It is a way of saying, that it’s to early to call, because the differences between party, and platform (Trump) have yet to be worked out.

When liscensciousness is approached , it becomes a boundary situation of interpreting what incursion entails, so licenses are based on prerogative and affirmation of rights and powers.

But it’s all so conflated,Wendy, right now, and that fuels the fire, like being cooked in its own fat.

It’s not conflated. Trump and his citizen supporters wish to save the USA. Everyone else wishes to see the destruction of the USA. Trump has no friends in politics, no governmental gang protecting his back. Trump’s on his own, he just doesn’t realize how alone he is in Washinton, DC.

The majority of the USA’s citizens support him though and when they put together rallies to support him, their numbers will be more revealed.

Then he should read ‘The Prince’, if success is his goal. One can catch up on their reading, instead of watching irritating liberal media and playing golf.

Le Petit Prince?

The Prince, Machiavelli. (Le Petit Prince is good, too :smiley: )

I’m sure, Trump has read The Prince. It’s required reading in business school. That, along with a pile of war strategy books including The Art of War and Clausewitz’s On War, are among the first things you have to read when beginning business studies.

Perhaps more relevant than a 16th century political treatise is the material our current leaders and advisers have studied. Wolfowitz, for instance, was a student of Leo Strauss and Clinton was mentored by Carroll Quigley. Then there’s the fact that an inordinately large number of British and Australian leaders have been card carrying Fabian Society members.

Strauss is considered by many as a Jewish Machiavelli. He thought the hoi polloi too dumb to rule themselves and stressed the need to fake religion and nationalism to gain the support of the masses. Quigley was an insider to the group many see as the NWO ruling elite. He championed rule by oligarchs. Quigley had direct access to the personal records of many of them most powerful people and wrote extensively on what they were doing and how they were doing it. The Fabian Society believe in socialism for the controlled masses. They strive to bring this about by constant small steps so as not to trigger a backlash.

One of the other things they teach in business schools is to know the difference between the ‘official’ power structure and the ‘real’ power structure. Anyone who thinks Trump (Bush, Obama or Clinton etc) have power are confusing the ‘official’ with the ‘real’ structure.

The people we vote for are not leaders; they’re merely our managers. We’re allowed to vote only because it doesn’t change anything of substance. Clinton deregulated the banking system, Bush gave the richest more tax breaks, Obama handed trillions of dollars to the the banks yet we still believe there’s a difference? Really? Bush instigated two wars, Obama expanded them and bombed six countries yet the left and the right fight each other over who’s allowed in the ladies toilets or whether you should be forced by law to use certain pronouns.

This thing we call “democracy” is Stauss 101; pure Machiavelli. Let the people think they have power and control then they’ll blame each other for their losses and suffering generation after generation. Look at us. The left blame the right… millennials blame baby boomers… women blame men… the goy blame Jews… religious people blame gays… black blame whites…

Sixty years ago, MLK, said people should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skin. Today, that’s completely reversed. Today we judge people solely by the colour of their skin, their religion, their sex, their age etc and NOT by their character. This is no accident. It is the proverbial Machiavellian ‘divide and conquer’ routine. It’s what Machiavelli would have told his Prince to do.

So, no. It’s not Le Petit Prince. :laughing:

Oh. :smiley:

Brilliant.