What do you think about The Epoch Times? I haven’t read it yet myself, I am curious though. It’s interesting that it’s owned by the Chinese.
The proper term is European, referring to the tribes that went westward and south, during the Ice Age, and Indo, refers to those that went eastward and south, into present day India.
Caucasian refers to their common origins, around the Caucasus, prior to the Ice Age forcing them to go southward.
The linguistic family is Indo-European. Many words are shared by all of these tribes. From east to west.
White is not a race…nor a biological designation. It is only one part of how a species and a sub-species is identified.
It is used because of the currents situation of mixing and not knowing one’s own precise origins.
Like how Negroes from different tribes of Africa are simply called Black.
This simplification includes into the Racial the tribes that do not belong to it - see linguistic family trees on the internet.
=D>
When we fall for the more divisive terms of ethnicities and race, we play into others’ hands… time to play a better game… it’s not about race, but a mindset.
Please feel free to disagree…
That’s so naïve and subjectively self-serving, it’s comedic.
Self abnegation is salvation.
Very Abrahamic and Marxist.
…never said I weren’t naïve, but I do like to laugh, and smile, once in a while… allow me that whim, or I’ll allow it myself, because it’s part of me and my genetic makeup. Can’t help who I am… can you?
Abrahamic? Marxist? I think you’re singing from a different hymn sheet than I… I’m right outta the Vatican (not Compton) baby! 
Wanna tell me more about myself? I’m all ears and eyes, but no tongues and lips, bae-bay.
I was actually agreeing with you here, but I guess it got lost in translation… never to be found.
Memes, what you would call values and culture, is transmittable, but when it mixed with a foreign component, it mutates.
See what happened to Marxism and Christianity when it was applied in different cultures by different races - see what happened to Democracy. It is not like the original, and from country to country it differs in some nuances produced by the demeanour of the population.
Laughing and smiling are not race specific, but species specific. The range of what one laughs at and smiles at, is more race specific.
Catholic?
I think you want to tell me.
All people want to be seen…by someone, not anyone.
Seen as what they are…but most want to be seen as what they think they are, to validate their own judgment of themselves.
Like minded people cross tribes and races…but the percentages differ.
memes are gene specific, because a culture is born out of a specific population within a specific environment during a specific time period.
This triad of specificity cannot be completely transmitted to another form another bloodline. It can, but it is warped…or, as you said, something is always lost in translation.
Like you cannot relate to the Greek joy in defeat, represented by the equivalent of Blues called Rembetiko, and the dance(Zeimbekiko) that accompanies it.
You can enjoy, participate, glean, but not completely relate.
Some visit a place like Greece and think they become so through some kind of osmosis. But this is impossible.
Like I can’t completely relate with Negro Blues, born out of slavery and the American experience, or Bluegrass music…
I can enjoy it, and get a feeling, but not completely relate with it.
Nurture is what I’d call it.
Nature = sum of all nurturing.
Nurture refers to the immediate circumstances, imposing behaviours and adjusting potentials.
an example of nurturing ni nature:
A cub is born to an alpha male lion and a female of the pride, inheriting their median potentials in all traits: strength, speed, intelligence etc.
That’s nature.
But it is born after a drought so there aren’t many herbivores to supply the pride with their nutritional requirements. The cub suffers a reduction of its inherited potentials, and so does not grow to the full potential of tis genes.
That’s nurture.
Nurture among humans can be a product of indoctrination, education, moral enforment of behavioural rules on activity on choices - thinking being an activity.
A meme can enhance or retard genetic inheritance.
In Trumps’s case is the process (psychological-memetic) related to the question of the greater legal process of procedure? Does it enhance or detract ?
Does the meme reflect some continuity between the nexus between political and psychological characteristics/modalities that even a controlled genius can recognise ?
In the case of Trump I believe he can.
The impeachment done, are wider ramifications feaseable? Will the metaphors hold up analogously between the political process as generic forms of the generically built up architecture of structurally adhesive forms?
Question come up about the proper procedural approach to the Senate follow up, occuring in that regard, as to the proper way to conduct it:
Is the polarity unforseen by the founding fathers barely legitamite concerns as even a metaphor in its inception ; in it’s natural unfolding? No, or probably not. Here is an indication of this line of follow up argument-------
The New York Times - the morning after the impeachment:
Opinion
Trump Has Been Impeached. Republicans Are Following Him Down.
Ignoring facts and trashing the impeachment process is no way to protect democracy.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
On Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives impeached the president of the United States. A magnificent and terrible machine engineered by the founders, still and silent through almost all of American history, has for only the third time in 231 years shifted into motion, to consider whether Congress must call a president to account for abuse of power.
So why does it all seem so banal? The outcome so foreordained?
Most people say they know what’s going to happen, and who are we to say they’re wrong? The House voted to impeach Donald Trump by a party-line vote, with the exception of three Democrats representing Trump-friendly districts who voted against at least one article of impeachment. In the next month or two, the Senate will almost surely acquit him, also on a party-line vote.
It isn’t supposed to be this way. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the intense — really, infantilizing — degree of polarization that has overwhelmed American politics across the past 40 years. But the nihilism of this moment — the trashing of constitutional safeguards, the scorn for facts, the embrace of corruption, the indifference to historical precedent and to foreign interference in American politics — is due principally to cowardice and opportunism on the part of Republican leaders who have chosen to reject their party’s past standards and positions and instead follow Donald Trump, all the way down.
It’s a lot to ask of Republicans to insist on holding their own leader accountable, just as that was a lot to expect of Democrats during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. But while many Democrats then criticized President Bill Clinton and some voted to impeach him, Republican lawmakers would not breathe a word against Mr. Trump on Wednesday.
Instead, they competed with one another to invoke the most outlandish metaphor of evil — from the attack on Pearl Harbor to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ — and suggest that Mr. Trump is enduring even worse.
Senate Republicans are preparing to follow the example of their House colleagues, though many know better. Not so very long ago, several of them — including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, even the majority leader, Mitch McConnell — warned that Donald Trump was wrong for the country. Lindsey Graham memorably called Mr. Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who was “unfit for office.” Now these senators seem eager to endorse the very sort of behavior they feared.
It is not too much to wonder how much of this cynicism and betrayal of principle any democracy can handle.
Every president from George Washington onward has been accused of misconduct of one kind or another, and many have faced calls for their impeachment. But Congress has resorted to the ultimate remedy so rarely because of the unspoken agreement that it should be reserved for only the most egregious and inexcusable offenses against the national interest.
Mr. Trump himself drew this distinction in 2008, arguing that President George W. Bush should have been impeached for lying about the reasons for the Iraq war, while at the same time rejecting the Republicans’ impeachment of Mr. Clinton for lying about sex as “nonsense,” done for something “totally unimportant.”
By any reasonable measure, Mr. Trump’s own conduct in office clears the bar for impeachment set by the founders. The case against him is that he solicited foreign interference to help in his 2020 re-election campaign, that he used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do it, that his administration tried to hide the evidence and that he then blocked Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated role of checking the executive branch. Multiple government officials, some appointed by the president himself, have confirmed all of these facts.
There may be no better illustration of what the Constitution’s framers considered to be impeachable conduct. And that’s leaving to the side strong evidence that Mr. Trump has committed other impeachable offenses, including taking foreign money at his personal businesses, obstructing justice and violating campaign-finance laws — the latter two of which are also federal crimes.
Through it all, Mr. Trump has had the opportunity to rebut the charges. By his account, he could have extinguished both articles of impeachment by allowing top administration officials to testify under oath. If he really did nothing wrong, the testimony of these officials would exonerate him of the charge of abusing his power, and simply their appearance under oath would dissolve the charge of obstructing Congress.
And yet when given the opportunity to defend himself, the president has refused to participate, defying all of the House’s subpoenas for witnesses and documents, effectively declaring himself unaccountable.
His defense has consisted of sending all-caps tweets accusing the Democrats of perpetrating a “hoax” and trying to overturn an election. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump delivered an unhinged, error-ridden six-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which he called the impeachment inquiry “an illegal, partisan attempted coup” and claimed that the Salem witch trials provided more due process. Tell that to the women and men who were hanged in Massachusetts.
The president’s letter demonstrated again his complete failure to offer a substantive defense. His refusal to admit he did the slightest thing wrong, or to offer witnesses who could affirm his innocence, left the House with no choice but to impeach him. By the sworn testimony about his actions, and by his own public statements calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he has shown not only that he tried to cheat to win the 2020 election, but that he is continuing to do so.
The case now moves to the Senate for a trial, which will be presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. The chief justice will have the power to rule on any disputes that arise, but his rulings can be overturned by a majority of senators. Though he may be reluctant to be dragged into what might seem political disputes, Chief Justice Roberts has the authority and the duty to make this process more than a partisan farce.
Ideally, many of those disputes would be hammered out by Senate leaders before the trial begins, and would include rules that allow for compelling the production of documents that the White House has withheld, as well as requiring the testimony of witnesses whom Mr. Trump blocked from appearing before the House, including John Bolton, the former national security adviser; Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff; and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Unfortunately, the Senate is led by Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell, who like all senators will swear an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of the trial, has already vowed to violate that oath. “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” Mr. McConnell said on Tuesday. “The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate.” He has also vowed to coordinate directly with the White House on all aspects of the trial.
No one is suggesting that House Democrats are above playing politics, but at least they held hearings, considered evidence and did their best to get at the truth. Mr. McConnell won’t even promise that much.
The bottom line is that impeachment in the House is unlikely to protect the country from Mr. Trump’s abuse of power, because his fellow party leaders prize their power more than the principles they say they stand for. The only way to protect American democracy is for those who value it to put it to work, and vote these people out.
Follow The New York Times
{*But is that it,?. No by a long shot. Arminius and St.James indicated before they left , and an editorial I came across - indicating the danger of the amount of nuclear weapons power Russia possesses, makes one wonder the possible effects of dissolving the Russian-U.S. collusion may have.
Is a post KGB operative vs. the U.S.'s dishonored CIA engender the hidden security trails?
Going back to MAFIA utilization against the Wermacht intelligences is a pretty reasonable assessment of prioritizing of powers , to be, among shifting alliances, - of moral sentiments overcoming ethical largess consoderations.
I would think factoring this on may moderate the diminution of constitutional process considerations.}*
- indicates personal opinion
Putin on Trump Impeachment: ‘Your Members of Congress Should Know Better’
Paul D. Shinkman • Dec. 19, 2019, at 9:38 a.m.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday criticized Congress for its pressure on President Donald Trump hours after the House of Representatives impeached the American leader, describing the partisan vote as “the continuation of the domestic political strife.”
“Your members of Congress should know better,” Putin said Thursday morning during his annual, wide-ranging press conference. His remarks came less than a day after the House impeached Trump on two articles almost exclusively along party lines: abuse of power, with a vote of 230-197, and of obstruction of Congress, with a vote of 229-198.
Trump’s pressuring the newly elected government in Ukraine to investigate his political rivals earlier this year served as the central tenet of Democrats’ criticism and subsequent investigations in recent months. Moscow continues to support separatist rebels in Ukraine, which remains an active and deadly war zone in its eastern reaches. His campaign was also the subject of an investigation into allegations, ultimately disproven, that it coordinated with Russia during the leadup to the 2016 election.
The Russian leader on Thursday defended Trump – with whom he has maintained an amiable relationship since the embattled American leader became president – against what Putin considered Democrats’ attempts in the aftermath of the election to “achieve results through others means, accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.”
“Later on, it turned out there had been no collusion, so this cannot be the basis for impeachment,” Putin said. “Now they are referring to alleged pressure on Ukraine. I don’t know what it is all about.”
Putin’s statements mirrored arguments from Trump’s Republican defenders, insisting the impeachment proceedings that have dominated domestic politics in recent weeks represent little more than an attempt to undo the results of the contentious 2016 election.
Trump and his allies have, since impeachment proceedings began, repeated debunked claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election – a conspiracy theory that mirrors propaganda from Moscow.
Democrats’ criticism of Republicans’ apparently repeating Russian talking points turned into one of the most fiery exchanges during the impeachment floor debate on Wednesday. Texas Republican Louie Gohmert referenced the debunked theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, prompting House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York to express criticism that the Texas Republican would “spew Russian propaganda.” The comment infuriated Gohmert, whose subsequent outburst was shut down by the presiding chairwoman of the House. Gohmert later walked over to the Democratic side and privately yelled at Nadler.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia attempted to intervene in the 2016 election through sophisticated and concerted cyber attacks and information warfare. Its aim was to boost support for Trump and undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton as part of a larger effort to sow division in the United States. Analysts also believe Putin sought revenge against Clinton since she supported pro-democracy protesters in Russia in 2011 while serving as secretary of state
Copyright 2019 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.
Some foundementalists are changing tracks:
Evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham calls for Trump’s removal
An editorial published Thursday by Christianity Today, a magazine founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham, called for President Trump’s removal from office in the wake of his impeachment, deeming him “grossly immoral.”
“We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. … To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence.”
Why it matters: Christianity Today is an influential mainstream magazine for evangelicals, with 4.3 million monthly visitors on its site and hundreds of thousands of print subscribers. President Trump won 81% of the evangelical vote in 2016, a group that makes up about 25% of the electorate, according to the Pew Research Center.
Billy Graham’s son, Franklin, is an ardent supporter of President Trump. He told “Axios on HBO” in November that he supports the president because he “defends the faith.”
Highlights: The editorial calls Christianity Today’s stance a moral choice — similar to how the magazine reacted when former President Bill Clinton was impeached.
“[T]he facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
“Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. … None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.”
“That [Trump] should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”
Go deeper… Josh Harris: Evangelical support for Trump “incredibly damaging to the Gospel”
{The Democrats demand for a trial which does not try to circumvent the Constitution, by not admitting Wire House witnesses, is seen as a tool to shorten a process that will delimit public encryption come the November election.
Can the Dems, project an ulterior expectation to the converse of this process?
Can they plead lack of procedure, thus use a magnified image con cave such attempt by the Republicans in the pre-trial of the impeachment?
Or, will demands for clarity be the only focus that can be obfuscated upon?
Through a glass darkly, the moral intent be understood for what it is, now, and 11 months from now?
Will it sustain the feel of divided loyalty, or, independent partisanship corresponding frequent measure of watershed national polling, to utilize the long and short end of it for less then national causes? These are the keystones signs digging into the motherload of reverting to test basic intelligence comprising of public awareness.}
BBC News
Trump impeachment: President demands immediate Senate trial
20 December 2019 US & Canada
US President Donald Trump has demanded an immediate impeachment trial in the Senate, amid an impasse among Democrats and Republicans over when it may start.
On Wednesday, the House impeached Mr Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
But Democrats have yet to embark on the next stage, arguing the Republican-controlled Senate is refusing witnesses and will not hold a fair trial.
The Senate’s numbers mean Mr Trump is almost certain to be acquitted.
The impeachment process - only the fourth time it has happened in US history - has been a bitter partisan fight dividing Washington. The House impeachment vote earlier this week split almost totally along party lines.
A US state divided by impeachment
How will Senate trial work?
The two charges passed on Wednesday follow accusations that Mr Trump pressured Ukraine to dig up damaging information on Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and then refused to co-operate with a congressional inquiry into the matter.
What has Mr Trump said?
In a series of tweets, the president accused the Democrats of not wanting to go to trial because their “case is so bad”.
He tweeted: “So after the Democrats gave me no Due Process in the House, no lawyers, no witnesses, no nothing, they now want to tell the Senate how to run their trial. Actually, they have zero proof of anything, they will never even show up. They want out. I want an immediate trial!”
The president said the Democrats did not want Congressman Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment process, the Bidens and a CIA whistleblower who sparked the inquiry to testify.
The Democrats have argued that it is Mr Trump’s Republicans who are balking at the appearance of witnesses. The House did also invite the president to testify before its investigators but he declined to do so.
Why is there deadlock over the start of the trial?
To start the next stage, the Democrat-controlled House must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to do so until the rules of the Senate trial are acceptable to the Democrats.
The Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, will determine the terms of the trial and the Democrats want him to provide details on which witnesses and what testimony will be allowed.
He has so far refused to do so. “We remain at an impasse,” he said, after a brief meeting with the Democrats’ Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer.
Mr McConnell leads the majority in the Senate, with 53 Republicans in the 100-seat chamber. Convicting Mr Trump would require two-thirds of the Senate to vote in favour.
The Democrats hope the delay will both move public opinion in favour of a fuller trial and deny Mr Trump - only the third US president to be impeached - a swift acquittal.
The Democrats want at least four current and former White House aides with knowledge of the Ukraine affair to testify.
They say the trial has to be fair, with senators acting as impartial jurors, and that Mr McConnell’s comments show he has no plans to do this. He earlier said Republican senators would act in “total co-ordination” with the president’s team.
What is the president accused of?
He is accused of having withheld $400m (£307m) of military aid to Ukraine already allocated by Congress, and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s new president, until Ukraine looked into potentially damaging material on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Hunter worked for a Ukrainian company when Joe Biden was US vice-president.
The Democrats say this amounts to an abuse of presidential power, using the office for personal political gain and to the detriment of national security.
Mr Trump is also accused of obstructing Congress by refusing to
GO DEEPER
Trump impeachment and a US state divided
19 December 2019
Copyright © 2019 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
At a subversive undertaking, somewhere East (East London, that is) yesterday, together with a group of other disparate individuals… all there for a common purpose, we ended up all huddled together in a big black tent to take shelter (kinda) from the wind and the rain and started cracking jokes and telling funny tales of other subversive undertakings we had attended. About an hour or so later, we all started laughing at differing tales, ending in only one or two laughing at the same tale or just our own, so what we laugh and smile at is most definitely group/ethnic-specific, I agree.
On observation, we were definitely selected for our look… some for their sky-blue eyes, others for their green to hazel glowing eyes, and others for their big-baby-brown almond-shaped cat-like eyes… all having a focused (but not intense) gaze, of that of perceiving but not judging, and so being but not becoming… any one thing. Everyone agreed on my observation, once pointed out.
Non-practicing Roman Catholic, but one cannot escape or deny the moulding effect that such an environment has on the psyche, combined with (Bengali) meditation, that forms the mind into an East meets West mentality… but we all have our own individual combination of formative-moulding, when those windows of formative-opportunity open up throughout our lives.
Are we not a combination of the two… of how we appear to others and how we perceive ourselves? the external/appearance, and the internal/physiological, confirming the I/of who intrinsically are.
The mind can accommodate/make concessions, but too many beyond one or two and it becomes a big ask, and who’s got time for that in one lifetime? no-one, that’s who.
Rembetiko sounds very Middle-Eastern/Arabic, no? We can all relate I’m sure, but not feel what the other feels, and we have our own inherited feels to deal with, so anything else becomes a system overload on the (over)burdened.
I, myself, am brown, but I cannot identify with all whom are brown, so I identify with that of my last past ancestry, or a combination thereof… that of being Caribbean. This does not stop me from having compassion for and/or interacting with others, but I prefer mine Organic, not Forced, like days of yore. There is such a thing as too much, and so self-optimisation/adjustments becomes not do-able within one lifetime… it’s a big and unthinkable ask.
I had compiled my reply earlier this afternoon, but it got lost… never to be re-trieved.
Exactly. Distinguishing and calculable differences are synthesized in fact, rather then approximated by indifferentiable polls of primary identifiable set of criteria.
As such a means. are opinion based reality reification are based, and objectively and premordially jumped to.
It suits some, to deem all as black, or white, or brown, or whatever, for their own means to an ends that suits them.
Care to clarify on what you’ve said above, further, Meno_ I don’t quite understand.
Don’t worry. Neither does he.
Well, I’ll await Meno_’s clarified reply, regardless of what you’ve said.
Are you channeling Scrooge tonight, or simply reverting to your default demeanour?
Before I clarify the narrative in question, like to affirm both: of not being understood and not really understanding myself.
That much is obvious. And really, guys the admission of not understanding myself is also duplicitous and mired
In the kinds of swampiness that we find yourself asking, over and over again nowedays.
Why? Because as an occultist, with psychical attributes, leaning toward ego dissipation, ) where as you, agean, find the ego in the middle, I find it in a flow that varies between positions. The ego may vary from the right and the left , politically, psychologically depending .
I have explained in detail, about that kind of indeterminacy to those who rather view the ego as a divisor between realities . The primary affect and the secondary effect. And so on.
But the ego can identify primarily with cultish and primitively reduced animal behavior, which is more akin to the reified animal feelings of sub conscious beings. for whom , reaction drives animals more as reflected feelings , ideated by facial recognition of feelings. Animals react but the automatic conditioned behavior absorbs most emotion.
Nietzche and Heidegger make this difference, and will relate this preferentially. But since it is late , will defer that to tomorrow .
The Joker, in the first film had to have his smile surgically sown unto his face, and that Joker is the equivocal political figurehead of Trump.
His facade become compressed between political expediency and a narcissistic internal dynamic.
The ego thus, is purposefully disassociated from the control of simulated affects,in order to stay the political criteria, and vice versa.
I don’t see a problem with this, and the questionable narrative that You have trouble with is underlined by the above stated dicothomy -between Nietzche and Heidegger . But I will try to make the argument more sensible and reductive on an other occasion.
The very uncertain description by language does increase uncertainty in
situ, and a reified form of verbatim interpretation, will end the argument in closer and closer spiraling topological pathologies.
This is why interprwtation has always a need to be reduced into contradiction, and here I agree with the idea that zero sum functions further complicate things.
The fact that I have to leave this now as partially derived, has.to do with limitations of time.
To sum up:
The distinction appears between Nietzche and Heidegger, and in between them , Husserl, very generally, filled up with particulars later, in that intentionality within an unsignified specific reified type,which can not with exactness transcend an objective tying animal and human motivation.
There are gaps, which matter, for animal behavior can not be regressed without transcending an exact point, a missing link between primates and man. Such transcendence is expressed in Heidegger, but nor it in Nietzche.
This point needs clarification, but it needs rereading …
But it can be safely said that Heidegger, especially in ‘Being in Time’ does interpret an intentionality within the continuum
This is significant for many reasons, and there is a need to establish ground for these kinds of interpretations. It also is possible to draw lines, within which the extrinsic political factors can collude the psychological considerations.
It may be objected to, that a such collusions of a politics of the experience can not be contraveryed with the experience of a psychological politics, but there is room in the mix for a social-psychological matrix to be put within .
Again I can questions as what this means, for I approach the a priori fillers within a larger representative bounded matrix, the content will fill into it, as a hypothetical can let duration be a guide as to when that happens.
I will not quote ‘Being and Time’ from beginning to end, only relevant parts to support the ideas behind it.
That there is an unassailable difference in Heidegger’s understanding of Nietzsche, is a worth enough subject to investigate.
These types of philosophical investigations will not negate Wittgenstein’s effort at containing the literal extensions of meaning, but include them within a wider ranging venue.
I think the difference is cogent enough to cut the element of a regressed civilizations a matter more consistent in one than the other.
A Nietzchean overextension of meaning in Heidegger, can effectively change underlying reactive processes,
and challenge race specific .claimes more tenuous .
I wish to be not as mystifying, of how a caricature like Trumpism may arise , and become a functional power to attain a will, with which power snowballs into an unfathomable intensional, objective construct.
Finally such reasoning , having precedence may not be as ubiqtuous, as alleged, since historicity, does by definition can not cover it’s own tracks, to get rid of mistaken assertions, only a well displaced revisions with strong connections with the prior, can be left unchallenged.
In fact, it is far easier to understand Heidegger then Nietzche, and may be this is the reason for the differing narratives,that are easier to take liberties with. (As in N’ obscurity.)
You may consider an analysis as involved as this , and compare it to a certain professor , bordering on comic relief, in Foucalt’s Pendulum, or the earnest attempt of a serious search into the very roots of the problem, it makes little difference, since there is a measure of truth in either, or both approaches.
I hope this did some justice to unwarranted and slanted claims .
Even if, treated periphally, some call to simplification does not uncover an effort at a cover up. You be the judge, after all.
Nietzsche diagnosed the dis-ease but did not trace it to its organic origins, but only to its conscious expressions - evaluations, judgments.
Wittgenstein correctly saw how modern disorders expresse themselves linguistically but offered no solutions because his kind benefited from obscurity and confusion, inspiring later generations to justify the ‘end of philosophy’ and the meaninglessness of language.
To imply that existence is intentional is to return to ancient superstitions.
Only life has intent - the word can only be used in reference to it and only it - an awakening to existence.
Existence has no intent, no telos, no motive. To believe that it is even absolutely, completely, ordered is to project organic prejudices into its inorganic essence.
Complex unities can be explained without it, using the simple interactivity of energies - attracting/repelling and harmonizing, or disharmonizing.
No intent required. So, to insist exposes the mind’s intent - projection.
Politics, and marketing is entirely psychology based, and this is where the defensiveness of nihilism can be traced. It is what is being exploited and manipulated by those who intuitively understand it.