DDU Official GOP Presidential Endorsement~

Hi all,

Domestic Democracy United has officially endorsed, upon the dropping out of Cain in the GOP Presidential Nomination race, the most genuine candidate in the field - Mrs. Michelle Bachmann.


DDU believes that the only way to restore America to the state it was in before Barack's activism pushed our great nation to the edge of tragedy is to return to our christian values - More Christianity at school. More patriotism in everyday life... and less Secularism and Marxist policies of wealth redistribution and 'justice' for the oppressed.

His administration's heavy handed and broad stroked use of the liberal media has shown his hand at the table of political poker - and it is a hand which has no chance of winning. Therefore, their only recourse is to further Barack's Marxist agenda while continuing a shamefull bluff in the state sponsored media and, to bitterly divisive ends, in our institutions of academia.

Any of you out there with a sense of dignity in regards to the sanctity of Schooling must surely recognize that our school systems have, for the most part, degenerated into collectivist indoctrination centers that will leave entire generations of our young people burdened with ideology, disheartened at their lot, and incapable of being the patriotic citizens we need in our workforce in order to create the kind of civilization our great nation needs to survive. At this rate, our high school and college graduates will go on to work in devilishly designed economic models mired in antiquated Keynesian systems which will merely offer the illusion of productivity while squarely undermining our sovereignty.

Our college graduates, if lucky enough to find work, shall be so ingratiated to the Marxist ideology inherent in their scholarship that they will be nothing more than obsolesced cogs in a world economy that views them as mere inefficient middle class idiots, and wishes only to humor them until they find out that their country has been torn to shreds by Marxist/Socialist/Communist policies that leave our great nation as little more than a downgraded folly with no respectability internationally.

The forthcoming republican presidential nomination is our one chance to take our great nation back, reclaim it from the bitter resentful atheists which want nothing more than to institute a massive federalized welfare state, and renew our great nation's commitment to sovereignty only by virtue of our great Lord.

You see, as someone who has read Hegel's Phenomenology in it's entirety, the key difference between Barack's administration and one that would be likely to ensue under a republican president is this key distinction...

The 'progressives' believe that freedom is not a 'god given' right as guaranteed by the constitution of the U.S.A. (as a matter of fact, liberals widely believe the constitution to hinder the society they believe we are, at all times, 'progressing' towards - Heaven on Earth), but that freedom and rights are given by the federal government, and must be earned according to ones given circumstances. The way to 'earn' the 'right' to be 'free'?
Indoctrination at a public university and mandatory acquiescence to the value system of Marxism (i.e. a brash distortion of the New Testament or hardcore deification of Science).

Republicans, of course, believe that our Rights are granted to us by God, the almighty- and given unto all men regardless of status, race, or circumstance. You don't have to 'earn' freedom anymore than you 'earn' the color of your eyes. God grants unto ALL of his children the right to freedom - and the founders understood it is generally the infantile psychological impulse towards communism that keeps these rights from being realized. That is the basis of our nations noble impulse towards the so-called 'imperialism' of spreading democracy to other countries. We believe that democracy can liberate the people of the world from totalitarianism, and yea, Satan himself. We're chosen, we're going to heaven, and we want to take as many of gods children there with us as possible.

But we face difficult obstacles - Islam, for one. Ignorance for another. The impulse towards ignoble deconstruction of sacred symbols of the west's historical struggle for supremacy for the purpose of resentful blasphemy. The devious devices of misplaced humanism. The list of obstacles towards this great goal is near endless, for Satan's shadow seeks to subvert the sublime serenity of liberty with the surreptitious seeking of utopian singularity in surrender to the Evils of slick talking Marxists with the end game of self destruction.

So, I endorse Michelle Bachmann as the nominee for president, as she has the titanium spine so necessary to overcome the insurmountable obstacles seeking still to subvert the sanctity of Christendom.

Quick list of downfalls of the other candidates:

Newt - Catholic.
Romney - Mormon
Paul - Libertarian
Santorum - Catholic

etc.

TY

Sinners, Repent of your sins, as the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand

You may think you are fine.


You may think everything is honkey dorey.


Well, I'm here to tell you that you are not, IT is not, and if you do not repent of your sins and turn toward Jesus Christ, the lord and savior, right now - at this very moment~ you are not only damned to hell yourself, but you are contributing to the destruction of our great nation.


Is your heart right?

Do you want a new heart?






























You say to yourself, I don't need to repent! I'm a good man/woman. I haven't really done anything wrong! I know about wisdom. I know about virtue. I'm alright in the eyes of the lord!



YOU ARE NOT! RPENT SINNER - OR BE SUBJECT TO THE WRATH OF THE ALMIGHTY CHRIST!




Pride....

















Pride will keep more people out of the kingdom of heaven tonight than any other sin...


Is your heart right?


Don't you want a new heart?



I tell you you can have a new heart... all you have to do is stand up from where your sitting in complacency right now and say outloud, in front of all your co-workers, 'I repent'.


Otherwise you are damned.



I want to save you from your fate, but your heart is desperately wicked.



The bibel teaches us that our hearts are despereately wicked.


Is your heart right?


REPENT SINNER!


I will do the very same I asked of you right now -


...


I just stood up in my seat and repented so everyone could hear, including CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR.


Will you do the same?

Is your heart right;?




What if after all of your soberness, and all of your church attendance, and all of your proclaimations of goodness, when you reach the pearly gates, and CHRIST says to you "I know you not", you have no recourse but damnation for all eternity?


REPENT NOW SINNER!


GOD KNOWS WHAT YOU DO GOD KNOWS WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART and SATAN WILL TORMENT YOU FOR ALL ETERNITY IN THE AFTERLIFE UNLESS you repent now.



Amen, praise jesus, and god bless america.

DDU - Domestic Democracy United - Manifest0#

The Official Dictates of DDU (Domestic Democracy United)~

DDU (Domestic Democracy United) first and foremost recognizes the universal validity of what the Founder of DDU terms Free Market Democracy (FMD). We understand that life in the U.S.A. is made possible by the workings of Free Market Democracy (FMD), and takes preservation of said system seriously. Any attempt to undermine FMD will be met with hostility by DDU, which considers the upholding of FMD to be an essential duty of the citizens of the U.S.A.

Domestic Democracy United (DDU) is committed to an individualistic freedom- meaning that the single human is more important than 'groups' of humans. DDU believes that individualism was part of the basis for the American Revolution, and that when individualistic freedom looses its integrity, our Republic itself is in danger.

DDU, in every possible way, is dedicated to the heritage of western tradition. We know that this tradition is, and has been, under assault- and are actively trying to keep respect for and participation in this tradition alive on into the future. Any attack on Western Tradition is considered beneath contempt, and will be met with fierce resistance.

DDU (Domestic Democracy United) Tea Party Dictates~

The predominant attitude of the intellectual elite and the state owned media is that of contempt for the sanctity of the constitution of the U.S.A. This is displayed by the Notion of the constitution as being 'obsolesced' by technology, as well as the prevalence of anti-founding father sentiment. It is the stated opinion of DDU that this must not only be opposed, but altogether eliminated and reversed. The constitution in its spiritual/christian context MUST BE PRESERVED.

At this point, most public institutions and services, as well as many private institutions used for purposes other than the 'basic' sale of goods and services are being used for seruptitious purposes generally~ and collectivist intentionality specifically~ as part of a large scale effort to rob the U.S.A. of its sovereignty. This criminal attack on our sovereignty is not only to be opposed, not only counter attacked, but tried and judged in accordance with the Law of the Spirit of God.

The obvious and staunch anti-communist anti-socialist agenda of DDU can only be defined as 'dangerous', 'extremist', and 'insane' by virtue of the usurpation of our Republic by NEO/CLASSICO/PROTO/SUB Marxists. It is the stated position of DDU Tea Party that the only way to fix the problems of the U.S.A. is through mass deportation of individuals holding such worldviews.

Democracy goes hand in hand with Capitalism. DDU is Anti-Labor Union, Anti-Regulation, Anti-Dialectical Materialism, and Anti-Collectivism. The individualistic principles pf free market economics and low taxes for industrialists contribute to DDU's stance of a limited, and under certain circumstances, ELIMINATED federal government.

DDU calls for an eliminated federal government under the conditions of the implimentation of FEMA camp lockdown of dissidents and patriots. Under said conditions, DDU advocates the gentlemanly use of militias to eliminate any advocate of the federal government who does not meet the conditions of surrender. (DDU is NOT affiliated with the 'End The Fed' movement)

Current members DDU (Domestic Democracy United) Tea Party are (as issued by signature):

Brendan O'Connell
W.R.G.
Micheal Glaid
Elisabeth Propst
Nancy Catala
John F Johnson
Josh Bennett
Stetson Black

"Be Still and know that I AM GOD"

Psalm 46:10a

St. Paul- FALSE APOSTLE>?!?!

Everyone knows how predominant St. Paul is in the New Testament, but few realize that there is the likely hood that he begot many of the things in Christianity today that we now deem contempt worthy...

For example, St. Paul repeatedly states in the New Testament for his listeners to 'follow me', not follow Christ.

St. Paul has a lot of controversial things to say about how we should worship, and yeah abou the very nature of what the w-o-r-d of the Lord of Hosts means for an individual!

Furthermore, St. Paul has traditionally been associated with the 'Universal' church and certain types of Christianity that shall as of here remain unmentioned~ however, the sense in which St. Paul was responsible for robbing CXhrist;s genuine expression of the will of the Lord of Hosts and replacing it with something suited for not merely the Gentiles, but- yea, to be suited for the collectivist moral encampment amongst Christianity from St. Paul's conversion onward is not to be looked over.

However, by the same token- I surely must repent for blaspheming such a undoubtedly 'holy' apostle as St. Paul.

Highly revered, greatly honored, and no doubt an historic figure in the Judeo-Christian Tradition~ However, one look at his most revealing sins tells a different story of St. Paul...


A) Saul was looking on as part of a collectivist mob during the first ritual slaughtering of a Christian.

B) Saul on more than one occasion not only facilitated but actively engaged in the hauling off of Christians to dungeons and such.

C) The fact that he IS so 'predominant' in the New Testament shows how he could be one of the apostles with a 'different' narrative than the others, and this may reveal how his evangelism was tainted with pride and the unwillingness of The Lord of Hosts to forgive his basest sin~ Selling out a servant of The Lord.


...

I ask you, dear reader- to forgive me... but once I was born again I searched my soul for some thing that would tie me to Saul's hypocrisy, but- yea I could find much to repent for- nothing as damning as being an agent of the icy black glove of the government executing early (and that means authentic) followers of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

so... St. Paul?

I say, FALSE APOSTLE!?!?!?!?!

PBR~

Hello dear reader-

I hope that by reading these words you do not take lightly the 'company' of my presense with your stodgy mind- for if you do, you are in danger of taking lightly a stingray which supposedly never swims backwards.

I condemn this whole business of behaving like, and condemning people as, animals.

The secularists who now are in influential positions now more than ever have defined, with their traditional intellectual exuberance and lack of grit, the tea party as nihilist, the g.o.p. as unjust, and christians as- and I'm not lying- i-n-s-a-n-e.

They would rather poorly recite the laughable 'flying spaghetti monster' analogy ad infinitum than put faith in the begotten son for an instant.

Fortunately, humility about their prodigious failures has surfaced amongst the most socialist of them- and is probably another laughable disingenuous bid to seek 'victim' status in, once again, a pathetic re-election bid.

I must admit, I applaud N.C. governers 'daughter-of-a-coal-miner's off the cuff response to the current crisis in the U.s. O' A. to a question at a Cary forum when she stated we ought to put a moratorium on future elections in 'Da Kak' until our financial house is in order.

Surely this must be more than a simple fleeting grasp to keep her current status and job title~ more than likely- it is a populist democrat party compromise with the growingly intense tea party faction within the bible belt- a faction which threatens Obama's 'millenials' voter base in the forthcoming elections.

I still chuckle at her remarks, but note that there is- indeed (a very communist word), no stopping a train... in this case the train of conservative victory in 2012.

The best liberals can do at this point dig into their already dated messianic/satanic 'heaven on earth' narrative and bleeding heart love of hatred of themselves and those who love them most worldview.

These are twisted times...

amen.

RT~

The Jobs Bill and the Return to Hard Collectivism

The regime's inconspicuously titled "jobs bill" is a joke.

It contains nothing other than hard collectivist policies which seek to further tax the rich, expand the role of central government in your and I's backyards, and bring about further debt- (as if the debt already incrued by the messiah's laughable stimulus package wasn't enough). The debt is, I predict, well over even the more extreme reaches of overall debt in the U.S.'s name. 14 trillion?


I predict that it is far higher than even these shamefull figures.

And now Obama has the gall to further extend the black satanic glove of central government in a simple plan to be passed under the guise of simply wanting to 'fix bridges in north carolina, make the roads better, and create more jobs (something his stimulus had promised but failed to deliver)'.

Aristotle wrote that rhetoric existed for centuries before logic ambled on into the picture- and I wonder what aristotle might think of the lack of logic inherent in the administrations further accruement of debt in what appears to simply be a bloated, multi-faceted, cynical, characteristically communist re-election bid.

But I digress...

It's just that, dear reader, I have it from inside sources in D.C. that the 'jobs bill' is no sloppy joe without it's spicey afterburn... and if this get's passed- I may spend some time in the bathroom with my back issues of the NR.

~

Machiavellian Morality and The Isthmus

Machiavelli famously said that a Prince, given the choice between being feared or loved by his subjects, cannot be both feared AND loved therefore it is better for him to be feared than loved.

This brings into question the ethics of love, a greatly herlalded sentiment amongst those who put their faith in a Marxian "Change" ethic, and it's ability to act as a force for the proper rule of a republic.

Love certainly falls, for after laughter inevitably comes tears. These tears are more authentic than laughter, as one can chuckle at any given proposition with either a whim or snarl- but to shed tears one must, by it's nature, be profoundly moved by either overwhelming happiness or a deep felt sadness.

So the question is, does love fall under the scrutiny of Machiavelli's moral system? The answer is, of course it does. As a matter of fact, Machiavelli says some quite nasty things about the Christian conception of love. It is merely that the much touted injustices of those in positions of power are both necessary and just, and to instill fear in the hearts of those who seek to subvert a Princes authority is not only an act of compassion for his subjects as a whole, but a necessary component to keeping ones status and position within a republic.

It takes a certain amount of character to become feared rather than loved, and one makes sacrifices when one becomes an object of the fear of ones subjects- but certainly there is much to gain from this position.

Freidrich Holderlin wrote a poem of the title "The Isthmus", in which he describes an imminent fire that burns at the place where Hercules rested to drink water. This is, indeed, a way of addressing the unique ability of a flame to both harm and comfort.

4th of July

Hello, Greetings, and Salutations!

Our country was founded under the guiding principles of the philosophy of liberty, and to those who believe that philosophy has no relevance in this day and age- I say to you that the precepts laid down in the constitution are not only relevant and prescient, but serve as a shining example of the ability of philosophical ideas to make real the dreams and aspirations of humanity.

Many say that the constitution of the United States is not only outmoded and lacking the currency of our new technological world, but is unjust and invalid due to polemical attacks on our founding fathers (i.e. they owned slaves, were of questionable character, etc.). This world-view is, in a sense, the result of a lack of faith in the very foundations which make any of what a man does in his life in the U.S. possible- and show an immoral character which views the greatest achievements of history as nothing more than an unjust series of oppressive acts. Surely this view of our country and the history of western civilization is not only dangerous, but potentially the result of a Marxist ideology which hopes to rob us of our dignity and degrade our cohesion as a unity of ontical entities within a world that is poised to return, in some sense, to it's very traditions on this great day of independence.

The philosophy behind the celebrated Declaration was, in fact, a result of the English utilitarian John Locke, who famously wrote about freedom being a 'right' of all people- not something 'given' by a ruler. This axiomatic Archimedean point formed the central thesis of the Declaration, and shows that even though the Revolution sought to break the shackles of British Imperialism, the Declaration was still grounded in the traditions and aspirations of the greatest minds of utilitarian philosophy. However, though the founders were indebted to the English philosophers of their time, they added their own uniquely American determination to the Declaration by adding these three words:

Life: The founders knew that the only way to make good on the promises they made to the people of America was to protect their right to life. Life, as understood by the founders, was not only the right to be born, not only the right to live, but the right to die honorably. This shows how the founders sought to keep the sanctity of Citizens, by showing that their lives were not merely that of 'subjects' under a ruler, or 'objects' of economic systems, but real beings with authentic emotions and perceptions that are blessed with a sense of individuality.

Liberty: With the inclusion of this now entombed word, one can view how the founders sought to include a very new sense of justice in the Declaration. This was a justice based in the tradition from which the founders originated, but deviated from that tradition in regards to this justice being a creation of the People of America and God- not a Monarchy.

Happiness: This word is probably the most important, and shows a distinct flair for pedestrian language. Most people wish to be happy. They want to live their lives in accordance with their own values and beliefs. They want to have the necessary conditions of satisfaction for this happiness, and the inclusion of this word in the declaration sought to provide these conditions. Socrates famously said that everyone does what they think will make them happy even though they are very often times are off the mark. Our founders sought not necessarily to make a society where every single Citizen was a happy person, but intended to give the people the right to pursue their dreams in whatever way they wished in accordance with the Laws. This pursuit is, in some sense, an economic concern. The right to start a business. The right to fair prices (i.e. the precepts behind the Tea Party). The right to buy what they wished. These components make up what is regarded as a true capitalistic system of trade.


Happy 4th! :)

Homeland Security~ The Pros and Cons

Good morning gentlemen and junglists.

I have a short diatribe on todays complex apparatus' of what was perfectly coined "Homeland Security" and if you are reading this I rather appreciate it.

Homeland security was originally enacted by former President Bush after 9/11, and it could be argued that it existed pre-9/11 without an official name. There have always been wiretaps. Perhaps the first form of surveillance was simply overhearing conversations or he said she said gossip. I would probably guess that basic surveillance techniques date back to the 1940's, though I would posit that it really came into fruition in the 50's and 60's.

Think of the old bug in the vase trick...

"Please speak directly into the flower vase, sir".

Clearly, however, the use of mass surveillance came about post 9/11 (at least in America). This kind of technology was generally used to monitor dissidents abroad, but "Homeland Security" sought to monitor the actions of not only potential dissidents and terrorists, but (so I have heard) also gangsters and criminals.

The use of surveillance on people within the borders of America really took off in a big way post 9/11~ and one would be wise to ask oneself why this type of maneuver would be necessary...

Whether or not creating an entire bureaucracy designed to monitor for potential terrorists was worth the money (as clearly 98.6 percent of all monitoring is deigned to fairly mundane tasks, such as listening in to pot heads) is a question fully open for debate now that we've assassinated Bin Laden, however one must understand that the majority of the funding for anti-terrorism was in full on manufacture of National Defense (i.e. Clips and Carbines), not in monitoring American Citizens.

However, one should at least admit that you are probably being monitored right now, unless you never curse, spit, or buy drugs. This creates a very real dawn of technological infringement, one which we could easily do away with... but probably will not go away in the near future...

So, let's break it down into pro's and con's.

OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD~

Bin laden, the mastermind behind both the 1993 attacks on the WTC and 9/11 which killed 2,998 people, has now officially been killed by U.S. forces. We have his body, which means that it is unlikely that he was killed by a drone attack, and far more likely to have been killed in combat operations.

Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the U.S. has custody of his body.

He was reportedly killed in pakistan, where he was known to cavort with Al Queda operatives.

This is nothing short than completely astonishing.

So many people, so many soldiers have been waiting for this moment, which completely justifies our intervention in Iraq and afghanistan.

This is a major moment in U.S. history, and I urge all citizens to pray for our troops and pray for the just murder of Bin Laden.

This is late breaking news, which hasn't been broken by the media yet.

At the time of this blog, Obama has not yet come onto television to announce the news, so I write this as late breaking news.

One can only imagine how much this news vindicates every single U.S. soldier lost on foreign soil in the past 10 years.

This is great news not just for NY, not just for the U.S.- but for the entire world and the uprisings in the middle east generally.

One can only hope that this will counter balance some of the bad news coming out of the middle east as of late (i.e. the jailbreak in afghanistan, the murders in syria, etc.), and lend credence to our efforts in the backyards of the world.

All of America should rejoice in this great news, and every little bit of anti-nationalism should be squashed by remembering just how tragic the events of 9/11 truly were, how much effort we put into solving the Bin Laden problem, how much this problem plagued the last administration, and how much we as a people have a stake in this development.

All of this is written before Obama speaks (or spoke) on sunday night, so I hope you'll take this humble coverage of what amounts to dramatic and explosive news for America as a bit of pre-bustle coverage.

Thanks for reading, and god bless America.

The Birther Issue and Donald J. Trump

Hi again folks,

I know some of you reading have been wondering where the politics in 'politalk' has gone, and I'm back again on the political beat about the latest (or according to NPR 2 year old) issue, and that is the question of Barack Hussein Obamas nationality.

This is only an issue because of much publicized statements from reality star Donald J. Trump. He has brought the 'birther' issue back to the forefront, with many republicans saying that with his economic prowess, Trump may be the best candidate to run again the POTUS in 2012.

Here is a short breakdown of various republican voices take on the matter...

Glenn Beck
He has been rambling on about the birther issue, but it is mostly incomprehensible drivel- so I'll skip his current position.

Sean Hannity
This from a recent radio broadcast: Conservative pundit Sean Hannity is entirely against the birther issue. Most people would assume that because he is on Fox he would automatically back the 'birthers', but recently came out against those who contend that the birth certificate issue is of any substance whatsoever, apart from "Hey, if you've got evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, I'd love to see it." He urged repiblicans to "look further and deeper" and barely even bothered to refute a caller who attacked his constitutional rigor on the basis of Hannity's unwillingness to get behind this issue.

Rush Limbaugh
Rush limbaugh is known to cavort with some of the republican party's top brass, and it was no surprise that he came out in strong favor of the birther issue and a Trump run in 2012. He did mention that Donald J. Trump had contributed money to Democrats previously, but denied allegations that he was a DID (Democrat In Disguise). He gave Trump a true and official endorsement without saying that he was doing so, and gave Trump's monetary credentials (i.e. worth 7 billion) a fair shrift in light of the U.S.'s current economic troubles. He further made several disparaging remarks about the mere fact that a U.S. president had acquiesced to a reality television personality by making a photo of his birth certificate public. It does seem that the POTUS seems more comfortable trading licks with Trump that doing anything substantive with Paul Ryan's budget plan.

The National Review
The NR, with its usual biting sarcasm, portrayed Donald J. Trump's emphasis on the birther issue with a fair amount of sardonic, if endearing, removal. They basically don't take the birther issue seriously at all, and readily acknowledge that Trump is deftly making a political move to motivate the republican base in a bid for a presidential run- and congratulate him for it. They are, however, sympathetic to birthers and characterize their position as basically saying, "we're just saying what if... we're not saying he wasn't necessarily born in America- but we're just saying what if he wasn't." (a position which apparently 60 something-percent of the population endorses) Apart from almost but not quite saying that Trump is catering to cretins, the NR seemed to see Donald J. Trump as a strong potential presidential candidate- not to mention an already established powerhouse of branding.

Alex Jones (prisont-planet/infowars.com)
This is for all of you conspiracy theory nuts out there (heheh only kidding, I'm one of em)-
Alex Jones has not only full on endorsed the birther issue, he also had a conspicuous picture of Trump on his main website that links to an article on Donald J. Trump attacking Obama for getting low grades in college and asking him to quote "now release your school records" (without a hint of anti-Trump commentary). While he did acknowledge that the birth certificate may be a bit of a distraction, he still insists that Obama's real name is Barry and that he was born somewhere in Africa. I listen to Jone's for kicks sometimes, but I have to say he has been one of the most outspoken Birthers for quite a while now, and the main perpetrator of the "Barack Obama's real name is Barry Soetaro" meme since the birther issue kicked off during the last election cycle. You have to give him credit for consistency, and he represents the millions of Americans who have SERIOUS doubts as to the legitimacy of the POTUS.

---

That's a short rundown on some of the conservative commentators of today and they're reaction to what was basically a monumental Donald J. Trump press run. On the liberal side, you see a hell of a lot of snarky dismissal, which may show that this issue could be a good way for the Repub's to play off the Left's 'elitism'. Much like the view that Sarah Palin is merely a 'stupid bimbo', this could play the Hawk's advantage in 2012, and the birther issue may prove a good starting point for trumps presidential bid...

My final opinion?

Trump.

For the love of God, he's better than Mitt Romney.

Deconstructionism: Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger

Let's begin by stating that, whether you know it or not, Quasi-Existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger and his Destruktion mark what can be seen as the end of philosophy with two shifts in subject.

First is the end of philosophy as metaphysics. Heidegger took from Hegel an anti-metaphysical bent, however indebted he may be to Aristotle. Hegel wrote about philosophy with an emphasis on dialectical shifts in level, proceeding from the authors' conscience (or Derrida's notion of 'Authorship') to the primordial page via the movement of Geist.

While Heidegger avoids dialectic, his emphasis remains purely in the spirit of Holderlin- with a fair amount of attention paid to ingenuity and getting around tradition. He famously said, "Every attempt to circumvent traditional concepts in philosophy is met again by tradition.".

So there is a sense in which Heidegger can be seen as the great butcher of philosophy, begetting deconstruction while attacking the pillars of traditional metaphysics. In Heidegger's repudiation of Husserlian 'method' and turning away from ancient metaphysics he instinctually put emphasis on questions of heuristics and phenomenology in a non-intentional sense. Husserls retreat to 'method' (ie the phenomenological method, eidetic method, and intentional analysis), and his subsequent denial of the profound instinct to view philosophy as science, relegated philosophy to a place worse than death. If Heidegger could be seen as the butcher of philosophy- Husserl (to whom Heidegger dedicated Being and Time) could easily be looked upon as the kernel of the transformation of existentialism to Sartre's confused seminal Being and Nothingness. In an attempt to synthesize Husserl with Heidegger, Sartre created his eidetic intuition concept. This is in stark contrast to Heidegger's 'Primordial Intentionality', so much so that the very notion of eidetic intuition can be seen as a misunderstanding of Heidegger- only in that it takes his 'primordiality' concept and blends it with Husserlian method, which leads to a confusion between emphasis of subject. As Robert Denoon Cummings says in his 'Phenomenology', The method becomes the subject-in-itself- which is a different subject than primordial intentionality, or 'engaged-coping-with-the-world'. When these subjects are conflated, it leads to the kind of confused word salad of Being and Nothingness.

Sartre of course almost exclusively read Husserl in the pre-war years, and always took with him a Cartesian sensibility in his phenomeno-existential pursuits- which lends itself to a conflagration of ideas by Descarte's very notion of Cogitare.


The second shift is the death of philosophy as science.

This was entombed by Husserl in his 'Crisis of the European Sciences' when he wrote famously "The dream is over". Heidegger knew instinctually that the age of philosophy as related to astronomy and geometry were dead and gone, and great writers like Geothe and Holderlin were more akin the the true flame of philosophy than the application of philosophy in the sciences.

What we needed was to understand what it means to 'be', and that means phenomenology (or the turning of consciousness back in on itself), existentialism (with it's emphasis on responsibility), or the understanding of philosophy as pure action.

I shall expound more on the 'end-of-philosophy' in future posts.
That's all for now dear reader~

Philosophy -1

So when one speaks of philosophy as such, one is either convinced that one knows what one means or one understands that what is meant by philosophy is not clear. Different philosophers had varying ideas about what philosophy really is (or 'was' if you're postmodern).

Ponty thought of philosophy like painting, with various contours of words creating a visual work of art.

It's an interesting analogy, as I've found that reading G.W.F. Hegel lends itself to this interpretation. Take a random example from the Phenomenology-

"The common element in a work of art, viz. that it is produced in consciousness and is made by human hands, is the moment of the Notion existing qua Notion, which stands in contrast to the work. And if this Notion, whether in the shape of artist or spectator, is unselfish enough to declare the work of art to be in its own self absolutely inspired, and to forget himself as performer or spectator, then against this we must stick to the Notion of Spirit which cannot dispense with the moment of being conscious of itself. This moment, however, stands contrasted with the work because in this initial duality of itself Spirit gives the two sides their abstract, contrasted characters of action and of being a Thing, and their return into the unity from which they proceeded has not yet come about."

Now that you've read it literally straight through, I'd like you to view the above as a painting, with the words being pictures. Allow your eyes to scan the words randomly for spots that stick out.

You may find that this way of viewing this passage is more fruitful than as a bit of philosophical art criticism, though it is certainly that in some sense.

What emerges for me in my readings of Passionate philosophy is this very artistic sense, which is one of the reasons we can still have classical philosophy today without any pretense of it being a science.

As a spokesperson for the Vienna School in England said; philosophy should be the handmaiden to the sciences.

This may or may not be true, but it certainly emphasizes philosophy's failure to rise to the level of science, as I emphasize philosophy's forgotten tradition of Passion before logic.

When Heraclitus said, "One may only pass down the same river a single time.", he was of course making a logical statement- but what is forgotten is how much a statement like this corresponds to poetry, and of course Heidegger, considered the End of philosophy by many, saw philosophy and philosophical inquiry as a form of poetry. What poetry is a form of is unknown to me, however my creeping suspicion is that the logicians have failed where the artists succeeded.

Now have a look at this passage of Hegel inspired philosophical writing from myself...

There is an important sense in which the ultimate meaning of becoming is none other than that being which finds itself coming to the present in the futural temporal character of Dasein. To foresee its own utmost Fate, Daseins must have some Absolute understanding with which to come to bearing, and further must use this to understand Spirit. The most fruitful form of becoming is of course Being-Towards-Death, which manifests itself in our everyday lives as that which is most close to us, that is, Involved coping with Dasein's state of being Fallen. Fallenness is reference both to man's fall from grace and the way in which we 'fall' back into tasks that we are presented with on an everyday basis. We fall passionately into the task-at-hand and throw ourselves into it as one would approach any task- yet what must not be forgotten is how an entity is 'called' into action according to the will of the Absolute.

The Call of Absolute Consciousness is temporal in that becoming follows from being yet distinguishes itself from mere Immediate understanding (i.e. Notional representation of the present-at-hand) in that it is always in all cases comporting itself towards that which is already known beforehand. This Absolute Consciousness has the character of always already having been determined in its own futural temporalization, which is to say that the destined is really in fact the choices we are presented with on a existential level.


So, read it again using the technique described above, and interesting phenomenological highlights appear. One can even document these using a variety of montage techniques.

Surely Heideggers 'end-of-philosophy' can be seen as the inevitable descent into postmodernism, but he leaves us with the poetico-phenomenological truths of ancient philosophy, as well as highlighting the painfully basic question of the meaning of being.

Zein und Zeit, as I see it, opens with asking us to examine the question of the meaning of being- which he says has become obscured- and then proceeds to artfully assault the reader with what amounts to poetry. Here is a short example of Zein und Zeit if you're wondering what I mean.

"But how are we to determine what is said in the talk that belongs to this kind of discourse? What does the conscience call to him to whom it appeals? Taken strictly, nothing. The call asserts nothing, gives no information about world-events, has nothing to tell. Least of all does it try to get going a 'soliloquy' in the Self to which it has appealed. 'Nothing' gets called to this Self, but it has been summoned to itself- that is, to its ownmost potentiality-for-Being."

Not his most poetic passage, but he is in some sense saying that the 'not-meaning-anything' of philosophy is an artistic asset. Here is what is generally viewed as a difficult passage from Hegels Phenomenology again... See how its nothingness reveals the ancient mysteries...

"Consciousness has found its Notion in Utility. But it is partly still an object, and partly, for that reason, still an End to be attained, which consciousness does not find itself to possess immediately. Utility is still a predicate of the object, not itself a subject or the immediate and sole actuality of the object. It is the same thing that appeared before, when being-for-self had not yet shown itself to be the substance of the other moments, a demonstration which would have meant that the Useful was directly nothing else but the self of consciousness and that this latter was thereby in possession of it."

This is from a section entitled ABSOLUTE FREEDOM AND TERROR.

Certainly it has a literal meaning, but the phenomenological reduction of the words themselves seems to me to be the most prescient meaning.

-Brendan O'Connell

The Tuscon Tragedy

The tragedy in Tuscon is clearly a horrific example of how the neurosis of society can go horrendously wrong, and the man who perpetrated these acts was clearly sick (see his youtube videos).

However, the Sheriff has come out with all sorts of statements to the effect of 'it's the political atmosphere created by certain people (republicans) who monger hatred'.

This is the same guy who said it's racist if you don't support universal healthcare. This is the same guy who is on record as saying that it is racist if you want to secure the borders.

What sucks is that millions will hear this guys biased testimonial, and since it's coming from a respectable person, take it without a grain of salt.

I don't want to play the 'they'll use this to attack 2nd amendment rights advocates' quite yet, however, the public is still tender in regards to this tragedy and I think a nuanced approach is fitting.

Why Sartre is Wrong

Having read being and nothingness, I can say that sartre was clearly a gifted narrative writer- and the literary criticism view of Hegel's phenomenology as the story of the movement of spirit might aptly be applied to Being. His notion, and I say notion with a capital N and all of the neo-hegelian implications (that is to say marxist implications), of Bad Faith I think shows that he had not enough care for Hegels original intent...

Furthermore it is clear that heidegger had nothing but contempt for sartre, and probably avoided the title 'existentialist' for this very reason.

So one must begin any critique of Sartre by addressing how, as Robert Solomon said, sartre places a critical emphasis on autonomy and free will. He says essentially, the choices you and I make determine what kind of people we are and we need to be responsible in an existential sense towards authenticity in action.

So immediately, we get the sense that sartre has departed from phenomenology as such- and has taken up the torch of a kind of Husserlian turn on Heidegger's worldview- without the phenomenological components of sartres contemporary Merleau Ponty nor the poetry of Camus.

And of course, a critique of Sarte has to address No Exit. This is basics, but what is Sartre really trying to say in No Exit (a book that is cursory reading in highschools across america)?

He is basically laying down the foundations of new age 'free will' thinking for ages to come!

All for an in vogue husserlian who lived in nazi germany during frances occupation!

I think in our modern age of philosophy, and nietzsches new philosophers arizing on the heideggarian horizon- I think we can all put a little holderlin to the test-

"Go Down then lovely sun for but little they
regarded you, nor holy one, knew your worth,
since without toil you rose, and quiet,
over a people for ever toiling.

to me, however, kindly you rise and set,
o glorious light, and brightly my eyes respond,
for godly, silent reverence I
learned when diotima soothed my frenzy

oh how i listened, heavens own messenger,
to you my teacher, lover, how to the golden day
these eyes transfused with thanks looked up from
gazing at you. and at once more living

the brooks began to murmer, more lovingly
the blossoms of dark earth breathed their scent at me
and through the silver clouds a smiling
aether bowed down to bestow his blessing"

Holderlin