Today, I'd like to introduce a key to understanding and apprehending the serious and dire consequences of collectivism.
That term is what I've coined Component Collectivism.
Component Collectivism is a neo-collectivist worldview rooted in a dysfunctional and pathological neo-Hegelianistic ideology which is mostly known for being directly tied to the philosophy of Marx, who himself was a young Hegelian (or 'neo'-hegelian). This is to be starkly contrasted with the self proclaimed "Old Hegelians"; these early students of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who is generally recognized as being the most influential philosophe in the entirety of Western Philosophy's history, took his"dialectic" to mean an almost anti-thesis to the broad notion of dialectical materialism and- yea, the "hard" notional inclination to view history in terms of evolution as such. Old Hegelians viewed, according to Robert Solomon (R.I.P.), his dialectic as more an application of Christianity to the methodology of authorship. Anyone keen to Hegel knows, quite simply, that every discipline at every college/university in America and elsewhere is directly derived and indirectly imprinted from and with GWF's stamp and mark. Unequivocally.
The early neo-hegelians, amongst which were the first proto-marxists, had quite a different view of the meaning and functional hands-on utilization's of Hegel's tremendously powerful hermeneutics and Christian theological breakthroughs.
Again, Robert Solomon (author of "In The Spirit of Hegel") surmised the neo-hegelian's formulations as defined by the man himself - Karl Marx.
1) Analyze Hegel as science.
2) Remove "geist" from the equation/formula.
3) Replace "geist" with "Materialism".
By materialism as such is indicated the following: Geist, or spirit, is no longer the central organizing moral formulation. Rather, material goods (i.e. products, computers, phones, homes) determine how a society organizes their cultural focus.
And we all know the webster definition of Marxism; as out of date and irrelevant as it is in our age. Materials are essentially owned by government not individuals, hence irrevocably betraying the most basic and overlooked philosophy of our nation's founding...
That God grants us the freedom to pursue acquisition of property as well as- yea, the general pursuit of happiness. The National Review recently wrote of this "happiness" clause in the constitution to signify directly, in the context of when it was written, to farmers that they had the right to endeavor to buy more property. A bit out-dated and dusty - but in light of Dialectical Materialism, one might glean what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do. The "Happiness" clause is basically and truly a 'fail safe'.
A genius one at that!
Well, fast forward into the early 1900's. Early progressives such as Richard T. Ely and John Dewey along with a slew of proto-marxist disciples endeavored to apply their vision of Dialectical Materialism to the then burgeoning American Politik and Gov'ment.
This is nothing, I assure you beloved reader, like anything an NPR listening neo-progressive can conjur to mind from the last Terry Gross snippet on some far removed FDR rumour.
This was absolutely, in the same sense that Noam "Mr. MIT" Chomsky decried for an entire generation of young Che rebels the horror of defining a Corporation as an individual, a near takeover of our sovereign government by - basically and slightly humorously - "Ze Germans".
All of these leading figures of the early progressive movement were literally trained within the borders of pre-war Germany. All of them learning the scientific (not to mention psychological) methods of inculcating into a society, that is - OUR society, the treasonous philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What fruit did their highly successful endeavors yield?
How did this fruit taste and to what degree was it "poisonous"?
Bitter as hell, and with the venom of a viper -
1) Poll Taxes for poor Scotch/Irish and Blacks.
2) Literacy Tests that kept the newly emancipated Blacks from voting.
3) Segregation of the newly emancipated Blacks into ghettos and labor camps.
The fact that the progressive (or "leftist") tide sweeping the South coincided with the darkest moments of the repression of "negros" obviously and painfully belies their current commitment to all things multi-cult. Though, one - even in the age of 'Bama and the Regime - can still see the heritage of the early elitist intellectuals. One can see it in the very notion of that ardently fascist cliche - "Progressive".
In fact, the early engineers of all things Darwinian did facts 1-3 institutionally and with scientific rigor precisely because of 'progress' as such. They believed that the uneducated were, to a point, incapable of understanding freedom or living "free-as-such" lives until they had been sufficiently "Civilized". Their sociological excursions coupled with remarks about the poor and uneducated's (and I quote) "savage blood" etc. reveal an altogether colloquial attitude towards the (and I quote) "inferior races".
In fact, one leading neo-hegelian progressive even went so far as to say (paraphrase) that "the idea that newly emancipated slaves could live in freedom worked [direct quote] 'disaster' and was [direct quote] 'dogmatism'."
Far removed, I'd say, from today's "pragmatic compassion".
Frederick Douglass would probably, in kind, respond "Good Man. Bit off the top."
Fast forward, if you will, once more. To today's age and Politik.
Collectivism has been distilled, through the overthrow of science by neo-darwinists trained in the fine art of profound coffee table quantum physics chattering and tittering, not to mention bulling and cowing, into the deconstruction of the Component as such and the stratification of this verstehen into Collective consciousness. That Component, in a technological era of increasingly rapid advances in the technology of Hardware-as-such, is to be understood to be a Post-Deconstructionist account of the popular abstraction amongst sophomoric students in colleges and universities of the "single particle" or, more to a point, the ancient metaphysical cliche "mote".
Each "mote", in the concrete modern sense, can then be taken from deconstruction and comported (so to speak) in whichever direction our Ideologue Kings desire. Generally, much to the discredit of the Left's "cause", this direction is one which leads the voter down a narrow corridor to a shallow slope of moral and ethical erosion that opens up into an iced-over pond in which the voter is gently but firmly urged to walk to the center and sit down. Shouting from the safety of land, they then yell to the poor soul: "SPIN!"
Component Collectivism could be adequately understood as a "call", understood in the classical Christian sense, which is not of God nor Christian Tradition.
I.E. The removal of "Spirit" from the equation/formula of GWF and it's replacement with - let's just say - thin ice.
I'd say it were diabolical if that didn't understate the real and irrefutable treason that Marxism inherently entails.
Thank you!
RT Stillwell of the Birchers
http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/support-your-local-police
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Leftist Pathology: Why the Progressive Cabal Is Near Criminal
This indictment, which is based primarily in a piece in the NR which I reported on last year regarding one Mr. Saul Alinsky and his mob connections, is following an inquiry into the role of Religion in the public square. The founders were quite clear on the freedom to speak what one had on ones conscience; and I've found evidence of unconstitutionality if not criminality regarding progressive ideology. Like the 'mob', the left is conspiratorially committed to silence in questions of their interpretation of Biblical truth. Further, this silence often conceals a committment to Alinskian "social justice" or proto-communism.
Saul Alinsky is a man who created what conservatives have decried publicly; a little understood phrase "community organizing". Obama himself has said "I'm still organizing". What does organizing mean for Mr. Obama?
Legally representing an organization which had to close it's doors due to a scandal involving setting up whorehouses for underage illegal immigrants, or ACORN.
He acted as lawyer for ACORN during his up-and-coming years, representing an organization which was set up by Alinsky acolytes.
Alinsky's tactics could be seen in the 2012 election, in which fraud coupled with organized labor was implemented by a supposedly 'sovereign' government to "get out the vote". Alinsky, you must understand, learned his tactics of manipulation from the mob. And Barack Obama's "chicago-style" politics have followed suit with a viciousness not seen in any previous administration.
And those kool-aid drinkers on the left have no sense of humility whatsoever when it comes to disallowing other's expressions of Christian philosophy/theology - perhaps with the exception of the perfunctory 'pope talk' with fellow automatons of the anti-god.
The very phrase, Jesus is Lord, spoken publicly elicits criticism, scoffing, or ethical condemnation.
This is due to the Leftist Cabal literally enslaving the population. Enslaving them with their mind-numbing ideology. Enslaving them with the creation of their wicked imaginations. Enslaving them with their ideology.
It all began in the early 1900's when early progressive thinkers trained in 'neo-hegelian' philosophy (i.e. marxist philosophy) began to take control of America. They believd that freedom came not from God but from the Government.
Ever since, they have sought to make every gain possible, with the ends always justifying their evil means.
So, how is this criminal? How is this pathological?
Collectivism itself is an ideology of pathology.
RT Stillwell
Saul Alinsky is a man who created what conservatives have decried publicly; a little understood phrase "community organizing". Obama himself has said "I'm still organizing". What does organizing mean for Mr. Obama?
Legally representing an organization which had to close it's doors due to a scandal involving setting up whorehouses for underage illegal immigrants, or ACORN.
He acted as lawyer for ACORN during his up-and-coming years, representing an organization which was set up by Alinsky acolytes.
Alinsky's tactics could be seen in the 2012 election, in which fraud coupled with organized labor was implemented by a supposedly 'sovereign' government to "get out the vote". Alinsky, you must understand, learned his tactics of manipulation from the mob. And Barack Obama's "chicago-style" politics have followed suit with a viciousness not seen in any previous administration.
And those kool-aid drinkers on the left have no sense of humility whatsoever when it comes to disallowing other's expressions of Christian philosophy/theology - perhaps with the exception of the perfunctory 'pope talk' with fellow automatons of the anti-god.
The very phrase, Jesus is Lord, spoken publicly elicits criticism, scoffing, or ethical condemnation.
This is due to the Leftist Cabal literally enslaving the population. Enslaving them with their mind-numbing ideology. Enslaving them with the creation of their wicked imaginations. Enslaving them with their ideology.
It all began in the early 1900's when early progressive thinkers trained in 'neo-hegelian' philosophy (i.e. marxist philosophy) began to take control of America. They believd that freedom came not from God but from the Government.
Ever since, they have sought to make every gain possible, with the ends always justifying their evil means.
So, how is this criminal? How is this pathological?
Collectivism itself is an ideology of pathology.
RT Stillwell
Monday, March 4, 2013
Sequestration on the Hill
The prescient news in Washington seems to be the looming "across the board" cuts to defense and entitlements that seem to be leaving both Dems and Repubs cold. I'm of the opinion that while these cuts in spending are a major story, there seems to be something going on underneath the surface which has more to do with why leading figures appear to be so viscerally upset. If I had to make an uninformed guess as to what this, in fact, is - I'd wager it has to do with the negligence and lack of bi-partisan communication that is endemic to Washington D.C. more and more these days.
Bob Woodward on "Meet the Press" described there being a "Bunker Mentality" amongst Washington elites, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this is altogether true. My own governer McCrory. upon a recent visit to D.C. described the situation there to be "very troubling" and "dysfunctional", which is a fairly forward thing for the new Governer to say publicly.
But something eludes me, it seems. There must be something going on in the annals of the executive office and congress that is politely being left unsaid. I can't, for the life of me, put my finger on it. Is it that each side of the partisan divide is steaming mad at each other? Is it that the Repubs have made compromises to the president and feel like they are getting little in return? Mr. Woodward accused the president of "not taking hold of the presidency", so perhaps it's that no one in Washington is taking any initiative on getting anything substantive done. No matter the case, I am of the opin' that there is something rotten in Denmark, and the American publik is being left in the dark about it.
How bad is our debt?
Does China really, for all intents and purposes, own the U.S.?
What is going to "change" in the lives of everyday Americans this year?
Why can't congress and the president work together?
What happened to the "transparency" we were all promised?
These are all questions kindly being avoided at the moment, not to mention questions that we don't even have the information to know to ask about!
The unanimous consent of the press seemed to be that sequestration is a bad thing. Is it really?
The only conclusion I can come to is that Washington must be reorganized, for the sake of the united states of America.
Domestic Democracy United
Bob Woodward on "Meet the Press" described there being a "Bunker Mentality" amongst Washington elites, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this is altogether true. My own governer McCrory. upon a recent visit to D.C. described the situation there to be "very troubling" and "dysfunctional", which is a fairly forward thing for the new Governer to say publicly.
But something eludes me, it seems. There must be something going on in the annals of the executive office and congress that is politely being left unsaid. I can't, for the life of me, put my finger on it. Is it that each side of the partisan divide is steaming mad at each other? Is it that the Repubs have made compromises to the president and feel like they are getting little in return? Mr. Woodward accused the president of "not taking hold of the presidency", so perhaps it's that no one in Washington is taking any initiative on getting anything substantive done. No matter the case, I am of the opin' that there is something rotten in Denmark, and the American publik is being left in the dark about it.
How bad is our debt?
Does China really, for all intents and purposes, own the U.S.?
What is going to "change" in the lives of everyday Americans this year?
Why can't congress and the president work together?
What happened to the "transparency" we were all promised?
These are all questions kindly being avoided at the moment, not to mention questions that we don't even have the information to know to ask about!
The unanimous consent of the press seemed to be that sequestration is a bad thing. Is it really?
The only conclusion I can come to is that Washington must be reorganized, for the sake of the united states of America.
Domestic Democracy United
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
A Look at Muslim Barbarism
I wrote quite a while back that what muslims consider to be "Allah" I consider to be a good definition of "Satan". I still beleive, though with less of a flair for hyperbole, that this is marginally true. I've read half of the Koran, personally, and found it to be laced with line after line of "kill the unbeleiver" - almost used in repetition. Those who mistakenly beleive the Bible contains savagery need only look to the Muslism faith and the Koran for the real culprit. I'm not suggesting that all muslims are evil - quite to the contrary; most of them long for freedom. However, the Koran can irrefutably lead to some very evil outcomes, among them: 9/11.
Here, as reported in Feb. NR by Mark Steyn, is a simple bucket list of things you may not know about Muslims:
- In Wales, a woman beat her son with a stick, a rolling pin, and a hammer for failing to learn the Koran. He could only memorize a couple of pages, despite being abused... So she killed him and lit him on fire with barbeque fuel, claiming she now felt "%100 better".
- A ten year old girl was beaten by her mother, one Asia Parveen, for not reading the Koran enough. She sustained 56 injuries...
- A muslim slit his daughters throat in London for being "too westernized".
- In Sweden, a 5-month-old baby was beaten to death with the Koran.
Muslims are responsible for their culture; and their culture is one, inherently, of malicious evil.
The hoardes of muslims with anti-american views are increasingly becoming a problem for the citizens of countries they've immigrated to. The extent to which they carry their anti-americanism with them into our country cannot be understated. It is the opinion of Domestic Democracy United that if they don't like it, they can get out.
The sheer numbers of them is troublesome. And in Europe, it must be unimaginable terror for native citizens to see their towns and cities over-run with muslim immigrants.
In N.C., I hope to see a return to normalcy... however, it's far from probable.
...And in D.C. and surrounding area's I can tell you, there are so many muslims it would seem unimaginable to your average rural American. But no one can refute the numbers. According to the 2011 census, the muslim population in the U.S. has doubled since 9/11.
And for this short article I'll leave you with one simple fact:
57 percent of Paki's in Briton are married to their first cousins.
DDU
Here, as reported in Feb. NR by Mark Steyn, is a simple bucket list of things you may not know about Muslims:
- In Wales, a woman beat her son with a stick, a rolling pin, and a hammer for failing to learn the Koran. He could only memorize a couple of pages, despite being abused... So she killed him and lit him on fire with barbeque fuel, claiming she now felt "%100 better".
- A ten year old girl was beaten by her mother, one Asia Parveen, for not reading the Koran enough. She sustained 56 injuries...
- A muslim slit his daughters throat in London for being "too westernized".
- In Sweden, a 5-month-old baby was beaten to death with the Koran.
Muslims are responsible for their culture; and their culture is one, inherently, of malicious evil.
The hoardes of muslims with anti-american views are increasingly becoming a problem for the citizens of countries they've immigrated to. The extent to which they carry their anti-americanism with them into our country cannot be understated. It is the opinion of Domestic Democracy United that if they don't like it, they can get out.
The sheer numbers of them is troublesome. And in Europe, it must be unimaginable terror for native citizens to see their towns and cities over-run with muslim immigrants.
In N.C., I hope to see a return to normalcy... however, it's far from probable.
...And in D.C. and surrounding area's I can tell you, there are so many muslims it would seem unimaginable to your average rural American. But no one can refute the numbers. According to the 2011 census, the muslim population in the U.S. has doubled since 9/11.
And for this short article I'll leave you with one simple fact:
57 percent of Paki's in Briton are married to their first cousins.
DDU
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
The Differance of Love and Hate
Perhaps the most pressing of concerns regarding emotional integrity within the self-as-such is that of the contrast between the existentiel meanings of love and it's opposite, hate.
What is the best way to phenomenologically reduce these two objects of spirit? To reflect? To observe? To circumspect?
The only way to understand, truly, the differance of love and hate is to apprehend the congruence of these apparent contrasting passions as part-and-parcel of each's own negative freedom. Emotion understood by way of apprehension absolutely delimits the meaning of each in an other. Love convalesces in loathing and hatred of self and object, unequivocally! Hatred-as-such is intrinsically intertwined with the mustard seed of loving as understood in a phenomeno-existential sense.
The congruence of hatred and love is freedom from being.
Emotion-as-judgement is to be seen, by virtue of the reduction of passion to it's components constituting selfhood-in-a-world, as the primordial constitution by entities of valuation. This selfhood is existentially restricted to degeneration into its negative freedom from being. A destruktion taken from being free to unencumbered coping with objects-as-such.
The very act of cognition of emotion requires a phenomenological apprehension of what a being means in a world of existence. Existence-as-such and for an existentiel proceeding as part of a totality of involved coping with the worldhood of being-towards-death. Our own utmost potential as ontical components is, by necessity, limited by absolute Spirit-as-such. The existent sentimetns phenomenologically delimit their negative freedom from being.
Differance is, for love, the existentiel realization of an ontology of passion-as-such.
Hatred is reminded of it's negative freedom in the absolute primordiality of love as differance.
The signature trace of the basic-in-itself compresses the classical into the post-deconstructionist. This trace-as-such makes known unto the conscience of passion-as-such within a world-in-itself the limits of apprehension of worldhood. The world is such that our own selfhood is comprehensively coping within a Cartesian teleological contrivance inhereted from a tradition of complimentary aquiescence to the institutions of normalcy in ethics rather than the delimiting of passion-to-itself.
To contextualize this is to say that one knows hatred often accompanies the emotional strategy of love-as-such. Love is, as well, very often part-and-parcel with the universal object of hatred-in-itself.
Each delimits the differance of an other.
To love - let's give good ardent phenomenological inquisition.
To hate - we must give the existential meaning of the differance of opposition a framework in the concretely existentio-temporal worldhood of Being-in-the-world.
To the passions!
\DDU
Key terms and constructions derived from Derrida, Heidegger, Hegel, Solomon, and Nietzsche.
"Differance", "trace","limiting" and "delimiting" are references to Derrida.
"Existential" and "existentiel", "basic", and "coping" as well as "ontical" and the various stitching together of language to create a new concept are derived from Heidegger.
The "Phenomenology" and opposition of concepts are derived from Hegel.
The framework upon which to understand emotion is derived from Solomon; and it is through Solomons interpretation of Nietzsche that the stylizations and revaluations are derived.
What I'm really getting at with this article is taking away the focus on Post-Modernism and positing my own "Post-Deconstructionism".
Thanks!
R.T. Stillwell
What is the best way to phenomenologically reduce these two objects of spirit? To reflect? To observe? To circumspect?
The only way to understand, truly, the differance of love and hate is to apprehend the congruence of these apparent contrasting passions as part-and-parcel of each's own negative freedom. Emotion understood by way of apprehension absolutely delimits the meaning of each in an other. Love convalesces in loathing and hatred of self and object, unequivocally! Hatred-as-such is intrinsically intertwined with the mustard seed of loving as understood in a phenomeno-existential sense.
The congruence of hatred and love is freedom from being.
Emotion-as-judgement is to be seen, by virtue of the reduction of passion to it's components constituting selfhood-in-a-world, as the primordial constitution by entities of valuation. This selfhood is existentially restricted to degeneration into its negative freedom from being. A destruktion taken from being free to unencumbered coping with objects-as-such.
The very act of cognition of emotion requires a phenomenological apprehension of what a being means in a world of existence. Existence-as-such and for an existentiel proceeding as part of a totality of involved coping with the worldhood of being-towards-death. Our own utmost potential as ontical components is, by necessity, limited by absolute Spirit-as-such. The existent sentimetns phenomenologically delimit their negative freedom from being.
Differance is, for love, the existentiel realization of an ontology of passion-as-such.
Hatred is reminded of it's negative freedom in the absolute primordiality of love as differance.
The signature trace of the basic-in-itself compresses the classical into the post-deconstructionist. This trace-as-such makes known unto the conscience of passion-as-such within a world-in-itself the limits of apprehension of worldhood. The world is such that our own selfhood is comprehensively coping within a Cartesian teleological contrivance inhereted from a tradition of complimentary aquiescence to the institutions of normalcy in ethics rather than the delimiting of passion-to-itself.
To contextualize this is to say that one knows hatred often accompanies the emotional strategy of love-as-such. Love is, as well, very often part-and-parcel with the universal object of hatred-in-itself.
Each delimits the differance of an other.
To love - let's give good ardent phenomenological inquisition.
To hate - we must give the existential meaning of the differance of opposition a framework in the concretely existentio-temporal worldhood of Being-in-the-world.
To the passions!
\DDU
Key terms and constructions derived from Derrida, Heidegger, Hegel, Solomon, and Nietzsche.
"Differance", "trace","limiting" and "delimiting" are references to Derrida.
"Existential" and "existentiel", "basic", and "coping" as well as "ontical" and the various stitching together of language to create a new concept are derived from Heidegger.
The "Phenomenology" and opposition of concepts are derived from Hegel.
The framework upon which to understand emotion is derived from Solomon; and it is through Solomons interpretation of Nietzsche that the stylizations and revaluations are derived.
What I'm really getting at with this article is taking away the focus on Post-Modernism and positing my own "Post-Deconstructionism".
Thanks!
R.T. Stillwell
New DDU DIALUP
About ten minutes of reading the recent philosophical entries in, so to speak, my own words. Meant to clear up the confusion around the recent philosophical works within Politalk. Sorry to my regular readers for the deviation from the usual coverage of U.S. Politik.
Hope this clears up the confusion around the language used in "...Sins of Want", "Noble Being-Unto-Death" and "Service...".
Probably won't.
Again, apologies for the jargon. Will be back on the political beat properly A.S.A.P ~
So stay locked!
Domestic Democracy United
"Download 'Citizen Sh*t' for the tracks featured in this episode of DDU DIALUP. Finest quality emo remixes with a little surprise at the end. Featured on absolutepunk.net. Mind the whine! Also, the 'Punk Propaganda' LP is highly recommended for those with a taste for the abrasive. Please do DDU a favor a simply quickly download some of the "Emo Headache" content... Lot's of work went into these short little compositions, and I would greatly appreciate if you would consider these a companion piece to Politalk."
-Brendan O'Connell
*Cop "Citizen Sh*t" EP
http://clipcarbine.bandcamp.com/album/citizen-shit-ep
All the songs from this edition of DDU DIALUP + PATRIOTIC PUNK EXCESS IN E. HEADACHE'S NATIONALISTIC NSA WIRETAP GABBA
- a 7 minute excursion into G.W. Bush's speech on the creation of Homeland Security set to that roiling orchestra track from "Starship Troopers" used in the nefarious guilty pleasure of paranoid libs known as Infowars/Prison Planet.
"Really quite interesting to hear ole Dubya talking about homeland security over the recognizable chaser from Alex Jones' 'war on serenity'."
Disclaimer: DDU does not support the opinions and views of Alex Jones.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
In Defense of the Establishment GOP As It Stands
The current news for many conservatives and liberals alike in regards to the establishment GOP is the unsettling incongruence between many social conservatives as properly understood and what, as is unfairly charicatured, are known as "Country Club Republicans".
I am of the opin' that this split is entirely engineered by the Regime and its disciples in the media with the purpose of kicking the conservative movement while it is down, hoping to fracture the long uncomfortable alliance between more affluent conservo's and their compatriots bestowed with markedly redder necks.
It was reported by Rush Limbaugh that a close freind of the president had decreed that their administration should attempt to create discontent among these wings of the GOP - so, despite many people on the left's doubts as to Rush's credentials as a journalist, this is far from speculation.
There have even been whispers of creating a third party.
"I wouldn't speak this to anybody or John McCain may come to your house in the night and send you to prison"
- Rush 2/5/2013
All joking aside, I - as head of Tea Party organization DDU - would like to voice my support for the strategies and actions of the Grand Ole' Party of late. For example, the decision to make amends and bend at the last minute in leu of the debt ceiling was honorable and responsible to the highest degree.
The high ups in the party know these types of maneuvers will be unpopular with certain elements of their constituency - but they do the best thing for the country, now as before. They know what kind of sacrifices true service-as-such takes, and are willing to take the tough decision points seriously enough to react beyond the mere ideological lock step that so often seems the rights weakness. What we are seeing is not, as some have grossly mischaracterized, the degeneration and dissolution of the GOP; but, in fact - the opposite. We're seeing state's rights as a position taken so seriously that it stands above all else in terms of platform.
The GOP strategy is thus: We lost the POTUS election, but there are many state's that did not support this outcome; therefore, we are to fight for individual state's rights before all else.
We see the admissions of the right and the lack of ardent protest of the Regime's policies, yet fail to see the tooth and nail battle for state's rights in the context of what 'Bama seeks to do, truly, with the victory of Obamacare. They are making great strides and leaps to secure for states the most precient and salient demands, above all: the demand to stay out of this Obamacare thing as much as damned possible. If anyone can prevent the implementation of the truly fascist aspects of Obamacare's effects, I, for one, beleive the GOP can.
Yet the dissent among conservatives is, currently, seething and frothing from the mouth.
What those disillusioned conservatives need to focus on is not giving in to needless in-fighting and putting their energies where they are needed; in a sustained conservative protest movement that backs the GOP fully and can help give libertarian-leaning libs a reason to feel like they should take up arms with their neo-conservative brethren!
We're all in this together, and though there is little we can do to stem the tide of collectivism, we can (to quote Buckley) stand athwart shouting no!
And we should!
The power of individuals in state government and their constituents to rally around a vision of America that hearkens not merely to the Founders but to that America that, as Glenn Beck said, we haven't forgotten shouldn't be underestimated. That America we remember. It's not lost.
I'll leave you, faithfull reader, with what is - to me - breaking news.
From Feb. NR:
"It's possible... that President Obama will skip blithely from triumph to triumph, nudging a lowing herd of dredulous millenials into the pen of joyless collectivism, emerging periodically to give a hectoring address while jutting his chin at the Future, mistaking hortatory hollering for persuasion."
I wish you the best in your endeavors to fight for Freedom.
FROM DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED HEADQUARTERS IN RALEIGH NC
Signing off,
Brendan O'Connell
I am of the opin' that this split is entirely engineered by the Regime and its disciples in the media with the purpose of kicking the conservative movement while it is down, hoping to fracture the long uncomfortable alliance between more affluent conservo's and their compatriots bestowed with markedly redder necks.
It was reported by Rush Limbaugh that a close freind of the president had decreed that their administration should attempt to create discontent among these wings of the GOP - so, despite many people on the left's doubts as to Rush's credentials as a journalist, this is far from speculation.
There have even been whispers of creating a third party.
"I wouldn't speak this to anybody or John McCain may come to your house in the night and send you to prison"
- Rush 2/5/2013
All joking aside, I - as head of Tea Party organization DDU - would like to voice my support for the strategies and actions of the Grand Ole' Party of late. For example, the decision to make amends and bend at the last minute in leu of the debt ceiling was honorable and responsible to the highest degree.
The high ups in the party know these types of maneuvers will be unpopular with certain elements of their constituency - but they do the best thing for the country, now as before. They know what kind of sacrifices true service-as-such takes, and are willing to take the tough decision points seriously enough to react beyond the mere ideological lock step that so often seems the rights weakness. What we are seeing is not, as some have grossly mischaracterized, the degeneration and dissolution of the GOP; but, in fact - the opposite. We're seeing state's rights as a position taken so seriously that it stands above all else in terms of platform.
The GOP strategy is thus: We lost the POTUS election, but there are many state's that did not support this outcome; therefore, we are to fight for individual state's rights before all else.
We see the admissions of the right and the lack of ardent protest of the Regime's policies, yet fail to see the tooth and nail battle for state's rights in the context of what 'Bama seeks to do, truly, with the victory of Obamacare. They are making great strides and leaps to secure for states the most precient and salient demands, above all: the demand to stay out of this Obamacare thing as much as damned possible. If anyone can prevent the implementation of the truly fascist aspects of Obamacare's effects, I, for one, beleive the GOP can.
Yet the dissent among conservatives is, currently, seething and frothing from the mouth.
What those disillusioned conservatives need to focus on is not giving in to needless in-fighting and putting their energies where they are needed; in a sustained conservative protest movement that backs the GOP fully and can help give libertarian-leaning libs a reason to feel like they should take up arms with their neo-conservative brethren!
We're all in this together, and though there is little we can do to stem the tide of collectivism, we can (to quote Buckley) stand athwart shouting no!
And we should!
The power of individuals in state government and their constituents to rally around a vision of America that hearkens not merely to the Founders but to that America that, as Glenn Beck said, we haven't forgotten shouldn't be underestimated. That America we remember. It's not lost.
I'll leave you, faithfull reader, with what is - to me - breaking news.
From Feb. NR:
"It's possible... that President Obama will skip blithely from triumph to triumph, nudging a lowing herd of dredulous millenials into the pen of joyless collectivism, emerging periodically to give a hectoring address while jutting his chin at the Future, mistaking hortatory hollering for persuasion."
I wish you the best in your endeavors to fight for Freedom.
FROM DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED HEADQUARTERS IN RALEIGH NC
Signing off,
Brendan O'Connell
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Secretary of State Flails In Shame Preceeding Departure
Hillary Clinton, last week, was noticeably upset responding to questions leveled at her about Benghazi and her role in the failure of her department to prevent what, according to Rand Paul, is the "worst tragedy since 9/11" (paraphrase). Many establishment repubs question, to a fair amount, the performance by Clinton in what I've termed "cry-gate"; in which Clinton seemed to put on airs whilst drumming up a few tears in regards to meeting the families of the victims of the Benghazi attacks. Whether or not the crying fit the following day was, in fact, genuine is beside the point. It is the opinion of Domestic Democracy United that cry-gate was an act by Clinton that figuratively spit on the graves of the victims of the Benghazi attacks.
"Cry-gate was not only offensively grotesque, but a losing move by Clinton who seemed like a poor method actor looking for something to work with. The tragedy of the Benghazi attacks were not, unfortunately, so much melodrama."
-Brendan O'Connell
I wouldn't be so dire in my accusation, where it not for the fact that what occurred during cry-gate was irrefutably disingenuous. A breif application of Physiognomy would reveal my position that she "fake cried" is absolutely and unequivocally correct. What would my fellow Reston VA compatriot Frank Luntz glean off of an analysis of the tear reel?
I would wager that it would be classic Clinton.
Lies.
Waffling.
Taking on the inflection one finds convenient.
This lie, is in fact, one of dire consequence.
RT -
"Cry-gate was not only offensively grotesque, but a losing move by Clinton who seemed like a poor method actor looking for something to work with. The tragedy of the Benghazi attacks were not, unfortunately, so much melodrama."
-Brendan O'Connell
I wouldn't be so dire in my accusation, where it not for the fact that what occurred during cry-gate was irrefutably disingenuous. A breif application of Physiognomy would reveal my position that she "fake cried" is absolutely and unequivocally correct. What would my fellow Reston VA compatriot Frank Luntz glean off of an analysis of the tear reel?
I would wager that it would be classic Clinton.
Lies.
Waffling.
Taking on the inflection one finds convenient.
This lie, is in fact, one of dire consequence.
RT -
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Regret, Doubt, and Jealousy: Sins of Want
Regret is, in fact, a sin. This is in stark contrast with "Remorse-as-such". When one regrets what one has done, one is taking part in an emotional strategy that distinctly lacks the most important sentiment of Faith. This may seem counter intuitive to some, trained in the art of circumspect Moralism.
Remorse is far more in line with what the demands of Faith require.
Doubt, again, is sin. This is in marked contrast with such sentiments as scepticism. To doubt is to adhere to the natural inclination to flee from Grace; to turn from God. We doubt only when our rationality lacks the style and majesty of true scepticism. Think, if you will, of the last time you doubted your lover. It was base.
To be a true ardent follower of the Faith, one must etherealize the instinct to doubt into reasoned questioning.
Jealousy is the most obviously sin laden of these sentiments. In jealousy, it is said, one has the distinct desire to do damage; to do harm to both self and the object of ones jealousy. It is never a good strategy, and most obviously inherently a moral poise lacking in dignified discourse. You never make any kind of really grounded arguement on the basis of jealousy; almost all positions based in jealousy, or to the point "resentment", are groundless on the basis of reason and passion.
An emotion? Sin?
Most certainly if one takes into account the theological position which see's one being judged by the content of one's character rather than mere deeds. It has been said that God judges one on what is in ones heart... and emotions are one of the most important components of what is indicated by this theological formulation.
If I regret something, I feel bad about having done it. It does not necessarily follow that I fix the problem on the basis of feeling bad about having done it. If I, say, regret having wrecked my auto - It does not follow that I can keep from having collisions in the future because I do not want to. When we have real passionate remorse about a collision I would argue that it, in fact, necessarily follows that I will take corrective action to prevent a collision from happening again. Perhaps this is why judges often put so much stock in the greivences of those in court.
Doubt is obviously problematic. To doubt is simply to say, I do not agree that such-and-such is the case. To have systematic scepticism is to not agree or disagree but to observe. I can say "I am not". But if I do not understand why "I am not", I am surely not going to develop my position beyond the merely apparent. Again, resentment is a key component of the groundwork of promordial doubt-as-such. The apparent will not sustain the needs of any civilization worthy of its, shall we say, salt. What a man of civilization requires for the task of living in Grace is apprehension; and this is not acheived by virtue of the sin of Doubt.
Jealousy is the differance of true resentment. One is jealous precisely because one finds themselves to be in a position of agitation. So, if I'm jealous of affection one is bestowing upon my loved one I am agitated by the situation I am in. Yet, in jealousy, we do not take responsibility for our selfhood. It is a negative emotion precisely because of our own soured sense of self. Contrast this with contempt. Contempt takes the role of people and simply sets them into place.
Contempt solves the riddle of jealousy.
So in all of these sentiments we see something that can be damaging, problematic for functioning, and negative inherently. My point is this: We should all find ways to allow ourselves to get over these primordially passionless senses of self and the world.
It is with this that I leave you.
Brendan O'Connell
Remorse is far more in line with what the demands of Faith require.
Doubt, again, is sin. This is in marked contrast with such sentiments as scepticism. To doubt is to adhere to the natural inclination to flee from Grace; to turn from God. We doubt only when our rationality lacks the style and majesty of true scepticism. Think, if you will, of the last time you doubted your lover. It was base.
To be a true ardent follower of the Faith, one must etherealize the instinct to doubt into reasoned questioning.
Jealousy is the most obviously sin laden of these sentiments. In jealousy, it is said, one has the distinct desire to do damage; to do harm to both self and the object of ones jealousy. It is never a good strategy, and most obviously inherently a moral poise lacking in dignified discourse. You never make any kind of really grounded arguement on the basis of jealousy; almost all positions based in jealousy, or to the point "resentment", are groundless on the basis of reason and passion.
An emotion? Sin?
Most certainly if one takes into account the theological position which see's one being judged by the content of one's character rather than mere deeds. It has been said that God judges one on what is in ones heart... and emotions are one of the most important components of what is indicated by this theological formulation.
If I regret something, I feel bad about having done it. It does not necessarily follow that I fix the problem on the basis of feeling bad about having done it. If I, say, regret having wrecked my auto - It does not follow that I can keep from having collisions in the future because I do not want to. When we have real passionate remorse about a collision I would argue that it, in fact, necessarily follows that I will take corrective action to prevent a collision from happening again. Perhaps this is why judges often put so much stock in the greivences of those in court.
Doubt is obviously problematic. To doubt is simply to say, I do not agree that such-and-such is the case. To have systematic scepticism is to not agree or disagree but to observe. I can say "I am not". But if I do not understand why "I am not", I am surely not going to develop my position beyond the merely apparent. Again, resentment is a key component of the groundwork of promordial doubt-as-such. The apparent will not sustain the needs of any civilization worthy of its, shall we say, salt. What a man of civilization requires for the task of living in Grace is apprehension; and this is not acheived by virtue of the sin of Doubt.
Jealousy is the differance of true resentment. One is jealous precisely because one finds themselves to be in a position of agitation. So, if I'm jealous of affection one is bestowing upon my loved one I am agitated by the situation I am in. Yet, in jealousy, we do not take responsibility for our selfhood. It is a negative emotion precisely because of our own soured sense of self. Contrast this with contempt. Contempt takes the role of people and simply sets them into place.
Contempt solves the riddle of jealousy.
So in all of these sentiments we see something that can be damaging, problematic for functioning, and negative inherently. My point is this: We should all find ways to allow ourselves to get over these primordially passionless senses of self and the world.
It is with this that I leave you.
Brendan O'Connell
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Being-Unto-Death : The Way of Life
Being-unto-death as the absolute delimiting of a being-in-itself as the utmost recognition of cognition in an absolute being-of-entities within a world-as-such is the recognition of self as that which remains to be seen in the objective. It is shamefull that subjectivists resolve to split our phenomenological character-unto-death into figments of a marxist "divide-and-conquer" mentalism which seeks not only to define the terms of rational and reasoned argument and dialectic: but seeks, in fact, to posit none-other-than Lucifer as its ideological underpinning. I would not argue that this-is-such were it not for the overwhelmingly collectivist ideology of our age, and it pains me - literally - to make such observations... Yet the rogue phenomenoligist simply must reference old Saint. Nick, objectively and more than-for-the-sake-of such pantheists as St. Augustine.
To divine the word of the Lord is such-that receiving Jesus is to be, in some sense, irrefutably unrestrained.
However, the restraints a man encompasses are, to a degree, his own objective selfhood-unto-the-world. Which is to say - He who shall remain unnamed until the second coming. He who remains unnamed continues today as yesterday and, yea - tomorrow.
Both yesterday and tomorrow - and today.
But my sense of impunity is only entailed by my wordliness.
The only way-in-which one can understand selfhood-as-such is in the light of that which-is-becoming-to-be in the ultimate worldhood of being-unto-death. Being-unto-death as-such. To walk in the park is to take part in said state of worldliness-of-the-world, and - yea, the worldhood-of-the-world.
And to what does such an exception deserve refuge?
The solution is in the problem...
The true-as-such cannot consist of simply an ire of irrefutability.
It must, as-such, be in a worldhood-of-being.
DDU - 2013
Brendan O'Connell
To divine the word of the Lord is such-that receiving Jesus is to be, in some sense, irrefutably unrestrained.
However, the restraints a man encompasses are, to a degree, his own objective selfhood-unto-the-world. Which is to say - He who shall remain unnamed until the second coming. He who remains unnamed continues today as yesterday and, yea - tomorrow.
Both yesterday and tomorrow - and today.
But my sense of impunity is only entailed by my wordliness.
The only way-in-which one can understand selfhood-as-such is in the light of that which-is-becoming-to-be in the ultimate worldhood of being-unto-death. Being-unto-death as-such. To walk in the park is to take part in said state of worldliness-of-the-world, and - yea, the worldhood-of-the-world.
And to what does such an exception deserve refuge?
The solution is in the problem...
The true-as-such cannot consist of simply an ire of irrefutability.
It must, as-such, be in a worldhood-of-being.
DDU - 2013
Brendan O'Connell
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
The Sacrifice of Service: Noble Being-Unto-Death
The sign of any truly great man is that of an indication of devoted service to his fellow. How, and to what extent, do we serve that which means the most? A man will be judged according to the existent sentiments of care and concern he bestows upon individuals without regard to his own good fortune. By that measure, the only correct action in life is that which looks without seeing advantage. That which sins without robbing.
And to that ire our lives should be found to be wholly unfullfilled.
The only form of worship in todays age is idolatry. I cannot, truly, face the consequences of such a truth. Most serve only to increase their own value. Most lack in service for precisely the same reason. Logic has no bearing on the way in which one makes existent the inclinations of ones sinfull value. If it did, we would all surely live as heroes here; and in heaven.
The sad fact is that we are going down - worldwide.
Our service towards self-rather-than-christ has ruined the foundations upon which civilizations were created to be more than a some of their parts.
Much better to beleive and be redeemed than to not beleive in redemption whatsoever and take ultimate soulless solace in being-towards-death. For that is the price we pay for not truly devoting ourselves to the service of some such thing that we would find in the world to be, in some sense, greater than worldliness. That price; eternal damnation without refuge from suffering. Why?
Because all life moves towards death of necessity!
And why should one cling to the remnants of our honored tradition whilst taking part in malicious collectivistism - the anti-god?
Hell.
Because hell is our punishment; damnation our reward.
If our soul does not turn towards that which gives us absolute and objective forgiveness, then where should we turn; as a nation deeply in debt?
There is only one solution to our woes, ills, and malfeasances.
That solution is Christ.
I'd wager many of you reading this now have never really come to the realization that service of Christ is profoundly more prescient than service of our otherworldly brute desires. That our own sin and degredation is anything we want it to be; other than that which damns our selves and - yea, our nation in this year of our lord 2013.
IT takes little for a man to come to god.
All one must do is repent of their way. One must admit that one has committed a primordial sin against god... in ones heart of hearts.
One must be magnanimously aquiescent towards the objective truth. Not the truth of the intellectual realm, but of the truth of the worldhood-of-the-world.
Tame the beast of idolatry. Take back your autonomy. Banish collectivist ideology from your soul.
These are the only words of advice of any accord in a world gone bad and rapidly getting worse by virtue of the sin of pride. Of a nation of sin. Of a nation unwilling to give to itself that which it most deserves. What does our nation deserve? What is most readily available; Complete allegience to Christ! Yea - Complete service to individualism by virtue of the Lord of Hosts!
Yet, we will not. Our hand draws still when it comes to helping a fellow for the sake-of-that which shall remain unnamed until the second coming. How?
I tell you through the devices of collectivist ideology and idolatry.
To commit to the personhood of world-as-self is, in fact, the very groundwork of service. Know thyself?
You can see that sign of hypocricy in our own heated dialectic in Washington D.C.
You can see our wicked imagination not in works of art but in works of conformity as that which one, ultimately, worships. The collective tendency towards domination is but the mere personal passive pathology of our times. We cannot undo the rash of debt - the plague of national incompetance - unless we repent, all of us, of our sins. We must repent until we gain favor with he who shall remain unnamed until the second coming. That is the meaning of service. Repentance.
Domestice Democracy United
Disclaimer: The above is rendered in indeterminacy. Regard as vulgar or obscene before breaking any sweat over the inanities of a hopeless leper. Were it not for Buckley Jr. - I would not be in the position to bequeath gods truth as I have. Were it not for the shackles of collectivism, I would endeavor to live such truth fully and to an adequate degree. Yet I am dead. There is nothing.
And to that ire our lives should be found to be wholly unfullfilled.
The only form of worship in todays age is idolatry. I cannot, truly, face the consequences of such a truth. Most serve only to increase their own value. Most lack in service for precisely the same reason. Logic has no bearing on the way in which one makes existent the inclinations of ones sinfull value. If it did, we would all surely live as heroes here; and in heaven.
The sad fact is that we are going down - worldwide.
Our service towards self-rather-than-christ has ruined the foundations upon which civilizations were created to be more than a some of their parts.
Much better to beleive and be redeemed than to not beleive in redemption whatsoever and take ultimate soulless solace in being-towards-death. For that is the price we pay for not truly devoting ourselves to the service of some such thing that we would find in the world to be, in some sense, greater than worldliness. That price; eternal damnation without refuge from suffering. Why?
Because all life moves towards death of necessity!
And why should one cling to the remnants of our honored tradition whilst taking part in malicious collectivistism - the anti-god?
Hell.
Because hell is our punishment; damnation our reward.
If our soul does not turn towards that which gives us absolute and objective forgiveness, then where should we turn; as a nation deeply in debt?
There is only one solution to our woes, ills, and malfeasances.
That solution is Christ.
I'd wager many of you reading this now have never really come to the realization that service of Christ is profoundly more prescient than service of our otherworldly brute desires. That our own sin and degredation is anything we want it to be; other than that which damns our selves and - yea, our nation in this year of our lord 2013.
IT takes little for a man to come to god.
All one must do is repent of their way. One must admit that one has committed a primordial sin against god... in ones heart of hearts.
One must be magnanimously aquiescent towards the objective truth. Not the truth of the intellectual realm, but of the truth of the worldhood-of-the-world.
Tame the beast of idolatry. Take back your autonomy. Banish collectivist ideology from your soul.
These are the only words of advice of any accord in a world gone bad and rapidly getting worse by virtue of the sin of pride. Of a nation of sin. Of a nation unwilling to give to itself that which it most deserves. What does our nation deserve? What is most readily available; Complete allegience to Christ! Yea - Complete service to individualism by virtue of the Lord of Hosts!
Yet, we will not. Our hand draws still when it comes to helping a fellow for the sake-of-that which shall remain unnamed until the second coming. How?
I tell you through the devices of collectivist ideology and idolatry.
To commit to the personhood of world-as-self is, in fact, the very groundwork of service. Know thyself?
You can see that sign of hypocricy in our own heated dialectic in Washington D.C.
You can see our wicked imagination not in works of art but in works of conformity as that which one, ultimately, worships. The collective tendency towards domination is but the mere personal passive pathology of our times. We cannot undo the rash of debt - the plague of national incompetance - unless we repent, all of us, of our sins. We must repent until we gain favor with he who shall remain unnamed until the second coming. That is the meaning of service. Repentance.
Domestice Democracy United
Disclaimer: The above is rendered in indeterminacy. Regard as vulgar or obscene before breaking any sweat over the inanities of a hopeless leper. Were it not for Buckley Jr. - I would not be in the position to bequeath gods truth as I have. Were it not for the shackles of collectivism, I would endeavor to live such truth fully and to an adequate degree. Yet I am dead. There is nothing.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Politalk's 2012 Summation
On the cusp of 2012's end, I should like to make a brief series of comments on various issues that came to the forefront during this year of our Lord.
1) Mayan Madness
Perhaps it remains a spectacle of an overly paranoid counter culture, but many in the US had been hearing whispers of an apparent 'end of the world' to take place at the end of the Mayan calender. Needless to say, I type these words very much alive and well with no end of all things having taken place.
In fact, the degree to which this very strange conspiracy theory was taken seriously is truly alarming to all those who value the sanctity of society. From the passing laugh about the end of the world being nigh to the LSD infused wild eyed paranoid schizophrenic ranting about some Mayan prophecy - the 'End of the World' thing took hold in 2012 in a way not seen since Christians began spouting off about similar things some years ago. I can only hope that those who took this whole business seriously can laugh amiably as their apocalypse degenerates into laughable Y2K joke territory. Good riddance to squandered fear.
2) POTUS Election 2012
The election, which contrary to those who feel Politalk has been ignoring politics was covered extensively by myself and R.T., was monumentous to a fair degree. I think one talking head was irritatingly correct when they mentioned that Republicans were "shellshocked" by the outcome.
One thing that deserves mention is that though the election resulted as such due to manifold factors one little secret the D.E.M. doesn't want you to know which may have turned the tides in favor of the Regime is thus; The democract establishment machine pooled money collected from taxpayers via Organized Labor and put it to use "getting out the vote". Billions of dollars were facilitated for use in anything from robo-calls in swing states to literally bussing dispassionate democrat voters into to early voting stations. All of this was orchestrated by none other than Domestic Democracy United's mortal enemy - Labor Unions.
It ain't cheating, but it certainly reeks of "Chicago-Style" politics.
No surprise there...
3) Mass Shootings
I'll only discuss this breifly as I'm certain this is still a sore spot for many in our nation.
However, there are now basically three solutions to the problem presented by the rash of mass shootings that have occurred this year that have been advanced:
a. Increased Security (i.e. more guns)
b. Weapons Bans
c. New legislation prohibiting those with mental illness from procuring guns
Increased security is the most republican proposal of all of them. The NRA recently advanced a 'hard' version of this by advising that we have armed gaurds in all schools. A bit much, however not entirely a terrible idea without merit.
A weapons ban is the most mainline solution, which most likely will be unsuccessful either in passing through congress or, potentially, preventing the crime itself. However, again, not without serious basis and warrant.
What seems to be emerging as a new alternative is preventing those with mental illness from owning guns through some type of nuanced legislation. This is, without a doubt, the way forward to solving this problem - and I hope this is advanced next year seriously.
It is not, again, an idea without good reason behind it... though the pragmatic realities of prohibiting every person diagnosed with, say, depression from owning a gun presents some very serious problematics - not to mention the whole problem of increasing mental healthcare and the more serious issues involved in such proposals.
Well - that's all.
Stick with politalk in 2013. More to come, more to say, thanks for reading!
Brendan O'Connell
Domestic Democracy United
1) Mayan Madness
Perhaps it remains a spectacle of an overly paranoid counter culture, but many in the US had been hearing whispers of an apparent 'end of the world' to take place at the end of the Mayan calender. Needless to say, I type these words very much alive and well with no end of all things having taken place.
In fact, the degree to which this very strange conspiracy theory was taken seriously is truly alarming to all those who value the sanctity of society. From the passing laugh about the end of the world being nigh to the LSD infused wild eyed paranoid schizophrenic ranting about some Mayan prophecy - the 'End of the World' thing took hold in 2012 in a way not seen since Christians began spouting off about similar things some years ago. I can only hope that those who took this whole business seriously can laugh amiably as their apocalypse degenerates into laughable Y2K joke territory. Good riddance to squandered fear.
2) POTUS Election 2012
The election, which contrary to those who feel Politalk has been ignoring politics was covered extensively by myself and R.T., was monumentous to a fair degree. I think one talking head was irritatingly correct when they mentioned that Republicans were "shellshocked" by the outcome.
One thing that deserves mention is that though the election resulted as such due to manifold factors one little secret the D.E.M. doesn't want you to know which may have turned the tides in favor of the Regime is thus; The democract establishment machine pooled money collected from taxpayers via Organized Labor and put it to use "getting out the vote". Billions of dollars were facilitated for use in anything from robo-calls in swing states to literally bussing dispassionate democrat voters into to early voting stations. All of this was orchestrated by none other than Domestic Democracy United's mortal enemy - Labor Unions.
It ain't cheating, but it certainly reeks of "Chicago-Style" politics.
No surprise there...
3) Mass Shootings
I'll only discuss this breifly as I'm certain this is still a sore spot for many in our nation.
However, there are now basically three solutions to the problem presented by the rash of mass shootings that have occurred this year that have been advanced:
a. Increased Security (i.e. more guns)
b. Weapons Bans
c. New legislation prohibiting those with mental illness from procuring guns
Increased security is the most republican proposal of all of them. The NRA recently advanced a 'hard' version of this by advising that we have armed gaurds in all schools. A bit much, however not entirely a terrible idea without merit.
A weapons ban is the most mainline solution, which most likely will be unsuccessful either in passing through congress or, potentially, preventing the crime itself. However, again, not without serious basis and warrant.
What seems to be emerging as a new alternative is preventing those with mental illness from owning guns through some type of nuanced legislation. This is, without a doubt, the way forward to solving this problem - and I hope this is advanced next year seriously.
It is not, again, an idea without good reason behind it... though the pragmatic realities of prohibiting every person diagnosed with, say, depression from owning a gun presents some very serious problematics - not to mention the whole problem of increasing mental healthcare and the more serious issues involved in such proposals.
Well - that's all.
Stick with politalk in 2013. More to come, more to say, thanks for reading!
Brendan O'Connell
Domestic Democracy United
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Service Ethics: Why Serve?
In an era where most people instinctively serve themselves first, we should inquire to ourselves in the spirit of charity what purpose service has in our society and the role of putting others first plays in civilization more generally. Why serve?
The question remains an important one for the developement of an ethics in a peoples.
Is it because by serving others - by "giving" ourselves to the service of individuals rather than ourselves - we make flesh that important sentiment the founders conceived of over 400 years ago? That sentiment known as "compassion"?
Certainly.
What about the sense in which one often puts oneself at a disadvantage when putting others before oneself?
Well, I'd wager, that's entirely the rub of service ethics. Capitalism thrives not, as popularly misconceived, on selfishness and the virtue of greed. Capitalism and Democracy rather function on putting others before oneself, even if to the misfortune of oneself.
Capitalism repays self-effacement - if at very least on ones deathbed.
But what about those scrooges who will proffer that to truly serve others or humankind as an absraction is simply the result of an idealistic morality which gives ample quiet rest to an exceptionally degenerate corporatist hegemony in need of tranquilization?
I'd counter that not only is the Hobbesian "nasty, brutish and short" analysis of human life itself a, to put it mildly, nihilistic worldview - but further, human kind has historically subsisted off of relationships characteristically and intrinsically defined by their co-operative nature.
Technology, music, entire kingdoms would have been incapable of suceeding and hence providing us with an ample stage upon which to live our own lives were it not for the pervasive prescence of such universal human sentiments as kindness, empathy, sympathy, selflessness, and yea- service.
Even an act of war is service.
And as troops come home from deployment and celebrate the holidays - I'd proffer in counterpoint to the stodgey anti-american scrooges - we should all look into our heart of hearts and find the best way to serve Christ by serving others.
R.T. Stillwell
Domestic Democracy United
The question remains an important one for the developement of an ethics in a peoples.
Is it because by serving others - by "giving" ourselves to the service of individuals rather than ourselves - we make flesh that important sentiment the founders conceived of over 400 years ago? That sentiment known as "compassion"?
Certainly.
What about the sense in which one often puts oneself at a disadvantage when putting others before oneself?
Well, I'd wager, that's entirely the rub of service ethics. Capitalism thrives not, as popularly misconceived, on selfishness and the virtue of greed. Capitalism and Democracy rather function on putting others before oneself, even if to the misfortune of oneself.
Capitalism repays self-effacement - if at very least on ones deathbed.
But what about those scrooges who will proffer that to truly serve others or humankind as an absraction is simply the result of an idealistic morality which gives ample quiet rest to an exceptionally degenerate corporatist hegemony in need of tranquilization?
I'd counter that not only is the Hobbesian "nasty, brutish and short" analysis of human life itself a, to put it mildly, nihilistic worldview - but further, human kind has historically subsisted off of relationships characteristically and intrinsically defined by their co-operative nature.
Technology, music, entire kingdoms would have been incapable of suceeding and hence providing us with an ample stage upon which to live our own lives were it not for the pervasive prescence of such universal human sentiments as kindness, empathy, sympathy, selflessness, and yea- service.
Even an act of war is service.
And as troops come home from deployment and celebrate the holidays - I'd proffer in counterpoint to the stodgey anti-american scrooges - we should all look into our heart of hearts and find the best way to serve Christ by serving others.
R.T. Stillwell
Domestic Democracy United
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Taking Risks in Increasingly Regulated Publik Worldhood
What is worldhood? What does it mean to be 'in-the-world'? What, yea- is the 'worldhood-of-the-world'? Well, I pose this question in the context of the terminology of Martin Heidegger, but not to make exacting philosophical remarks but to lay the horizon upon which one can discuss the meaning of the potential Obamatax increase in the oft obliquely understood taxation of U.S. citizens. I will make a short case for the idea that the incoming increase in taxation is more than simply an increase on out of pocket expenses paid to the gov'ment. Further, it is more than simply an expanse of federal/state power and prevalence. What next years taxation deal really means is - to a fine point - more governmental control and dominance over, of necessity, sovereign citizens (i.e. all legal U.S. citizens). Civilians on the street, come next year, will find themselves in an even more 'progressive' world. This would be meaningless if it were not for the ontology of being-in-the-world.
Taxing the rich is, to some, a clear form of social justice-style class warfare. Perhaps you've encountered this argument before. Why this has meaning beyond the apparent is that when one, say - as a president - decides to make anti-wealth rhetoric a keystone of their pitch to increase taxation on all citizens, one is engaging in a form of downwardly-mobile governmental collectivism. The effects of such policy decisions - not to mention the existent value system which is part and parcel with the neo-progressive 'cause' - can only truly be understood in terms of Freedom in light of certain phenomenological underpinnings regarding what Martin Heidegger, disciple of Holderlin, Kierkegaard and Czech Jew Husserl who spawned the methodological level upon which Heidegger posited an horizon of understanding, termed the "Worldhood-of-the-World".
It's a basic "what do these formalizations in D.C. really mean for us - pragmatically?"
I'm far from a scholar - but let's look at the facts...
We are, unequivocally, 'in' a world. That is, we are 'beings' (i.e. entities) that are constantly 'being' (i.e. existing) in the 'world' or a 'world'. Being as such, we have what is known as 'worldhood'. We have a manner of being that is consistent with and partially constitutive of what we understand as the world. This is, proximally and for the most part, an everyday understanding. It is, as Hegel noted, a world of, again - proximally and for the most part - merely apparent phenomenological apprehension... Which is to say, you can't, say... see an atom, or accurately predict weather from your seat in your car as you drive to an engagement such as work.
So what is our 'apparent' worldhood? What is constitutive of it?
My answer is, it is not apparent. This isn't to imply some sort of grand mystery - but simply to note that Obama has an impact on our worldhood. He, and his regime, actively distort, engineer/impact, or make existent objects of consciousness that constitute our world. If they didn't, and I understand this is a fairly conspiratorial thesis, they wouldn't have power...
So, you enjoy your objects of consciousness, correct?
What are objects of consciousness?
Well, whatever apparent verstehen one could conjur - you don't need a dictionary.
My thesis is thus - The increase in taxes post-2012 will directly parallel an increase in how manufactured our objects of consciousness are in their factical existance as part of our 'totality-of-tools' as americans.
Much of this is painfully pragmatic - an increase in federal regulation doesn't merely stifle business... it, in fact, has a relationship of esoteric interdependence.
My final point goes as such:
There is no such thing as 'interdependence'. 'Interdependence' is just a synonym for..........(scroll down)
.....for 'dependence'.
"Live for independence from downwardly directed intellectual malarky! Read Heidegger's 'Being and Time' (Zein und Zeit) in it's entirety! It comes more than highly recommended! Thanks and Seasons Greetings from Domestic Democracy United. Christ shall be in his kingly character in this- the year of our lord, 2012!"
Brendan O'Connell
Written while listening to Rush~
Disclaimer : Heidegger was a classico-socialist in germany during world war 2, and I hate to make apologetic - but sorry for referencing a Nazi during the holiday season... it's simply that Heidegger's Ontology IS the reigning formulation of 20th century philosophy, so to speak of ontology generally one MUST reference Heidegger extensively (this is understood in intellectual circles in the Continent). I am not nor have ever been a socialist - and am aware of the anti-socialism slant of my blog being somewhat in contradiction to my use of Heidegger in Politalk. It's simply, as someone who takes the intellectual realm seriously, that there is no way around Heidegger within contemporary Philosophy... and I truly feel sorry for the Neo-Utilitarians who fail to recognize the gravity of his Deconstruktion. "Basic Writings" is a shorter alternative to grappling with "Being...", though I must comment that his later writings, much as with Hegel and his "Phenomenology...", such as "Basic Writings" are far more politically Socialist than his 'non-ethics' in "Zein und Zeit".... So you know - pick up Basic Writings for the philosopher on yr X-Mas ;list... Available at most bookstore's philosophy section. Most copy's are brilliant red with large black font on the cover. But don't expect to understand H. without, at some point in your life, coming face to face with "Being...". In my defense, "Being..." was written far before the Nazi party became in vogue, not to mention dedicated to Husserl, the Czech Jew I mentioned previous. Again, in my defense, I read Basic Writings and literally threw it in the garbage can at a certain point where I realized that his later works are a bit more National Socialist than his early phenomenological work - "Being and Time".
Second Disclaimer : Please forgive 30 to 40 percent of comments I've made that appear overly hostile. If Gangnam Style-star Psy can get away with saying "kill the f_ing yankees" and then play live at the whitehouse surely a starve-crazed southern gent as myself can be forgiven of wandering into ideological terrain which should, in all likelyhood, remain redacted.
Taxing the rich is, to some, a clear form of social justice-style class warfare. Perhaps you've encountered this argument before. Why this has meaning beyond the apparent is that when one, say - as a president - decides to make anti-wealth rhetoric a keystone of their pitch to increase taxation on all citizens, one is engaging in a form of downwardly-mobile governmental collectivism. The effects of such policy decisions - not to mention the existent value system which is part and parcel with the neo-progressive 'cause' - can only truly be understood in terms of Freedom in light of certain phenomenological underpinnings regarding what Martin Heidegger, disciple of Holderlin, Kierkegaard and Czech Jew Husserl who spawned the methodological level upon which Heidegger posited an horizon of understanding, termed the "Worldhood-of-the-World".
It's a basic "what do these formalizations in D.C. really mean for us - pragmatically?"
I'm far from a scholar - but let's look at the facts...
We are, unequivocally, 'in' a world. That is, we are 'beings' (i.e. entities) that are constantly 'being' (i.e. existing) in the 'world' or a 'world'. Being as such, we have what is known as 'worldhood'. We have a manner of being that is consistent with and partially constitutive of what we understand as the world. This is, proximally and for the most part, an everyday understanding. It is, as Hegel noted, a world of, again - proximally and for the most part - merely apparent phenomenological apprehension... Which is to say, you can't, say... see an atom, or accurately predict weather from your seat in your car as you drive to an engagement such as work.
So what is our 'apparent' worldhood? What is constitutive of it?
My answer is, it is not apparent. This isn't to imply some sort of grand mystery - but simply to note that Obama has an impact on our worldhood. He, and his regime, actively distort, engineer/impact, or make existent objects of consciousness that constitute our world. If they didn't, and I understand this is a fairly conspiratorial thesis, they wouldn't have power...
So, you enjoy your objects of consciousness, correct?
What are objects of consciousness?
Well, whatever apparent verstehen one could conjur - you don't need a dictionary.
My thesis is thus - The increase in taxes post-2012 will directly parallel an increase in how manufactured our objects of consciousness are in their factical existance as part of our 'totality-of-tools' as americans.
Much of this is painfully pragmatic - an increase in federal regulation doesn't merely stifle business... it, in fact, has a relationship of esoteric interdependence.
My final point goes as such:
There is no such thing as 'interdependence'. 'Interdependence' is just a synonym for..........(scroll down)
.....for 'dependence'.
"Live for independence from downwardly directed intellectual malarky! Read Heidegger's 'Being and Time' (Zein und Zeit) in it's entirety! It comes more than highly recommended! Thanks and Seasons Greetings from Domestic Democracy United. Christ shall be in his kingly character in this- the year of our lord, 2012!"
Brendan O'Connell
Written while listening to Rush~
Disclaimer : Heidegger was a classico-socialist in germany during world war 2, and I hate to make apologetic - but sorry for referencing a Nazi during the holiday season... it's simply that Heidegger's Ontology IS the reigning formulation of 20th century philosophy, so to speak of ontology generally one MUST reference Heidegger extensively (this is understood in intellectual circles in the Continent). I am not nor have ever been a socialist - and am aware of the anti-socialism slant of my blog being somewhat in contradiction to my use of Heidegger in Politalk. It's simply, as someone who takes the intellectual realm seriously, that there is no way around Heidegger within contemporary Philosophy... and I truly feel sorry for the Neo-Utilitarians who fail to recognize the gravity of his Deconstruktion. "Basic Writings" is a shorter alternative to grappling with "Being...", though I must comment that his later writings, much as with Hegel and his "Phenomenology...", such as "Basic Writings" are far more politically Socialist than his 'non-ethics' in "Zein und Zeit".... So you know - pick up Basic Writings for the philosopher on yr X-Mas ;list... Available at most bookstore's philosophy section. Most copy's are brilliant red with large black font on the cover. But don't expect to understand H. without, at some point in your life, coming face to face with "Being...". In my defense, "Being..." was written far before the Nazi party became in vogue, not to mention dedicated to Husserl, the Czech Jew I mentioned previous. Again, in my defense, I read Basic Writings and literally threw it in the garbage can at a certain point where I realized that his later works are a bit more National Socialist than his early phenomenological work - "Being and Time".
Second Disclaimer : Please forgive 30 to 40 percent of comments I've made that appear overly hostile. If Gangnam Style-star Psy can get away with saying "kill the f_ing yankees" and then play live at the whitehouse surely a starve-crazed southern gent as myself can be forgiven of wandering into ideological terrain which should, in all likelyhood, remain redacted.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
A Lunch Consisting of Something that taste's of sh*t - Why We Loathe Collectivism
In the hopes of not appearing too paranoid as to the real world impact of the ideology of collectivism, I'll limit myself - due to the recent victory by the Regime - to merely 'pragmatic' manifestations intrinsic in the operation of collectivism in the real world.
1) Three is company
Three is company, it is said. I'd suppose this points to an altogether central component of why we dislike collectivism - that is, of course, the thought of more than two people sort of, really being authentic towards each other in terms of passion is - as a generality - a whim not a fact. We naturally have a pure distaste for more than our lonesome and a lover, as an archetype of differance.
You can't argue with someone talking too much when there are more than two people of company for an occasion. There are certain restrictions one must abide by when in 'public', the public-of-the-world as purely more than a deuce.
2) Mandatory Acceptance of Certain Vulgar Tenets
If one were truly unrestrained in the world, there must be none other than oneself as such in-and-of-itself.
3) Sports for Geeks, Video Games for Jocks
Collectivism inheres unto the world, by whatever application, homogeneity. This can be irritating to many who value their own sense of 'working-towards-which' and 'self-reciprocation'.
By stamping each one of us with a static macrologically oriented 'self-as-category' brand of collectivism, we see - to an alarming degree - the homogenization of our culture. The left openly admits to viewing this change of tradition favorably; however, should a gentleman wish to remain in his own skin in our age he would be wise to take solace under a rock in a deep ravine, lest he be consumed alive by the fire of Media.
4) Average Wins
In a collectivist society such as ours, the average of all parts equals the kool-aid drinking socialist ubermenschen. The familiar adage runs thus; If you're, say, in a classroom and the teacher averages all of the students grades together so that all might have an 'equal' grade when it's said and finished, you really - what you have is exactly what socialism and progressive liberalism are showing in their hand when they talk of the redistribution of wealth as a virtuous form of 'social justice'.
5) The Hoarde
There is no doubt that the most apparent form of collectivism in the real world is large crowds...
Now I don't know how you, dear reader, feel of being in crowds - but I'd wager any honest man would have to admit to being in same basic sense primordially afraid of appearing in the public square in extremely hoarde-like circumstances. It's not fun... to get trampled, the be pickpocketed on a busy street, to be - say - run over by a car on a busy intersection. Every one of these admittedly dire circumstances in, in a sense of valence, negative.
No need to mention the archetype of religious people enveloping pagans and burning them or some such thing. Trite. Old hat.
The new 'pip-pip' is in the rub of when, as so often happens today, Christians are derided or silenced or scoffed at or viewed as not 'with-it' for openly speaking of Christian topic.
The old, 'what is cool?' question shouldn't bother one seeking to understand collectivism...
The real question remains, "why isn't philosophy studied more extensively more passionately?"
6) Diluted Dreams
When one lives in-the-world with other daseins, one has been said to 'embody' the characteristics of those in close proximity. We become each other, in certain extreme circumstances. We take on each other's inflections, values, and tastes - to a degree which is generally not recognized in the working mind of modern Spirit. It is surely more than a mere annoyance to find oneself being akin to those around one - but indignantly so when one considers the pleathora of modes in which this takes place within a sub-culture, often, that is altogether removed from the guiding principe of individual interpretation as empirical assurance of sanity and soundness. Collectivism simply affects our empirical integrity, in almost all instances.
7) Life Defined by Times
It could be noted that there is no real 'generation' as such. There are, quite melancholic no doubt, simply numbers and numbers upon numbers of individual people. A generation and how it accomplishes valuation within-the-world can oft be entirely separate from an absolute self. Say you lived in the 60's... Your generation is viewed, if not shaped, as a total component archetype. I'll certainly be more than a trifle tissy when, as Marshall McLuhan described, my generational archetype degenerated into pure 'cliche'. Think of how it must feel to be in the greatest generation and how their times and values are distorted within-the-world, the differance of Being-Unto-Death.
8) Little If No Autonomy
When collectivism and it's insinuation into our lives, erm - is not... how do I put this; properly combated (i.e. Fought Tooth and Nail like the founders did), we as people can and do often live a life almost completely devoid of autonomy. Think of the humble North Korean. It would be a stretch to convince me that what he experiences in his emotional and cultural life has any resemblance to what is known in the west as 'autonomy'. If he did, it would probably parallel the apparent lack of autonomy many in the west themselves feel. Think of the sex slave. They, in a culture that perspire's sex and domination to the degree that it does, find themselves - underage often - completely at the mercy of vicious foreign cartels etc. with no, in a literal sense, autonomy. Autonomy, being - to me - the ability to make free choices.
9) That Feeling of Having Done Something Before
Deja-vu is, in virtue of it's rigged illusion, the first phenomenological indication of massive overwhelming torrents of collectivism flooding the barriers of humanity's recompense. The sensation of having done something or been somewhere before is, according to recent neurosurgery discoveries, linked to the sense of self-hood in being-towards-death as it's own utmost possibility for being. The Chinese and Taoists say that to feel insignificant is a virtue - most likely this feeling is a subtle underpinning of most experiences of deja-v u.
DDU
Domestic Democracy United
*youtube search 'individualism vs. collectivism' for more!
Founder and Member, Brendan O'Connall -
"To Stand Athwart History shouting 'blech'"
- Wed, Nov. 28th 2012 Raleigh NC
1) Three is company
Three is company, it is said. I'd suppose this points to an altogether central component of why we dislike collectivism - that is, of course, the thought of more than two people sort of, really being authentic towards each other in terms of passion is - as a generality - a whim not a fact. We naturally have a pure distaste for more than our lonesome and a lover, as an archetype of differance.
You can't argue with someone talking too much when there are more than two people of company for an occasion. There are certain restrictions one must abide by when in 'public', the public-of-the-world as purely more than a deuce.
2) Mandatory Acceptance of Certain Vulgar Tenets
If one were truly unrestrained in the world, there must be none other than oneself as such in-and-of-itself.
3) Sports for Geeks, Video Games for Jocks
Collectivism inheres unto the world, by whatever application, homogeneity. This can be irritating to many who value their own sense of 'working-towards-which' and 'self-reciprocation'.
By stamping each one of us with a static macrologically oriented 'self-as-category' brand of collectivism, we see - to an alarming degree - the homogenization of our culture. The left openly admits to viewing this change of tradition favorably; however, should a gentleman wish to remain in his own skin in our age he would be wise to take solace under a rock in a deep ravine, lest he be consumed alive by the fire of Media.
4) Average Wins
In a collectivist society such as ours, the average of all parts equals the kool-aid drinking socialist ubermenschen. The familiar adage runs thus; If you're, say, in a classroom and the teacher averages all of the students grades together so that all might have an 'equal' grade when it's said and finished, you really - what you have is exactly what socialism and progressive liberalism are showing in their hand when they talk of the redistribution of wealth as a virtuous form of 'social justice'.
5) The Hoarde
There is no doubt that the most apparent form of collectivism in the real world is large crowds...
Now I don't know how you, dear reader, feel of being in crowds - but I'd wager any honest man would have to admit to being in same basic sense primordially afraid of appearing in the public square in extremely hoarde-like circumstances. It's not fun... to get trampled, the be pickpocketed on a busy street, to be - say - run over by a car on a busy intersection. Every one of these admittedly dire circumstances in, in a sense of valence, negative.
No need to mention the archetype of religious people enveloping pagans and burning them or some such thing. Trite. Old hat.
The new 'pip-pip' is in the rub of when, as so often happens today, Christians are derided or silenced or scoffed at or viewed as not 'with-it' for openly speaking of Christian topic.
The old, 'what is cool?' question shouldn't bother one seeking to understand collectivism...
The real question remains, "why isn't philosophy studied more extensively more passionately?"
6) Diluted Dreams
When one lives in-the-world with other daseins, one has been said to 'embody' the characteristics of those in close proximity. We become each other, in certain extreme circumstances. We take on each other's inflections, values, and tastes - to a degree which is generally not recognized in the working mind of modern Spirit. It is surely more than a mere annoyance to find oneself being akin to those around one - but indignantly so when one considers the pleathora of modes in which this takes place within a sub-culture, often, that is altogether removed from the guiding principe of individual interpretation as empirical assurance of sanity and soundness. Collectivism simply affects our empirical integrity, in almost all instances.
7) Life Defined by Times
It could be noted that there is no real 'generation' as such. There are, quite melancholic no doubt, simply numbers and numbers upon numbers of individual people. A generation and how it accomplishes valuation within-the-world can oft be entirely separate from an absolute self. Say you lived in the 60's... Your generation is viewed, if not shaped, as a total component archetype. I'll certainly be more than a trifle tissy when, as Marshall McLuhan described, my generational archetype degenerated into pure 'cliche'. Think of how it must feel to be in the greatest generation and how their times and values are distorted within-the-world, the differance of Being-Unto-Death.
8) Little If No Autonomy
When collectivism and it's insinuation into our lives, erm - is not... how do I put this; properly combated (i.e. Fought Tooth and Nail like the founders did), we as people can and do often live a life almost completely devoid of autonomy. Think of the humble North Korean. It would be a stretch to convince me that what he experiences in his emotional and cultural life has any resemblance to what is known in the west as 'autonomy'. If he did, it would probably parallel the apparent lack of autonomy many in the west themselves feel. Think of the sex slave. They, in a culture that perspire's sex and domination to the degree that it does, find themselves - underage often - completely at the mercy of vicious foreign cartels etc. with no, in a literal sense, autonomy. Autonomy, being - to me - the ability to make free choices.
9) That Feeling of Having Done Something Before
Deja-vu is, in virtue of it's rigged illusion, the first phenomenological indication of massive overwhelming torrents of collectivism flooding the barriers of humanity's recompense. The sensation of having done something or been somewhere before is, according to recent neurosurgery discoveries, linked to the sense of self-hood in being-towards-death as it's own utmost possibility for being. The Chinese and Taoists say that to feel insignificant is a virtue - most likely this feeling is a subtle underpinning of most experiences of deja-v u.
DDU
Domestic Democracy United
*youtube search 'individualism vs. collectivism' for more!
Founder and Member, Brendan O'Connall -
"To Stand Athwart History shouting 'blech'"
- Wed, Nov. 28th 2012 Raleigh NC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)