The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not from America

I said your post was MAGA-demented gibberish.

Can't be. I'm not pro-Trump. And other than the fact that America's fortunes have something to do with my own, I have no reason to participate in "Making America Great Again"...though it doesn't seem a bad thing to do, of course.

Having seen what the other side is up to, I'm anti-the-Democrats, who are warmongering grifters and pretend Socialists, and are seriously harming the larger world by their veniality. And that's the limit of my motives.

Marcuse said it
Nonsense! Marcuse famously said "The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment" .

Marcuse deliberately uses the expression "people" ambiguously. Like any propagandist, he wants the unwary public to think he's speaking to them about a familiar concept, one they already believe in, and then amphibolize it. He actually uses it two ways: 1. "the people" meaning everybody, and 2. "the people" meaning "only the people who count," (i.e. those who have been "humanized" by escaping the "alienation" of the consumerism you're referring to, and thus count toward establishing what is truly "the people's standpoint.")

If Marcuse were honest, he should at least have capitalized the second one to distinguish it from the first. But he didn't want to, it seems; what it seems he wanted is for people to mistake 2. for 1. So that in the name of ALL the people (1.), or "democracy" (1.), he could advance his "the People's standpoint" (2.), or "the only people who count as humanized" (2.) i.e. he could sell Socialism(2.) as the only true interest of "the people" (1.)

And you want a quotation? Read his "Repressive Tolerance," which is, in total, an argument for the rejection of equal rights for everybody and for "tolerating" the opposition, but instead, only for "tolerating" those who are "humanized." He amphibolizes the terms exactly as I have said, multiple times in that essay. For example:

"I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy."

Here we see Marcuse saying that one does not have to tolerate the views of the other side (i.e. of all humanity, in sense 1.), which are "inhumane," but only those of "humanity" (sense 2.) which are the Socialist goals. He does the same continually, throughout the whole essay. And he does the same with "tolerance" as well, which, as he explains, might appear to mean "tolerate everybody" (1.) but really entails only "tolerating" Socialism (2.) because everything else is "inhumane."

[mickthinks]

And you want a quotation? Read his "Repressive Tolerance,"

All that proves is that you don't understand what a quotation is.

Only, of course you do understand. This is what arguing in bad faith looks like.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And you want a quotation? Read his "Repressive Tolerance," which is, in total, an argument for the rejection of equal rights for everybody and for "tolerating" the opposition, but instead, only for "tolerating" those who are "humanized."

[mickthinks]

"I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy."

That at least is a quotation from Marcuse. But it doesn't contain the word "public". So it cannot begin to support your contention that Marcuse said that "the people" means "everybody who agrees with Socialism".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here we see Marcuse saying that one does not have to tolerate the views of the other side (i.e. of all humanity, in sense 1.), which are "inhumane," but only those of "humanity" (sense 2.) which are the Socialist goals. He does the same continually, throughout the whole essay. And he does the same with "tolerance" as well, which, as he explains, might appear to mean "tolerate everybody" (1.) but really entails only "tolerating" Socialism (2.) because everything else is "inhumane."

If you got through that mind-numbing essay I must commend you. I find his writing far too ambiguous to get a fully clear sense of what he means.

Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.

I could make sense of a few paragraphs however, like this one. He reveals here that “Gnostic” attitude Lindsay talks about.

Some part of Marcuse (and the Frankfurt School generally) makes an appeal to ‘common sense’ and the absurdity of tolerating what should not be tolerated (nuclear umbrellas of unreal life-ending destruction for one example).

To best understand where ‘they’ take the Marcusian intolerance, good examples are found in Sculptor and Flash who seem to embody it. It’s their “special knowledge” that gives them higher faculties of understanding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now that political opponents are jailed by the reigning political party in the United States, what will come next?

Was an answer to this poignant question provided? Did anyone address it?

Intolerable opinions must not be tolerated. And should you think and express such thoughts you must be called out, cancelled, jailed if need be.

What comes next is a solidification and intensification of the same. Until it happens that enough people succeed in opposing the régime carrying it out.

If need be, a further crisis may be created, that is if they can’t get their way through the means they have initiated.

This is far from over. It’s only just begun.

[Immanuel Can]

And you want a quotation? Read his "Repressive Tolerance,"

All that proves is that you don't understand what a quotation is.

I gave you a direct quotation from "Repressive Tolerance."

Are you able to read?

[Immanuel Can]

"I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy."

That at least is a quotation from Marcuse. But it doesn't contain the word "public". So it cannot begin to support your contention that Marcuse said that "the people" means "everybody who agrees with Socialism".

Ah, I see. You're going to argue that if I don't pick out the words "People means only Socialists," then I haven't proved the point. You're simply going to ignore all the rest of what I said. I see the strategy.

But I also see you skipped the Lindsay podcast segment I provided.

If you want to be less of the "useful idiot" type, you really should listen to it.

[Immanuel Can]

Here we see Marcuse saying that one does not have to tolerate the views of the other side (i.e. of all humanity, in sense 1.), which are "inhumane," but only those of "humanity" (sense 2.) which are the Socialist goals. He does the same continually, throughout the whole essay. And he does the same with "tolerance" as well, which, as he explains, might appear to mean "tolerate everybody" (1.) but really entails only "tolerating" Socialism (2.) because everything else is "inhumane."

If you got through that mind-numbing essay I must commend you. I find his writing far too ambiguous to get a fully clear sense of what he means.

It's deliberate. Communist propaganda, in particular, is almost invariably framed in obfuscating and equivocating terms, so as to hide what it is really saying from the public, and to render its ghastly propositions "wise sounding." This is why, you will find, they eschew plain speaking. If they said plainly what they mean, most people would be horrified. It would also, as you point out, deprive them of their prestige as the Illuminati of Socialist thought, because their ideas would seem ordinary and even silly, rather than "academic" and "high fallutin'" if they put them in plain language.

Unfortuntely for them, I can decode their babble. Unfortunately for McThinks and many others, they cannot, apparently.

[FlashDangerpants]

Now that political opponents are jailed by the reigning political party in the United States, what will come next?

If a former president can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed serious criminal offences, he should not be above the law should he? He gets his day in court and due process just like everybody else.

[Wizard22]

Was an answer to this poignant question provided? Did anyone address it?

Intolerable opinions must not be tolerated. And should you think and express such thoughts you must be called out, cancelled, jailed if need be.

What comes next is a solidification and intensification of the same. Until it happens that enough people succeed in opposing the régime carrying it out.

If need be, a further crisis may be created, that is if they can’t get their way through the means they have initiated.

This is far from over. It’s only just begun.

The thread has gone off-track quite a bit—partisan politicking tends to dwell on the present without considering the future. I agree, these are very dangerous precedents to set. Those with TDS seem unable to reasonable, rationally consider, how this will blowback against them in the near future, even if they were successful (which does not seem assured at the moment).

[Wizard22]

If a former president can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed serious criminal offences, he should not be above the law should he? He gets his day in court and due process just like everybody else.

Because it's corrupt beyond law to jail your political opponents? What is this, the Soviet Union? Do you know what "Banana Republic" means?

It's ridiculous to imply that Democrat politicians are somehow "law abiding"; it only adds to the incredulity of charging Conservative Americans/Republicans/Trump.

[Wizard22]

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism."

In that phrase, then never can mean "democratic," in the way you mean it -- namely, one person one vote, and you vote for whomever you wish. What they mean, when they use the word in conjunction with Socialism, is that Socialism is supposed to be in the interests of all "the people." But it does not mean they get to vote for whomever they want, and it especially means they don't get to vote not to participate in Socialism.

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." If you don't, you're a deplorable, an anti-revolutionary, a Nazi, a Right-Winger...and not a person, in any sense that counts politically. You have been (they say) "dehumanized," and "alienated from humanity," and are thus incapable of realizing what the "true interests of the people" are. You're "anti-democratic," they say, because you are against Socialism, which is the only possible option that can be "on the side of the people." (These things, by the way, are all their wording, not my own. You can find it in their own literature.)

They're not crazy. They're what Jordan Peterson called, "ideologically possessed." Socialism's ideology has them in its embrace as securely as if they were demon-possessed. They can't think outside of its paradigm anymore (what they call "the people's standpoint") and can't even see the other side as a reasonable or free people.

Socialism itself is a totalizing theory. That is, as they themselves can tell you, it is not expected to work at all until everybody, and they mean everybody within a system is under its control and obedient to it. Since that has never happened, they can insist, "Real Socialism has never been tried." What they mean is, "We've never gotten sufficient control of everybody to destroy every hint of opposition to Socialism." And that, too, is why Socialism must kill. It must eliminate opposition utterly, in order to realize its aspiration to control the total trajectory of history.

Most ordinary Socialists understand little of this. They actually don't read the difficult Socialist literature, far less Marx or Marcuse. So instead, they become what the Communists came to dub "useful idiots," who, in good-natured but misguided empathy, buy into the program without understanding the theory in any deep way. But "useful idiots" are also completely disposable, when they fail to embrace Socialisms unsavoury deeper theories; so they will have to become more and more cruel in its service, or become the objects of the Socialist ideologues' own cruelty to "reactionaries" and "betrayers of the revolution."

Silencing, abusing, economic exclusion, confiscation, incarceration, gulags, torture and murder: that is Socialism's descending order of hellish measures. Once somebody joins that team, they're on the slippery slope of these Socialist "correctives."

When Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi started repeating the mockingbird phrase "our democracy!" under Trump's presidency, they outed themselves, and I got clued into what they were referring to. They attempt to make themselves the political, cultural, social 'overclass'. The problem with their shameless political power grab, is that they don't know what this implies between conservatives and liberals across Western Civilization. If they think Conservatives are just going to allow the West to create a two class system, Over and Under, they are mistaken. Conservatives won't go down without a fight. And liberals want a fight. The goading is leading to it. The provocations can only go so far.

Trump, January 6th, the Antifa-BLM riots...these are all symptoms of what's coming, not what once was.

The Liberal-Left seem to now only govern with emotion, pathology, and have completely abandoned reason, rationality, to the Conservative-Right.

So be it.

(I agree with most of your response, by the way, Socialists are persistent in their ways, but predictable)

[Skepdick]

Because it's corrupt beyond law to jail your political opponents?

So political figures are above and beyond the law; and are exempt from legal accountability? That's a banana republic...

[FlashDangerpants]

If a former president can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed serious criminal offences, he should not be above the law should he? He gets his day in court and due process just like everybody else.

Because it's corrupt beyond law to jail your political opponents? What is this, the Soviet Union? Do you know what "Banana Republic" means?

It's ridiculous to imply that Democrat politicians are somehow "law abiding"; it only adds to the incredulity of charging Conservative Americans/Republicans/Trump.

So you want there to be permanent immunity from prosecution for all politicians? What about all the "lock her up" stuff for Hillary?

What if there turns out to be proof that Bill Clinton and Donal Trump both went to that Epstein sex island and banged underage prostitutes?