DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America

[Atla]

Maybe I should tell AJ that if there's a deep state, it's obviously not even "in" the US.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh? Please say more.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You certainly know piss all about me.

Except that you are getting pissy. Lighten up, Phyllo!

[phyllo]

You certainly know piss all about me.

Except that you are getting pissy. Lighten up, Phyllo!

All you know is what people write. You don't know their motivations.

Why do you insist on analyzing the people instead of their writings?

[Age]

The tingle I get, to repeat your phrase, is realizing the degree to which I exhibit what must be described as an Olympian superiority when the quality of my discourse is compared to yours. I don’t mean this in a haughty or arrogant manner.

Wow, look at you. When you got out of bed this morning you were only racially superior, but now you are positivley blooming with superiorities.

Single greatest philosopher of all time: Hedgehog, VA, Advocate, Age, Phil8659, royd.. reyd.. can't remember his name or anything else about him. (Did I leave out someone?)

We only need 2 more! Then we can finally host the 8 person single elimination tournament between them. I've been dreaming of that day for so long.

So the big question is, could AJ evolve into the single greatest philosopher? The way his psychosis seems to be progressing, maybe he could do it. Then we'd only need to find one more.

Wow look at this, "atla" has put me in its 'greatest philosopher of all time' list.

Which is quite surprising to me considering its previous view and BELIEF ABOUT me.

I wonder what would have made "atla" say this. Obviously there is absolutely NO one else, here, who would say and claim this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you insist on analyzing the people instead of their writings?

I think I’ve already explained my general position on this. I concretized my thinking after long, unproductive conversations with IC.

I believe we must analyze ourselves, and reveal ourselves, along with our ideas and perspectives. A self-directed “as hominem attack”.

People are holistic entities. You can’t separate “the man” from his ideas.

Fichte once said something to the effect that each individual, in accordance with who he is, professes a given philosophy.

I am uncertain what I have specifically said that irritated you. If you let me know I’ll try to clear it up.

Also, I think you owe it (to the generality) to speak about your motivations. It is more interesting when this is done.

[Age]

Why do you insist on analyzing the people instead of their writings?

This is pretty common by adults in general, and here in this forum, especially by those like "atla".

[accelafine]

I gave an example of why it wasn't new, so that's a fail right away.

Vance is one of the least charismatic Veeps ever, an ungainly couch molester whose own base doesn't trust him becasue he laughs at his own jokes when telepromted to. He would get massacred in an election by anybody who can just look more human than he can. His only two shots at becoming president are if Trump has been removed from office by use of the 25th, abdication or by death.

He'll probably be president for the Semiquincentennial, even if he has to push the old man down the stairs himself.

Why would politicians need to have 'charisma'? Is Hitler 'charismatic' enough for you? What do you think 'charisma' adds to the job description?

The ability to present a message and win votes. Stuff like that, commonly known as politics.

Just like Hitler. Got it

[phyllo]

Why do you insist on analyzing the people instead of their writings?

I think I’ve already explained my general position on this. I concretized my thinking after long, unproductive conversations with IC.

I believe we must analyze ourselves, and reveal ourselves, along with our ideas and perspectives. A self-directed “as hominem attack”.

People are holistic entities. You can’t separate “the man” from his ideas.

Fichte once said something to the effect that each individual, in accordance with who he is, professes a given philosophy.

I am uncertain what I have specifically said that irritated you. If you let me know I’ll try to clear it up.

Also, I think you owe it (to the generality) to speak about your motivations. It is more interesting when this is done.

That's why you never get anywhere.

1 - you and the other person have ideas that can be stated and examined

2 - you and the other person insert in motivations that don't exist because you don't know each other well enough

The result is that the discussion is part reality and part fantasy. But it ends up mostly fantasy as you talk about each other and totally lose the ideas.

If you discussed only the ideas, then you could reason to somewhere. There would be some points of agreement and some disagreement. Which would be progress and advancement founded on reality.

[Age]

Why do you insist on analyzing the people instead of their writings?

I think I’ve already explained my general position on this. I concretized my thinking after long, unproductive conversations with IC.

I believe we must analyze ourselves, and reveal ourselves, along with our ideas and perspectives. A self-directed “as hominem attack”.

People are holistic entities. You can’t separate “the man” from his ideas.

Fichte once said something to the effect that each individual, in accordance with who he is, professes a given philosophy.

I am uncertain what I have specifically said that irritated you. If you let me know I’ll try to clear it up.

Also, I think you owe it (to the generality) to speak about your motivations. It is more interesting when this is done.

That's why you never get anywhere.

1 - you and the other person have ideas that can be stated and examined

2 - you and the other person insert in motivations that don't exist because you don't know each other well enough

The result is that the discussion is part reality and part fantasy. But it ends up mostly fantasy as you talk about each other and totally lose the ideas.

If you discussed only the ideas, then you could reason to somewhere. There would be some points of agreement and some disagreement. Which would be progress and advancement founded on reality.

Great points. Now,

If ANY one would like to discuss, ONLY, any or all of the ideas:

1. There is one Mind, only.

2. The Universe is infinite and eternal, and as such did not begin and is not expanding.

3. How the Mind and the brain actually work.

4. Who and what,
a) a 'person' is.

b) 'I' am.

c) Human beings are.

Then just let me know and 'we' can start a new thread, or new threads.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you discussed only the ideas, then you could reason to somewhere. There would be some points of agreement and some disagreement. Which would be progress and advancement founded on reality.

You are a bit of an oddball, Phyllo! Most of what I do is broach ideas. And I have endless, amazing fun!

How about you?

My view is different: you (you plural, a generality) are/is what interests me. The man (as in ‘ad hominem’).

That's why you never get anywhere.

Where do you envision getting to?

because you don't know each other well enough

Reveal yourself!

[Atla]

Oh? Please say more.

If there's a deep state, it's probably seated somewhere in London, but almost certainly somewhere in Britain or France. The British PM is usually on the shortest leash, but the US was the main pawn for the last century. Controlled mainly through leaders of both of its parties, and through mass manipulation etc.

The deep state was never really "in" the US and Trumpism almost certainly isn't the result of some internal power-struggle within the deep state. Also, its power has been vaning in recent years due to large corporations and due to better transparency about international processes thanks to the internet etc. As for Trump, probably the only reason he's still alive is because he massively supports Israel (I don't know if he's aware of this).

I've been watching the world for 15 years wondering whether or not there's a deep state and the above picture always seems to be consistent with what is happening in the world.

The cause for Trumpism is 1. probably that the deep state overdid it, fucked up. Staged 9/11, started wars, forced too much immigration, PC, wokism and so on on the Western world. The parasite deep state made its host body too sick. And 2. that the Russian propaganda is exploiting this fuck up very well.

Since you're 10 levels above me, I'd like to hear why the above is wrong and Trumpism is the result of an internal struggle within the deep state? I'm open to a better conjecture. Thank you.

[phyllo]

You are a bit of an oddball, Phyllo! Most of what I do is broach ideas. And I have endless, amazing fun!

Yeah, it's true that you present some ideas.

But then, when it comes to the discussion, you psychoanalyze the posters, you lose interest or you repeat what you have already said.

I don't think I have seen you to move much beyond the starting idea. Which is a shame because some of your ideas are interesting.

My view is different: you (you plural, a generality) are/is what interests me. The man (as in ‘ad hominem’).

I'm interested in "the man" in a social setting, but not in a philosophy forum.

Where do you envision getting to?

Closer to the truth.

Reveal yourself!

I have done that (elsewhere) and I think it was always a mistake. So I'm not doing it again.

[accelafine]

I see that Tim Walz is celebrating the plummeting of Tesla stock and encouraging the targeting of Tesla car owners. Isn't Tesla an American car, the manufacture of which creates jobs for thousands of Americans? Don't millions of ordinary, non-rich people have shares in Tesla? I thought wokies had a monopoly on kindness-- at least they are always telling others to 'be kind'. I guess it doesn't apply to themselves.
Tesla is also the most eco-friendly mass produced car on the market. I thought Democrats claimed to care about the environment
Wow. The Democrat party really doesn't have a lot to redeem it these days does it? Gotta hand it to the wokies; they always behave in character i.e. as hypocritical wankers.
Meanwhile Elon Musk just brought back some stranded astronauts, welcomed by a pod of non-political dolphins.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But then, when it comes to the discussion, you psychoanalyze the posters, you lose interest or you repeat what you have already said.

I think I do a few things all at once.

What interests me as much, let’s say, as the ideas is in fact the psychological aspect to the immense divisions that are playing out today. We are not approaching a war, we are in a war. And in my view everyone responds as if in an existential crisis and a psychological pressure-cooker.

In some degree I will offer you an apology however. I have a series of strategies for dealing with the psychologically riled.

I want to share with you something else. It is “operative knowledge” (in my view of things) and I suspect you won’t know what to do with it. I notice in myself and in others a general decline that is more than merely intellectual or even spiritual. Notice that I do not exclude myself? The reason is because (I might say that) we are all on a similar sinking ship of self. If there is “philosophical work” that interests me it has to do with a self-recovery that goes far beyond a superficial philosophical orientation or intellectual stance.

And this is very certainly a psychological-spiritual malady.

So, since this is my focus it should not surprise you that my comments touch on this extensive and complex issue.

My thinking on this matter has been influenced by two essays by CG Jung: Wotan and After The Catastrophe.

The first pre-WWII and the second post-WWII.

There is so much relevant material to reveal and discuss about ourselves in this present.