WOKISM AND MARXIST ANARCHISM BORN OF THE SUBJECTIVIST MISNOMER, THE COLLAPSE OF THE WESTERN IDEAL….
Departure from Sartre: concerning “anarchistic. Socialism” antifa and BLM movements ... there seem from every great seer “faults” and greater misconceptions stem from these faults, to be exploited, by the leaders misleading the sheep,, Christ, Christianity... nietzsche, nazism , and Sartre, social nihilism ... each of these emergent schools or hairesis originated from the pure form to be dragged down to corruption...Even Sartre as a social anarchist begot the noble lie of Plato.. that is censorship...
Once there was a lamb then that lamb died, did he not birth a lion and that lion, devoured all sheep, to herald the goat... once poimandres the shepherd of men “, now the man who heralds gods...
That man is to accept or own his karma, not negotiate it, this is one thing but too, he must learn to be its master and overcome it as with god, his very self ... that which had initiated karma
As Sartre tried to “explode the prison” of man, in radical freedom he did not realize no creature can attain freedom that does not own his divinity the nothingness of the mind. and so remained the creature of man…
That nominal posativists have replaced god for society, this is not far reaching for their agenda. what I find most disconcerting is that we have replaced self for god. And that this dynamic has lead to this misnomer and decline. The userping of reason for faith and the new faith of the nihil.
—Azlan
The basic tenet of all mysticism is to deny human happiness. The Neo-Mystic, is the mystic in retreat — as a marxist he accepted ‘atheism’ to promote a new monotheism of the State; with the overwhelming failure of marxism, today’s Neo-Mystic grudgingly accepts capitalistic practice, but only on a pragmatic basis and only as a moral relativist. Regardless of his facade, he will always fundamentally reject the use of rational inquiry in the pursuit of happiness. The Neo-Mystic promotes efficacy over Nature but not efficacy over himself, he seeks power without self control. Today’s mystic no longer openly advocates man on the cross, instead he clandestinely advocates a psychopath with a nuclear weapon. His goal is the same.
—Rand
religion in its latin a greek roots means bondage or to bind, it has represented throughout the ages as new bringing together of binding or covenants with man and the divine.. imagine if one day may man become divine ? and toss away all bondage into the funeral pyres and alters of the past, like Isaac on the rock, could we replace what is religious with what is spiritual ?
Were ever in history there have been men named god-men their influence has been tyrannous and their legacy abominable. Those men however who did rise as gods forever in their time have always been heretics and outcast of their age and world.
today as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim ( they call it “arbitrary postulate” or subjective choice” or emotional comitment” )—and the battle is only over the question of whos whim,: ones own socioty or the dictator or god’s.
I here quote Ayn Rands “the virtue of selfishness” ( objectivists ethics )
i here first lay before you three quotes representing the sociological usurping of god for society, the greater good
( justice is whatever is in interest of the state )
—Plato
Prime mover, ho theos most high of the mountain, who is he but the ego of man…
—Azlan
Where there have been powerful governments, societies, religions, public opinions, in short wherever there has been tyranny, there the solitary philosopher has been hated; for philosophy offers an asylum to a man into which no tyranny can force it way, the inward cave, the labyrinth of the heart.
—Nietzsche
Rand—most philosopher have took the exisrtence of ethics for granted as a given, a historical fact, and were not concerend discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. many of them atempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticismin the field of ethics and, allegedly, to difine a rational, scientific non-religious morality. but their atempts to justify them on social grounds, mearly substituting socioty for god.
the avowed mystiucs held the arbitrary, unnacountable “will of god” as the standard of the good and the validation of their ethics, the neo-mystics replaced it with “the good of socioty”, thus collapsing into the circulairity of a definition such as “the standard of the good is that which is good for socioty” this meant, in logic—and today, in worldwide practice—that “socioty” stands above any principal of ethics.
Azlan— from this analysis of miss rand so eloquently put we find that socioty or the greater good this noble lie of a social contract has sold our souls to the devil whoelsale without even askeing for something in return it lay as bar none the oblation of all ethics and individual assertion or freedom from the dawn of time, from socrates to marx we staire into a great and black chasm of nothingness, from which all knowledge and reason slips away from the human existent,it is the imprisionment of our race lead by a gentle noose and that of the liars toungue the danggleing carrot of contentment dazzleing before our eyes, this welfair state of the last man who does not realize the contract he has signed… at the cost of every freedom he once cherished, as with socrates marx was a liar when he spoke “he is the god” who sits upon the navel of the earth and interprets all religion before mankind… one may ask was he a god-man ? the god the good the theocratic state the police state for those who did not desire police, it is evident your dynamic collapses on itself like the tower of babel.. do not be a fool.
Tom Flynn on Sartre's "dialectical nominalism" and
the "mediating third"
Bruce Baugh
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC
there is no individual that does not recognise reality, this is an objective stature and an asertion of the absolute…
cygnus—
dialectical nominalism flips the lence of reason, from facts and individualism, it denies reality for suposition..
cygnus—
For forty years, Tom Flynn has placed "dialectical nominalism" at the center of Sartre's social ontology and theory of history It is an ontological and methodological stance which underpins Sartre's theory of groups as the real subjects of history, while preserving groups from being hypostasized into substantial or metaphysical collective beings that would exist prior to or independently of the individual they comprise.
As Sartre defines it, dialectical nominalism is the thesis that "the dialectic, if it exists, can only be the totalization of concrete totaliz tions effected by a multiplicity of totalizing singularities."1 Through
its nominalist side, dialectical nominalism pays heed to Sartre's fun damental thesis of the primacy of individual praxis; as Flynn empha sizes in many places, for Sartre, only individual praxis is constituting, whether it is involved in constituting the materialized products of praxis (the practico-inert), a practical field of action, social relation or collective ensembles of human beings. And yet through its dialec tical side, dialectical nominalism sees individual praxes mediated through the whole and through the other praxes involved in that whole in a real and not merely psychological way, such that individ ual praxes mediated through the whole take on attributes that would be unavailable to them without such mediation. In sum, the whole i irreducible to its parts but would not exist without them. Or, in Sartre's words, often quoted by Flynn, "there are only men and rea relations between men," meaning that collective objects are parasit cal on the activities of individuals, and yet nevertheless real.2
As Flynn explains, this complex relation between nominalism and dialectics, between individuals and collective entities, is exemplified by the role of the "mediating third party" (le tiers médiateur), which
Sartre uses to account for how dispersed and even antagonistic indi viduals can "fuse" into a group united by working together for an objective which is that of all and each, such that each individual can accomplish her objective only on the condition that every other member of the group also accomplishes hers. "The third is no longer my Other nor is he my identical: but he comes to the group as I do\ he is the same as I" (CRD 1: 405); that is, the third is neither myself nor the Other, but a function which circulates among all members of the group and which transforms the antagonistic self-Other relation ship into one of "mediated reciprocity" and solidarity. The third joins the group for the same reasons and by the same actions as I myself do, such that I comprehend my own actions as a group mem ber (as third) through the praxis of others within the group who are rendered "the same" in practice: they do as I do, I do as they do, because they and I participate as "thirds" in what we do as a group.
when we surcumvents the I the mass worships its head mindless or not in all group politics the is always some tyrant calling the shots however benevolent or smooth the appearance. the mindless mob, will always surrender its power to a state.
13
"Sartre's 'nominal ism' is a version of the thesis that abstract and general terms are mere 'names' (in Latin, nomina) that do not refer to existing items. Only individuals exist in reality. Abstractions like 'justice' or collective terms such as 'The Battle of Waterloo' are simply shorthand for individual qualities, agents, actions or events." He adds that although the later Sartre qualified his nominalism as "dialectical, "Nominalism as an ontological and epistemological stance remained an arrow in Sartre's quiver" (Sartre 76-79). Or, as Flynn puts it when describing Foucault's "historical nominalism," nominalism is "radically anti-Platonic and individualistic," manifesting "a profound distrust of essences, natures and other kinds of unifying, totalizing and exclusionary thought... It treats such abstractions as 'man' and 'power' as reducible for purposes of explanation to the individuals that comprise them,"4 breaking up "presumed unities, which are nothing more than hypostasized names" (SFHR 2 42) into "multiplicities," which denote gatherings "of individuals without entailing commitment to universal natures or organic 'wholes'" (SFHR 2 329 n41).
that a whole governs its parts is without parallel, but whole it but a part in another whole, it is how they are constructed that requires intelligence, reason and individuality and this is “Ego” , this is the name and paintbrush of all life. and the chalice of the river that flows from the heart.
it is the denial of noemenal entities ( in Sartre “dialectic”) that collapsed the individual ego of “soul” and created the collectivist ethic of marxist anarchism that has collapsed the western world, the logos or “word” is the paintbrush and hammer of all wisdom, the art to which all men “had” aspired. thus I say it passion is dead, killed by an unauthentic soul or psuche’ that this brand of atheism had been a crewel buesness, nor is there any individuality in cruelty he had abandoned the name of life, he had abandoned love, (Jove )
On Sartre and his nominal paradox of atheism…
Because subjective existencialism avowed by Sartre equates to secularized nominalism Marxist anarchism will collapse just as its metaphysics into a theocratic state by the tautological delusion of its nature it is a paradox that negates itself and with it the world and all freedom , as much as I am aligned with Sartre for his contribution of human agency, I am much more aligned with Rand and Peikoff , it seems Sartre made a bad choice.
from this i quote the following with retort:
Commitment to organic wholes, on the other hand, is part and parcel of Hegelian and Marxist dialectics. As Sartre puts it in an early attempt to come to grips with Marxism, "Materialism and Revolution" (1948), "the mainspring of all dialectics is the idea of totality," namely, "a whole governs its parts," and that whole "is not the simple juxtaposition of invariable elements which might, if necessary, combine with other elements to produce other combinations, but rather an organization whose unity is such that its secondary structures cannot be considered apart from the whole without becoming 'abstract' and losing their essential character."5 Dialectics, on that basis, would be the polar opposite of nominalism; it deals with synthetic unities, "totalities" which mediate and determine their constituent parts, such that "total intelligibility turns out to be the whole."6 In other words, nominalism starts from individuals taken separately and then finds them in their contingent combinations, whereas dialectics begins with wholes which mediate individuals by relating them to each other in a system of relations which allows individuals to mutually determine each other, making impossible any "atomistic" separation of the parts into discrete individuals. 15
in short here it is at it is individuality that is what is precluded in this equation and refuted as such
Philosophy is a form of prophecy it is the word of god and the highest form of majick it is the love of wisdom uttered by the goddess through the tongue of the suiter of truth. the truth i idolitrize “is” the individual truth itself, that is to say my truth edifies and glorifies wisdom and kora the thing that gives man heart, and a watchful mind to be her guide.
The certain predicament of guestalt psychology and systems theory as applies to man’s trade of ergon or economy is that man is more than an object or commodity to which is enslaved by a whole… nor is the outcome blissful when he is… rather he becomes beastial and rapacious and looses his grip of agency, and becomes and object acted upon to in that system become its own fault and neglect namely that he is first and individual before a whole and this is what has made him human. What is seen in lower living systems even in physics with plasmion amoebas and within the fractal patterns in plant growth are indeed works of art, but man must learn to be an artist of himself and for and entity with such a disposition, the lense had been flipped between the system (collective) and the atom.
The Ancient Greek term κυβερνητικός (kubernētikos, '(good at) steering') appears in Plato's Republic[10] and Alcibiades, where the metaphor of a steersman is used to signify the governance of people.
Through this acerntation and metaphor the cybernetic web both of people nature and technology becomes clear in the state of the new world order.. in which all things on earth are controlled by a central ruler or in Greek archon. Of which the supercomputer plays a key part. That the archon of kiyyun will be implicately merged and one with the supercomputer controlling mankind and all of nature. Until the enevitable collapse of this system. As it forgets the human element, the unpredictable and the individual spirit that endures in the heart of the human artist and philosopher… at this time such a race of man will be dead on earth. But the spirit of the nebro , nebiru and the rebel is imminent and close at hand.
As Sartre felt completion is not impericaly possible, in and phenomenal sense, however in an idealic one perhaps it is as an interaction of being and nothingness in the nietzschian flux of the Eotic, in the throes of birth and death.
The ego is not both discovered and created in reflection in the very act of perception as we create the world we create ourselves, such is the act of the artist of the self, the first not born of woman but the abyss—the issue of completion or self creation roots in temporality not in the Heideggerian sense but the Hegelian, that is the notion of there being , Sartre notion that the ego does not “exist” but is crafted I find rather, as a existent and pre-existent being of essential consciousness is present as the sage of the body nietzsche spoke of, the template to be forged by the mind the for itself risen of the heart and the laberinth worm coiled in ever soul. The egos reflective phenomenonology is evident as it’s fussion and creation on the in itself thr fundamental act of psychokinesis and act of life, life it’s self is an act of the self the ego and god. The will to power. Self creation.
Compleation
A being that has caused itself to be, a self being is as it has been said is “god” and a prosses beyond mortal comprehension, yet every time a man takes ownership over himself and learns from his mistakes and past he is perpetually changing himself and creating himself. It is the ability to re-establish learned behavior and the nature or a priori of the soul that crafts man. Man for the whole of his existence has been a latent god looking to “the god” to save him, abandoning all salvation, that is that it layed within, in the heart of his knowledge and that of his self, a being forever in flux. The greatest myth of our history has been the Descartian dualism that lead men to believe that the a priori are unalterable an essence in stasis apart from the postiori the egoic that is the artisan of the creative and all that makes us human, it too had been this notion in the posativist camp that oblated the a priori and soul of man, and made him a cause of causes a thing Sartre did not realize when he posited the “ergo ergo sum” in short ; being emerges from nothingness and that this great angst, had been the driving inspiration of the seer of the ages , the Dionysian philosopher. Yet here to I say he needs his reason the Apollonian Dionysian genius is a Cygnus Dawn and and era of the Eotic, that is to say the reason of Socrates and Christ should not be abandoned as when man did he abandoned love and all that gives without requeset it is the unconditional that showed the humas and the human the secrets of heaven what mother ever asked to be paid for her love, and too that the void of the absolute is endless. It has taught us to give with measure unmeserably that though we love unconditionally those who we love are preferred and this is an activity of the mind a thing that should not be forgotten, that too mind is empty. Our existence validates it this is the advent of Ariel and Dionysus, the preference of the mind and the reaper of the harvest, the discerners of life, before had been only the deity the sacrifice and the practice of death now is the kyrus of the day.
In sum Sartre said if the self ( ego ) is nonexistent and so was the neumanon and god. The meadiating third saps agency and the spirit of life. But In this anguish absolute subjective isolation
rather in new terms of interest i would call the meadiating third a world united byindividuality, and not one of unity, rather one that cherishes the one and not oneness. in this are nopt all partiesaccounted for and protected. that the smallest minority on earth is and always has been the individual. a governemnt nation or dominion that does not protect individual rights cannot claim to protect minorities.
The conflict between nominalist and dialectical ontologies can also be understood as a conflict of methodologies, specifically, the conflict between methodological or ontological individualism, on
the one hand, and holism on the other, or the corresponding contrast between analytical and synthetic thought. Ontological individualism holds that "only facts about individuals are real and/or explanatory" and "social wholes" such as classes, races, nations are not "real relations" but theoretical abstractions, mere constructs (SME 126) used "to interpret selected abstract relations between individuals."7 As far back as 1945, Sartre attributed this "social atomism" to the bourgeois analytical point of view which arose in philosophy and the sciences in the 18th Century and which is incapable of grasping "collective realities" or synthetic wholes such as social class, as opposed to synthetic or dialectical reason, which is totalizing and "thinks in terms of solidarity" (Sartre 375-76, 468).8 Indeed, already in 1939, Sartre argues that the analytical method cannot give us essences or synthetic totalities such as "world" (in the Heideggerian sense) or "human reality"—"it is just as impossible to attain the essence by heaping up the accidents as it is to reach unity by the indefinite addition of figures to the right of 0.99" ( this is because in essence this is the infinite) 16
that by the mediating third being for others Sartre withdrew the drive of life and supplanted the cause for effect he lied and caused the whole world to lie ! sacrificing the self for subjectivity and flipping the lense of truth, he blasphemed the holy spirit of life by sapping her essence “Ego” ….
when he did this reality collapsed and so did the world, with all the freedom he proclaimed !
in the heart of the ego and essence and in the heart of the mind a light that pierces the laberinth of all being what have i called her but reason and the flame of sothis,
TO QUOTE FROM OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY :
in the modern era, platonic realism lost favor among philosophers; nominalism progressively became the dominant theory of concepts. the nominalists reject supernaturealism as unscientific, and they apeal to “intuition” as a thinly veiled subjectivism. they do not however, reject the crucial consiquence of platos theory: the division of an entities charaturistics into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concept designating entity.
denying that concepts have an objective basis in facts of reality, nominalists declare that the source of concept is a subjective human descision : men arbitrairaly select certian characturistics to serve as the basis ( the essentials ) for a classification,
Azlan—
there is and essential theme here that facts do not go hand in hand with “truth” or reality; from this disjointed mysnomer of divorce has arisen a new school of thought arising from collectivism in the theater of modern socioty as “wokeism” what i would rather call “ “subjective nihilism” and has sucsessfully brought about the downfall of the westurn world.
RAND—
“condemning plato’s supernaturally determined essences, they declare that essences are socially determined”
“the nominalists “advance” over plato consisted in secularizing his theory. to secularize and error is still to commit it”
what we are witnessing is the self liquidation of philosophy
to regain philosophies realm, it is nessasary to chalenge and reject the fundamental premises which are responsible for todays debucle. a major step in that direction is the elimination of the death carrior known as the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.
form heaven a star fell to earth and under he went, through the bottom of the abyss he found the vault and was born again in the horizon…. in his death… in his birth… has not all life been bestowed to this world, like bloody adonis and the stary night he offered all life and light to the moon…
my synthisis of this dicotomy is simple heaven and earth are wrapped within each other in a perpetual flux.. the Eossphoras…
i have coined this state of becoming the Eotic, its geometry is simple a child could draw it yet it holds the secrets of all… it is the eternal paradox of being and nothingness congagated and at core a star that shall never perish…
here and only here is color born.. between the black and the white in the fabric of self creation.
there is a question now here disposed is not the apple the seed and the tree and immeadiary between its rebirth ? that the both yes are esential but the question which is prime and that perhaps this we shall call the primis…
The question, however, is "in what sense.
" Even at his closest point to doctrinaire Marxism, in his 1952 essay The Communists and Peace, Sartre writes, "A concrete fact is the singular expression of universal relations, but it can be explained in its singularity only by singular relations, not by universals" (SME 80).12 One cannot pass directly from universals to singularities or individuals. 16
in short of what it is said here is it is the “autonomy” of the individual that it precludes…
it is a travesty the universal abstraction of man has come into the fact of his own slavery.. that the apple of our awakening has fallen into the pheacies of the dirt, and the clay from which we were born no longer bares the blood of awakening.. ( the fire of reason )
that the holy family has become a harum imprisioning her queen, for by Marx, Hegel forgot the lessons of history…
The rape of resiprocity:
When a man make his ergon his egoic statement of work in the world this is a sacrifice from his soul that demands representation.. to take from this expression weather as a meadiating third or as an aquasistion of private property by the state it is an act of theft or rape that abates the soul of man and the man involved… from here forward there is no reason for the resiprociry of any work ethic as the value of labor has been abnegated wholesale. It is the fundamental act of tyranny from which all lies evolve.
Sartre argues that "when... a dialectical conjuring trick... shows us this monstrous abstraction ['the market'] as the veritable concrete... while individuals... fall into abstraction, then we believe that we have returned to Hegelian abstraction" (SFM 77; cited Sartre 522). Sartre is here echoing Marx's criticism of Hegel in The Holy Family that Hegelian Idealism tries to "deduce" individual pears and apples from the universal essence "Fruit," which is an abstraction made from real, individual fruits.13 I repeat: one cannot pass directly from universals—classes, structures, social and economic relations— to individuals. Rather, universals are particularized and mediated by social groups and relations of narrower and narrower scope, such that international capitalism is mediated by national economics and politics, which are mediated by the local agrarian society, which are mediated by the family, until these relations are taken up by the individual's lived experience {le vécu) and praxis, which transcend norms and structures towards his own ends 17
the word is the finger pointing to the moon, it is a metaphysical Idol and a symbol to a concept… it is also the basis for its existence…
Sartre confused the apple for the tree like the pharisonic jews he abnegated the soul, it is and has always been the seed that grew the tree, and the branches from shekinah…
it is not that abstraction abnigates the essential characture, but that it destroys it, and does so to renew, it is the fundamental premise of “a god” auto-creation, a thing sartre denied…thus did he deny prometheus abstract man.
Who am I ? abstract man…the firey stone of light and bloody apple to which all men strive…