America First; Netherlands Second.

Great Dutch Video.

Advertisements

Trump inauguration yields largest protest in US history? Its looking good.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bustle.com/p/how-many-people-attended-womens-marches-in-america-dc-was-in-good-company-32128/amp?client=safari

(Undisclosed sources have suggested that Trump wasn’t even expecting to get the republican nomination let alone to win the presidency. I think even Trump supporters, hopeful as they were, we’re not expecting it either. So I suspect that what we have is a president who was not expecting to win, who won,who really has no experience in politics or government, that is going to fly by the seat of his pants while he admits no wrong and tries to maintain face. 

God bless us all.

Democratic Impotence. 

Isnt a “permit to protest” an oxymoron or non sequitur or something? 

If Trump totally fails (which i honestly hope he does us well), should we wait for a license to impeach him? 

If our system indeed becomes corrupt through its own intention , are we supposed to wait until there’s a legal way to overthrow the government? 

Such questions may become moot. 

The following repost sounds eerily similar to the ideas that I’ve talked about elsewhere. Namely that there will be an effective segregation of elements; The strata of power will be in power regardless, as a type of aristocracy or oligarchy, while the idea of democracy will perpetuate itself in the “people”.
REPOST: 
The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest, Part 2Recently, a professor at Cornell University named Russell Rickford wrote a fascinating article about the Black Lives Matter movement called “The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest”. In this article, Rickford outlines what he calls the “false assumptions” that are “propagated by the corporate power structure [sic]”. He calls these fallacies “dialogue and awareness” “appeal to authority” […]

Zizek, electoral college, socialism, Trump, liberalism, women’s march

https://amorinoblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/the-fallacies-of-neoliberal-protest-part-2/

The speculative Turn.

The facination with the Speculative Realists quickly faded due to the contradictory pose invested in the following (and like) quote from the introduction to the book “The Speculative Turn”:

“The origins of this correlationist turn lie in Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy, which famously abjured the possibility of ever knowing a noumenal realm beyond hu- man access. In Kant’s famous Copernican revolution, it is no longer the mind that con- forms to objects, but rather objects that conform to the mind. Experience is structured by a priori categories and forms of intuition that comprise the necessary and universal basis for all knowledge. Yet the price to be paid for securing this basis is the renunci- ation of any knowledge beyond how things appear to us. Reality-in-itself is cordoned off, at least in its cognitive aspects.
Lee Braver’s fine book recently showed that this Kantian prohibition, with its anti- realist implications, has wound its way through the continental tradition, taking hold of nearly every major figure from Hegel to Heidegger to Derrida.8 While for Kant there re- mains the possibility of thinking the noumenal (if not knowing it), Hegel absolutizes the correlate to encompass all that exists: his critique of the noumenal renders it merely a phenomenal illusion, thus ‘completing’ the critical philosophy by producing an absolute idealism. This effacement of the noumenal continues with phenomenology, as ontolo- gy becomes explicitly linked with a reduction to the phenomenal realm. As Braver out- lines, Heidegger furthers the anti-realist project by rejecting the possibility of Absolute Knowledge as the singular and total self-understanding of the Absolute Subject. Final- ly, with Derrida the mediation of language becomes all-encompassing, as the phenom- enal realm of subjectivity becomes infested with linguistic marks. Throughout this proc- ess, any possibility of a world independent of the human-world correlate is increasingly rejected (as is nicely symbolized by Heidegger’ famous crossing-out of the word ‘Being’).
This general anti-realist trend has manifested itself in continental philosophy in a number of ways, but especially through preoccupation with such issues as death and finitude, an aversion to science, a focus on language, culture, and subjectivity to the detriment of material factors, an anthropocentric stance towards nature, a relinquish- ing of the search for absolutes, and an acquiescence to the specific conditions of our historical thrownness. We might also point to the lack of genuine and effective politi- cal action in continental philosophy—arguably a result of the ‘cultural’ turn taken by Marxism, and the increased focus on textual and ideological critique at the expense of the economic realm.”

What appeared way cool a few years ago was becuase the authors were blinded by thier need to produce material.

Most probably , the upcoming (a year out? Two? Less?) explanation and argument will show how SR is caught in its own illusion , and how this illusion is only found due to the SR move. We will show how the SR exhibit a kind of bad faith we have not come upon before in the philosophical world. They are responsible for their going down in history as the mark of disolution, which is to say, as the mark of the ending of modern philosophy (which is really the effort to perpetuate modernity), the ‘proof’ of the mythological cycle. And this becuase they came upon something new only in the narrowness of thier intuited, at that, misappropriated Kantian analysis. 

The way into this veiw is to understand that despite what ‘turn’ they would propose, Kant was always involved with what is real. So it is, in so much as the SRs might have proposed a return to what is real, that they have shown thier hand, and this, again, despite what they might argue. This is the significance of the philosophical divergence.

The recently infamous ‘end of…(human, history, philosophy, etc…including the post- and trans- objects) shows that the SRs and others are ultimately involved in the same Kantian limit that they decry, albeit in denial of this  facet of thier proposal for the purpose of satisfying a kind of fad: Reality itself. 

Hence, the reasons they pose for such a turn, are the same reasons why they unwittingly expose their own pedagogical fault.

But does it and will it matter?

 Most likely not. Real philosophical turns will continue.

And thus why will it ever matter? Becuase the truth is not interesting. 

In fact, if you read the introduction  to “The Speculative Turn”, it is obvious that the only motivation for this Speculative Turn is childish boredom (otherwise code for: I dont really understand. Lol) Look for youself: The Speculative Turn pdf.

(I am the biggest dork – or for those accross the pond: wanker – in all the kingdom of Earth.🙃 but it dont mean im wrong.) 

Dont study white philosophers.

More from ‘let em’ ( the previous post):

It appears that my comment that i refer to in the pevious post, the Comment that was supposed to be in the comments of the Reposted post, is not there, so ill post what i remember i put.
I said sonething to the effect that we should let the idiots have thier day becuase everywhere we look, they already are.

And, my singificsnt point was that lets see what happens if people exclude all white, euro-centered philosophers. Nevermind how one might go about discerning what exactly constitutes ‘white’ philosophers; however they might do it, lets not censor thier effort and ideal by foreclosing the possibility involved to an obviously ridiculous notion.

Becuase, as i said, really we dont know if what we figure is of a common sensibility, which is to say, a natural and inevitable human ability to reason, is really common and sensible automatically. 

Who knows; maybe if a group excludes ‘colonialist’ thinkers, a whole new manner of reasoning might emerge.

And, isnt that what we are really aftaid of when we discount such a proposal? That this grand and apparently obvious tradition of thinking and argument might be shown to be merely but one manner of ‘reason’? Yet just as capable and able to be called and utilized constructively  as ‘reason’?

Is ‘reason’ itself merely a colonialist eurocentric white male power play? How can we test the presumption that it is not? 

How can we know for sure if european colonialism actually is merely an enforcement of a proper reality that stretches through history if we dont allow for certain tests upon the presumption that it is not??

Let the idiots have thier day!

( and i say ‘idiots’ to exemplify a particular manner of coming upon world that i will disclose more thoroughly later.)

Let em at it.

See my comment at the end of this repost of a repost.

I say: let the idiots have thier day…
REPOST:
University of London students demand that white philosophers be excised from curriculum

Originally posted on Why Evolution Is True: A caveat first: this article comes from The Daily Mail, and I haven’t been able to verify it from other news sources. On the other hand, I have verified the students’ demands to which it refers (see below). Further, the Mail article gives quotes from the likes of Sir Roger Scruton, which…
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/university-of-london-students-demand-that-white-philosophers-be-excised-from-curriculum/