...
There is always a certain type of ignorance that emerges almost violently, every time one tries to "quote" me. You just can't quote me without, first, quoting exactly what I said (I rather choose my words a little more carefully than one might think - mere paraphrasing would kill the spirit of my meaning), and if you choose to quote me, you'll have to quote not just the entire post, but rather
every little detail I have said in the past few months. You don't rip me out of my context, it's impossible to argue with me when you have a narrow vision, when you don't have a
thinking brain...
And here's the greatest example:
Rooser:
Duke said something like "No. It doesn't matter if it's 2004 or 2008 or 2012, I am talking about America as a collective whole."
Here's what I really said, which is quite different philosophically and psychologically:
Astranbrulth and Rooser - is it really a big deal, in any event, where the oil will end? No. Your argument is great, and I agree with it wholly, except that you're looking from present perspective. I, on the other hand, am looking at it from tomorrow’s and days after tomorrow perspective. You talk about the current U.S. administration and the future U.S. administration as if there will be some holy difference between them. When we're talking about the United States, we're talking about an agenda: I see your point when you say the immediate goal is to suck Iraq dry. But I don't see your point when you differentiate between the current administration, the 2004 administration, the 2008, the 2012, etc. Let's be true to ourselves: the U.S. is currently in Iraq, it has already written its agenda therefore. Let's face it, they cannot simply leave - no one desires them to leave. They destroyed many things, amongst which they destroyed the glue to the entire nation, the Iraqi government. It does not matter what administration we're talking about : a new government must be established, whether under Bush, the next president, the one after him, or whomever. Our honesty must be precise here in that we know, almost factually, that whatever new set up there will be in Iraq, it will necessarily be an American-influenced one. Period. This new, "free and democratic" taste will be placed in any time: maybe under Bush, maybe under someone else. But it has to be placed. The future has already written itself the very second the Iraqi government collapsed. If we agree that the future government will necessarily be American, largely speaking, then we must agree that it is also necessary that capitalism and the entire means of business must follow. You can't have an American government without oppressing your citizens, without brainwashing them, leveling them, mistreating them, raping them. In the long run, which is in any case more important than the short run and present-day talk, Iraq must become not as you say, Westernized - no - rather...Americanized by every terrible sense of the word. The U.S. cannot leave Iraq - furthermore, no one wants the U.S. to leave Iraq, and the U.S. knows that. It contributed to Iraq's collapse, it must contribute by full to its reconstruction. Now, few of us, by now, know exactly what this fatal "reconstruction" means. It's superfluous that I should go over what the term implies.
...even this wholly quotation does injustice. Because I had said other things, even in other threads, that directly connect in theme, idea, and direction with this post, and this entire thread. Honestly, if you haven't been reading my other posts, then you can't begin to complain or recite examples about my thoughts. But let me get to the point about how Rooser's paraphrase, which is a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding, is different than what I really said. Look at this part which Rooser's paraphrase disregards:
Let's be true to ourselves: the U.S. is currently in Iraq, it has already written its agenda therefore. Let's face it, they cannot simply leave - no one desires them to leave. They destroyed many things, amongst which they destroyed the glue to the entire nation, the Iraqi government. It does not matter what administration we're talking about : a new government must be established, whether under Bush, the next president, the one after him, or whomever. Our honesty must be precise here in that we know, almost factually, that whatever new set up there will be in Iraq, it will necessarily be an American-influenced one. Period. This new, "free and democratic" taste will be placed in any time: maybe under Bush, maybe under someone else. But it has to be placed. The future has already written itself the very second the Iraqi government collapsed. If we agree that the future government will necessarily be American, largely speaking, then we must agree that it is also necessary that capitalism and the entire means of business must follow. You can't have an American government without oppressing your citizens, without brainwashing them, leveling them, mistreating them, raping them. In the long run, which is in any case more important than the short run and present-day talk, Iraq must become not as you say, Westernized - no - rather...Americanized by every terrible sense of the word. The U.S. cannot leave Iraq - furthermore, no one wants the U.S. to leave Iraq, and the U.S. knows that. It contributed to Iraq's collapse, it must contribute by full to its reconstruction. Now, few of us, by now, know exactly what this fatal "reconstruction" means. It's superfluous that I should go over what the term implies.
Now let me zoom in a little closer...
It does not matter what administration we're talking about : a new government must be established, whether under Bush, the next president, the one after him, or whomever. Our honesty must be precise here in that we know, almost factually, that whatever new set up there will be in Iraq, it will necessarily be an American-influenced one.
I demand, now, to see where my "generalization" is. It is beyond generalization in fact - it is quite logical, what I said here. I wasn't talking about America as a "whole." The way you carelessly paraphrase me as if you were paraphrasing Spiderman or Eric really destroys the meaning: read the entire quote again, and really read into it - what does it say? It doesn't begin to generalize. In fact, it doesn't begin to talk about America - it talks louder on
fatality. It talks louder about the inevitable, the
must-be; it's beyond mere "free will" and "choice," it screams about "cause and effect": "cause" - America goes to Iraq, Iraq loses government; "effect" - new Iraqi government must be built, America will most likely decide how it is built and how it is managed. This has nothing to do with America, Americans, civilization, "oil," "government," mere "politics" - I'm trying to show how everything we're living today is an aftereffect of yesterday, and yesterday the aftereffect of the day before, and so on and so forth - like a giant rock rolling down,
nothing will change the coarse of history. I'm trying to tell you that - as soon as history "began,"
choice is eliminated, and
all of history was therefore written. As we speak, the entire history of humanity
is written. I can go deeper to tell you that history is progressing
backwards, and even attempt to explain it, but...you're a politician, you're head is filled with civilization,
history, "facts." You wouldn't care for what I have to say, which is always understandable.
I'm no politician. I recommend anyone who's interested in politics to listen to someone like Ura or Astranbrulth, and who knows...maybe even Gizmo. But I don't talk politics. I don't believe in politics. I look at it as one consequence...an inevitable consequence to be sure...sometimes I pity the fact, sometimes I laugh at it...one thing I realize, I cannot change it. Man cannot change. History is already written. With time it unfolds…
When I read stuff like this:
Rooser:
Duke has a handle on Globalization, (which he hastily calls Americanization), and Duke is aware of all the hypocrisies and lies our government and out society spouts, but he only paints symbolic pictures. He rarely concerns himself with details. He speaks only in generalities.
...I was ready to laugh. I only speak of generalities? Yet, what is most shocking is when we hear this:
Rooser:
He, probably without realizing it, has made the assumption that America has a culture.
Any other member who had read my older posts knows that I don't think that America has a culture. What assumption have I made? That America
hasn't the culture! Should I recall quotes from the past in which I've stated how weak and pathetic the American "culture" is? They're written here and there. In fact, even if I do "generalize" in the case of Americans, I seem to do it logically, hence America has no specific culture to cross-examine. America
is an Abstraction of false liberties, untruth, baseness - in short: a garbage lot. How many times have I said that America is a garbage lot? Too many. The way you paraphrase me and misunderstand me therefore really contributes gratefully to your overall
generalization of me.
What follows from all of this, Rooser? That indeed I make some generalizations, I will not begin to deny that. But that I assume that America has a culture? That's just being blind to what I have said. But it is not your fault. I don't expect you to have read every post I have ever made in the past few months - actually I'd be a little worried if you
have done such a task!
But, without culpability assigned, frankly, my writing style and the manner of my thinking calls for interconnectedness; you don't just read into the single moment when reading my posts, but you're reading thoughts that are in constant ascension or decline. Today I might say one thing, and tomorrow all my posts may revolve in one way or another around that thing. Or, perhaps I would say something that "contradicts" what I said yesterday. The reason why you, or our dear Astranbrulth
can't pin me down is because I myself am not standing on a solid ground...there is constant shift, letting go, embracing, rising and decline...there is, in other words,
constant development and discovery. The only thing constant about me is instability, chaos,
inconsistency. I have room to grow. What I say tomorrow might contradict what I said today. So what?
In other words, I understand why underdeveloped and undeveloping human beings dislike my inconsistency. FoR has pointed out many times how I contradict myself as if I was the very meaning of opposites. Apollo dislikes me and my writing because it has no form, it is not a conclusion - it is always a
mean, a path, a direction...which is understandable to be sure! Spiderman doesn't argue with me for the same reason: he can't argue with "philosophy," not because men can't argue with philosophy, but because
he can't understand or realize what it means to argue with something this unstable, something that demands constant thinking and thinking-for-one's self - how does one argue with a
child that is constantly learning new ideas, constantly diving into the newest and most audacious insights to ever be formed? You would have to
be someone who is also of that chaotic nature, who naturally and readily understands what it means to
meta-morph.
When a person is
able to argue with me, one thing can be sure – that the person is also undergoing and perhaps will forever undergo chaos, change, diving, declining, growing, and…exploding; that the person does not only eat "facts," but eats from what will
be a fact.
I honestly don't belong in this message board, as I don't play the card game, don't follow the card game, dont' care for it...and I don't even look like a card-gamer. I'm here because I like few members, and because I've grown to the atmosphere. My posts here do not reach their utmost worth, since the right eyes are absent. Not the "good" eyes!
Just the
right eyes...
And at the end, if you love the facts Ura had given in the past, and the facts Astanbrulth is giving today...what does it matter? Tell me with honesty what it matters! You will not change. You haven't changed. You can't change. Love the facts as much as you want:
you are still the same. And so will remain. If you had the ability to change, you're fixation would be beyond "facts." Facts are facts insofar as they are
believed to be facts. Your beloved whore of "facts" does not communicate psychology - it just speaks of what is: it does not penetrate. It does not dive deeper.
Edit:
An insight that just touched me regarding those who seek after facts as if facts were facts: you only love facts because they are, actually, easily refutable. You love facts because there is a monsterous category of contradictory and biased "facts" today, so it wouldn't take much for you to pretend that you've "refuted" something, you'd only have to puke one of your beloved whore-facts. You hate philosophy (which you wrongly call an "opinion" - something I've only heard from Americans) because it calls for thinking, not puking. You have to lay down the rules yourself, you have to argue yourself, you have to be in touch with yourself far enough in order to begin to argue. In different words: you love "facts" because...you don't know yourselves, because you haven't the capacity to think, and above all, because in this age of ours, where countries like America is accepted, you are free to remain that low and still call yourselves "humans." That is what really sleeps at the bottom of your "I love facts!"
Your facts state: "The United States is so and so." It never tells you the Whys of it, and the Whys of the Whys, and the Whys of the Whys of the Whys. Facts tell you
nothing. Facts are lazy. Aristotle said that a person who strives for the Whys and the Whys of the Whys is regarded higher than any other. Now, Aristotle and I have had some pretty rough moments, especially when speaking about ethics. But he has few good words to offer...
