Hi, I would like to comment on yours at MoA (being banned there, I cannot reply to it). You say:
"It's obviously a question how Germany, for instance, is going to rearm itself massively if its economy is collapsing. As Martyanov constantly harps on, people don't understand that the real economy determines the military power of a nation and that military power is used to protect that economy. It's doubtful whether the EU understands that.
This, however, might be what the US is counting on. If Martyanov is right and the US is sacrificing the EU economy to attack Russia, and also to tie the EU more tightly to the US economy in order to slow the US economy's collapse, then if the US ties the NATO military to the US, then the US MIC further profits even beyond where it is now, aided by precisely the sacrifice of the EU economy."
Something that has been left out of the picture is that the escalation came as the Russians made progresses in Mali, to the point that Burkina also had protests and a coup because the ppl there were fed up to have AQ massacres on a daily basis.
What I think is that the US has offered the EU to "protect" its Med expansion in exchange for a number of places in Africa (remember France serving Ivory Coast on a plate, literally at the same time as Africom was showing its head in Libya, and how Turkey was easily coerced into removing millions of oil workers from Libya -despite the future costs- most probably in exchange for a chunck of Syria). At the moment, the EU is fully engaged in building private universities around the Med, and vdL has announced some massive private/public investments in Africa very recently (a speech held at... the Dakar Institut Pasteur). By the way Senegal has been playing the role of Turkey in the Mali sanctions: shooting itself, starving the Malians (80 percent of imports came from Dakar port) and their own truck drivers. But what is the big price here? No one speaks of the US base in Niger, near what was once French most guarded area, because of the uranium mines (check Agadez). So I think it is a deal between the EU idiots and the US. A sort of EUUS expansion, under US umbrella of course, notwithstanding the silly talks about EU military sovereignty in the making and Macron's gesticulations.
Looking forward to more content, hopefully stuff that can reignite my UV perished, jaded self. Years of unfettered hedonism and blind anarchism have ground me to dust (probably a good thing considering my alternatives) but recently something has piqued my interest in life and its value. The morbidity of looking forward to a radioactive Northern Hemisphere, post WW3 dystopia has run its course and I swim happily recently, so refreshing input like yours is welcome:}
I read in one of yours (very insightful) comments on MoA, that you called Max Stirner a Nihilist. I don’t agree. He’s neither an individualist nor even an anarchist. His philosophical standpoint is purely Anti-idealism.
As Ideology (a lot of peoples tend to confound this with idealism) is a very narrow, political stance, true idealism lives in bigger ideas of the (ideal) world and which are not at all bound to sole words (as it is the case for ideology) – look at science. What we call natural science (Physics for instance) is just another idealism in its best. Or worst. Depends on Corona. However, that’s why, anarchism – based also on a bigger idea of an ideal world – is neither fit for Stirner. As he would call it another ‘Spuk’. – Nihilism on the contrary (we are getting to the point) is a concept thought of by Nietzsche (the second Anti-idealistic Philosopher here). What he called Nihilism, was in his eyes the logical consequence of any form of Idealism. Thus, every Idealism tends in its lived form to nihilism (what we are seeing today in this world – hooray) and the only way to escape this fate lies in Stirner’s (and Nietzsche’s) Anti-idealistic stance.
Stated this, we’re quite in for your “The Fourfold Truths”. It’s not hard – out of Stirner’s ‘soul’ – to contradict them. If everything you believe or even know and in consequence do is wrong (what logically will end your live sooner), how do you know those four truths? How do you know, that they – of all things – are true? Don’t give me the live experience crap. This is really (Zen) Buddhistic. …and you haven’t died yet to come at least to the fourth conclusion.
So, ok, you tell yourself, it applies to at least 98% of all peoples. Because you kind of know, there are conditions to those truths to be true. In fact, those truths apply to anybody but you – this said, I don’t mean any kind of idealistic self of you but you yourself, stating those truths. Because all peoples around you are in their attitude on living their life’s – idealists. In the end and as you try not to be a too big asshole (sorry to be so blunt), you assume, that there are perhaps some other non-idealistic gents and lady’s, to whom those truths neither apply. – I have to inform you, I’m not quite as optimistic as you on this point, also what concerns you – or even me, myself in this matter. I guess, 98% is highly underrated. Its probably around 99.99 (9?) % to whom your fourfold truths really (and in reality) do apply. It will eventually sum up to one sole guy, really knowing “the truth” (and thus to be called a true egoist)…
(My pessimism being based on Plato and his invention called ‘idea’ – what became the fundament of every thinking human being today.)
I fact, even for Nietzsche or Stirner, I wouldn’t be so sure, that those fourfold truths wouldn’t apply either. At least, they made a mistake in their way to perceive Anti-idealism. They founded their philosophical stance in pure ethics. They didn’t care (so much) for cognitive science (Erkenntnistheorie – As a native German speaker, I’m not only bad in writing in English, but often also disgusted by the English philosophical terminology). And this gives us the big difference to the third Anti-idealist in the row of those braves. His “(The) Philosophy of Freedom” (also called by request of the author: Philosophy of spiritual activity) is foremost based on a solid cognitive science, even so it was called ‘ethical Individualism’ by other philosopher of his time (Eduard von Hartmann). The author of the book is Rudolf Steiner and I’m pretty sure you did hear this name, although in completely different topics. But don’t listen to the goons; hardly any of his fanatic esoteric followers ever read (and understood) Steiner’s early, philosophical works. But Steiner claimed himself until the end, that those books (especially the philosophy of freedom) are his real fundament to anything ‘esoteric’ he said or wrote.
Rudolf Steiner was a good friend of John Henry Mackay (the biographer and archivist of Stirner), whom he met a lot when he lived in Berlin. When Steiner published his Philosophy, he send a book to Mackay, telling him, that he thinks, his Philosophy now gives the needed fundament to Stirner’s work. Steiner wrote also one of the best books (in my eyes) on Nietzsche’s Philosophy called “Friedrich Nietzsche - A fighter against his time” (German title: Friedrich Nietzsche – Ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit – don’t know if there is any English translation).
So what’s Steiner’s ‘philosophy of freedom’ all about: it’s how anybody can stand on its very own feet, when there is nothing forcing you, nothing contextualizing you etc. How really can Stirner’s “Ich hab mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt” (I set my cause on nothing) be a condition to true freedom, where your way of living a decent life unfolds in the moment you set your feet on nothing (to use a awkward picture). What (psychological) activity needs to be in a concrete human being for that to happen (Steiner suggested for the English translation of his ‘philosophy of freedom’ the title: Philosophy of spiritual activity – so you’ll find the book with either one of those titles). How can this even be possible / working? What seems to be easy in the first place, is the hardest a human ever thought of, because radically speaking, there is nothing giving you a hold. You have to ‘invent’ the whole world in every moment yourself. Somehow, Steiner did with this book the same thing with Stirner, as Kant did with Newton. How is Stirner’s “The Ego and Its Own” possible?
There is also a very good essay about history of philosophy written by Steiner initially (1898) called ‘Egoism in Philosophy’ (Der Egoismus in der Philosophie) – later it would be rebranded to ‘Individualism in Philosophy’. However, the text didn’t change… Here is an English version to it. Don’t know how accurate it's translated:
So perhaps, some books to add in future to your reading collection? Its rare for me to meet someone with such clear and strong mind as you demonstrate in your blog and also in the commentaries at MoA. I much appreciate!
Hi, I would like to comment on yours at MoA (being banned there, I cannot reply to it). You say:
"It's obviously a question how Germany, for instance, is going to rearm itself massively if its economy is collapsing. As Martyanov constantly harps on, people don't understand that the real economy determines the military power of a nation and that military power is used to protect that economy. It's doubtful whether the EU understands that.
This, however, might be what the US is counting on. If Martyanov is right and the US is sacrificing the EU economy to attack Russia, and also to tie the EU more tightly to the US economy in order to slow the US economy's collapse, then if the US ties the NATO military to the US, then the US MIC further profits even beyond where it is now, aided by precisely the sacrifice of the EU economy."
Something that has been left out of the picture is that the escalation came as the Russians made progresses in Mali, to the point that Burkina also had protests and a coup because the ppl there were fed up to have AQ massacres on a daily basis.
What I think is that the US has offered the EU to "protect" its Med expansion in exchange for a number of places in Africa (remember France serving Ivory Coast on a plate, literally at the same time as Africom was showing its head in Libya, and how Turkey was easily coerced into removing millions of oil workers from Libya -despite the future costs- most probably in exchange for a chunck of Syria). At the moment, the EU is fully engaged in building private universities around the Med, and vdL has announced some massive private/public investments in Africa very recently (a speech held at... the Dakar Institut Pasteur). By the way Senegal has been playing the role of Turkey in the Mali sanctions: shooting itself, starving the Malians (80 percent of imports came from Dakar port) and their own truck drivers. But what is the big price here? No one speaks of the US base in Niger, near what was once French most guarded area, because of the uranium mines (check Agadez). So I think it is a deal between the EU idiots and the US. A sort of EUUS expansion, under US umbrella of course, notwithstanding the silly talks about EU military sovereignty in the making and Macron's gesticulations.
Mina
Mr Hack:}
Looking forward to more content, hopefully stuff that can reignite my UV perished, jaded self. Years of unfettered hedonism and blind anarchism have ground me to dust (probably a good thing considering my alternatives) but recently something has piqued my interest in life and its value. The morbidity of looking forward to a radioactive Northern Hemisphere, post WW3 dystopia has run its course and I swim happily recently, so refreshing input like yours is welcome:}
Dear Mr Richard Steven Hack
I read in one of yours (very insightful) comments on MoA, that you called Max Stirner a Nihilist. I don’t agree. He’s neither an individualist nor even an anarchist. His philosophical standpoint is purely Anti-idealism.
As Ideology (a lot of peoples tend to confound this with idealism) is a very narrow, political stance, true idealism lives in bigger ideas of the (ideal) world and which are not at all bound to sole words (as it is the case for ideology) – look at science. What we call natural science (Physics for instance) is just another idealism in its best. Or worst. Depends on Corona. However, that’s why, anarchism – based also on a bigger idea of an ideal world – is neither fit for Stirner. As he would call it another ‘Spuk’. – Nihilism on the contrary (we are getting to the point) is a concept thought of by Nietzsche (the second Anti-idealistic Philosopher here). What he called Nihilism, was in his eyes the logical consequence of any form of Idealism. Thus, every Idealism tends in its lived form to nihilism (what we are seeing today in this world – hooray) and the only way to escape this fate lies in Stirner’s (and Nietzsche’s) Anti-idealistic stance.
Stated this, we’re quite in for your “The Fourfold Truths”. It’s not hard – out of Stirner’s ‘soul’ – to contradict them. If everything you believe or even know and in consequence do is wrong (what logically will end your live sooner), how do you know those four truths? How do you know, that they – of all things – are true? Don’t give me the live experience crap. This is really (Zen) Buddhistic. …and you haven’t died yet to come at least to the fourth conclusion.
So, ok, you tell yourself, it applies to at least 98% of all peoples. Because you kind of know, there are conditions to those truths to be true. In fact, those truths apply to anybody but you – this said, I don’t mean any kind of idealistic self of you but you yourself, stating those truths. Because all peoples around you are in their attitude on living their life’s – idealists. In the end and as you try not to be a too big asshole (sorry to be so blunt), you assume, that there are perhaps some other non-idealistic gents and lady’s, to whom those truths neither apply. – I have to inform you, I’m not quite as optimistic as you on this point, also what concerns you – or even me, myself in this matter. I guess, 98% is highly underrated. Its probably around 99.99 (9?) % to whom your fourfold truths really (and in reality) do apply. It will eventually sum up to one sole guy, really knowing “the truth” (and thus to be called a true egoist)…
(My pessimism being based on Plato and his invention called ‘idea’ – what became the fundament of every thinking human being today.)
I fact, even for Nietzsche or Stirner, I wouldn’t be so sure, that those fourfold truths wouldn’t apply either. At least, they made a mistake in their way to perceive Anti-idealism. They founded their philosophical stance in pure ethics. They didn’t care (so much) for cognitive science (Erkenntnistheorie – As a native German speaker, I’m not only bad in writing in English, but often also disgusted by the English philosophical terminology). And this gives us the big difference to the third Anti-idealist in the row of those braves. His “(The) Philosophy of Freedom” (also called by request of the author: Philosophy of spiritual activity) is foremost based on a solid cognitive science, even so it was called ‘ethical Individualism’ by other philosopher of his time (Eduard von Hartmann). The author of the book is Rudolf Steiner and I’m pretty sure you did hear this name, although in completely different topics. But don’t listen to the goons; hardly any of his fanatic esoteric followers ever read (and understood) Steiner’s early, philosophical works. But Steiner claimed himself until the end, that those books (especially the philosophy of freedom) are his real fundament to anything ‘esoteric’ he said or wrote.
Rudolf Steiner was a good friend of John Henry Mackay (the biographer and archivist of Stirner), whom he met a lot when he lived in Berlin. When Steiner published his Philosophy, he send a book to Mackay, telling him, that he thinks, his Philosophy now gives the needed fundament to Stirner’s work. Steiner wrote also one of the best books (in my eyes) on Nietzsche’s Philosophy called “Friedrich Nietzsche - A fighter against his time” (German title: Friedrich Nietzsche – Ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit – don’t know if there is any English translation).
So what’s Steiner’s ‘philosophy of freedom’ all about: it’s how anybody can stand on its very own feet, when there is nothing forcing you, nothing contextualizing you etc. How really can Stirner’s “Ich hab mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt” (I set my cause on nothing) be a condition to true freedom, where your way of living a decent life unfolds in the moment you set your feet on nothing (to use a awkward picture). What (psychological) activity needs to be in a concrete human being for that to happen (Steiner suggested for the English translation of his ‘philosophy of freedom’ the title: Philosophy of spiritual activity – so you’ll find the book with either one of those titles). How can this even be possible / working? What seems to be easy in the first place, is the hardest a human ever thought of, because radically speaking, there is nothing giving you a hold. You have to ‘invent’ the whole world in every moment yourself. Somehow, Steiner did with this book the same thing with Stirner, as Kant did with Newton. How is Stirner’s “The Ego and Its Own” possible?
There is also a very good essay about history of philosophy written by Steiner initially (1898) called ‘Egoism in Philosophy’ (Der Egoismus in der Philosophie) – later it would be rebranded to ‘Individualism in Philosophy’. However, the text didn’t change… Here is an English version to it. Don’t know how accurate it's translated:
https://rsarchive.org/Articles/GA030/English/MP1989/IndPhi_essay.html
So perhaps, some books to add in future to your reading collection? Its rare for me to meet someone with such clear and strong mind as you demonstrate in your blog and also in the commentaries at MoA. I much appreciate!
Have a nice day and greetings from Switzerland