SOME SITE STUFF-UPS

Ταχόπουλος, Γιάννης «Π.Κονδύλης-Κ. Καστοριάδης: μια σύγκριση», Νέος Ἑρμὴς ὁ Λόγιος, Τεῦχος, 10^ον, Καλοκαῖρι 2014, σσ. 163-185

https://www.duncker-humblot.de/buch/panajotis-kondylis-und-die-metamorphosen-der-gesellschaft-9783428157358/?page_id=0

https://www.amazon.de/Panajotis-Kondylis-die-Metamorphosen-Gesellschaft/dp/3428157354/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=Panajotis+Kondylis+und+die+Metamorphosen+der+Gesellschaft&qid=1557182756&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

[[Whilst all of the book contains informative and explanatory material of an exceptional standard, of tremendous interest to me, and greatly satisfying to read, is Prof. Breuer’s study, which dissects many intersections between the thinking of such figures as Kondylis, Mannheim, C. Frantz, Weber, Tönnies, Nietzsche, Dilthey, Simmel, Schopenhauer, Justus Möser, Hegel, Schlegel, Machiavelli, Bodin, Schmitt,... including a whole array of information about conservatism, traditionalism, world views, the theory of knowledge, the relationship between the natural sciences and cultural/social sciences, notions of (the actual experiencing of the “concrete” (as opposed to theoretical abstraction) and) “(total/overall) situations” and how they can form the basis for sociological knowledge as to social totalities and types belonging to a particular era/epoch (as opposed to the relatively gross distinction between the prima facie more generalising natural sciences and the prima facie more individualising study of historical events), the conjuncture between the more personal-emotional High-Trust relationships of tight-knit communities as opposed to de-personalisation and de-communitisation (of what I would call massified-atomised-circusised-freakshowfied-otherised-full spectrum-ZIO/USA-lobotomised etc. Satanic Circus Monkey Life) etc.. In general, though, the highlighting of the points of similarity (e.g. use of social/historical (ideal) types, or some sort of variation thereof) and points of difference between P.K. and Mannheim (Μannheim’s various conceptual-logical errors e.g. as to the possibility of “bureaucratic conservatism” having any macro-historical ideal-typical meaning and use, or, as to unconsciousness and consciousness and notions of conservatism (with P.K., inter alia, rejecting the possibility of a typically unreflected traditionalism), or, making conservatism appear to be at times something detachable from concrete social-historical situations, etc.) makes for absolutely compelling reading, possibly even opening up new vistas in conceptual and theoretical (explanatory and analytical) thought... (a note for me (don’t forget, I’m insane): without the emergence of European Absolutism (incl. its ideologisation by seminal thinkers such as Machiavelli and Bodin) and then Liberalism and the dissolution of estates, oikoi, relatively decentralised power structures, etc., cum secularisation, Free-Masonisation, early atomisation and massification, the associated bullshit about “tolerance” etc., the Vicious Satanic Circus Monkey Hate Tribe could never have concentrated its own forms of power at elite levels through its Privileged Place re: Mammon (Evil-Devil-Devil-Evil Luciferism and Satanism), reaching real on-going Strength in the 19^th century esp. in France and England, but with also the (earlier) “special relationship” with the Dutch/Holland, etc.)... (excellent reference to anti-absolutist conservatism and Louis Dumont (“homo hierarchicus” against the “homo aequalis”) and the privileging of one’s group over individual rights/freedoms etc.. Post French Revolution, counter-revolutionary (pro-dictatorship) conservatism (incl. the use of Enlightenment notions against more radical “Enlighteners”), had to cope with a situation which made pre-Revolution Absolutism generally look like a conservative picnic... and hence conservatism was well on its way to “Spenglerian” defeat by c. WW1... + e.g. Romantic Enlightenment types like Adam Müller or Friedrich Schlegel could be (in part, at least) mobilised on the conservative side, since P.K. had shown The Enlightenment was not just about “rationalism” as extremist intellectualism (as K.M. and many others tend(ed) to think) heading in a particular direction... the ontological and epistemological restoration of the senses (and the anthropological-social/historical use of such restoration) in itself means a lot of “Enlightenment” thinking can be potentially used in favour of conservatism... for Mannheim, “Old Conservatism” = first half of 19^th century, but he did not go into what “New/Modern Conservatism” is (though Spengler was deemed a “neoconservative”!... it’s important to note that societas civilis-related conservatism was as good as dead by the second half of the 19^th century, with the fusion into “right wing” nationalistic Liberalism becoming much more prominent, even though rhetorically societas-civilis-related conservatism continued up until about WW1... and “left-wing” (also nationalistic) Liberalism concerned with material rights/social welfare eventually “fused with (social/radical) democracy” to form mass democracy c. WW1/WW2)... H. Wagener and “social conservatism” c. 1848 until the 1860s (Prussia), wanting to limit the bourgeoisie incl. by appealing to lumpen/lower/petty and other strata (pensions, labour protection, some voting rights, restrictions on child labour, supervision/inspection of factory working conditions, etc.)... [[ALL “LEFT-WING SOCIALIST” FRIENDS MUST NOTE HOW MUCH COMMON GROUND THERE IS BETWEEN “THE LEFT” AND “THE RIGHT”, INCL. FROM BEFORE MARX’S TIME (SOMETHING BOTH K.M. AND P.K. HAVE REFERRED TO – AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONSIDERABLE POINTS OF POLEMICAL DIFFERENCE TOO!]] ... from 1870, Rudolf Meyer spearheaded social conservative moves for the extension of the state etc. incl. into railroads, universal disability and old-age pension system, financing peasant conservatism etc. .... Interesting references are also included to social conservatism and “anti-Semitism” (B. Bauer, “arch-anti-Semite” (I wonder why? HAHAHAHAHA!) Eugen Dühring, incl. the assertion that the lack of discussion of such a social phenomenon is a “defect” in P.K.’s book, and is a topic not touched upon by Mannheim either. My view is that if one goes into the topic of “Semitism”, “pro” or “con/anti-”, it’s a topic which “never ends” and which only has “significance” whether you are a Semite and or friend of Semites, and or not (the "yes and no, sort of" position), and if you are absolutely indifferent to the matter, as probably most people are, then it’s of no significance, esp. when there are so many other minorities we can all talk about, incl. ones which are not “very involved” in Banking, High Finance, Modern Corporations, amongst Billionaires, Media & Entertainment Barons, Top-End-of-Town Academia, (Academic) Publishing, Law, Medicine, Government Policy Formation, etc., etc., etc.., in particular (“)Western(”) oligarchic bourgeois liberal, or later, mass-democratic countries). (By the way, “very involved” is not the same as a “world conspiracy”, but all our Semite friends immediately jump to “world conspiracy” and “NAZI-ism” as soon as someone points out some FACTS (FACTA) as to “very disproportionate” group/individual accumulations of forms of power and wealth in elite circles in particular countries incl. through primitive secret society networking and for concrete social/economic/political-historical reasons etc., etc., etc.) ... Mannheim wrote on fascism and national socialism. Whilst fascism etc. has nothing to do with societas civilis and the old landed nobility as a ruling class, or still existent social class which not long ago was ruling, it does have to do with certain motifs/notions (anti-egalitarianism, organic society/corporate conceptualisations etc.) and aesthetic elitist-like positionings, ... with Mannheim emphasising “conservative revolution” intellectual avant-gardism much more than P.K., who emphasised WW1, Treaty of Versailles, hyper-inflation, the German nation not being fully within the states of Germany (and Austria) etc.. Mention is made of state involvement in the “fascist” economy, which was not that “economically liberal”... P.K. underestimated the aesthetic element for the German Radical/Far Right... Wagner, the S. George circle, Gottfried Benn,... = important for the middle-class acceptance of authoritarianism... + P.K. did not go into “national revolutionary and national Bolshevist” movements... the pre-history of “Nordic blood” notions as later adopted by the National Socialists... Max Webers Diktum sehen (I LOVE THIS!): „Interessen (materielle und ideelle), nicht: Ideen, beherrschen unmittelbar das Handeln der Menschen. Aber: die ‚Weltbilder‘, welche durch ‚Ideen‘ geschaffen wurden, haben sehr oft als Weichensteller die Bahnen bestimmt, in denen die Dynamik der Interessen das Handeln fortbewegte. Nach dem Weltbild richtete es sich ja: ‚wovon‘ und ‚wozu‘ man ‚erlöst‘ sein wollte und – nicht zu vergessen: – konnte.“  (Max Weber: Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen. Konfuzianismus und Taoismus. Schriften 1915-1920, hrsg. von Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer i.Z.m. Petra Kolonko, Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe, Bd. I/19, Tübingen 1989, S. 101.)]]

[[Very helpful and illuminating in relation to the concept of “power” and associated concepts and categories (including with regard to certain ambiguities arising from my remarks on the “Power and Decision” page of this Site), is: Falk Horst, »Von der Selbsterhaltung zum Machtstreben in „Macht und Entscheidung“«.]]

[[Further Note re: one of the articles/essays: there is no preference for an “anthropological starting point” if one means that there is any ontological priority of man in relation to the social/the cultural. Such a starting point, if it exists, is only apparent in theorising (i.e. explaining based on scientific criteria) about man in certain Kondylisian passages. There can be no man without reference to the social and the cultural too, so there can be no “anthropological priority” and preference for man, as compared to the social-ontological and sociological. One should not confuse what is conceptually necessary in organising and presenting explanatory, theoretical, scientific thought when engaging in absolutely necessary thought/intellectual abstractions, delimitations and categorisations, with what exists, so to speak, ontologically, and attempts to comprehend what exists. All perspectives of what is, can at different points be emphasised differently, but all converge on the same (ultimate) object under examination, i.e. human social existence, its constants and its variables. There is no man and anthropology as an ontological “starting point” separate to society and social ontology. Only, conceptually-theoretically can we choose to start with discussing man before we start discussing man in society or the society of men/humans. But then again, we can also choose to start by means of discussing and theorising the social relation before we look at and focus on man as social being in (reference to) society and also always in nature, since man’s biological existence never disappears ontologically (just as his socially referable existence (to other men and social facts of men) never disappears for as long as he is alive), as life also comes with the biological constant of (the eventual advent of) DEATH.

The same text, however, includes a very important discussion, inter alia, of P.K. and Spinoza, potentiality, potentia and actuality.

Footnote 52 makes a very valid point: "Hume's question" was how a small minority could rule over a majority, and Heinrich Popitz looked at the question in terms of in/equality, whereas for P.K. (and I add the strict scientific observer engaged in social ontology/anthropology), all that matters is the question of power, that (forms of) power by humans acting as groups and individuals is/are "distributed" variously, ... and not specifically which groups and individuals in which circumstances and in which historical conjunctures "enjoy" and exercise what forms and degrees of power, which are matters for historians (practitioners of the historical science or science of history), (historical-)sociologists, "1,420 year-old crazy Hellenic Romans", et al., engaged in such analyses.

Further Remark re: something else I read: just because a society overall refers much less to divine power and much more to human forms of power, it does not mean that the society "overall" has gotten over ideologisation and idealisation. On the contrary, those societies (e.g. Western mass democracies) "overall" claiming to be relatively beyond metaphysics and "divinity" have all the more cause to spread their various forms of ideologisation, and idealisation and "secular/non-theological enchantment" across a whole range of societal sectors such as the fetishisation of the "equality" of all individuals, where, in reality, forms of individual and group inequality exist everywhere, and as it "just happens", some of these forms are not or barely or only partly "noticed" and often appear "normal" to people, and in fact are even "not to be mentioned or discussed" without "problems, chastisement, repercussions, punishment, etc." ensuing. This, in effect, is a form of DeiFication (or ReiFication, Enchantment, if you prefer - or whatever else one wants to call it, such as BrainWashing or (FULL-SPECTRUM) Lobotomisation, etc.), which lacks nothing compared to overt, conventional or "traditional" Theology in terms of Theologising and Theologisation BY OTHER MEANS (cum "Divine Wrath, Fire and BrimStone"). ("Satan, Satan, Monkey, Monkey, Satanic Circus Monkey" - is all I have to SAY - as a MADMAN!)]]

[[On the question of metaphysics or a kind of metaphysics surviving in all historical epochs, wherever there is human thought, i.e. as thought referring to something Supra-empirical whilst making some kind of (explicit, obvious or implicit, veiled) power claim (including references to God, world formulae, general theories or hypotheses, the setting of normative principles and values and associated ideological statements and positionings (incl. appeals to Reason etc.), and also including the interpretation of empirical reality, theories of universal claims of validity ...

(scientific, referring to ethics, or not – even the theory of relativity or “Big Bang” or any other scientific theory imply there is meaning and value (relevant to (self-preserving-until-death) humans) in empirical description and or logical argumentation etc. as well as (power-claim-related) “victory” in the field of theory in opposition to other theories etc., otherwise they would not have been propounded and “distributed”, just as language would not have been used if the objects, phenomena etc. of the world were not given significance and meaning – there are no ideas as such; there are just men/humans using them; friend v. foe; interpretation, identity, decision (the selection of material etc. to be contemplated and understood, categorisations, abstractions, recourse to a notion of a Whole which answers ultimate questions and problems ...) ... etc., etc., etc. ...)) [[see also Power and Decision, esp. Ch. III and “Science, Power and Decision” (the observation of facts itself is a power claim seen from a particular perspective etc.),

regardless of whether an era’s main thought paradigm refers to Transcendence or (atheistic) Immanence, see Die Neuzeitliche Metaphysikkritik (The New Times Critique of Metaphysics), especially the Concluding or Final Remark/Comment/Observation (pp. 559-561 (German edition) = v. 2, pp. 249-252 (Greek edition (Ἡ κριτικὴ τῆς Μεταφυσικῆς στὴ Νεότερη Σκέψη); v. 2 = Part IV, Sections 1-5, translated from the German into Greek by Μιχάλης Παπανικολάου (Michalis Papanikolaou) (Parts I – III (= v. 1) in Greek are by P.K. himself)).

Here it is, translated from the German (with consultation of the Greek translation) into English in full (by C.F., ©, June 2019):

“

5.   Concluding Remark (Final Comment or Observation)

Since the Enlightenment, time and again, the decline and the death, or conversely, the survival and the inexhaustible force and strength of metaphysics was ascertained, in relation to which diagnosis, and pious or sanctimonious prognosis, were not separated from each other. Whether now these diagnoses and prognoses turned out in favour of metaphysics or against it, common to them was the undifferentiated talk of “metaphysics” and the overlooking of the great variety of the factual, historically attested language use/usage [[as regards the term “metaphysics”]]. Behind them, as a rule, stood the will of identifying either metaphysics in general with one’s own metaphysical position, and to protect and shield oneself from every “falsification, distortion or adulteration”, or else, to hold metaphysical aberration exclusively against the (i.e. one’s) intellectual(-spiritual) opponent, and through that, acquit, clear, absolve and exonerate oneself from that (metaphysical aberration). The reduction of metaphysics in general to a certain type of metaphysical thinking has, therefore, served normative perceptions and views about the tasks and duties of intellectual(-spiritual) activity and polemical intentions. Descriptively, the question and problem as regards the life or death of metaphysics cannot be answered or responded to, if we do not bear in mind the entire spectrum of phenomena pertaining to the history of ideas, which, on each and every respective occasion, was called “metaphysics”, without wanting to become fixated on an allegedly “genuine, true or real” concept of metaphysics; in regard to that, though, we see [[it]] confirmed by the ascertainment that ambiguity (or the existence of multiple meanings) in the matter and in the nomenclature (of metaphysics) had existed already since Aristotle; in the New Times, it (the ambiguity) grew only as the result of the pressure under which traditional metaphysics came. From this point of view, it turns out that the concept of metaphysics unconstrainedly survived the metaphysics of Transcendence, and in fact experienced, on the terrain of a godless (i.e. atheistic) Immanence, an (epistemological) revival in recent decades. The tying or binding of the concept of metaphysics to Transcendence in the sense of the old From There (i.e. That World or Life) or “real Is/Being” is, therefore, not obligatory or constitutive – but its tying or binding to the Supra-empirical remains obligatory and constitutive, i.e. to that which is not directly found (discovered or encountered) by any (sensorial) experience ((sinnliche) Erfahrung), and also cannot be unobjectionably or impeccably confirmed or rejected by any (sensorial) experience, regardless of whether it is here a matter of God, of a world formula or of general theories or hypotheses. The extensive, far-reaching or principal/main identification of the Supra-empirical with the Transcendent or the From There (i.e. That World or Life) was unavoidable during long (i.e. for many) centuries, because Transcendence fulfilled normative tasks, duties, functions and missions. From the moment at which the inner-worldly (i.e. of this world) authorities (or tiers of jurisdiction) undertook, assumed or took over not only de facto, but also nominally, the determination and definition of norms, which are supposed or ought to regulate social life, the old Transcendence had to necessarily be dropped, discontinued, abolished and cease to exist, or fade and wither. If, nevertheless, the invocation of the Supra-empirical unabatedly continues to be called upon, made use and taken advantage of, and very often called (i.e. as often as this appears – on the basis of (a) concrete polemical constellation – to be purposeful, expedient or imperative and necessary) “metaphysics”, then it (the said invocation of the Supra-empirical) must have causes which lie deeper than the (demonstrably, neither ubiquitous nor socially indispensable) desire for the From There (i.e. That World or Life).

   Supra-empirical statements (or propositions) are made either for the founding and establishment of norms and values, or else, for the drawing up, putting forward or formulation of theories (be they scientific or not) with (a) general, i.e. universal claim of validity. In both cases, it is a matter of statements/propositions which – of their essence and nature – articulate a power claim, even if this appears more clearly in (regard to) normative statements and propositions: whoever represents and recommends norms, obviously wishes for the adapt(at)ion of the behaviour of other men to his own notions and representations of values, which of course are always passed off as the product of “Reason” etc.. However, also in the field or area of not (directly) ethical theory, the factor of power (i.e. the power factor) is no less crucial and decisive – and metaphysics has, after the collapse of traditional-value-related Transcendence, mainly to do with this theoretical field or area (i.e. of not (directly) ethical theory), whilst ethical reflection in the New Times was, in principle and programmatically, separated from science. Why it must be so, and in which manner theory must function under these circumstances, I have set out and explained in another work⁷¹⁷. Especially with regard to the problem of metaphysics, that is, with regard to supra-empirical statements and propositions, it is, in principle, to be grasped or recorded that without such statements and propositions, no theoretical generalisation on a broader basis, and also no interpretation of experience (i.e. the totality of a person's perceptions, feelings, and memories, or, empirical reality; Erfahrung), is possible. Interpretation of experience by an interested subject means, ipso facto, transendisation (i.e. transcending; Transzendierung), sifting, sorting, shortening, curtailment, reduction and dilution, thinning of the same (experience), that is, its (experience’s) subjection and subjugation to and under those points of view, in which the power claim of the theoretician as theoretician (i.e. as (a) member of a community, in which questions and problems of identity, and power struggles, are (re)solved or are dealt with by means of theoretical arguments) finds expression and is reflected, for particular reasons, in a certain situation. This handling or treatment of      

⁷¹⁷ Macht und Entscheidung (= Power and Decision), esp. Ch. III; with particular consideration of the examination of the problem of knowledge (and science), [[see]] in: Wissenschaft, Macht und Entscheidung (Science, Power and Decision).

experience, which belongs, in terms of its essence, to theory, is accompanied by the striving for and after generalisation and universality, i.e. for and after the erection, building and establishment of a theoretical Whole. Therein, the power claim of the theoretician climaxes. Because from the point of view of a Whole, whose ideational axes must be products of world-theoretical decisions, the above-mentioned subjection and subjugation of experience is effected, takes place and ensues under (i.e. by way of) interpretation much more directly and simply. The Whole, consequently, becomes or turns into the epitome (embodiment or quintessence) of a theoretically organised subjective positioning towards (or vis-à-vis) the world question (or problem (in respect) of the world) – and recourse to the idea of a Whole is, again, necessary, because only from the standpoint of the Whole can ultimate questions be answered; and only he who can answer ultimate questions may raise his hopes (or give himself hope) for the pushing through and imposition of his perceptions and views in theoretical polemics.

   By means of these remarks, comments and observations, we touch upon the essence of metaphysical thought: it is a matter of that ideational power claim which is manifested or manifests itself and appears in the drawing up, putting forward or formulation of a theoretical Whole on a supra-empirical basis or foundation – but with the promise that all, or maybe at least the, on each and every respective occasion – deemed-to-be-central – aspects of experience, are to be explained. From this perspective, we must not ascertain, prophesy or bewail, bemoan and lament the death of metaphysics: the power claim, from which it lives and is nourished, is just as much, or just as little, indestructible and resilient as socially living man himself. Conversely, those who express such ascertainments, prophecies or laments, should reveal and disclose about which metaphysics they talk on each and every respective occasion. The metaphysics of Transcendence was a form of it (i.e. metaphysics), which came into being and had an effect for a long time, because it corresponded to the character, the needs and the social function of the strata of theoreticians bearing it. In the new-times secularised societies, power claims, which were expressed by means of supra-empirical statements and propositions, had to, as a result of general world-theoretical radical change, overturning or revolution, seek another unfolding space or other space/room for development, which was – out of opposition to the old Transcendence – called immanent; hence, the concept of metaphysics survived the collapse of this latter (Transcendence). Whether the Transcendence in the old sense will come back into favour, we cannot know. Excluded is only that its (i.e. metaphysics’) source will ever dry up – that power claim, namely, which is articulated as the transendisation (i.e. transcending) of experience with regard to, and in view of, the drawing up, putting forward or formulation of a polemically effective (effectual) theoretical Whole.

”

]]

[[The MadMan Says: There’s a preference for saying “anthropological constant (Konstante)” rather than “anthropological law (Gesetz)” simply because we are dealing with human-social-related factors and forces, rather than with non-human laws (because in relation to humans, “law” refers to man-made laws, and or laws believed to have been made by God, but actually made by man, and are all subject to change etc.. Now, this is not a big deal, and if someone is comfortable with the term “anthropological law (Gesetz)” (rather than “anthropological constant (Konstante)”) e.g. in regard to “Power and Decision”, so be it. (see pp. 141-143 of Panajotis Kondylis und die Metamorphosen der Gesellschaft)]]

[[It is very easy to forget that social ontology does not treat everything human (incl. all the material preconditions for human life (biology to its full extent, the wider natural world, which are the objects of other disciplines)). Social ontology is the ontology of the social (i.e. the human-related social). So, the social is taken for granted as relating to the primal or original fact of the being of society (just as the cosmos is taken for granted in cosmology, or the being of the world as the intellectual/thought sine qua non for philosophical ontology). It’s the acting and being of socially living humans which is key for social ontology. There are aspects of the economy or of the intellect/spirit which are of social-ontological interest, and those aspects which are illuminated historically-sociologically. So, in terms of social ontology, anthropology is examined as to what is social-ontologically relevant, and other aspects of anthropology remain in the provenance of other disciplines, starting with biology. That is why the anthropological, just like the political, appears from the perspective of social ontology differently from that of general anthropology, or common and familiar political science, whereby the separation does not concern the fields of the thing (i.e. the subject matter itself as to content), but (changing) aspects [[e.g. the social relation’s mechanism and spectrum, understanding and rationality; society as a political collective (social cohesion and social order and social disciplining); identity, power, culture, ... all of which intersect, interact and or mutually influence one another both in terms of the anthropological and the political (and the economic, etc.) ... (see p. 196 of the German ed. of Das Politische und der Mensch (= pp. 379-380 of the English translation); p. 164 of Panajotis Kondylis und die Metamorphosen der Gesellschaft). And on p. 167 (loc. cit.), there is a very important reminder that whilst all political relations are social (incl. (at least potentially) the full (Friend-Foe) spectrum of the social relation), not all social relations are political (e.g. suicide from lovesickness or killing as revenge in a family vendetta). On the other hand, there is no society without some degree of the operation of the political, i.e. of binding (forms of) relations pertaining to social cohesion and social order. A very strong point is made (which I pointed out to someone else once) on p. 169 (loc. cit.), that the decision to proceed methodologically (i.e. in accordance with a certain or fixed method as regards an object or subject matter under investigation) is an attempt at objectifying a world-theoretical stance. [[I add: such a world-theoretical stance is always ideational (humans create and use ideas/language for purposes of understanding, meaning, culture, identity, orientation, etc., ... incl. to influence others etc.), and can also be ideological and or unscientific when it is not in accordance with empirically observable reality and logical cohesion and or it tells people what to do, what to believe etc. in terms of normative (ethical) values.]] Pp. 169-175. (loc. cit.) is an excellent overview of some of the key turning points in the history of ideas, whilst keeping in mind societal changes as well. And pp. 175-176 (loc. cit.) reminds us that even the mere observation, sighting, sifting and examination of facts is a power claim seen from a certain perspective, and no-one can “get out” such a state of affairs, since everyone sees things from a certain perspective, including facts. (I add: what one should do with these facts (and with phantasms), is a question for those who make power claims in relation to others beyond mere observation or description. Wanting everyone to be anti-dogmatic (e.g. as to method) becomes a kind of prescriptive dogmatism, just as wanting everyone to be “tolerant” amounts to an intolerance to “intolerance”, as one-sidedly defined by those making certain power claims. Thus, the real question is, who bindingly defines and interprets (and in relation to what and whom) ... “tolerance/intolerance”, “anti-dogmatism/dogmatism”, “system rationality”, “true” communication, “equality”, “racism”, “sexism”, “human rights”, “love”, “hate”, “justified and unjustified” accumulations, concentrations, and crystallisations of forms of power and wealth in relation to groups and or individuals?]]

Konstantin Verykios

»Wissenschaftliche Wahrheitssuche bei Panajotis Kondylis«

(https://www.iablis.de/iablis_t/2013/verykios13.html)

and

Konstantin Verykios

and

»Die Handlungstheorie von Panajotis Kondylis«

(https://www.iablis.de/iablis/themen/2017-die-leidgepruefte-demokratie/campus-2017/357-die-handlungstheorie-von-panajotis-kondylis)]]

Falk Horst (Hg.) Panajotis Kondylis und die Metamorphosen der Gesellschaft. Ohne Macht lässt sich nichts machen (some further points of interest as noted by ME THE MADMAN (TOTALLY INSANE): and don’t forget, the articles of this book are “jam-packed” with useful insights and reminders of key Kondylisian positions, with the odd “debatable” point or two, too! ... On this Site Page, I’ve just referred to some of what interested me in this very useful book):

S. 179-180 It’s very important to note that the (semi-)great Tönnies combined both an acknowledgement of the role of enmity in society with a hope or wish that the community – society dichotomy could be overcome with a restoration of community on a “higher” anti-capitalistic basis. I foresee that this fundamental position of Tönnies might enjoy some kind of revival in coming years. We shall see. The great JOO Simmel (along with v. Wiese) does better than Tönnies on this point of enmity and society, though, because Simmel simply cuts the fucking bullshit (and Weber, like Clausewitz, cuts the fucking bullshit too (S. 181) (peacetime is not without conflict; it’s just that its means are non-violent), unlike Mead and Parsons (I ADD: though Mead and Parsons still display theoretical qualities totally lacking in the FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-LOBOTOMISED (interpreters of the) “theoreticians” c. Joo-Ri-Da, Homo-Cault and thereafter)).

S. 181-182 Parsons took what was theoretically sound from Weber, and fashioned his own universalising schema, hoping (my phrasing) 1950s (not yet FULL-SPECTRUM-ZIO-LOBOTOMISED-)USA would last forever.

S. 182 The semi-great Parsons (and other Systems theoreticians), following the great Durkheim, turned the Marxist Historical-Materialist Base-Superstructure model upside down by emphasising the ethical-normative factor, and inter alia, Parsons ended up abandoning voluntarism to put behaviourism in the service of normativism ...

S. 183-184 = reminders of Coser (another Judas person) ... and ... Dahrendorf.

S. 184 Invisible Hand/positive only (no negative) unintended consequences of action Ideologues ... 2 out of 3 = Judas Joos ... boring ... (Pop(per) goes the Weasel!, Hayek, v. Mises Moses Supposes ... [[not to mention ZIO-Buber ... it’s enough to make you fucking SICK ...]]) ... we’ve fucking had enough of them ... fucking imbeciles ... (notwithstanding some strengths, because most people make some correct observations too!)

S. 188-189 Real power relations and the reality of self-interest come into conflict with the ideology of “voluntariness” in exchange. The voluntary agreement to the same exchange ratio IS NOT THE SAME as voluntarily enduring inequality to ward off other disadvantages, i.e. unequal exchange is STILL more advantageous than resistance and rebellion. (THIS TO ME CLEARY INDICATES THAT THE REAL RELATIONS OF POWER AS TO GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ACCUMULATIONS, CONCENTRATIONS AND CRYSTAL(LISATION)S OF FORMS OF POWER AND WEALTH are “conveniently dealt with” inter alia including BY FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO LOBOTOMY BRAINWASHING ... until, or course, “the system” eventually breaks down ... one way or another ...). Methodological individualism thus cedes theoretical territory to the structural view of the social ... economism and behaviourism, ... “post-industrial” society (with mass production and mass consumption “taken for granted”) and the ideology of exchange tied to a “soft interpretation of power” HIC ET NUNC, whilst history and the always present real capacity for violent power, domination and hegemony, just like the super-exploitation (my term) of “Third World” CHEAP LABOUR workers ... is conveniently “forgotten and overlooked” because all of that “just happens” ... in continuing waves of IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHIT UNDER ZIO-USA AND THE ASSOCIATED SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY. IT’S NOW UP TO HAN MAN AND OR APE MAN AND OR ANOTHER MAN TO DEAL WITH THE ZIO/JUDAS/MAMMON-PAPIST-PROTESTANT-ATHEIST-FEMINOFAGGOTISED COCK-SUCKING-SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY EXCREMENT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOTHING WILL THEN BECOME OR GET “BETTER”. BY THEN, THINGS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE MUCH, MUCH WORSE. WE ARE ALL LOCKED INTO A ZIO/JOO-PROTESTANT-PAPIST-COCKSUCKING-FEMINOFAGGOTISD-OTHERISING-SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY-MAMMON-LUCIFER-DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL-JUDAS-VOMIT-PARASITE-FLEA-VULTURE-FAECES-DUNG-SPIRAL, AND THERE’S NO WAY OUT ... EVENTUALLY ... NO WAY OUT ... ONLY – AT BEST – DELAYING THE INEVITABLE ...

S. 195 Spinoza: “Voluntas et intellectus unum et idem sunt”

S. 202 Spinoza and Kondylis = The a-normativism or non-normativism of power.

S. 204 Spinoza: »Alle Dinge, die in der Natur existieren, sind entweder Dinge oder Handlungen. Nun sind gut oder schlecht nicht Dinge oder Handlungen. Folglich sind gut oder schlecht nicht in der Natur« and »Die Menschen indessen werden meist von einem vernunftlosen Trieb geleitet; gleichwohl stören sie dann nicht die Ordnung der Natur, sondern folgen ihr mit Notwendigkeit.« = Das Gestz der [[S. 205]] Natur, auch der menschlichen, ist die Notwendigkeit, nicht die Tugend, nicht die Sphäre der Normativität oder die Unterwerfung unter eine Sittlichkeit.

S. 206 Spinoza: »[D]er menschliche Geist, insofern er als die zureichende Ursache zur Hervorbringung solcher Tätigkeiten [Bejahen und Verneinen, S.E.] aufgefaßt wird, heißt Wille.«

S. 208 Spinoza: „Menschen sind notwendigerweise Affekten unterworfen und so verfaßt, daß sie die Unglücklichen beklagen und die Glücklichen beneiden, daß sie mehr zur Rache als zum Mitgefühl neigen, daß außerdem jeder danach trachtet, daß die anderen nach seiner Sinnesart leben, nämlich billigen, was er selber billigt, und verwerfen, was er selber verwirft.“  ("Humans are of necessity subjected and subjugated to affects, sentiments and emotions, and so composed that they lament the unfortunate and envy the fortunate, that they tend more towards revenge than to sympathy, that, furthermore, everyone strives and aspires to make others live according to one’s disposition and way of thinking, namely to approve of what one approves of oneself, and reject what one oneself rejects.")

s. 209 ... Spinoza sagt im 18. Paragraphen des Politischen Traktats explizit und in Übereinstimmung mit seiner Anthropologie und Ontologie, „daß es im Naturzustand keine Sünde gibt“,  dass die oben angesprochenen Verhaltensdispositionen [[revenge etc.]] also nicht an sich unrechtmäßig sind, denn „Unrecht ist nur im bürgerlichen Zustand denkbar“. [[THIS MEANS THE ONLY WAY TO JUDGE SOMETHING HUMAN AS “FAIR/JUST OR UNFAIR/UNJUST”, “GOOD OR BAD”, “BEAUTIFUL OR UGLY”, IS BY HUMAN CRITERIA WHICH ARE NOT FIXED BY NATURE, GOD, “ETERNAL HUMAN RIGHTS” ETC. BUT ARE FIXED BY HUMANS THEMSELVES. E.G. THE TOTAL INHERENT EVIL (SUBJECTIVELY SEEN AS A MATTER OF TASTE) OF THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY DEFINING “RIGHT AND WRONG”, “LEFT AND RIGHT”, ETC..]]

S. 214 P.K.: „die normative Gleichgültigkeit der wertfreien Betrachtung“

S. 220 »Kondylis überführt Spinozas Ontologie in eine moderne Strukturanalyse. Diese Strukturanalyse zielt in Macht und Entscheidung auf die „formale Struktur der objektivierten Entscheidung“  und verbindet sich mit Kondylis‘ ideengeschichtlichen Werken dadurch, dass die „Erfassung der Struktur von Denkgebilden“  im Weltbildbegriff den Konvergenzpunkt bzw. das Übergangsphänomen von Machttheorie und ideengeschichtlicher Analyse findet.«

S. 221 »Selbsterhaltung und Macht, die gemeinsamen Grundbegriffe Spinozas und Kondylis’, bezeichnen nichts Werthaftes, sondern aus ihnen erklären sich Entstehung, Bedeutung und Struktur von Werthaftigkeit.«

S. 221 P.K. »So sind sie, die Geschöpfe der Natur, sie können nicht anders.«

WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT SPINOZA? “A FUCKING VERY SMART AND FUCKING VERY LEGENDARY AND FUCKING VERY SHREWD JOO, AND I FUCKING LIKE HIM A LOT (ALMOST AS MUCH AS I ADMIRE AND LOVE RED ROSA WITH HER VERY BIG BALLS)!!!”

[[The Study by S. Edinger also includes a couple of “very funny” references which I found “very funny” ... and if there is a reader out there, you can “figure out” what “funniness” I’m referring to, yourselves.]]

S. 227 (Again, a comment by a CrazyMan): Human history might be a lot more than the political-military dimension, (and good ol’ Thucyd. might just as much have been a dramatic narrator – dramatist ... as he was an observer of power relations), but so what? (cf. the conclusion of S. 229 re: »Tiefenschärfe«). The political-military dimension is exactly the dimension referring to the most intense, concentrated events of human history which could or did signify in the most emphatic possible manner a slighter or greater change of overall societal direction. It could well be that the build up to mass democracy goes back decades – at multiple intertwining levels of societal relations – into the 19^th century – and in relation to some aspects – even centuries back to the Renaissance and early New Times period, but nothing like WW1 and WW2 exists as events to signify the advent of mass Zombie societies, incl. under ZIO-USA in “The West”.

S. 232 » ... andererseits wird Kondylis' deskriptiver Dezisionismus von Carl Schmitts politischem Existenzialismus abzugrenzen sein, den Kondylis als „militanten Dezisionismus“ anspricht, ohne Carl Schmitt dabei überhaupt namentlich zu nennen.« (I like that term: “political existentialism” ... ) ... We shouldn’t underestimate Schmitt, should we? But then again, at what point do we overestimate Schmitt’s value? [[Good question!]]

S. 234 NEVER FORGET IT (THIS IS A CORE AND CENTRAL POINT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ALL HUMAN AFFAIRS, SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ... ): „Der Subjekte von Entscheidungen gibt es drei: die Gattung, die Gruppe (in ihren verschiedensten sozialen und geschichtlichen Formen) und der Einzelne.“ SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ...

S. 236 »Der Akt der Entscheidung realisiert somit in der Praxis unausweichlich, was Spinoza in seinem berühmten Diktum „omnis determinatio est negatio“ zum Ausdruck bringt.«

S. 251 »Den historischen Einsatzpunkt der genuin planetarischen Entwicklungen bildet Kondylis zufolge nicht etwa die planetarische Reichweite militärischer Waffen (Atombombe) oder das ingenieurstechnisch bedingte Zusammenschrumpfen großer Distanzen im 20. Jahrhundert, sondern die Entwicklung des Kolonialismus mitsamt der rudimentären Herausbildung eines Weltmarkts seit dem 16. Jahrhundert, durch welche sich zum ersten Mal eine planetarische Hegemonie zu etablieren begann.« HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I MUST BE INSANE ... SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ...)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S. 251-252 THIS IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION: »Welche Rolle spielt der menschenrechtliche Universalismus als eine globale Ideologie in einer planetarischen Gesamtsituation, in welcher einerseits weltweit, und zunehmend auch innerhalb der sogenannten reichen Gesellschaften, ein großes Gefälle hinsichtlich der Lebensqualität besteht, und andererseits die Limitiertheit ökologischer Ressourcen und damit die Frage nach deren Verteilung ins allgemeine Bewusstsein rückt, in Anbetracht dessen, dass dieses Gefälle ihm zufolge definitiv unhinnehmbar sein muss?«

S. 254 WELL, HOW DO YOU DO? AND HOW ABOUT THAT? „Der freie Handel wird in anderem Licht erscheinen, wenn das erste Exportland nicht mehr Vereinigte Staaten oder Deutschland, sondern China heißt; und die Freizügigkeit wird hysterische und barbarische Reaktionen auslösen, sollten sich Hunderte von Millionen auf den Weg machen. Während der Sieg der Prinzipien des Westens im liberalen und imperialistischen Zeitalter eo ipso den Sieg des Westens bedeutete, kann der Sieg der Prinzipien des heutigen massendemokratischen Westens auf planetarischer Ebene den Untergang des Abendlandes herbeiführen.“

[[Whatever happens, as long as there are people, there will be groups, individuals, interests, norms, ideologies and reality! And on the question of the Distribution of “Stuff” and who controls what spaces ... there will be co-operation, but also ... conflict ... up to very intense conflict ... and violence ... and war ...]] 

[[THIS WAS A TREMENDOUS BOOK. IF YOUR AVERAGE P.K. BOOK AND ARTICLE IS WORTH AN 11/10, THIS BOOK IS WORTH A 10/10, THOUGH I WAS PROBABLY 97% FULLY SATISFIED, RATHER THAN 100% SATISFIED ... BUT THEN AGAIN, I AM INSANE ... ]]

AT THE END OF A BOOK "REVIEW", WE ALWAYS RETURN TO THE BEGINNING ...

[[Panajotis Kondylis und die Metamorphosen der Gesellschaft ... The article by Prof. H-C. Kraus reminds us that C. Schmitt should not be underestimated (e.g. p. 28); and that definitely applies also to O. Brunner, W. Conze and R. Koselleck (passim).]]

»Diese Philosophiekonzeption, ist es, die im Letzten der Grund dafür ist, daß die Lektüre von Kondylis als Akt geistiger Hygiene gelten kann. Kondylis zu lesen ist eine konkrete Einübung in die Freiheit des Geistes – und damit in die höchste Form der Aufklärung, die es geben kann. Denn er erinnert uns eindringlich an die Unverzichtbarkeit einer präzisen Begrifflichkeit für all unsere hermeneutischen Anstrengungen: „Max Webers große Wahrheit, daß unsere Begriffe um so deutlicher und fester sein sollen, je flüssiger die Wirklichkeit ist, gilt nicht nur für das Verstehen von sozialen Phänomenen, sondern auch für die Interpretation von Texten.“« (S. 22 (Till Kinzel), Panajotis Kondylis und die Metamorphosen der Gesellschaft. Ohne Macht lässt sich nichts machen)

TO ANY NON-GERMAN-LANGUAGE READER: YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ GERMAN. STOP BEING LAZY. ... AND YOU THINK YOU ARE A “PHILOSOPHER” OR A “SCHOLAR”.

ΤΡΟΜΑΡΑ ΜΑΣ! ...

https://www.amazon.de/Kondylis-Aufklärer-Mission-Aufsätze-Essays/dp/3050043164

https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/229049

Falk Horst (Hg.) Panajotis Kondylis Aufkläker ohne Mission Aufsätze und Essays

 (NOTES BY A MADMAN)

This is another tremendous volume, published in 2007. I wrote a “poem” in celebration of beginning to re-read and take notes on the book in question.

In Teuton Hun Kraut Land

In Teuton Hun Kraut Land

They publish tremendous books.

They probably also publish a lot of Rubbish,

But when the Germans get it Right

They are Marx and Weber in Theory

They are Goethe, the Poet of Poets

(Only perhaps second to Homer or Dante)

(I don’t like Englishmen generally,

So, I’m leaving the Bard ... of consideration

OUT).

In Teuton Hun Kraut Land

I shall Never Have a Mistress

But I always acknowledge a Barbarian

Who did his own Ding and was Brill(i)ant

(glänzend)

Included is R. Koselleck’s incredible speech on P.K. I had the privilege to translate.

(Andreas Cser = fellow Conze student. Knew P.K. since the 1970s ... so what he writes is probably very important before we even read it...)

S. 14-15 = important reminders of Machiavelli’s significance in signaling in a unique manner some of the main concerns in the transition from the Middle Ages to the New Times as regards politics, power, the modern state (incl. Italian city-state rivalries) and the associated developments in economic and financial activity. Similar anthropological concerns are found in both Machiavelli and Clausewitz, whereas modern scepticism draws the Florentine close to Montaigne, Hobbes and La Mettrie, in the Kondylisian view of things.

S. 16-17: the importance of historical and social context when discussing the history of ideas ...

S. 19 early capitalistic dynamics of development from 12^th century Northern Italy ... A. Doren (1934) + A v. Martin (1932) + W. Sombart (1913) = standard reference works = from self-sufficient feudal-like estates to growing surplus production, increased trade, the spread of the money economy through the emergence of banks and the replacement of the domestic economy by the construction of manufacturing workshops (i.e. pre-industrial(-revolution) factories). [[Madman comments: this is obviously the broad context in which the Satanists through Banking and Trade (and later Corporations) start Accumulating GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power and MONEY-ASSETS-WEALTH ... it roughly coincides with the Fall of Eastern Roman 1204 and then again 1453 and the Beginning of the Conquest of the New World from 1492 and the Expulsion of the Muhumut from Spain (Reconquista) as well as the ZIO-JOO-SATANIST incl. to Thessaloniki under Barbaric Turkic-Osman Muhumut Rule and Eastern Europe and Russia, including all the ZIO-EXCREMENT which would end up running GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY ZIO-USA after ZIO-England and ZIO-France, with prominent families being. inter alia, Rothschild and Warburg, i.e. SatanChild and SatanBurg who sealed (with Morgan and Rockefeller et al.) the ZIO-USA Protestant-JOO Satan Alliance based on MAMMON and EXPLOITATION/URBANISATION-MASSIFICATION-ATOMISATION-UNENDING EVIL ZIO HATE INCL. LATER THE ZIOCAUST, APE AND OTHER WORSHIP, WITH THE FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO LOBOTOMY AND THE AUTO-GENOCIDE OF RELATIVELY WHITE EUROPEAN NATIONS IN FLOODS OF FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-LOBOTOMY DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL MAMMONISING, OTHERISING ZIO HATE WHEREBY THE FORMERLY RELATIVELY WHITE PEOPLES OF EUROPE AGREE WITH THEIR OWN GENOCIDE ... THE ONLY UP SIDE TO ALL OF THIS IS THAT APE MAN AND OR HAN MAN AND OR ANOTHER MAN WILL DEEP FRY THEM, I.E. THE SATANISTS (JOOS AND PROTESTANTS AND SECULARISTS-ATHEISTS) AND THEIR ALLIES (PAPISTS, COCKSUCKERS, FREAKS ETC.). GOOD. SERVES THEM FUCKING RIGHT!!!]]

S. 22 Of course, early Italic capitalism had nowhere near reached the point of the 18^th and 19^th century emancipation of the individual from traditional dependencies with the economic citizen as a subject legally equally and responsible for himself as an individual ... [[InsaneMan says: and it’s under those conditions of atomisation-massification-Mammonisation that the Satanists as a Highly Well Organised Satanic Hate Tribe through Banking and Corporate and Other Capital, with centuries of Experience, come to GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY dominate ZIO-USA, ZIO-UK, ZIO-France etc. ...]]

S. 23 The 15^th and 16^th centuries were still far off the positivism and rationalism of the 19^th century ... even though Renaissance-related Modern State Sovereignty Absolutism was well under way ... [[I add: in England and France]] because Italy (S. 25) was still a kind of microcosm of warring city-statelets etc....

S. 24 15^th century e.g. Christian Neo-Platonism and Ficino incorporating mysticism as a form of elitism against the vita activa of first-generation Italian humanists.

S. 25 from public buildings/construction activity and frescoes to sculptures and transportable/movable paintings ...

War, diplomacy, expansion of finances, elimination of feudalism ... were all relatively prominent in Northern Italy, with Southern Italy still under Norman influence [[I add: since 1071 build upon the Hellenic-Roman heritage of the South ...]] with also The Hohenstaufen, also known as Staufer, [[were a dynasty of German kings (1138–1254) during the Middle Ages. Before ascending to the kingship, they were Dukes of Swabia from 1079. As kings of Germany, they had a claim to Italy, Burgundy and the Holy Roman Empire. Three members of the dynasty—Frederick I (1155), Henry VI (1191) and Frederick II (1220)—were crowned emperor. Besides Germany, they also ruled the Kingdom of Sicily (1194–1268) and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1225–1268).

Ruling in Italy

The conflict between the Staufer dynasty and the Welf had irrevocably weakened the Imperial authority and the Norman kingdom of Sicily became the base for Staufer rule.

Frederick II

Emperor Frederick II spent little time in Germany as his main concerns lay in Southern Italy. He founded the University of Naples in 1224 to train future state officials and reigned over Germany primarily through the allocation of royal prerogatives, leaving the sovereign authority and imperial estates to the ecclesiastical and secular princes. He made significant concessions to the German nobles, such as those put forth in an imperial statute of 1232, which made princes virtually independent rulers within their territories. These measures favoured the further fragmentation of the Empire.

Frederick's Castel del Monte, in Andria, Apulia, Italy.

By the 1226 Golden Bull of Rimini, Frederick had assigned the military order of the Teutonic Knights to complete the conquest and conversion of the Prussian lands. A reconciliation with the Welfs took place in 1235, whereby Otto the Child, grandson of the late Saxon duke Henry the Lion, was named Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. The power struggle with the popes continued and resulted in Fredrick's excommunication in 1227. In 1239, Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Fredrick again, and in 1245 he was condemned as a heretic by a church council. Although Frederick was one of the most energetic, imaginative, and capable rulers of the time, he was not concerned with drawing the disparate forces in Germany together. His legacy was thus that local rulers had more authority after his reign than before it. The clergy also had become more powerful.

By the time of Frederick's death in 1250, little centralized power remained in Germany. The Great Interregnum, a period in which there were several elected rival kings, none of whom was able to achieve any position of authority, followed the death of Frederick's son King Conrad IV of Germany in 1254. The German princes vied for individual advantage and managed to strip many powers away from the diminished monarchy. Rather than establish sovereign states however, many nobles tended to look after their families. Their many male heirs created more and smaller estates, and from a largely free class of officials previously formed, many of these assumed or acquired hereditary rights to administrative and legal offices. These trends compounded political fragmentation within Germany. The period was ended in 1273 with the election of Rudolph of Habsburg, a godson of Frederick.

End of the Staufer dynasty

Conrad IV was succeeded as duke of Swabia by his only son, two-year-old Conradin. By this time, the office of duke of Swabia had been fully subsumed into the office of the king, and without royal authority had become meaningless. In 1261, attempts to elect young Conradin king were unsuccessful. He also had to defend Sicily against an invasion, sponsored by Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaléon) and Pope Clement IV (Guy Folques), by Charles of Anjou, a brother of the French king. Charles had been promised by the popes the Kingdom of Sicily, where he would replace the relatives of Frederick II. Charles had defeated Conradin's uncle Manfred, King of Sicily, in the Battle of Benevento on 26 February 1266. The king himself, refusing to flee, rushed into the midst of his enemies and was killed. Conradin's campaign to retake control ended with his defeat in 1268 at the Battle of Tagliacozzo, after which he was handed over to Charles, who had him publicly executed at Naples. With Conradin, the direct line of the Dukes of Swabia finally ceased to exist, though most of the later emperors were descended from the Staufer dynasty indirectly.

During the political decentralization of the late Staufer period, the population had grown from an estimated 8 million in 1200 to about 14 million in 1300, and the number of towns increased tenfold. The most heavily urbanized areas of Germany were located in the south and the west. Towns often developed a degree of independence, but many were subordinate to local rulers if not immediate to the emperor. Colonization of the east also continued in the thirteenth century, most notably through the efforts of the Teutonic Knights. German merchants also began trading extensively on the Baltic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen ]]

S. 26 The Kaiser and the Pope were no longer perceived as special, ideologically elevated powers of order, but only as normal factors of power. Since no state could destroy the other, but at most was able to achieve small territorial gains, between the five great states of Milan, Florence, Venice, the Holy See, and the Kingdom of Naples, a kind of equilibrium was formed, which was only threatened by Spanish and French invasions. [[I add: Genoa must have relatively declined (?) from its position of the 12^th to 14^th centuries when it played a leading role with Venice in conquering the Hellenic world, and which was receptive, like Venice, to the Joo-Satanist-Mammonists-DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVILS-HEBROO/ZIO/JUDAS-EXCREMENT, expelled from England and elsewhere...]]

What resulted was a more fluid array of patrician-family ruling elites who were not attached to Traditional Monarchical Rule and could play e.g. the lower class masses against the rich bourgeosie, if need be.

S. 27 As I have explained to others, there is no “formula” in Machiavelli ... there’s a lot of material, with many different angles, contradictions etc. in viewing human affairs and I say one has to derive the quintessence of his thought as it relates to relations of power between humans ... through very extensive and intense reading of Machiavelli, other classic thinkers and a thorough knowledge of history ... Machiavelli lived in a time of social, political, moral, religious, symbolic etc. crisis and his patriotism is not like 19^th century Italian unification patriotism, though I add that Machiavelli WAS AWARE of Italians vs. non-Italians, SO simply, Machiavelli did not envision one Italian state, but various Italian states liberated from the Barbarians ...

S. 30 Machiavelli right in the middle of all of the commotion of diplomatic life and modern statehood, where privilege and lineage had nothing like the sway it once did ...

S. 31 Machiavelli had much recourse to the psychology of actors along with human nature as causal factors in history etc. ... [[so we’re not talking about Machiavelli as an absolutely consistent practitioner of the Historical Science etc.]]

S. 32 P.K. in the introduction to Machiavelli = "Aristotle used a kind of historical method for a normative moral purpose, for the search for an ideal politeia, whose overriding purpose is the happiness of the citizen, as well as his inner balance and inner fullness. Thus, Aristotle interweaves the ideal of the state with the well-being of the citizens, while Machiavelli first thinks of the state as a power apparatus and of its ability to survive in competition with other states; this competition, and not way of looking at things oriented towards the individual, determines the form of the state/government. This is obvious, because Machiavelli does not pose the problem in terms of the individual, that one elevates the individual, also in the moral sense, but that one rules the individual. " Machiavelli saw clearly that the society in the state is constructed against enemies and that the state is a value above the individual. The state is not in any inner relationship with any human morality, which it attempts to serve, but [[I add]] is all about survival as a state in competition with other states, etc..

For Machiavelli the key contrast is republic and principality (with notions of a Cycle of History/Recurring Historical Cycle), with the former (Republic) striking the best balance between customs, institutions and laws and whose ultimate example is Rome (and its expansionist self-preservation).

S. 33 Machiavelli’s concept of freedom is not about Civic Participation, Free Speech and Free Thought etc. but a “state of affairs of security and order” and an equilibrium between social classes (even though class struggle is a reality) = KEY SOCIAL-ONTOLOGICAL POINT!!! so that citizens can use their goods and property to best effect AND WITHOUT STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE HOME AND OVER THE FAMILY = SO PATRIARCHAL FAMILY = IS A GIVEN AND TAKEN FOR GRANTED [[CRAZY MAN SAYS: AND IS NOT UNDER THE DISGUSTING SATANIC DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL HATE OF ZIO-USA AND THE FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO LOBOTOMY OF KONSUM, HEDONISMUS, TOLERANZ, PLURALISMUS, EXOTISMUS, APE AND OTHER WORSHIP, FEMINOFAGGOTISATION, THE HORROR OF THE ZIOCAUST AND ZIO-LOBOTMISATION WHILST THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY COMPOUND AND BUNKER DOES NOT OPEN UP ITS BORDERS TO THE WONDERS OF BEAUTIFUL DIE-VERSITY (TO THE TUNE OF SIX (6) MILLION BLACK AFRICANS, KAFFIRS, MUHMUTES ET AL.) WHILST IT HAS A CLEAR SATANIC ORIENTATION AND SATANIC DEVIL-LUCIFER-MAMMON PURPOSE CONNECTED TO INTERNATIONAL SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY HATE WITH ITS EVIL CENTRE IN ZIO-USA etc..]]

For Machiavelli, when the Republic decays, the Prince’s ultimate goal is to restore the Republic of good institutions and laws, etc..

S. 34 KEY in understanding Machiavelli is not that the more “democratic” republic of the Discorsi is preferred over the more monarchical Prince, but that Machiavelli is flexible re: the historical cycle which re-curs etc....

Since people are unreasonable and short-sighted and are more likely to be lured by appearances than to ask about their essence and nature, ... hypocrisy, in addition to violence and cunning, are necessary measures and means to an end for the Prince, so for the good of the state, deception, deceit, cheating, fooling, fraud, swindling as exercised by the Prince, turns into a benefit for the people.

S. 35 And Machiavelli observed Cesare Borgia in Romagna up close ... the famous Chapter VII of The Prince ...

S. 36 it’s the results which are CRUCIAL, not all the details of the actions etc..

S. 37 Machiavelli made SOME use of Polybius and his anakyklosis or "anacyclosis" (starting from Ch. 1 of Discorsi) which rotates through the three basic forms of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and the three degenerate forms of each of these governments ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. [[SO, WHAT WE HAVE IN THE WEST SINCE THE LATE 19^TH CENTURY OR EARLY 20^TH CENTURY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS A KIND OF MIXED REPUBLICAN OR MONARCHICAL OLIGARCHY WITH GENERAL SUFFRAGE ELECTIONS AND FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO/USA-LOBOTOMY BRAIN-WASHING WITH GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ZIO-SATANIC/JUDAS-MAMMON INPUT AND TOTAL, NON-STOP ZIO-HATE.]]

S. 38 BUT MACHIAVELLI was not attached to Polybius’s schema in any strict and total sense, and he eschewed determinism, with the use of the concept of virtu = today one would say, 'the merit' of a human being ... which means that cyclicity is not seen as a naturalistic inevitability, but as a direction, as a tendency of things that is also changeable or can be brought to a halt, namely, by one who wants and has power, to cause this deviation from the schema ... Also, education, customs and the conduct of one’s life are social factors that can lead to the variation of the historical process. So, history is much more open for Machiavelli than for Polybius.

S.39 Both Machiavelli and Guicciardini (as part of the “immanent turn” in thought) no longer understand the history of Florence as part of the pope and emperor's history in the framework of the Res Publica Christiana, but as the development of an autonomous city-state, whose legitimisation has recourse to the fiction of an original or primordial communal freedom.

S. 40 Whilst they have many points of similarity, Guicciardini represents a sarcastic-sceptical world view with resigned features whereas Machiavelli insists on changes, his attitude towards reality is "active and fundamentally optimistic."

S. 41 Machiavelli does not lose himself in isolated detailed historical analyses, but seeks the general. His work is similar to that of humanist historians, who often arbitrarily link different sources with one another. Machiavelli is not so much interested in historical accuracy as in an ideal-typical view of history. Thus, his descriptions of the rulers are usually transformed by ideal-typical ideas. According to this, a low social background is a quality which increases the autonomy, independence and flexibility of the ruler. In addition, the Prince or Ruler must have enough brutality to be able to eliminate aristocratic competitors if necessary. Third, he should have no children because it is not his job to establish his own dynasty, but to rehabilitate the state by functioning institutions and to initiate the transition to a republic.

S. 42 The Decisionist-Voluntarist Machiavelli, who does not pay close attention to historical sources in terms of accuracy and detail, seems to P.K. to be more sympathetic than the Deliberative-Reflective and quietist Guicciardini. Therefore, the negative-sounding characterization of Guicciardini's position can probably be explained as "subjective hermeticism." On the other hand, it is undeniable that Kondylis’s elucidations display right through a value-free style. He manages to interpret in a few pages and in concise sentences the work of two eminent authors as regards the field of tension in their biographies, evaluations, philosophical principles and their political horizon of action. The foundation for many more studies was laid.

The F. Horst Essay is what you’d expect. Absolutely SPOT-ON Brilliant. An excellent “Introductory Piece” – something I with my scatter-brain madness could never write. Central is the spirit-intellect/sensoriality dichotomy of P.K.s Ph.D.-related histories of ideas and Power and Decision. Included are important reference to Descartes and Newton. The (almost) absolutely consistent nihilism in de Sade’s thought, which is absolute in La Mettrie, has no social use, and attention turns to the polemical nature of thought in general. Ideas as weapons. Disputes over the interpretation of concepts. References also to Schopenhauer and Heinrich von Kleist; meaning being tied to identity; self-preservation and one’s fundamental world view as seeming objective to the subject. Friend-Foe is social, not just political ... Culture takes the place of Nature ... Social organisation demands the rationalisation of self-preservation and power striving ... social disciplining and postponement of immediate satisfaction ... wanting (volition) and thinking are intimately intertwined ... Also, the mind/intellect of the individual denies its own polemical nature, because it wants to appear rational and objective. Man grasps/understands the world only situationally and from a particular perspective ... the Kondylisian model of ontological facts as a meta-theory of all human activity. There’s great “spiritual-intellectual” pleasure, which is based on a sublime sense of power, in such meta-theoretical understanding, even though it is absolutely socially ineffective and useless, because this understanding constitutes a nihilistic value-neutral view outside of power struggles. Only in times of crisis, when no world view becomes binding, can this description be heard, but it cannot count on allies, which is why it requires a special degree of self-denial and self-discipline. The results of this non-normative value-free/value-neutral description are not protected from being instrumentalised by the most varied interests, ... though, because history is written by the victors and not the neutral scientist, it might seem that the value-neutral stance is on the side of the weaker, when it really isn’t.

[[

S. 53 “how materialism as a world view and as hermeneutic construct (“descriptive decisionism”) relate to each other” – this is fascinating because P.K. or others (as far as I know), never referred to P.K.’s fundamental stance as “materialism” ... obviously, it is “materialism” as opposed to “idealism” as ideas being immaterial and somehow existing above, beyond and separately from humans as matter, and not tied in some way to humans as material beings with intellectual/”spiritual”-mental/emotional capacity and (cap)abilities etc. ...

Prof. Furth continues his discussion of this basic starting point for his splendiferous article (“Enlightener without a mission. Regarding Panajotis Kondylis’s position”) in an excellent and comprehensive manner, with many points of interest and with references to central passages in P.K.’s texts ... emphasising the “anthropological perspective” (S. 54) of the materialism concerned (and I add: “anthropological” also always means (a connection to the) “social-ontological”) ... which is not to be confused with the dimension pertaining to the philosophy of nature found in Holbach or (dogmatic) Marxism-Leninism ... so it’s a matter of Protagoras rather than Democritus ... S. 55 including the notion that opposing/opposed assertions are equally true (since man is the measure of all things) ... and hence “the equally true” aspect = a question and matter of POWER ... [[the CrazyMan adds: this then takes us all the way through Machiavelli, Montaigne, Hobbes and Spinoza up to Schmitt and Arndt et al. ... and the Kondylisian “for every concept there is a counter-concept” etc. ... and since it’s all about MAN and POWER, ... it’s all about POLITICS and HISTORY (AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER) = THUCYDIDES = BINGO! ... (it’s for P.K. “historical relativism” not Marxist “historical materialism” which is KEY) ...

S. 56 The implications of the Protagorean fundamental position include a hedonism which tends towards an anarchical individualism (I add: within the context of elites in (pre-Industrial Revolution) Agrarian-based small-scale city-state societies ... [[which is very interesting when considering WESTERN MASS DEMOCRACIES AND THEIR CONSUMERISTIC HEDONISM AND MASSIFICAION-ATOMISATION ...

S. 57 »Denn in Wirklichkeit ist die Selbsterhaltung nicht ein Zustand, sondern ein Vorgang« = “Because in reality, self-preservation is not a state of affairs, but a process”

+ S. 58 which always goes with striving after power/power striving ... and both underlie culture and society ...]])

S. 59 A Diogenes Laertius reference = that self-preservation was a Stoic concept employed against hedonistic eudaemonism (so self-preservation related ethically-morally in Stoicism to abstinence and to social-disciplining rather than being the more general concept with social-ontological implications of social disciplining (which can of course can occur in circumstances of the overcoming of the dearth or lack of goods as in Western mass democracies – and obviously unknown to ancient peoples and thinkers ...)

 »Macht ... ist Existenzbedingung und prospektives Sicherungsmittel der Selbsterhaltung« = “Power ... is a condition of existence and a prospective means of securing self-preservation” and is thoroughly relative ...

»[[Macht]] steht dadurch immer im Bezug auf andere Macht und kann nicht anders als in der Gegensatzform existieren« = “accordingly, power stands or is always in relation to other power and cannot exist otherwise than in a contrasting form” [[to other power]] i.e. to a Foe ...

S. 60 ... and the Foe’s world image etc. ...

NOW, THIS IS AWESOME!!!:

»Kondylis vertieft diese Paradoxie noch weiter. Sie betrifft nicht nur die Rolle des Feindes im Verhältnis zur Macht, sondern vor allem auch die Erscheinungsweise der Macht selber. In dem Maße, in dem die Selbsterhaltung um ihrer selbst willen diszipliniert werden muß und dabei die unmittelbaren Bedürfnisse der sinnlichen Existenz in asketische Regie genommen werden, wechselt die Macht ihre Gestalt und erscheint als Gegenteil ihrer selbst.« (MADMAN’S TIP: THE JOOGLE TRANSLATION OF THIS INTO ENGLISH IS QUITE GOOD (THOUGH NOT “PERFECT” (I’D PUT “SENSORIAL” RATHER THAN “SENSIBLE”), SO I RECOMMEND YOU COPY AND PASTE IT INTO YOUR JOOGLE GERMAN-ENGLISH TRANSLATOR ... OTHER TIMES, THOUGH, THE JOOGLE TRANSLATOR IS CRAP, AND THAT’S WHEN YOU NEED A PROFESSIONAL (NOT AN AMATEUR) TRANSLATOR ...)

THIS STUFF IS TOO LEGENDARY TO NOT QUOTE (IT’S LIKE THUCYDIDES-ARISTOTLE-MACHIAVELLI SUPERCHARGED BY TURBO-MONTAIGNE-HOBBES-SPINOZA-MARX-WEBER):

»Triebbedürfnisse und materielle Interessen begrenzen sich, aber realisieren sich auch in der Gestalt ideeller Normen und Institutionen, und Macht setzt sich durch in der Gestalt der Negation oder der Zähmung von Machtansprüchen. Kondylis spricht angesichts dieser Umkehrungsstruktur von einer allgemeinen „Paradoxie in der Kultur" (M. u. E., 51). Sie nötigt auch der Macht ihre Erscheinungsform auf; unter ihrer Bedingung gilt: ,,Macht kann sich nur als das Andere oder das Gegenteil von sich selbst behaupten und erweitern.” (ibid. 51)«

S. 61 there is no possibility of having an eternal, utopian state of mass hedonism because self-preservation and social disciplining require other outcomes over the long run (cf. »Das radikale Progamm der Lust als Endzweck ist entweder utopisch oder unhaltbar, weil es mit den Erfordernissen der Selbsterhaltung und der sozialen Disziplinierung unvereinbar ist.«)

S. 61-62 Freud kicked a Big Goal on the need for the postponement of pleasure for the sake of culture and the attendant victory of the reality principle, but P.K. did not share in the psycho “Psycho-Analyst” JOO’s regret and sorrow that things were so ...

S. 62 Being in a state of Hedonism means that Theory is limited to the ((re-)production of) Ideology and cannot and does not reach the level of Science (cf.: ,,Die sozialen Grenzen des Hedonismus bilden zugleich die Grenzen seines Verständnisses der sozialen Wirklichkeit” (Der Philosoph und die Lust, 34)

S. 66 Ideology (as social-political stance) comes about because ultimate questions are answered from a totalising point of view (a world view) and not in accordance with empirical reality, since tangible and intangible power and identity intertwine with manifestations of the spirit/intellect and the beliefs of those bodies-spirits (mostly) ruling and those (mostly) being ruled ... (cf. »Geist hat für den Materialisten Kondylis grundsätzlich nur den Status eines Mittels; allerdings eines Mittels, das, wie es so oft bei Mitteln geschieht, eine gewisse Selbständigkeit erlangt, und zwar als Machtmittel. Dazu, Machtmittel zu sein, ist der Geist prädestiniert, weil er seinem Wesen nach Herrschaftsanspruch ist. Als solcher verfügt er über die das Ausmaß der Macht bestimmende Kategorie, die des Ganzen. Sie ist entscheidend, weil „sich nur vom Standpunkt des Ganzen aus letzte Fragen beantworten lassen." (Metaphysikkritik, 561) Die Gestalt des aufs Ganze gehenden Geistes ist Weltanschauung oder in Betonung ihres sozialen Aspekts Ideologie.«

{{CrazYmAn “Poetry” time:

Dilthey, Marx and Mannheim

Dilthey, Marx and Mannheim

Were very interesting CHAPS;

I’m not going to get into who was or wasn’t a JOO

And who wore or didn’t wear Baseball Caps.

In the History of Knowledge

In the History of Ideas

Some were Recorded for Posterity

And Others are Paying Arrears (but not Money).

Dilthey, Marx and Mannheim

Were very interesting CHAPS;

You couldn’t probably find TODAY

Such BRAIN POWER

Amongst 7.7 Billion (2019).

}}

S. 67 I love these references to Dilthey and Mannheim (though, there seems to me to be a problem in Mannheim’s position that “the sociology of knowledge” in respect of the relativity of all forms of knowledge, does not adequately explain how non-normative, value-free (scientific) knowledge is possible): »Wie Dilthey Geist und Leben, so verstand K. Mannheim Geist und Gesellschaft als zwei komplementäre, sich wechselseitig bedingende Seiten eines werdenden Ganzen. ...

[[S. 68]] Ideologie als „falsches Bewußtsein" [[MARX]] gegenüber richtigem wurde ersetzt durch Ideologie als "soziale Seinsverbundenheit" des menschlichen Denkens überhaupt. ...«

S. 69 And so: »Die Grenze zwischen Gegenstand und Beobachter ist bei Kondylis viel strikter gezogen.« = “The boundary between object and observer is drawn much more strictly in Kondylis” ...

s. 69 I need to think more about the references to Nietzsche because I’m not sure what they mean ... Maybe the fact that syphilis could “hide” for up to many years – many decades ago – before it made its “appearance” is of relevance?

Given that there is a “fundamental ambivalence of social life”, Sloterdijk’s (who the fuck is that?) "enlightened false consciousness" applies. (“Peter Sloterdijk (born 26 June 1947) is a German philosopher and cultural theorist. He is a professor of philosophy and media theory at the University of Art and Design Karlsruhe. He co-hosted the German television show “Im Glashaus: Das Philosophische Quartett” from 2002 until 2012.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sloterdijk)) (Is this some kind of Joke between the editor and the writer that a Hellene and Roman cannot possibly ever understand? See, Jokes are very Culture-Bound things, and I could never really understand Northern Europeans, be they EnglishFoulMen or TeutonHunKrautMen ...) Because I’m a capital “P” Peasant, it’s rather simple: Everyone has a totalising world view, everyone has a perspective, everyone uses ideas and ideation, AND everyone has an ideology or ideologies or at least refers to an ideology or ideologies, which entail(s) Norms regarding The Political.

S. 70 KEY in the History of Ideas: Materialism vs. Idealism; Sensoriality vs. Spirit-Intellect; Protagoras/Thucydides vs. Plato; (ultra-hard or absolute) Realism vs. Ideology.

S. 73 CLASSIC QUOTE TIME:

»Kondylis setzt die Kosten des Wertnihilismus sehr hoch an. Zwar kann in seiner Sicht „nur der Abschied von jeder Norm und von jedem Anspruch auf Selbsterhaltung und Macht die Erkenntnis der menschlichen Dinge ermöglichen”, aber „der Preis für die wertfreie Erkenntnis ist das Leben, und deshalb sind ihre Aussichten denkbar gering.” (M. u. E., 12)«

And for all Schopenhauer fans out there (I’m not one of them (I don’t like the look of him, there’s something Rat-like about him), though I probably agree with a lot of what he wrote) ... »Kontemplative Theorie hat für Kondylis die das besinnungslose Leben umwendende Bedeutung, die die Kunst für Schopenhauer hatte.«

s. 76 And we return to social ontology, because the social is – so to speak – first.

[[The E. Straub “Conservatism” essay (NOTE: p. 86 includes an “all-time” incredible passage of finely distilled History. DO NOT MISS IT!!!): Having referred to the obsoleteness of political concepts “liberal, socialistic, social-democratic and conservative, stemming from the 19^th century (S. 77), at p. 78 we get this interesting thought which I think all of the time, but which hardly anyone else seems to realise: “Denn der demokratische Markt der Möglichkeiten kann nur funktionieren, wenn die Angebote einander weitgehend gleichen und das Wettbewerbssystem mit seinen Mechanismen nicht in Frage stellen.” (= “Because the democratic market of opportunities can only function if the offers (i.e. what is offered) are largely the same as one another and do not call into question the system of competition (competitive system) with its mechanisms”) ... and so we get “conservatism” as an accusation in regard to sexual behaviour, table habits and travel destinations etc.. And “socialistic” is too “old hat” and not progressive, “liberal” etc.. In other words, who ever is against us [[i.e. in the MadMan’s words: Satanic Circus Monkey (SCM) people]] is a “fascist” of “neo-Nazi”.  

S.79 quite funny about “characters” and “reality shows” and “colour” as long as “the line is not crossed” ...

s.79-80 spot-on references to P.K. in his Conservatism book referring to a social-political phenomenon largely dead by c. 1900, and that since then “conservative” came to mean more “free markets” and less “interventionist welfare state” whilst opposing the “social liberals” [[of what the CrazyMan calls the “Circus Freak-Show Set”, “anti-elitist” or “egalitarian” education etc., which we all know simply creates a new kind of elitism and hierarchy with you-know-who-people GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY involved in certain countries ... which of course the essay in question – quite rightly – does not refer to, because it is appropriately German-centred (as it should be).]].

S. 80 reference is made to P.K.’s thesis that “The German Special Way/Path” notion is Bollocks, and or Ideology since at least up to 1918, the absorbing of conservative currents into liberalism, the symbiosis of the bourgeoisie and the nobility, the bourgeoisification of the nobility and the feudalisation of the upper/ grand bourgeoisie was an all-European phenomenon.

S. 82 the obvious point is made that conservatives are like everyone else involved in politics or normative theory, up to “obsessed” with retaining or (re)gaining their own privileges, ... domination over others ... etc..

»Der Adel befand sich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert, seit dem Aufkommen des modernen, bürokratischen, rationalisierenden und zentralisierenden Staates im Widerspruch zu allen Tendenzen, die allmählich die herkömmliche societas civilis mit ihren Rechten, Freiheiten und Korporationen unter der Autorität des Gesetzes vereinheitlichen und umformen wollten.« (= “Since the sixteenth century, since the advent of the modern, bureaucratic, rationalising and centralising state, the nobility has found itself at odds and in contradiction with all tendencies which wanted to gradually unify and reshape, reform, transform or convert conventional, traditional societas civilis with such tendencies’ rights, freedoms, and corporations under the authority of the law.”) [[MADMAN’S COMMENT (DO NOT READ THIS): THIS (ABILITY TO CHANGE THE LAW THROUGH THE CENTRALISING MODERNISING- BUREAUCRATISING STATE) IS THE KEY STARTING POINT (ALONG WITH THE SECULARISATION-SENSORIALISATION-ANTI-PLATONISATION OF “PHILOSOPHICAL” THOUGHT, AND ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE (PROTO-)CAPITALISTIC MARKET ECONOMY, ASSOCIATED BANKING, FINANCNING, AND LATER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION CUM IMPERIALISM(S)), IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY PEOPLE (“SCMP”) WITH THEIR PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETIES AND THEIR GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY – AS IT WERE – PARASITICALLY-CANCER-LIKE SAT AND SIT WITHIN CAPITALISM, OLIGARCHIC BOURGEOIS LIBERALISM, AND LATER, WESTERN MASS DEMOCRACY (ZIO-USA) OF KONSUM AND HEDONISMUS, ANTI-WHITE “ANTI-RACISM”, THE ZIOCAUST, ETC., TO GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY PARTICIPATE IN THE POTENTIAL AUTO-GENOCIDE OF THE HISTORICALLY RELATIVELY WHITE PEOPLES. IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE PROTESTANTS AND PAPISTS AND SECULARISTS, SALONISTS, ATHEISTS, MASONISTS, HOMOSEXUALS AND OTHER MAMMNONISTS-FREAKS ET AL. THEMSELVES, THE SCMP COULD NOT HAVE GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY (AS BANKERS, TRADERS AND LATER COPORORATIONISTS, MASS MEDIA AND MASS ENTERTAINMENT BARONS, UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, GOVERNMENT POLICY ADVISORS, HIGH-LEVEL PUBLIC/SECRET SERVICE OPERATIVES, JUSTICES, JUDGES, ETC. ETC. ETC.) ACHIEVED ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN APART FROM BEING POGROMMED, EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED ... WHICH IS OF COURSE ON THE CARDS TO HAPPEN AGAIN “BIG TIME” – WHETHER IN 50 YEARS OR 500 YEARS (BUT I’D GUESS IT’LL PROBABLY BE CLOSER TO THE 50 YEARS FROM NOW RATHER THAN THE 500 YEARS ... THOUGH ONE CAN NEVER KNOW FOR SURE ... AND ONE COULD E.G. DIE TOMORROW, AND WHAT THEY DESERVE (FROM A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW) WILL HAPPEN TO THEM THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, SO THAT THE DEAD PERSON WON’T KNOW THAT THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED (FROM A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW) ... ) ...]]

S. 83 We are reminded that “the heroic times (or Age) of conservatism date(s) back to/lies (with)in the 17^th and 18^th century” even though the word “conservative” was first recorded in 1830, though “to conserve” dates from the 16^th century when the nobility wanted “the conservation of our privileges” („Conservierung unserer Privilegen”) + to be the »principe conservateur de l’état« and to have ancien régime of societas civilis and “god-given” law in force and power (and not bourgeois man-made rule of law/law and order) and with the King as part of the res publica, in relation to which everyone was not legally equal, but had their own level of right, privileges, duties etc...

Monarchical absolutism and an ambitious bourgeoisie needed each other and helped each other against the “feudal aristocracy” or societas civilis nobility not aligned with the King-Bourgeois/Parliament alliance ...

That is why the bourgeois revolution is a fiction and therefore the BullDust of the “German Special Way/Path”, which relies on an unsuccessful bourgeois revolution in Germany, is BOllOcKs.

S. 84 The (actual) Conservatives actually got the ideological upper hand or were “in the match” from the end of the 17^th century up until about the middle of the 19^th century ... so that the absolutist monarchical state of the pre-Revolutionary period was careful not to question openly and in principle the convictions of societas civilis (whilst still revolutionising society through centralisation, legalisation-codification, bureaucratisation, etc.).

When the Revolution saw to the overthrow of the old regime/ancien régime, the nobility was then forced to recognise in principle monarchical legitimacy as its best form of protection against liberal, and at times democratising (seen sociologically) endeavours. Thus, the anti-state conservatism of old turned into a state-bearing element in order to give the nobility and last vestiges of pre-state (i.e. pre-modern state) social life a chance to survive. Conservatism

S. 85 continued in the tradition of the aristocratic/noble protest and polemic against the soulless state, against alienation/estrangement in such a state, against the materialism of the bourgeoisie, against the egoism of capital, against everything made/produced, inorganic and artificial and contrived [[CRAZYMAN TIME: THESE, DICKHEADS, ARE YOUR BASIC MOTIFS FOR THE LEFT-WING (SOCIALISTIC, COMMUNISTIC, MARXIAN ETC.) CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM (I.E. THE “FAR LEFT” TOOK FROM THE “FAR RIGHT” ... AND THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY TODAY IS TELLING YOU IT WANTS ITS “FAR RIGHT” TO BE THE CURRENTLY STILL FAR-LEFT/COMMUNISTIC (CHINA, VIETNAM, NORTH KOREA) AND ERSTWHILE LEFT-WING, CENTRE/MIDDLE OF THE ROAD OR SIMPLY RIGHT-WING POSITION OF DEFENDING THE NATION STATE, WHEREAS “LEFT-WING” IS NOW SUPPOSED TO NOT BE ABOUT ABOLISHING CAPITALISM AND EXPROPRIATING THE EXPROPRIATORS, BUT ABOUT POOFTERS AND DEGENERATES MARRYING AND FORMERLY WHITE COUNTRIES BEING OTHERISED/FLOODED OUT OF EXISTENCE BY ANOMIC APEMAN ET AL. WHILST THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY COMPOUND AND BUNKER CAN HAVE A SATANIC PURPOSE AND ORIENTATION, AND WHILST THE HAN CHINESE, JAPANESE, THE KOREANS ET AL. CAN KEEP THEIR 90%+ RACE-BASED STATES ... WELL DONE, GOOD ONE. I HOPE YOU ARE ENJOYING DIE-VERSITY ... AND YOUR DRUGS. GOOD 4 U! WHOOPEE!!!]]. At the same time, the conservatives forgot that their ideals were by no means natural, organic or directly related to historical life. They wanted to artificially keep worn-out, historically outdated forms in order to keep themselves alive, which meant to retain a decisive importance in the state and in society [[WHICH MEANS THAT THE “GONE WITH THE WIND” PRINCIPLE, FULLY APPLIES – IT’S OVER ... THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS TO ... THE JUNGLE ...]].

And from c. 1848, Conservatives increasingly had to ally themselves with the Bourgeoisie, because the problem now was the MOBS and the Revolutionary Reds (Organised Labour, Socialism, Radical/Social Democracy, Communism) etc..

So, there has been no Conservatism as an autonomous political force relating to a view of society as societal organisation different from Industrial and Mass Society since the 1880s. “Conservatives” since then have “closed ranks” with the Capitalists et al. [[MadMan adds: incl. you-know-who SCMP (Satanic Circus Monkey People). And we can see that in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and in the West generally, under ZIO-USA, any Anti-Satanist talk is STRICTLY PROHIBITED, including the mentioning of FACTS regarding GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ACCUMULATIONS, CONCENTRATIONS AND CRYSTAL(LISATION)S OF FORMS OF POWER AND WEALTH INCL. THROUGH PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY NETWORKING AND FOR CONCRETE HISTORICAL REASONS PERTAINING TO BANKING, FINANCE, CORPORATIONS ETC..]]

S. 86

[[INSANE MAN SAYS: THIS IS A FUCKING INCREDIBLE PASSAGE!!! THIS IS HISTORICAL REALITY WHICH HARDLY ANYONE “DARES MENTION” UNDER CONDITIONS OF “ZIO-USA” ...]]

»Die Niederlage 1918 und die Verträge von Versailles erregten das nationale und liberale Bürgertum, die Klasse der Besitzenden, mehr noch als alle übrigen besiegten Deutschen. Die Bürger, liberal, aufgeklärt, mit dem Parlamentarismus vertraut - schließlich gab es für den Reichstag das geheime und gleiche Wahlrecht, das die Engländer 1919 einführten, seit 1871 - wurden von ihren Klassen-genossen im Namen der Aufklärung, der Humanität und des Liberalismus aus der Gemeinschaft der Demokraten, des „Westens" als Heilsgemeinschaft, ausgegliedert. Deutschland als Nation blieb zwar bestehen, aber die diskriminierenden Auflagen bestätigten, daß die Sieger, entgegen ihrer humanitär-liberal-demokratischen Ideologie, den Besiegten bestrafen wollten und auch in einem westlich-demokratischen Deutschland eine potentielle Gefahr erblickten. Sie gaben zu erkennen, daß Deutschland überhaupt, ganz gleich wie verfaßt, nur dann für ihre Interessen bekömmlich sei, wenn es nicht gleichberechtigt mitbestimmt und über eine beschränkte Souveränität verfügt.« (= “The crushing defeat/drubbing of 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles aroused the national and liberal bourgeoisie, the class of owners, more than the rest of the defeated Germans. The citizens, liberal, enlightened, acquainted and familiar with parliamentarism – after all, there was since 1871 for the Reichstag secret and equal (general) suffrage; [[something]] that the English introduced in 1919 – were excluded by their class fellows [[in England, France (and (nascent ZIO-)USA)]], in the name of Enlightenment, Humanity and Liberalism, from the community of Democrats from the “West” as the community of salvation. Germany as a nation indeed persisted, but the discriminatory conditions confirmed that the victors, contrary to their humanitarian-liberal-democratic ideology, wanted to punish the vanquished and also saw in a Western-democratic Germany, a potential danger. They made it clear that Germany in general, no matter how made up and constituted or composed, would only then be easily digestible or easy on the stomach, i.e. agreeable in regard to the victors’ [[and later, “the West’s”]] interests if it did not have equal rights and had at its disposal a limited/restricted sovereignty.”)

[[WHAT A FUCKING INCREDIBLE PASSAGE!!! IT STILL APPLIES TODAY. WE CAN SEE THAT GERMANY/EE IS EITHER GOING TO PROCEED UNDER ZIO-USA AS A “GLOBALISING POWER” ALWAYS ANSWERABLE TO ZIO-USA AND SEVERELY LIMITED IN AUTONOMOUS “ROOM TO MOVE”, OR, GERMANY/EE WILL BE SEVERELY LIMITED AND BROKEN UP (BREXIT, ITALEXIT?, EVEN FREXIT DOWN THE ROAD ???) WITH ZIO-USA HAVING TO EVENTUALLY COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING WITH BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA, RATHER THAN TRYING TO SUBJUGATE BOTH IN ORGIES OF “ONE-WORLD, GLOBAL VILLAGE, PSYCHO-JOO-HEBROO-JUDAS-SATAN-DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL-MAMMON-VOMIT-PARASTIC-FLEA-LEECH-VULTURE-CANCER-VOMIT-SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY MADNESS AND UNCONTROLLABLE ZIO-RULE THE WORLD-DIVIDE AND RULE-DIVIDE AND CONQUER-I WANT IT ALL-MULTI-CULTI- PSYCHOPATH-OTHERISING-WHITE GENOCIDE-ZIO-USA-INSANITY”. AND, OF COURSE, NOW ONE UNDERSTANDS THAT HITLER DID NOT “COME OUT OF NOWHERE” AS “TOTAL INHERENT EVIL”. THE GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALISTS – LIKE ALL POLITICAL MOVEMENTS – ARISE IN CONCRETE HISTORICAL SITUATIONS IN RELATION TO CONCRETE SOCIAL-POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONCRETE POWER RELATIONS. IN HITLER’S CASE, THERE WAS NOT JUST THE NATIONAL HUMILIATION FOR GERMANY AFTER WW1, BUT ALSO THE CRUSHING WAR REPARATIONS, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BREAKDOWN, THE RISE OF RUSSIAN COMMUNISM AND THE GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE INVOLVEMENT OF JOOS AND SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY PEOPLE AT ALL ELITE LEVELS OF GERMAN SOCIETY, FROM INDUSTRY, BANKING AND FINANCE, THE MASS MEDIA AND MASS ENTERTAINMENT, TO UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS ET AL.. IF E.G. MAO AND HO WERE AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO AND IN GERMANY POST WW1, IT MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE ... WITH THEM WANTING CLOSED RACE-BASED SOCIETIES, SHIELDED FROM THE ZIO AND SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY EXCREMENT-POO-FAECES-DUNG ... I SHALL ALWAYS SUPPORT STALIN AGAINST HITLER, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND HITLER, EVEN THOUGH THE FUCKHEAD (THE BARBARIAN HUN-KRAUT-TEUTON-IDIOT WHO TRIED TO DO WHAT NAPOLEON COULDN’T DO, FUCKING IDIOT) KILLED BOTH MY GRANDFATHERS, IMPOVERISHING ETC. MY GRANMOTHERS ETC. AND PLAYED A ROLE IN MY FATHER TAKING THE BOAT TO HELL TO AN – AS IT WERE – COLONY OF ZIO-USA, FOLLOWING BEING A COLONY OF ZIO-GB, I.E. OF THE ZIO-FOUL MEN. YUK! SICK!!!. FUCKING DISGUSTING ANIMALS ... ]]

S. 87 The “Conservative Revolutionaries” were co-opted by Fascism and really got nowhere. Actual Conservatism re: societas civilis, had been dead and buried for decades by 1918, as the West moved into mass-democratic mode.

P.K.’s 1986 book shatters all School-Text-Book[[-MadMan adds: ZIO-USA]] illusions.

Conclusion = very poignant reference to the great French historian, Lucien Febvre.]]

[[Cser’s “Kondylis and Montesquieu” is a “to-the-Point” outstanding survey of the main themes, main lines of contradictory argumentation, etc. arising in Montesquieu’s thought as a pivotal and central figure of The Enlightenment as a transitional period between societas civilis and oligarchic bourgeois liberalism, with the New Times absolutist state being prominent throughout that transitional phase.

S. 91/92 includes an interesting reference to Paul Hazard and that “the nobility held tightly on to their privileges, and yet flirted with the philosophers” e.g. re: notions of individual abilities of non-noblemen etc., and with philosophical thought not proceeding purely rationally and detached from the turmoil, vagaries and struggles of life, but is closely connected with life’s ambivalences, which obviously applies Today just as much as it applies in every Age ...

S. 92 Obviously, we now know thanks to P.K. there is no linear progression of “rationalisation” [[CRAZY MAN ADDS (DO NOT READ THIS, CRAZY MAN IS CRAZY): AS ADVOCATED IN RECENT YEARS BY SOME RIDICULOUS JOOS AND THEIR PROTESTANT AND PAPIST AND COCK-SUCKING FRIENDS IN “UNIVERSITIES” IN ZIO-USA IN WIDELY CIRCULATED AS IT “JUST HAPPENS”, “ACADEMIC” BOOKS OF ZIO-PROTESTANT-PAPIST-ATHEIST CRAP ABOUT “HOW GREAT IT IS TO BE ALIVE AND HOW THE WHOLE WORLD IS MOVING TOWARDS “THE GLOBAL VILLAGE, ONE WORLD PROMISED LAND” OF “PROGRESS” AND THE FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-USA LOBOTOMY” OF COMPULSORY HORRIFIC “ZIOCAUST” WORSHIP (THE HORROR, THE HORROR, THE HORROR) WITH JOOS AND THEIR ALLIES GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY BEING APPOINTED INC. THROUGH PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY NETWORKING AND MONEY-“MERITOCRACY” TO ELITE UNIVERSITIES AS “PROFESSORS” AND POSSESSING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY OTHER FORMS OF POWER AND WEALTH UNDER ZIO-USA, FOLLOWING ZIO-GB/ZIO-FRANCE (ZIO-GERMANY BEFORE AND AFTER HITLER AND ZIO-RUSSIA BEFORE AND AFTER STALIN) ... WHILST BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSEDLY BEING “LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY” WHILST ZIO-DIE-VERSITY AND THE ZIO-POPPER “OPEN SOCIETY” IS “GREAT” ... AND “NO PROBLEMO”, THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY COMPOUND AND BUNKER CAN HAVE ZIO-FULLY SHUT ZIO-BORDERS AND AN EXPLICIT SATANIC ORIENTATION AND SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ZIO-PURPOSE ... YEAH YEAH YEAH ... HAN MAN AND OR APE MAN AND OR MY ORTHODOX BROTHER RUS MAN (GO RUS MAN, MY ORTHODOX BROTHER WHOM I LOVE BUT WHO DOES NOT LOVE ME!) OR ANOTHER MAN WILL HAVE TO EVENUTALLY DEAL WITH THIS ZIO-USA EXCREMENT (THOUGH I DO WISH AMERICANS THE BEST OF LUCK TOO, BUT THEY NEED TO GET THEIR ZIO-EXCREMENT LUCIFER-MAMMNON-HEBROO-JUDAS- JOOS UNDER CONTROL, OTHERWISE THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD IS GOING TO GO POW! BANG! WHACK! WHAM! BOOM!!! ...]]

S. 92/93 The tension between Is and Ought, Subject and Object or between Spirit/Intellect and Sensoriality is always present.

Voltaire had already noticed the fact collection in Montesquieu regarding the great variety of historical, geographical, cultural, economic, religious and demographic observations ... and P.K. commented likewise in his study of the Great French Baron ... and the inability to draw any firm, final conclusions about human affairs in general ...

S. 93 Montesquieu’s views traverse, in terms of new-times rationalism and his own social-political preferences, both the causal and the normative, AND, the conservative and the liberal or reformist dimensions. [[I add: Montesquieu, whilst being one of the “founding fathers” of (modern) sociology as “systematic science”, also was keen to not wander too far down the liberal path, for he always was a Baron and was into Feudal Privileges.]]

S. 94 Montesquieu varied the Aristotelian division of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy (Polity) and their forms of decay, in order to focus on Republic, Monarchy and Despotism.

Durkheim’s structural-functional way of looking at things came about from the Great French Joo’s struggle with the Great French Baron.

S. 95 For Montesquieu, despotism = bad in that it entails lawlessness, tyranny, and immoderation or intemperance, whereas reasonable and moderate forms of the state are the republic of classical antiquity ... and monarchy of new-times Europe.

Like many others, Montesquieu was of the view that the ancient republics were small-scale entities or small-space constructs determined by unity, cohesion, comprehensibility, modesty, and virtuousness.

For Montesquieu, democracy = “polarity and leveling” and equality which bring about anarchy and eventually despotism, which runs counter to desired social order, and which must be based on the principles of “diversity and heterogeneity.” SO, that is why Montesquieu’s “separation of powers” ties into the safeguarding of remaining feudal privileges [[MadMan adds: mass democracies based on hedonistic consumption can have both “polarity and leveling” and “diversity and heterogeneity” – depending on how one understands such terms in terms of law, societal, racial and or cultural composition, ideology etc. ... but the point is that without the mass hedonistic consumption, all that can eventuate is the JUNGLE ... and SO Montesquieu’s fundamental position, shared by all great theorists of polities (notwithstanding all the variations amongst them) ... from Aristotle and Polybius and Cicero to Machiavelli and Bodin and Hobbes and Spinoza to Locke and Kant and Clausewitz and Tocqueville et al. is that “democracy” eventually will always become anarchy/JUNGLE or despotism ... and of course Marx and others, polemicised their positions against this fundamental understanding of polities ... ]]

S. 96 Freedom for Montesquieu is everyone remaining within the then existent class structure, and occurs only if the existing social hierarchy can be preserved against egalitarian interference by the state (though the Baron wasn’t a total pro-Fronde reactionary, and knew the absolutist state was here to stay, so there “needed to be a balance” etc.. [[= (CRAZYMAN SAYS) A VIEW WHICH IS COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH TODAY’S PERCEPTIONS, AND WHICH MEANS THAT POLITICAL CONCEPTS ARE UNDERSTOOD IN RELATION TO THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CONCRETE PEOPLE IN CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND NOT JUST BECAUSE A PARTICULAR IDEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IS “PUSHED” BECAUSE CERTAIN INTERESTS “FEEL LIKE IT” AS IT “JUST HAPPENS”. “FREEDOM” FOR MONTESQUIEU IS DIFFERENT TO TODAY’S MAIN VIEW OF “FREEDOM”, JUST AS “RACISM” TODAY IS CHIEFLY VIEWED IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT START WITH A PARTICULAR GROUP’S PRESERVATION, BUT RATHER REVOLVES AROUND THE ZIO-USA SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY DIVIDE AND RULE, DIVIDE AND CONQUER UNDERMINING OF A PARTICULAR GROUP BY PLAYING ONE GROUP AGAINST ANOTHER GROUP AND IN THAT MANNER ALLOWING THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL JUDAS MAMMON JOO HEBROO GROUP TO WIELD GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FORMS OF POWER AND POSSESS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY WEALTH, ETC..]]

s. 97 Freedom as safety and security within the private sphere to own property [[(incl. a family and servants etc.)]], and not to be interfered with unduly by the state. Likewise, the separation of powers is all about social stability and for securing privileges etc..

S. 99-100 Not pro-Progress like Turgot or Condorcet, Montesquieu nevertheless thought in terms of Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the New Times, but with changes always taking place (even in the more democratic-legislative-based cum Cabinet (rather than Monarch) England (S. 98-99)) within the triptych of republic, monarchy and despotism.

S. 100 Montesquieu as a child of the 18^th century, cannot fully escape the recognition of political-moral progress, for example, by emphasising the development of the European legal system, yet despite such tendencies, history always remained for the Baron “open, fragmentary, wavering and fickle”.

There is no “Final Solution Victory” of the normative-rational and “natural law” [[and in today’s terms, “human rights” etc.]]. But there is always causality [[INSANE MAN ADDS: and that means, over the long run, almost “anything can happen”, like the (at least in part) Return of Man to the Animal Kingdom and the State of Being an almost-APE (and not just an APE MAN as opposed to a HAN MAN or a HINDU MAN or a JUDAS MAN or a PROTESTANT-PAPIST MAN or a LOONY MAN or an ABNORMAL NORMAL MAN or a FEMINOFAGGOTISED FULL-SPECTRUM (ZIO/USA-)LOBOTOMISED MAMMON “I SHOP CRAP, I CONSUME SHIT, I INJECT DRUGS AND GET FUCKED IN THE ARSE ETC., THEREFORE I AM” MAN ET AL. ...).]]

]]

[[ANDREAS KRAUSE LANDT »Mechanik der Mächte Über die politischen Schriften von Panajotis Kondylis« (THIS TREATISE IS EXCELLENT TOO UNTIL IT PROBABLY PARTIALLY STUFFS UP DURING THE LAST FEW PAGES (S. 121-124) WHERE THE AUTHOR TRIES TO “BE SMART” – AS IS HIS RIGHT (AND WE ALL STUFF UP IN LIFE, SO IT’S NO BIG DEAL; AFTER ALL, MY LATE FATHER TOOK THE BOAT TO HELL, AND I STILL LOVE HIM, IN FACT, MUCH MORE NOW THAT HE IS WHERE WE’RE ALL GOING (APART FROM THE SATANISTS)!!! MAKE SURE, THOUGH, YOU STUDY ALL OF THIS TREATISE VERY CAREFULLY!!!):

S. 101 The Kondylisian Prognosis of the abolition of Liberalism in the 21^st century, following the collapse of Communism in the 20^th century. [[MADMAN ADDS (DON’T READ THIS, MADMAN HAS GONE INSANE!!!): i.e. the ideology and practice (to the extent it exists) of Free Trade Ending War and of Individuals doing whatever the fuck they want as long as they don’t offend (on a mass-scale) JUDAS and SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY MULTI-KULTI DIVIDE AND RULE, DIVIDE AND CONQUER ... and as long as they pay taxes which JUDAS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY accesses through various ways and by various means (incl. through GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE appointments to the Secret Services, The Upper Judiciary, Government Policy Advisors, University “Professorships” etc., etc., etc., in addition to the Mass Media/Mass Entertainment ZIO-JOO Excrement etc. etc. etc. ... in particular ZIO-FULL-SPECTRUM-ZIO/JOO-LOBOTOMISED countries) ... ]]

CLASSIC QUOTE TIME, LEARN to read GERMAN!!!: »Ganz gleich, was Menschen tun, ob sie als Politiker handeln, als Wissenschaftler, Künstler oder Privatpersonen – sie beziehen mit Machtansprüchen verknüpfte, auf Zustimmung von den einen und Ablehnung von den anderen angelegte, Freundschaft und Feindschaft hervorrufende oder verstärkende Positionen.« (= “No matter what men/humans do, whether they act as politicians, scientists, artists, or private persons/individuals – they relate to power claims linked to positions bringing about or reinforcing friendship and enmity, aiming at the approval/consent of some and the disapproval/rejection of others.”)

S. 102 And dominant ideology continues in our times, with the help of “philosophy”, the “economy” or “communication” – apart from being naive – as a cleverly camouflaged or normatively elevated power claim.

Arendt [[a respectable Jewess, and not one of the innumerable ridiculous JOOs paraded as “philosophers and thinkers and social/political scientists”]] is referred to because strict scientific observation is not concerned with “totalitarianism” as such [[merely because “totalitarianism” does “just happen”, like it or not, and for many varied reasons, including the actions of “non-totalitarians”, so “totalitarianism” can be studied just like any other kind of regime or polity from a strictly scientific point of view]], AND, in Arendt’s view, the political is demarcated from society and the private sphere.

The “dual-form/shape” of the political means that the political is 1) like art, religion or science, a part-area of human life [[and is commonly referred to as “politics” in its more narrowly defined version]], and, 2) as the “inner logic” of human unfolding, is the element which permeates all part-areas [[and is known as the “the political” – even though in Clausewitz “the political” is “politics” as all the objective conditions, circumstances, etc. – “politics” for P.K. (= 1) here) can be defined more narrowly than “the political”, i.e. as the action (of political parties and mafias/primitive secret societies, lobby-interest groups etc.) aimed directly at state and governmental power, overtly and or covertly.]]

»Kondylis wird jene Leser meist enttäuschen, die mit dem Attribut „politisch” eine bestimmte Parteilichkeit oder zielgerichtetes Engagement verbinden.« (= “Kondylis will disappoint or disenchant those readers who connect a certain partisanship or aim-oriented and purposeful engagement, involvement and commitment with the attribute "political"”) [[THAT’S A BIT OF AN UNDERSTATEMENT!!! AAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]

s. 103 Writing and Printing did nothing to change fundamental anthropological and social-ontological constants, [[just as the TV and internet FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-USA DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL JUDAS-JOO SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY Brainwashing-LOBOTOMISATION will never be able to bring about “an ever-lasting peace” under the MULTI-KULTI SATAN-MAMMON-JUDAS.]]

The Political is interaction, it is not outside of The Social, but an element of The Social itself. Society exists as The Political; The Political is Society’s “social-ontologically understood Order” (= S. 212, Das Politische und der Mensch).

CLASSIC QUOTE TIME: »Kultur ist die Fortsetzung des Selbsterhaltungskampfes mit anderen, ideellen Mitteln.« (= “Culture is the continuation of the struggle for self-preservation with other, ideational means”).

S. 104 “From the subjective perspective of those acting, the[[ir]] worldview appears, through and through, objective and all-encompassing, which is why Kondylis also talks about the “objectified decision” or “objectification”.”

S. 105 »Der Preis für die wertfreie Erkenntnis ist das Leben, und deshalb sind ihre Aussichten denkbar gering.« (ME, 12) SO, WE SHALL FOREVER WALK ALONE ...

“POEM TIME”

SO, WE SHALL FOREVER WALK ALONE (OR: WHEN THE DUST SETTLES)

SO, WE SHALL FOREVER WALK ALONE

WITHOUT MANY FRIENDS AND WITHOUT MUCH RECOGNITION

BUT THAT’S O.K.

WE HAVE GREAT SATISFACTION

AND MORE THAN ENOUGH TO READ AND WRITE

UNTIL OUR DAYS ARE DONE.

ONCE THE CURRENT CRAP IS DEALT WITH

THE NEW CRAP WILL BEGIN

UNLESS THERE IS NUCLEAR OBLITERATION.

EITHER WAY, THE PRODUCTS OF HUMAN THOUGHT

THE PRODUCTS OF HUMAN ART

ARE TEMPORARY (MILLENNIA OR FIFTEEN MINUTES)

TEMPORARY, TRANSIENT

DUST.

*

S. 106 [[I do not agree that there is any “implied sympathy for the Soviet Union”. It’s just that the programmatic anti-Sovietism of ZIO-USA means that FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-USA LOBOTOMISED AND SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY PEOPLE cannot properly, i.e. OBJECTIVELY, understand the Soviet Union in historical context like E. H. Carr (or even JOOBAWM) attempted to do.]]

Huntington’s error ...

S. 108-109 ANOTHER CLASSIC QUOTE: »Universelle Werte sind lediglich die ideellen Begleiterscheinungen planetarischer Politik.« (= “Universal values are merely the ideational concomitants of planetary politics.”)

S. 109 Oh my God! (I’d forgotten if I ever read this a few years ago when I first read the book) – there is reference to “Turkish homosexuals in Berlin” and Oh my God! the “universalistic” »Holocaustreligion« ... [[I could do a RANT and RAVE here (about FUCKING, FILTHY DISGUSTING ANIMALS), but I won’t ... ]] ...

KEY NOTION: UNIVERSALISM ALWAYS ENTAILS RELATIVISM VIS-A-VIS OTHER UNIVERSALISMS ...

Kondylis der »Polemiker«/“polemicist” is a given reality because the non-normative value-free position itself amounts to polemicising against normative-moral/ethical positions. One cannot engage in non-normative value-free description and explanation without being polemical towards normativistic positionings – it goes without saying ...

S. 111 In the West, the workers became consumers under mass democracy.

S. 112 interesting quote from a German book published in 2000 Lahrem / Weißbach: Grenzen des Politischen ... »Die Massendemokratie ist die antibürgerliche Realisierung der bürgerlichen Wertvorstellungen von Freiheit und Gleichheit.« (= “Mass democracy is the anti-bourgeois realisation of the bourgeois positing or setting of the values of freedom and equality”) [[THIS TO THE MADMAN MEANS THAT INSTEAD OF EQUALITY BETWEEN CITIZEN (WHITE-NATIVE) MEN AND THE FREEDOM FOR THEM TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER (EQUAL AND UNEQUAL) MEN, NOW WE GET WOMEN AND NON-WHITES ET AL. PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, WHILST PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY HATE-JOOS AND THEIR ALLIES RUN EVERYTHING CENTRAL TO POWER ON A DIVIDE AND RULE, DIVIDE AND CONQUER SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY MULTI-KULTI ANTI-WHITE, ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE BASIS THROUGH THE GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE CONTROL OF ZIO-BANKS AND JOOPORATIONS AND “BIG MONEY LOBBYING” AS WELL AS TAX/REVENUE OFFICES AND ULTIMATELY THE BLACK MARKET, DRUGS, ETC. TOO ...]]

From the same book, another pertinent quote: ,,an die Stelle der bürgerlichen Vorstellung des Bourgeois als Citoyen tritt das massendemokratische Ideal des Konsumenten als Citoyen.” From bourgeois as citizen to consumer as citizen ... at the ideal level ... because in reality ... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S. 112-113 a rundown of some of the main features of combinatory mass democracy as opposed to synthesising oligarchic bourgeois liberalism ... the main point is the massification, atomisation, mobilisation, fragmentation, the refinement of the division of labour, replaceability, de-substantialisation and functionalisation, leveling and equalisation, hedonisation, consumerism, ... (even incl. PSYCHO-analysis and the Theory of Relativity) ... affecting art, language, politics, the economy, science and society in general ... with man and woman not having a solid biological reference[[, but becoming ZIO-JOO and ALLIES’ ideological weapons in orgies of AUTO-GENOCIDAL homosexualisation and feminofaggotisation under ZIO-USA IMPERIALISM]] ... [[in short, a system of relations which fits perfectly with FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO/USA-LOBOTOMISATION, ZIOCAUST WORSHIP, OTHERISATION, APE-WORSHIP, SELF-RACISM AND AUTO-GENOCIDE ... IF I WERE A CHINAMAN (I AM NOT), I’D KEEP RIGHT AWAY FROM ALL THAT ZIO-PROTESTANT-PAPIST-ATHEIST-POOFTER EXCREMENT CANCER SHIT ... AND GET READY FOR “THE BIG FUCK YOU!” AND THE GREAT BALLS OF FIRE ... ]]

S. 113 “meritocracy” goes with “mediocracy” [[though within “meritocracy” you get all the ZIO/JOO-DEVIL-EVIL-EVIL-DEVIL-MAFIA-HEBROO-CHANOOKA-Primitive Secret Society Networking and GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ZIO-JOO accumulations, concentrations and crystal(lisation)s of forms of power and wealth in particular ZIO-countries of the Anglo-Franco sphere ... ]]

„Aufstand von verwöhnten Kindern gegen kastrierte Eltern” = “The uprising of spoilt children against castrated parents” etc. [[esp. in the 1960s/1970s cultural revolution ZIO-TV-POP Age of Hedonistic ANTI-WESTERN-AUTO-GENOCIDAL-AUTO-RACIST ZIO-SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY-HATE ...]]

S. 114 There’s the JOKE-IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHIT of the so-called “End of Great Narratives” when the worst ABSOLUTELY PSYCHO-LOONY HOSPITAL-ORIENTED RIDICULOUS UTOPIAN narrative of all was promoted of “One World Global Village” (GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY ZIO-)PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL INSANITY [[with all the ZIO-excremental MULTI-KULTI Bullshit of everyone becoming a Homosexual Negro on Drugs but Israel is only for JOOs who are somehow “JOOZEN” or “JOOLECTED” under the Feast of the JOONUKA ... I wonder what the fuck for ... mmmmm .... we’ll be singing, chanting serves them right, serves them right, serves them fucking right ... = A MATTER OF TIME ... even if it takes many more decades or centuries ... ]]

S. 115 human dignity now coupled to welfare (rather than being a concept closely connected to class distinctions as it once was), and the right to prosperity = EXPLOSIVE ...

Massive population growth and a future scarcity of goods ...  

CLASSIC P.K. QUOTE: ,,Nähe, nicht Distanz erzeugt Friktionen” (PP, 27) (= “Nearness, not distance, generates friction(s)”).

All this “human rights”, “right to consume” [[(ZIO-)]]BULLSHIT will end up Biologising the Political ... [[AND HERE COMES ... APE MAN!!!]]

S. 116 SEE – Told you Hannah Arendt had some not inconsiderable value as she was not just another Ridiculous JOO “thinker” (there are very many of them) – I didn’t know (or I had forgotten) that she had seen that only a world state could confer actual human rights upon citizens because they are citizens ... (and of course the chances of a functional world state coming about are ZILCH because even if it came about, we would have “CIVIL” conflict and WARS between different Groups of Humans ... = SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT SMELL (SO TO SPEAK) ...

Something else I didn’t know: Dehio held that Admiral Nelson [[EnglishFoulMan]] won at Trafalgar because Napoleon fucked up in Russia (just as Hitler fucked up in Russia, and Normandy happened etc. – pointed out by P.K.).

American war on Iraq as a covert world war because of the threat to trade oil in EUROs rather than Dollars = VERY INTERESTING ... ??? ... (not sure though) ... ??? ...

S. 117 So Germany has the task of playing the major role (with France) of unifying Europe and of preventing with the USA, a China-Russia block. [[The USA however has no time for an uncontrollable Germany, and Germany is probably or (almost) certainly not up to the task anyway ... [[SO, EUROPE IS FUCKED. AND UNLESS ZIO-USA ALTERS COURSE RE: RUSSIA, IT MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACK, THOUGH IT PROBABLY WON’T EVER BE ANYWHERE NEAR AS FUCKED UP AS EUROPE. EUROPE IS REALLY OLD AND FUCKED. IT’S OVER. WE ARE THE LIVING DEAD. AND AS FAR AS MY TRIBE IS CONCERNED, ITS DEADER THAN DEAD ...]]]]

SHORT “POEM” TIME

MY TRIBE IS DEADER THAN DEAD

MY TRIBE IS DEADER THAN DEAD

IT HAS NOTHING LEFT IN ITS HEAD

IT AUTO-LOBOTOMISED ITSELF IN SELF-HATE

AUTO-RACISM

AND IS NOW AUTO-GENOCIDED OUT OF EXISTENCE.

THE SATANISTS’ TURN IS NEXT.

*

S. 118 “The Special Way/Path” Bullshit Thesis is addressed, incl. historian Ernst Nolte’s KEY QUESTION: “ ... how would probably the, at the time of WW2, alliances have turned out, if Stalin had the time and possibility of making the great hegemonial claim [[and not Hitler]] on the continent?”

S. 121 THIS IS INTERESTING BUT IT SEEMS TO ME SILLY: Value-free knowledge as instrumentalisable knowledge is no longer value-free, and, “polemical” knowledge as value-free knowledge would have to lose its character of one-sidedness. I SAY: VALUE-FREE KNOWLEDGE IS POLEMICAL (at least e contrario) BUT IT IS NON-NORMATIVE, SO I DON’T SEE THE POINT ... THE FACT THAT SOMEONE CAN INSTRUMENTALISE NON-NORMATIVE VALUE-FREE KNOWLEDGE FOR NORMATIVE PURPOSES IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE THOUGHT-ACTIONS OF THAT INTERPRETER ETC. ... SO, WHAT’S THE POINT OF THIS?

We are also told that there is a “deficit/deficiency” in the functionalistic concept of the political (»seines funktionalistischen Begriffs des Politischen«) (even though P.K. never referred to his notion of the political being “functionalistic” – I’d say that P.K.’s notion of the political is multi-dimensional pertaining to anthropological/social-ontlogical and sociological, historical and (social-)psychological dimensions, where relevant. It is not a question of being a “functionalist”. I smell a Rat. It’s as if Landt were a ?OO (= my sense of Humour ... and since I’m Insane, I’m allowed to make myself laugh on MY website ... ). (NOTE: Landt stated on S. 101 that “Kondylis developed a functionalistic model of explanation, which took place with a claim to/on totality” (»entwickelte Kondylis ein funktionalistisches Erklärungsmodell, das mit Totalitätsanspruch auftrat.«)

S. 123 “Kondylis sees no genuine counter-movements to globalisation, but only basically movements of adaptation” ... SO WHAT? THE FACTS ARE THAT (NEARLY) THE WHOLE WORLD HAS BEEN CONQUERED OR TOUCHED BY WHITE DEVIL MAN AND NOW HAN MAN ET AL.. THE FACTS ARE FACTS. THE WORLD HAS BEEN “PLANETISED” OR “GLOBALISED” IN THE SENSE THAT THE WHOLE PLANET OR GLOBE HAS BEEN COVERED OR SOMEHOW TOUCHED/BESMIRCHED BY “THE EUROPEAN NEW TIMES” AND ITS AFTERMARTH. P.K. saw that globalisation – as ideologically understood by all the FRUIT-LOOPS – was not going to end up in some Utopia, but quite possibly in something far worse, given the capacity of the planet and 11 billion people consuming or wanting to consume in a “modern manner” ...

NOW, here is a KEY POINT Landt is trying to make:

“The concept of the bourgeoisie, as Kondylis uses it in his political writings, has a blind spot in its thoroughly polemical intent. One easily overlooks it (the said blind spot) because Kondylis allows a living, vital meaning to great historical concepts only in the framework of those constellations in which they came into being in each and every respective occasion. In Kondylis, these concepts do not experience any change in meaning, they have no history. They also have no supra-historical meaning, which made them usable regardless of the time.”

CRAZY MAN COUNTERS: 1) Concepts do change over time both scientifically (i.e. a pre-French Revolution and a post-French Revolution understanding of “conservatism”, and also polemically, conservatism e.g. coming to mean under ZIO-USA mass democracy that poofters can marry under the hegemony of ZIO-USA (which is a Truly SICK AB-NORMAL ZIO-JOO-PROTESTANT-ATHEIST-LOONY TUNES position), though there should be less state intervention in the economy (which is a Truly Liberal position) and race does not matter as long as JOOs wield GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power and Wealth etc. (which is the ULTIMATE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY POSITION).

S. 124 HANG ON A MINUTE! – AS FAR AS I KNOW, P.K. HAD THE BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF HIS SOCIAL ONTOLOGY IN HIS MIND BY C. 1990 (BEFORE THE “POLITICAL WRITINGS” WERE PUBLISHED ... IF NOT MUCH EARLIER, BY C. 1980 AND POWER AND DECISION, AT LEAST IN BROAD OUTLINE IF NOT FULLY “FLESHED-OUT”). THE FACT THAT POWER AND DECISION SITS COMFORTABLY WITHIN THE POLITICAL AND MAN TELLS US A LOT (WE AWAIT TO STUDY THE ENTIRETY OF DR. G. HORST’S BOOK ON P.K. WHEN IT IS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN DUE COURSE TO SEE IF ANY LIGHT CAN BE SHED ON THIS MATTER) ... Let me add that self-sacrifice does happen, but overall it is a minority event, otherwise there would be no long-term continuity to Groups and that the thesis of Power, Identity and Self-Preservation being a fundamental part of human existence CANNOT possibly be undermined by self-sacrifice of the individual for the self-preservation of the group or some king of “higher (collective) entity” etc..

Technology as “the last guardian of humanity” is thus, because only through technology can humanity find the way of self-preservation on a planet of 11 billion (consumers or not). Otherwise humanity is faced with self-cannibalisation (self-apeification). These are the conclusions drawn from the biologisation of the political. I DO NOT see any latent Marxism here, but just a broad projection into the future of where “things are possibly or probably going”, even though they DO NOT HAVE TO go that way.

AND WOE! WOE! WOE! P.K. MADE CLEAR THERE WOULD BE MANY POSSIBLE VERSIONS OF MASS DEMOCRACY – NOT JUST THE WESTERN HEDONISTIC CONSUMER ONE, JUST AS WE’VE ALREADY HAD IN THE WEST EXTREME OR RETARDED VERSIONS OF MASS DEMOCRACY, I.E. COMMUNISM AND FASCISM AT THE OUTSET OF MASS DEMOCRACY. SO, THERE CAN BE NO “TOTAL DOMINATION OF MASS DEMOCRACY” IN THE SENSE THAT THE WESTERN ONE WILL EVER BE FOUND EVERYWHERE. ON THE CONTRARY, AS WE MOVE INTO THE 21^ST CENTURY, ALL SORTS OF OTHER FORMS OF SOCIAL ORGANISATION MIGHT ARISE COMBINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND APE ANOMIE OR SIMPLY A NEAR TOTAL BREAKDOWN OF THE KIND OF LAW AND ORDER KNOW TO “ADVANCED SOCIETIES”.

[[N.B. IF “FUNCTIONALISM” MEANS “NOT SUBSTANTIALISM” I.E. A LACK OF SUBSTANCES, SO BE IT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO NORMATIVE ASPECT TO P.K.’S EMPHASIS ON HUMAN INTERACTION AND OR MUTUAL INFLUENCE VIS-A-VIS THE FRIEND-FOE SPECTRUM AND THE MECHANISM OF THE SOCIAL RELATION (AND ALSO THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL/SOCIAL-ONTOLOGICAL CONSTANTS OF POWER, IDENTITY, SELF-PRESERVATION (AND THE EXTENSION OF ONE’S OWN POWER), MEANING, UNDERSTANDING, RATIONALITY ETC. IN CULTURE (IN NATURE), AS WELL AS SOCIETY AS POLITICAL COLLECTIVE), AND “FUNCTIONALISM” AS A CONCEPT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS NARROWING P.K.’S THEORISING TO WITHIN A “SYSTEMS” FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENTION OF P.K.’S SOCIAL ONTOLOGY ...]]

]]

[[

HANS-MARTIN LOHMANN “Citizens of the economy, citizens of education/ cultivation/learning, citizens of consumption – the citizen remains” [[MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS THE GREATEST “FRONTAL” ATTACK ON P.K.’S THOUGHT IN THE TWO F. HORST BOOKS ABOUT P.K. ... SO, IT IS OF GREAT INTEREST ONLY FOR THAT REASON ... ]]

S. 125 A reminder that post-Cold War, whilst nearly all talk was about “civil society” and the triumph of bourgeois liberal capitalism etc., P.K. pointed out that Marxism’s power-political/ideological death in the form of the Soviet Union also meant the death of the bourgeois way of thought, since the former (Marxism) was the reverse side of the latter (Liberalism as practice not just economic ideology or re-interpreted in terms of mass democracy (HEDONISMUS, KONSUM, etc.)) – they (Liberalism and Marxism) went together (this is also explained in several other P.K. texts);

S. 126 From about 1750 to 1950, there was a bourgeois “Golden Age” of “money and ethics, calculus/calculation and heart” coming together informally in both the citizen of the economy and the citizen of education/cultivation/learning.

After World War Two – on a mass scale – the consumer came into being (replacing the liberal bourgeois Types of complementary citizens, i.e. the money man (citizen of the economy) and the culture man (citizen of education/cultivation/learning) [[I ADD: even though the first appearance of the modern consumer became apparent in the “Roaring 20s” with the ideological, artistic, sociological and other groundwork going back at least to the second half of the 19^th century (and not to Blake and (late) Beethoven HAHAHAHA!!!) and thereafter (with Baudelaire, the Impressionists, the theory of relativity, Husserl (phenomenology and the I-YOU merging and diverging etc.), Simmel, functionalism, Dadaism, Cinema, Schoenberg, Mead/Cooley, Boas, et al., et al. et al., etc. etc. etc.) all playing their “role” at various levels to “move things along” and complement/supplement changes in the Division of Labour, Fordism/Taylorism/mass production (see below), Technology, Capital Accumulations, General Elections, the (electronic) Mass Media, etc. etc. etc. ...]]

So, instead of individual deeds having something positive to do with the societal whole, the consumer works incessantly only for himself: for his private needs and wishes, his feelings and sensitivities, in short, for his “self-realisation”. A reference to David Reisman’s The Lonely Crowd, which as far as I can tell, is probably a very important read [[Another JOO, what did you expect?]]

Lohmann wonders whether P.K.’s portrayal of the bourgeois was all too benevolent and idealising ... I don’t think that is an issue; after all, P.K. was engaged in ideal type construction and not in the concrete analysis of concrete individuals in concrete cases. The whole point of an ideal type is for it to be “intensified reality” which can then be compared with actual, concrete examples as well as diachronically-macro-historically. Obviously, much abstraction and generalisation is NECESSARILY involved ... what can we do? The human means of understanding and communicating CAN NEVER fully represent actual reality in concrete circumstances actually lived ...

S. 127 pre-WW2 Fordism and Taylorism and mass production are referred to.

S. 128 Now, the argument is made that P.K. underestimated the benefit to society in general of the citizen/consumer in that this kind of citizen is far less bellicose compared to past types of citizens and is more interested in e.g. an exotic holiday rather than conquering foreign lands. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: EVEN IF THAT IS SO, AND LET’S SAY WE ACCEPT THAT AS FACT, THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT THOSE DECADES OF RELATIVELY PEACEFUL CONSUMPTION, SAY 1950 TO 2050 OR LONGER, ARE A TEMPORARY PHASE IN HISTORY, WHICH SOONER OR LATER MUST COME UP AGAINST THIS FACTUM BRUTUM: HEDONISTIC CONSUMPTION WORKED “SPLENDIDLY” UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF RELATIVE RACIAL AND CULTURAL HOMOGENEITY (SAY 1960s-2000s) (“MULTI-CULTURALISM” WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IS SIMPLY ONE CULTURE OF HEDONISTIC CONSUMPTION WITH DIFFERENT FLAVOURS) ... AND WHEN THE GLOBAL RELATIONS OF POWER MEANT THAT THE RELATIVELY POOR “THIRD WORLD” (CHINA, INDIA ETC.) WAS PRODUCING STUFF FOR THE RELATIVELY WEALTHY “FIRST WORLD” OF BANKING, FINANCING, CORPORATIONS [[(AND GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY JOOS AND THEIR ALLIES UNDER ZIO-USA, ZIO-UK, ZIO-FRANCE ETC. (GERMANY POST WW2 HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN SUBSERVIENT TO ZIO-USA))]], WHILST AT LEAST DURING THE COLD WAR THEIR WAS THE “SECOND WORLD/SOVIET” PRESSURE ON THE FIRST WORLD OF “COUGHING UP” A GENEROUS WELFARE STATE. SINCE, HOWEVER, THE GOLDEN AGE OF “NEO-GLOBALISATION” (SAY: 1990 TO 2010/2020), IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT CHINA AND INDIA ETC. ARE NOT GOING TO SIMPLY PRODUCE STUFF FOR “THE WEST”, WHILST THE WEST AUTO-GENOCIDES ITSELF OUT OF EXISTENCE UNDER ALL THE ZIO-AND-FRIENDS MAMMONISING-MASSIFYING-ATOMISING-OTHERISING EXCREMENT. THE WHEEL OF HISTORY IS TURNING, LIKE IT OR NOT. AND THAT IS A FACTUM BRUTUM. SO, GET OVER IT. BUT THIS IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE “WHITE NATIONALIST” RACISTS ARE GOING “TO WIN” ... ON THE CONTRARY ... THE JUNGLE IS PROBABLY GOING TO WIN ...

S. 129 Reference is also made to women being emancipated and greatly assisted by consumer society/democracy etc. AGAIN, NO DOUBT ALL OF THAT APPLIES. HOWEVER, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF GROUP CONTINUITY, WHAT WE CAN CLEARLY SEE IS THAT “WESTERN WOMEN” NOT HAVING CHILDREN AND NOT BEING LARGELY “TIED TO HEARTH AND HOME” MEANS POTENTIAL AUTO-GENOCIDE AS WESTERN WHITE POPULATIONS ARE DIMINISHED FROM UP TO 99%+ OF SOCIETY TO UNDER 50% OF SOCIETY, WHEREAS BLACK AFRICA BASICALLY REMAINS BLACK AFRICA; YELLOW ASIA BASICALLY REMAINS YELLOW ASIA; AND MIXED LATIN AMERICA BASICALLY REMAINS MIXED LATIN AMERICA. OBVIOUSLY, SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION COULD NOT CARE LESS IF WHITES AUTO-GENOCIDE THEMSELVES OUT OF EXISTENCE, OR REDUCE THEMSELVES FROM 90+% OF THE POPULATION TO UNDER 50% OF THE POPULATION, BUT ANSWER THIS QUESTION, SMART ARSE:

WHY SHOULD I NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT WOMEN’S CONSUMER AND OTHER RIGHTS (I.E. CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS ETC. OF A PARTICULAR GROUP) AND NOT CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MY ETHNOS WITH ITS RACIAL BASIS TO SELF-PRESERVATION (I.E. CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS ETC. OF ANOTHER PARTICULAR GROUP)? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHICH GROUP TO CARE MORE ABOUT? AND THEN THERE IS THE OTHER DIMENSION. IF THE RELATIVE POWER OF WOMEN INCREASES, THE RELATIVE POWER OF MEN DECREASES. ALSO: IF THE RELATIVE POWER OF NON-JOOS DECREASES, THE RELATIVE POWER OF JOOS INCREASES. WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ABOUT THE RELATIVE POWER OF WOMEN AND JOOS AND BLACKS INCREASING WHEN I AM A MAN AND WHITE AND A CHRISTIAN? ETC. ETC. ETC.. SCIENCE AS SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THESE QUESTIONS ARE DEALT WITH, WITHIN THE POLITICAL, I.E. WITHIN THE SPHERE OF BRAIN-WASHING, INDOCTRINATION, COERCION, LAWS, ETC.. SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ... SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY, SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY ...

s. 130 Reference is made to “democratic procedures”. SORRY TO BE A “PARTY POOPER” BUT MASS DEMOCRACIES HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY AS POLITY WHEREBY THE ARMED CITIZENRY ACTUALLY GOVERN ON THE SMALL-SCALE OF THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL HELLENIC WORLD ON AN (ALMOST) DAY-TO-DAY BASIS INCLUDING DUTIES TO SERVE AND NOT JUST RIGHTS ETC. (SEE CONTOGEORGIS). SO, YOU CAN CALL THEM “DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES” IN TODAY’S “WEST”, BUT ALL I SEE IS MASS-MEDIA, MASS-BRAINWASHING, MASS-LOBOTOMISATION OF THE MASSES, AND WITH GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE JOOISH PARTICATION AMONGST THE ELITES OF THE “WESTERN” WORLD LED BY ZIO-USA (AND THE PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY NETWORKING OF THE SATANISTS ETC. CONNECTED TO BIG MONEY CAPITAL IN BANKING, FINANCE, CORPORATIONS ETC.). I AM NOT FOR ONE MINUTE SAYING THERE IS ANY OTHER REALISTIC, DOABLE AND “BETTER” ALTERNATIVE, BUT DEMOCRACY AS DEMOCRACY IN CONCRETE HISTORICAL REALITY DIED WITH THE DEATH OF WHAT REMAINED OF THE HELLENIC WORLD WITHIN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

FURTHERMORE, P.K. NOWHERE ADVOCATES – UNLIKE SCHMITT – THAT ANOTHER KIND OF SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND OR POLITY IS TO BE PREFERRED. P.K.’S POSITION IS DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY. THERE IS NO “ALTERNATIVE” PUT FORWARD. IF ONE SEES THAT P.K. OMITTED THIS OR THAT, THEN MAYBE P.K. DID NOT EMPHASISE THIS OR THAT OR OMITTED THIS OR THAT, OR IT COULD BE THAT P.K. DID DEAL WITH THIS OR THAT AND THE WAY HE DEALT WITH THIS OR THAT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE VALUES OF THE PERSON CRITIQUING P.K.’S POSITIONS.

ONE OF THE REASONS I WOULD NEVER WASTE MY TIME ENGAGING WITH OTHERS IS THAT EVERY TOM, DICK AND HARRY, ET AL., AND ALL THE OTHER JOOS, CAN AND WILL COME UP WITH ANYTHING TO CRITIQUE P.K.’S POSITIONS. SO BE IT. YOU CAN ALL BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT. ALL THAT MATTERS ARE REAL RELATIONS OF POWER OF REAL PEOPLE IN REAL GROUPS IN REAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

VERBAL “FIGHTS AND WARS” ONLY EVER END WHEN THE PARTICIPANTS IN THEM DIE.

Again, “the pluralism of lifestyles” is FINE if that’s what you DIG. When one describes that there is a “pluralism of lifestyles” but also implies that this state of affairs is connected with the particular interests of groups and GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE distributions of group power within society, one is not judging “the pluralism of lifestyles” as to their value or anti-value, but is stating FACTS that certain groups have certain GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE crystallisations of forms of power in their possession – so to speak. Now, P.K. never went into the specifics of group forms of power in Western mass democracies, but he knew that history teaches that Western mass democracies ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE PERMANENT FORMS OF SOCIAL ORGANISATION. SO, AS A STRICT SOCIAL-SCIENTIST, HE HAD TO INVESTIGATE NOT ONLY HOW “THE PLURALISM OF LIFESTYLES” CAME ABOUT, BUT WHAT THE PROSPECTS ARE FOR “THE PLURALISM OF LIFESTYLES” IN THE WEST WHEN HAN MAN E.G. GOES “GREAT BALLS OF FIRE” WITH A BIG “FUCK YOU!” AND APE MAN GOES ... APE ...

S. 130 – I’ve seen nearly all of Pasolini’s movies ... – apart from PPP’s volume: Scritti corsari (= Corsair writings (available in English at: https://libcom.org/library/corsair-writings-pier-paolo-pasolini)), 1975 (deutsch: Freibeuterschriften. Aufsätze und Polemiken über die Zerstörung des Einzelnen durch die Konsumgesellschaft. Übersetzt von Thomas Eisenhardt, Wagenbach, Berlin 1975; siehe auch die Zeitschrift Freibeuter), cited at the end of the article, the author might also be referring to Accattone (1961) and Salò (1975 – I haven’t seen Salò because I can’t be FUCKED to watch all that depravity for nearly two hours) (see Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Paolo_Pasolini), though I LOVE the “Trilogy of Life” movies: Arabian Nights (= Il fiore delle mille e una notte = The Flower of the One Thousand and One Nights) (1974); The Canterbury Tales (1972); The Decameron (1971).

S. 130 PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE!: THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION:

» ... ob und in welchem Umfang wir uns angesichts begrenzter Ressourcen und wachsender ökologischer Probleme in Zukunft ein Wirtschaftsmodell leisten können, das im Namen des Konsumbürgers auf permanentes Wirtschaftswachstum angewiesen ist. « (= “whether, and to what extent, in the face of limited resources and growing ecological problems, can we afford in the future an economic model(/model of the economy) that is reliant on permanent economic growth(/on the permanent growth of the economy) in the name of the citizen of consumption”.)

OH MY GOD!!!

»Das Ende der Wachstumsökonomie wäre auch das Ende des Konsumbürgers.« (= “The end of the economy of growth(/growth economy) would also be the end of the citizen of consumption”) ... [[THESE ARE THE ISSUES RAISED – IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN – BY H.-J. ARNDT SINCE THE 1950S/1960s BUT NOBODY PAID ATTENTION, BECAUSE HE WAS ... “A NAZI” AND EVERYONE THOUGHT THE USA VICTORY WOULD “LAST FOREVER”.]]

If so ... OH MY GOD!!!  “the hardness of The Political” will return to “the middle/centre of society” ...

]]

[[WOLFGANG SCHULLER Marx, Engels and Marxism in Panajotis Kondylis (THIS ESSAY TRIES TO “HAVE A GO” AT P.K. TOO. THE PREVIOUS ONE DID A MUCH BETTER JOB OF THAT, AND IN MY VIEW, DID NEXT TO NOTHING AT ALL OR VIRTUALLY NOTHING ... )

S. 133 P.K. historicised Marx. Marxism as a form of bourgeois thought.

S. 134 Marx is absent from the P.K. anthology on power ...

S. 137 Schuller states that P.K. held that “great and long wars” have been won only by nations with “better weapons” and “greater economic potential” (Krieg, 1988, S. 173), but overlooks the Vietnam War. This is a valid point, from one point of view. However, P.K. immediately states on p. 173 of Theory of War (German ed.) »während der wirtschaftlich Schwächere nur seltene und kurzfristige Erfolge für sich hat verbuchen können.« (= “whereas the economically weaker [[nations]] have only achieved rare and short-term successes.”), which could be taken to cover Vietnam, because within about 25-30 years of “winning” the American war in Vietnam, Vietnam was looking seriously at “using” the USA as a counter-balance to China (and Vietnam is a country/nation/civilisation/collective identity with more than 2000 years of history ... and Bác Hồ Knew THAT VERY WELL).

The author claims that numerous further causes played a role in the collapse of organised Marxism, and not just the victory of Liberalism. I assume he means organised Marxism’s own “inherent weaknesses” etc.. This could be so, but P.K. made it very clear that Russia was defeated by the USA, when one really “gets down to it” – and from this perspective, Russia did not do that bad at all considering where Russia was in 1917 (or in 1945) and where the USA was in 1917 (or in 1945).

S. 138 Now, the claim is made by the author that American Aid to the Soviet Union defeated National Socialism and not the Soviet war effort. I’ve read this many times. Maybe American aid played a part. I can’t judge (the extent of that part). I do know that many millions of Russians et al. died during WW2 and that there was a heck of a lot of fighting and Stalingrad is arguably one of the greatest moments in human history (I also know that it is “permitted” for any historian to investigate the number of Soviet, and Greek and Serbian deaths BUT IT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW to investigate the number of JOOISH/ZIO/JUDAS deaths. IS THAT FAIR? IS THAT DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM OF SCIENTIFIC/HISTORICAL RESEARCH? IS ONE GROUP OF HUMAN BEINGS CONTENDING THAT THEY ARE “SPECIAL” OR “CHOSEN”? THIS IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING AND SICK STUFF!! ARE WE OK, OR DO WE HAVE A FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-USA LOBOTOMY? IN ANY EVENT, I AM NOT A SATANIST, AND I COULDN’T CARE LESS IF 600 MILLION SATANISTS DIED. I ONLY CARE ABOUT GREEKS (HELLENES, ROMANS) AND OUR ORTHODOX BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND ALL THE OTHER MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS AND WHITE AND OTHER ATHEISTS WHO INNOCENTLY DIED IN THE 20^TH CENTURY, INCLUDING BOTH MY GRANDFATHERS AND ONE GREAT-GRANDFATHERS, AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YELLOWMEN, KAFFIRS, AND BLACKMEN AND LATINOS (ALL IN ALL, MORE THAN 250 MILLION). But if the author believes American aid defeated National Socialism, and has proved that, good for him. All that matters to Uncle Jo is that he was in power until he died and Uncle Jo dealt with that Excrement. Is perhaps the USA going to Reign Over The World for One Thousand Years or Something Like That? Are we OK? How are we Feeling in 2019? And how shall we be feeling in 2049? In 2099? In 2149? (Poetic Licence Approved Statements HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

S. 139 P.K. never stated that life in communist countries reflected in some way bourgeois society, or that such life was “good” for most people. On the other hand, it’s well known that the communist societies DID NOT “let go” so easily of certain elements of bourgeois society such as the patriarchal family in order to promote FEMINOFAGGOTISATION which in the “West” has led to POOFTERS “marrying”, as well as miscegenation being deemed as “normal” or “desirable”, going by Advertisements in the Mass Media. I wonder who GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY owns and controls the Mass Media and Mass Entertainment in the West? Now, if people want to Femino-Faggotise and Miscegenate The White sub-Race groups out of existence, so be it. Science qua scientific observation could NOT GIVE A FUCK. On the other hand, I don’t thank Han Man and or Ape Man and or Another Man are just going to simply submit to that Excrement, who think they are “SPECIAL” and “CHOSEN”. What Goes Around, Comes Around, and THE SATANISTS – ONE WAY OR ANOTHER – WILL GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. IT’S A MATTER OF TIME. AND 100 YEARS, EVEN 500 YEARS, IS NOT THAT LONG IN HUMAN HISTORY. AND IT PROBABLY WON’T BE 500 YEARS. (In-house joke of the MadMan: Is this guy Schuller a ?OO or some kind of Neo-Con-Jobber?). Anyway, no hard feelings, Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Schuller) says he’s 84 years old (in 2019), so I wish him well in his later years (whatever the Crazy Man writes is never personal – it is always in the Spirt of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression), and we might have a chat in The After Death Land ...

In the After Death Land

In the After Death Land

There are many People to Talk to,

Some are Very Interesting,

Some are Very Boring, and Tiring,

Others are SO FRIGHTENINGLY LEGENDARY

One would dare not even go near them.

*

]]

[[PETER FURTH: About Panajotis Kondylis’s social ontology

This is Master-Class territory

I WANT TO PAY MY RESPECTS TO THIS MAN, BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE READ BY HIM (SO FAR) HAS BEEN OF THE HIGHEST STANDARD (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING OR NOT. HIS LIFE ROUGHLY COINCIDED WITH MY LATE FATHER’S ... SAME ERA, DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, DIFFERENT FATES) ...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Furth_(Sozialphilosoph)

Peter Furth (Sozialphilosoph)

Peter Furth (* 25. Juli 1930 in Berlin; † 2. Juni 2019 ebenda)[1] war ein deutscher Sozialphilosoph.

Werdegang

Furth studierte Philosophie und Soziologie in Berlin und Frankfurt am Main. Er war Assistent bei Theodor Adorno am Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung. Seit 1973 war Furth Professor für Sozialphilosophie an der Freien Universität Berlin. Er betreute dort u. a. die Doktorarbeit von Rudi Dutschke. Er war im Freundeskreis des SDS und der Zeitschrift Argument aktiv.[2] Am 5. Dezember 1998 trat er zusammen mit Horst Mahler und Bernd Rabehl bei den "Bogenhauser Gesprächen" der rechtsgerichteten Burschenschaft Danubia auf.[3][4]

Werke (Auswahl)[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

• Peter Furth/Mathias Greffrath: Soziologische Positionen. Interviews und Kommentare, FFM 1977 ISBN 3596219760.
• Peter Furth: Phänomenologie der Enttäuschungen, FFM 1991 ISBN 978-3-596-30892-7, Neu aufgelegt 2015
• Peter Furth: Troja hört nicht auf zu brennen. Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1981 bis 2007; hrsg. von Olaf Weißbach, mit einer Einleitung von Helmut Fleischer und einer Fotografie von Manfred Hamm. Landt Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-938844-01-4; 2. erweiterte Auflage 2008, ISBN 978-3-938844-12-0.
• Peter Furth: Aufklärer ohne Mission. Über die Position von Panajotis Kondylis. In: Falk Horst (Hrsg.): Aufklärer ohne Mission. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2007, S. 53–76. ISBN 978-3-05-004316-6
• Peter Furth: Massendemokratie. Über den historischen Kompromiß zwischen Liberalismus und Sozialismus als Herrschaftsform. Mit einer Einleitung von Frank Böckelmann. Landt Verlag, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-944872-19-3.

Weblinks

• Literatur von und über Peter Furth im Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
• „Die 68er-Revolte hat eine Wächtergeneration hinterlassen“: Interview in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, 6. August 2008.
• Biographie auf der Internetpräsenz der Manuscriptum Verlagsbuchhandlung, abgerufen am 25. Februar 2018.

Einzelnachweise

1. ↑ Gedenkseite von Peter Furth | Tagesspiegel Trauer. Abgerufen am 11. Juni 2019 (deutsch).
2. ↑ 18. März 1999 Eilmarsch nach rechtsaußen Nationalrevolutionäre APO-Veteranen wollen "unser Land" retten von Volkmar Wölk
3. ↑ 1968: Ex-SDSler Bernd Rabehl, Peter Furth und Horst Mahler bei den "Bogenhauser Gesprächen", Junge Freiheit, 11. Dezember 1998.
4. ↑ Vortragstexte der Burschenschaft Danubia, abgerufen am 25. Februar 2018.

(YOU MUST STUDY THE TREATISE VERY CAREFULLY, INCL. THE WORDING OF THE GOOD (LATE) PROF. – YOU SHOULD IGNORE MY NOTES UNLESS YOU’RE SCATTER-BRAINED LIKE ME ...)

S.141-142 (unlike the previous two “essays” of this volume) ... the text HERE speaks for itself. Dense, but – not a word wasted – organisation of key themes in P.K.’s opus magnum, The Political and Man. Polemics and mass democracy (and its main ideological currents (cybernetic systems theory, communicative action theory and economistic action theory) accompanying the abundance of goods) stand out.

S. 142 The said main ideologies of mass democracy (notwithstanding the “end of ideologies and grand narratives” !!!) shape “the social” eschatologically and normatively as if we’re all moving towards some kind of “Promised Land” [[CRAZYMAN’s phrasing, not the good Prof.’s]].

S. 143 systems theory does not explain the destruction/dissolution of systems ... and communication theory cannot explain the persistence of war and enmity ... evolutionist philosophies of history underpin such theories ... and fundamental anthropological and social-ontological constants and factors and forces are ignored or not treated adequately based on the empirical evidence.

S. 143-144 So, ontology opposes all ideologies and their respective universalistic claims based on the “shortening/curtailing” of reality, by adopting a theoretical dimension of depth. There is no validity to the post-modern ideologeme of a break with modernity (rather there is the New Times, incl. the multi-dimensional and ideologically interpreted Enlightenment and bourgeois oligarchic liberalism, and, the “postmodern” incl. the “modern” understood as c. 1900, which leads into mass democracy).

S. 144 Discussion of intentionality and the heterogony of ends. Re: intentionality, action is determined by elements of teleology and individuality, and re: the heterogeneity of goals/ends by causality and soci(et)ality = sociality.

S. 145 P.K.’s concept of the social includes the whole range of possible action. Given fundamental differences in historiography (idiography (= the study of individuals), nomology (= the study of laws/causality etc.)) and sociology (= the study of social groups/regularities etc.), P.K. = ontological knowledge that “the social and historical reality [[are]] in one ontic continuum” and as such constitute “the common stuff/matter of sociology and history” (= DPudM, S. 123).

s. 146 The “openness and plasticity” (185) of social being ...

Because of the “Proteus-like/Protean character (s) of social being” (186), ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus

“In Greek mythology, Proteus (/ˈproʊtiəs, -tjuːs/; Ancient Greek: Πρωτεύς) is an early prophetic sea-god or god of rivers and oceanic bodies of water, one of several deities whom Homer calls the "Old Man of the Sea" (halios gerôn). Some who ascribe to him a specific domain call him the god of "elusive sea change", which suggests the constantly changing nature of the sea or the liquid quality of water in general. He can foretell the future, but, in a mytheme familiar to several cultures, will change his shape to avoid having to; he will answer only to someone who is capable of capturing the beast. From this feature of Proteus comes the adjective protean, with the general meaning of "versatile", "mutable", "capable of assuming many forms". "Protean" has positive connotations of flexibility, versatility and adaptability.”

... only a minimal ontology is possible which, in the form of a negative ontology, instead of a supreme principle of order/ordering principle, provides only the justification why the formulation of such an ordering principle is impossible. This is a situation which reminds us of Anaximander’s attempt to think of the Apeiron/the Infinite/the Unlimited/Boundless/τὸ ἄπειρον as a reason for/cause of the world which contains all the world’s Becoming and should at the same time shirk and be beyond reifying/objectifying/concretising thought.

THIS IS FUCKING INCREDIBLE STUFF. [[CRAZY MAN SAYS: THE LATE PROF., WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT OF ADORNO – AAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... WAS A REAL PROF. AND NOT JUST ANOTHER JOO OR COCK-SUCKER APPOINTED VIA PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY NETWORKING ETC.]] ...

In any case, compared to Aristotle’s traditional ontology, there is a paradox in Kondylsian social ontology. The fact that the Dimension of Depth of social being refers to factors and forces [[which are always at least potentially “there” i.e. in existence, ... as if they were substance-related]], whilst renouncing the category of Substance = a paradox = Social ontology aims at incontrovertibility/un-repealability/non-voidability and is/stands at the same time in a close alliance with history.

S. 146-147 “Social ontology deals with/is a matter of the slowest flow of time which human things know" (194), in Kondylis’s through and through empirically minded (point of) view of “social ontology”.

S. 147 The being of society is the ultimate irreducible fact for social ontology, which necessarily uses abstractions to describe and understand the related social-ontological factors and forces (like the being of the world is given for philosophical ontology) ... The various dominant habits of (philosophical) thought usually rest on normative distortions of social being, or the failure to appreciate the range of generality of phenomena.

“Order in the socio-ontological sense, i.e. the fact of society, is never at risk or in danger, because it encompasses both that which from the historical-sociological point of view means ‘order’, and that which in the same sense means ‘disorder’.” (199) Whether revolution or counter-revolution, progress or decline and decay, socio-ontological certainty means that society will step into the place/shoes of society.

S. 148 Whichever way you look at it, individual and society are always – one way or another – linked. There is no society without individuals and there are no individuals without reference to/in society.

Society cannot be a sum of ontically autonomous units because society’s being is a whole which exists with its parts/individuals etc..

The cohesion of society involves the political and interaction as an interweaving of society and individuals and demarcation of one society from other societies.

S. 149 Kondylis’s ontological empiricism = social being as a having-an-effect-together of equal original forces, “as a field without centre and without periphery” (208).

Three “factors or forces” make up social being: “the social relation, the political and man” (206). Because the second and third volumes of P.K.’s social ontology were never completed, we only know about the social relation in detail, and not the political, and, man.

Society as the whole to be ordered and held together cohesively = the political. “Where society in principle is the binding cohesion and correlation of interactions, there the political is too” (207).

S. 150 the conceptually and theoretically necessary dimensions of the social-ontological and the historically concrete ... separate but co-necessary and (in a sense) overlapping ...

There is no “state of nature” and society is always simply “there”, ontologically speaking (so society is not constructed etc.). The political is present in all societies and politics involves the concrete groups/individuals and institutions etc. of concrete societies within the political’s concerns of social order, social cohesion and social disciplining.

S. 151 man/anthropology for P.K. (the third field of social-ontology after the social relation and the political) is anthropology not generally but as it relates to social-ontology. (218 = the anthropological factor is in every society AND not before society).

The subjectivity of man goes to the mechanism of the social relation.

The mortality of man goes to the spectrum of the social relation (Friend/Foe).

S. 152 Everything Political is a social relation, but not all social relations are political. Telling reference to Schmitt.

The nature of man is culture, though culture is not an excerpt from nature, but nature’s extension.

And since all men have culture, as well as an anthropological-social-ontological rationality as (potential) universal understanding, then all cultures can potentially be understood (having recognised that there is a historical great variety of cultural identities).

S. 153 Like Simmel up to Vierkandt and v. Wiese, P.K. sought to free sociology from a philosophy of history, and put society at the centre of attention, notwithstanding that formal sociology played a key role in the c. 1900 turn/paradigm shift towards the analytical-combinatory thought figure (of mass democracy), away from the synthetic-harmonising thought figure (of oligarchic bourgeois liberalism).

So, the attempt to construct a concept of society beyond concrete historical particularities, was an important step undertaken by formal sociology “in the right direction” towards supra-historical content attributable to every society, and thus, social ontology. The “pure” concept of form however failed, ...

S. 154 though formal sociology did get to a – most important for theory – spectrum of nearness and distance, or, association and dissociation.

S. (154-)155 by referring to anthropological given facts, the polarity inherent in formal sociology’s nearness and distance lead to social ontology’s Friend-Foe.

S. 155 The social relation can only be the leading, load-bearing concept of social ontology when it reaches down into “the deepest and most necessary dimension” (241) of human existence, which is man’s mortality.

S. 156 Only the possibility, through human doing, i.e. deeds or action, of bringing about an unequal death [[i.e. killing another or killing oneself]] “brings the factor ‘mortality’ into socio-ontological play.” (241)

This is consistent with P.K.’s M&E/Power and Decision position that “the being of Man is determined by the ratio of self-preservation”.

Self-preservation becomes a question and problem of identity.

S. 157 The Great Hobbes (English FOUL MAN – HAHAHAHA!!!!) theorises death (like no other) but only from the standpoint of enmity (and not in friendship as self-sacrifice), which of course led Hobbes to his “state of nature” error.

Hobbes the naturalist, did not see the ideational need for identity, i.e. that “the symbolic-ideological mechanisms, which at the human level transform the biologically understood impulse of self-preservation into an ideational need for identity” (247) are present.

S. 158 So, it is important to emphasise the continuum of the spectrum of the social relation (which is somewhat reminiscent of Hegel's dialectical formula of identity as a continuum of polarity and continuity).

The war of “all against all” is impossible, so it could not have been the cause of the founding of society (and as polity), which means it is a polemical-ideological stance wanting a strong/absolutist state to e.g. deal with civil conflict, civil war and or heightened anomie.

The spectrum of the social relation cannot be shortened and curtailed.

s. 159 In terms of the mechanism of the social relation, we have “the perception of the Other as subjectivity” and “the moving, putting and transferring oneself (in)to the situation/position of the Other” (307).

Humans can choose between being and non-being and due to subjectivity, and role taking etc. are always (potentially) unpredictable to others, which impacts on (mis)trust etc..

S. 160-161 The perspective of the acting subject, which is the object of social science, “is absorbed in the meta-perspective of the social scientist”, whereas non-scientifically observing subjects undertake roles and adopt the perspective of others in order to try and reduce or eliminate the unpredictability of others, but the mechanism of both states is socio-ontically the same, even though the purpose is different.

S. 161 All social relations (social action) involve subjectivity, understanding and a form/ forms of rationality.

S. 161-162 Reciprocity/mutuality, communication, and exchange (as employed in mainstream mass-democratic social theories/ideologies) are elements or forms of a social relation that are removed or detached from their contexts and elevated to constitutive principles of socialisation [[and that’s where the ideologisation “steps in”]].

S. 162 Reciprocity cannot explain hierarchy, inequality and the asymmetrical complementarity of rights and duties.

As a “conceptual decisionism” (391), communication theory seeks to transfer action into communication and set semantic re-interpretations against ontological factual circumstances. SO, BASICALLY, IT’S FANTASTICAL AND BULLSHIT.

S. 163 With neoliberalism as ideology we are served and economic justification of social theory which at times is as crude as vulgar Marxism. The so-called rationality of the exchange relation does not take into account real-world power imbalances and society being politically integrated. There is no understanding of the social-ontological status of the political. [[CrazyMan says: In other words, MORE ZIO+OTHER BULLSHIT]].

Rationality is not an ideal principle but a multiple magnitude, which is not apprehended deductively from a substance-related definition, but rather is apprehended via the inductive description of factual circumstances. There are levels, forms and degrees of rationality. Social-ontologically seen, it’s not a question of rationalism vs. irrationalism. Only those who select particular content-related normative positions see things that way if they are not talking about logical consistency, purely formerly seen.

S. 164 Anthropology and social ontology are “ethically and technically blind” in respect of the logic of their purely formal (non-content-related) approach to rationality (545); conversely, any definition or normisation (i.e. rendering into norms) of rationality, which wants to be (technically or ethically) useful in practice loses its theoretical depth and breadth (544).

Man as animal rationale, which P.K. takes literally since rationality is the specific difference (differentia specifica) compared to a creature/being fully in the animal kingdom.

Not an animal/bestial instinct as in stimulus/reaction but the postponement/delay/deferment/suspension of the satisfaction of drives/urges/impulses is what underlies the feature/characteristic/trait of rationality in man.

THIS IS FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE STUFF, HERE. IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT, THEN YOU “ARE THROUGH” AND “DE-LOBOTOMISED” FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE ...

1) rationality as regards man’s confrontation with nature

2) rationality as regards man confronting the unpredictability of social situations

In the field of acting as regards work/labour, the end/goal-means-correlation and the rationality building on it are to the fore, in the fields of acting applying to the building and securing of social relations, questions of meaning and the needs of identity are added, and with that, types of rationality, as in the response to legitimacy-related and solidarity-related needs come into being. Kondylis distinguishes “instrumental rationality, symbolic rationality, and the rationality of identity.” (553) In this multiformity of rationality one can see Kondylis’s answer to the dispute between rationalism and irrationalism, since this plexus and network of types of rationality types encompasses both sides of the contrast and opposition between rationalism and irrationalism.

S. 164-165 RE: The Great Pareto’s categorial differentiation between logical and non-logical acts/kinds of acting, P.K. demonstrates that the attempt to create a certain/secure model of rationality by the tight entanglement, close relationship or narrowing down of the end/goal-means-correlation fails in regard to the heterogony of ends.  

S. 165 In other words, the actors in the whole gamut of relations moving forward in time cannot control and reconcile the means with regard to the ends in the sense of always or mostly being able to bring about the initial or subsequent desired result(s). The more the inter-actors, the longer the period of time, the more likely in certain circumstances the initial goal/end(s) cannot be achieved at all etc.. The means’ own logic and unreachable ends = the ends assume a symbolic meaning in which the identity of the actors is expressed as the final end/goal of their action ... so that the rationality of meaningfulness has a “higher ontological status than rationality in the sense of the pursuit of achievable end/goals through suitable/appropriate means” (558). And since the question of meaning, which in the end decides the goals/ends, is the central question of identity, thus, “rationality [[is]] the function of identity” (586) and not vice versa. OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!: “die Ratio der Selbsterhaltung terminiert in einer Ratio, die die Selbstnegation  einschließt” (= “the ratio of self-preservation terminates in a ratio (reason), which encloses and includes self-negation.” )

OH MY FUCKING GOD, GOD!!!: “Die Identität als Norm der mentalen und sozialen Konsistenz verweist via negationis wiederum auf die Unberechenbarkeit der Subjektivitt, die als Grundproblem der sozialen Beziehung auch die innere Differenzierung von Rationalität erzwingt.” (= “The identity as norm of mental and social consistency refers, via negationis [[Via negativa or via negationis (Latin), “negative way” or “by way of denial”]], again, to the unponderability and incalculability (unpredictability) of subjectivity, which, as the fundamental problem of social relations, also forces the inner differentiation of rationality.” )

S. 166 There is no universal concept of Reason AND there is no universal Reason as the source and measure of values for all men/humans as a kind of Universe of Mankind, which was always the Object of struggles in respect of interpretation as regards claims of leadership, power claims and struggles of world views, from which a normatively interpreting understanding emerges on each and every respective side of ideological battles. Understanding as the act of theoretical knowledge is unaffected by all of this. Not one value-related universality of ethical rationalism, but a rationality which is anthropological and social-ontological exists, and which allows all humans to be humans and from their respective cultural positions to potentially understand other humans.

The rationality of identity is relative because it relates to a gereralisation which represents a value. The “what” and “how” of rationality is relative as to content, but the “that” of rationality, i.e. there will be rationality is UNIVERSAL, for man is an animal rationale.

HERE WE FUCKING GO!!!

»Der ontologische Status von Werten besteht in nichts weiter als dem Tatbestand, daß gewertet wird, was und wie jeweils gewertet wird, gehört der Ethik an, in welcher ihrer Gestalten auch immer, und ist ontologisch nicht entscheidbar, bzw. irrelevant.« (= “The ontological status of values consists in nothing further than the factual circumstances that what is evaluated, i.e. the what and how evaluated on each and every respective occasion belongs to ethics, in any of its forms whatsoever, and is ontologically not decidable, and [[is ontologically]] irrelevant.”)

Values and normative universalism = FICTION. Man cannnot have values without the entire spectrum of Positive and Negative, Good and Bad, Friend and Foe etc..

Not only universalism, but relativism also occurs normatively. Relative forms of social life are turned – in a world view of a particular identity – into hermetically closed unities, wholes or entities by elevating the self-understanding of identity to the norm of the understanding of others/aliens/strangers/foreigners.

S. 166-167 And because of that, identity and contingency are considered to be congruent, thus, something like a social or cultural solipsism comes about. In respect of the final consequence of the contrast and opposition of a world view, there is the universe of consensus [[i.e. all cultures are based on the one Ratio of all humans as animalia rationalia]], and the pluriverse of impenetrable cultures of every culture in respect of one another [[since different cultures have different values, which are historically-sociologically contingent and not social-ontological-anthropological.]]

S. 167 The Relative is not impenetrable for the purposes of Understanding, and the Universal is not comprehensively normative. This means the Relative are not two Either-Or choices at the same level but are: As well As/Both .. and ... (since the Universal is a social-ontological magnitude in terms of universal rationality at the animal rationale level, whilst Relative at the sociological-historical level in terms of values, cultures etc.; and since the Relative is factually existent in terms of sociological-historical values (cultures etc.) but also active social-ontologically and Universal in that there is a Friend-Foe spectrum and Subjectivity-Imponderability which can never be permanently curtailed and or otherwise fixed).

»Die Rationalität ist eine Funktion der sozialen Beziehung.« = “Rationalty is a function of the social relation”.

»Ohne soziale Beziehung ist Rationalität ein Scheinproblem.« = “Without a social relation, rationality is a problem of appearance and pretence or a pseudo/phoney/specious-problem

,, ... die Universalität bezieht sich auf den Gegenstand des Verstehens, sie bedeutet also, daß der universelle Charakter bestimmter Phänomene ihre allgemeine Verständlichkeit ermöglicht.” (625) (= “ ... universality refers to the object of understanding, it means, therefore, that the universal character of certain phenomena makes their general understandability possible.”)

s. 167-168 »Das formuliert Kondylis, als wäre er ein Ontologe nach dem klassischen Muster der Tradition, für den Sinn und Möglichkeit der Ontologie von der adaequatio rei et intellectus abhingen. Und er darf so formulieren, weil die soziale Beziehung als „universelle Konstante, die dem Verstehen zum Leitfaden dient” (625), die adaequatio bereitstellt.« (= “Kondylis formulates that as if he were an ontologist after the classical pattern of tradition [[cf. Tommaso d’Aquino (Aquinas) (1225–1274)]], for which the meaning and possibility of ontology depended on adaequatio rei et intellectus. And he may so formulte because the social relation as “the universal constant, which serves as a guiding thread to understanding” (625), which provides, supplies or otherwise makes available the adequatio [[whereas in the Good Ol’ Days, GOD provided the adequatio (ultimately)]].

S. 168 »Erinnern wir uns: Die soziale Beziehung ist verstehende Beziehung sowohl auf der Objektseite wie auf der Subjektseite, sowohl für die Akteure wie für die Beobachter der Akteure. Sie verbürgt die ontische Verwandtschaft zwischen Verstehendem und Verstandenem und ist damit das Herzstück dieser Ontologie, die mithin zurecht S o z i a l ontologie heißt.«

= “Let us remind ourselves: The social relation is an understanding (cognitive) relation both on the side of the object as on the side of the subject, both for the actors as for the observers of the actors. It guarantees the ontic affinity/kindredness between the understood (object/person) and the understanding (subject/person), and is, with that, the heart or core of this ontology, which rightly is called s o c i a l ontology.”

   “Yet Kondylis secures and safeguards the universality of understanding against relativism already in another way. He supplements the ontological approach by means of a rather epistemological argument, and puts next to rationality as an ontological category, rationality as a cognitive set of instruments. With that, the universal basic/fundamental operations of thought and perception are meant, all the logical principles and procedures, the basic/fundamental semantic patterns, models and stereotyped mechanisms and frame(works)s, schemes, patterns of perception which one can summarise under the short summary or rubric of common sense. Kondylis chooses for that the term “primary theory” (627) to set the general(ly)-human elementary constitution of knowledge (or cognitive state of mind) apart from another subordinate constitution of knowledge, represented by culturally determined, identity-related “secondary theories”. These “secondary theories”, which in the form/shape of cultural identities and world views raise, i.e. make, power claims at the level of intellectual(-spiritual) confrontation, are dependent in all their diversity, dissimilarity and distinctness equally on the “primary theory” as an empirical basis of knowledge just as a level of evaluation. In so far, however, the same rational set of instruments can serve opposed cultural and world-theoretical content(s) as a means of pushing through and imposition, it is not the capacity for and ability at truth of this primary rationality that ensures and secures the universality of understanding. Decisive in relation to that is rather the fact that cultures and world views are under coercion, i.e. are compelled to invoke the empirical content of primary theory, howsoever this empiricism is interpreted by them (the said cultures and world views). The ontological significance and importance of this empiricism of common sense lies in the fact that it is not a homogenising principle of understanding, but a factor which mediates between instrumental rationality, on the one hand, and the rationality of identity or of values (identity or value rationality) on the other hand, and thereby makes possible an understanding of alien/foreign/others’ content over and above and beyond cultural and world-theoretical boundaries, limits and borders.”

IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE GOOD AND LATE PROFESSOR SAYS A NUMBER OF THINGS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF HIS TREATISE WHICH ARE AT TIMES ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND HYPER-LEGENDARILY INSIGHTFUL, AND AT OTHER TIMES, TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT OF SOMEONE WHO WAS A PROFESSOR, ALBEIT A REAL PROFESSOR AND NOT THE USUAL UNIVERSITY CLOWN, I.E. THE CREATION OF “TALK”. BECAUSE I KNOW P.K.’S TEXT LIKE FEW OTHERS, IT DOES NOT BOTHER ME IN THE LEAST. GOOD ON HIM (I.E GOOD ON THE GOOD AND LATE PROF.). IN THE FOLLOWING NOTES I SHALL ONLY REFER TO WHAT STANDS OUT TO AND FOR ME ... WHETHER I AGREE OR NOT ... (THIS JUST-EXPRESSED- IN-WRITING COMMENT DOES NOT IN THE LEAST DETRACT FROM THE BRILLIANCE OF THE GOOD AND LATE PROFESSOR’S HANDLING OF P.K.S THOUGHT WITHIN 42 (NOT LONG) PAGES. WHEN I GET TO MEET HIM IN THE AFTER DEATH LAND, I SHALL ASK HIM FOR PERMISSION TO SHAKE HIS HAND (IF HE LETS ME SPEAK TO HIM ... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!)

S. 169 For P.K. the theoretical emphasis is on society and sociology, not on being and ontology. P.K.’s cast of mind is empirical-nominalist (I don’t disagree with this, but P.K.’s discussion of the ontological levels of being is so “deep” that I can’t see how “empirical nominalism” or any “lack of theorisation of being as ontology” could be seen as any kind of positivist-like or theoretical problem).

S. 170 Reference is made to ontology which ostracises the subject-relatedness of Being, its Being-for-the other, its being as Object, whereas knowledge of the subject-relatedness of being is not realised in ontology but as the theory of knowledge, psychology, sociology, etc., i.e. in sciences which can be understood gnoseologically, i.e. in terms of the theory of knowledge, as the applications of the anthropological standpoint (also Heideggerian “fundamental ontology” belongs here ... though we all know what P.K. thought about Heidegger). Social ontology within this framework is therefore not the ontology of a particular kind of being, but the ontology of a particular kind of knowledge [[SUPER CRAZY MAN COMMENT: I DO NOT SEE THIS AT ALL. I ALREADY GET THE SENSE THAT SOMETHING LIKE A RAT CAN BE SMELT (I SMELL A RAT! I SMELL A RAT! I SMELL A RAT!!!) – I.E. THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE LIKE A HORST-FURTH PULLING THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES “COVER-UP, SMOKESCREEN” JOKE (WHICH P.K. MAY HAVE EVEN KNOWN ABOUT, IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME AT ALL, THOUGH I CAN’T KNOW THAT ... AND EVEN THOUGH A CERTAIN GOLDSTEIN WHO I SHALL NOT SPECIFY THINKS I’M PARANOID. I’VE SEEN ALL THIS IN ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968) AND EYES WIDES SHUT (1999) [[AND THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL: ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984) ... SERGE WAS THE GREATEST!!! ...  ]]) ... SAME OLD TACTIC, SAME OLD STORY. OBFUSCATION, SMOKESCREENS, BULLSHIT, THE SAME OLD JUDAS-LYING AND JUDAS-CRAP OF RUNNING EVERYONE ELSE AROUND IN CIRCLES ... CIRCLES ... CIRCLES ... VIA MAMMON AND MONEY AND THE PARASITIC-FLEA-LEECH-VULTURE WHERE POWER IS CONCENTRATED IN EUROPEAN AND THEN ZIO-USA IMPERIALISMS AND THE PROTESTANT, PAPIST AND ATHEIST COCK-SUCKERS ALL LINE UP TO SERVE MAMMON AND JUDAS WITH JUDAS ... WELL, I’VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU, HANMAN OR APEMAN OR ANOTHER MAN – EVENTUALLY – ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH ANYONE INVOLVED WITH MAMMON, INCLUDING ME (EVEN IF IT TAKES ANOTHER 1000 YEARS)!!! AND FOR THE TIME BEING, THE “CIRCLES” – GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES, GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES, GOING AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND IN CIRCLES ... IS A LOT OF FUN (SORT OF, KIND OF ... ) ... DEATH TO THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY!!! DEATH TO SATAN!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]

P.K.’s social ontology as a fundamental science of the sciences humaines ...

The Kondylisian “concept-thing/matter” relationship is nominalistically summarised: ,,Die Sachen selbst haben keine Ahnung von un seren Begriffen und begrifflichen Unterscheidungen (...)” = “Things themselves do not have any presentiment, suspicion, idea of notion of our concepts and conceptual distinctions (...)” (108). The point is that truth and correctness exist only as a convention or consensus of those thinking, of the makers of concepts. Concepts (categories) are determinations of thought (intellectual/thought determinations), not determinations of being (being determinations)  = THIS IS SOME CLASSIC FURTH (THIS IS FUCKING LEGENDARY STUFF): »Wahrheit und Richtigkeit gibt es nur als Konvention oder Konsens der Denkenden, der Begriffemacher. Begriffe (Kategorien) sind Denkbestimmungen, nicht Seinsbestimmungen.«

S. 170-171 (THIS IS FUCKING LEGENDARY STUFF and CLASSIC FURTH, GOD BLESS HIM ...): “And if the being, which has its peculiarity in the reflexive/reflective being related-to-one-another, is taken as the outcome of thoughts and considerations, then even for the nominalist, ontology is possible, if only in a certain way, namely, only with reference to the realm or area of being, or only from the point of view of a certain being, whose particularity makes being as such only/first inferable, derivable or deducible. In other words, Kondylis's “social ontology” can only be ontology insofar as it is s o c i a l ontology.” (= »Und wenn das Seiende, das im reflexiven Aufeinanderbezogensein seine Besonderheit hat, als Ausgang der Überlegungen genommen wird, dann ist auch für den Nominalisten Ontologie möglich, wenn auch nur auf bestimmte Weise, nämlich nur bezogen auf den betreffenden Seinsbereich oder nur unter dem Gesichtspunkt eines bestimmten Seienden, dessen Besonderheit das Seiende als solches erst erschließbar macht. Das heißt, Kondylis’ ,,Sozialontologie” kann nur Ontologie sein, insofern sie S o z i a l ontologie ist.«) [[ALL OF THIS, THOUGH, SIMPLY FLOWS FROM THE FACT THAT SOCIETY MUST BE ASSUMED AS PRE-GIVEN. WITHOUT SUCH AN ASSUMPTION THEN WE’RE BACK TO THE POSITION “I SAY ALL KNOWLEDGE IS RELATIVE” (WHEN THE PERSON SAYING THAT IS “UNIVERSALLY” (SO TO SPEAK) CERTAIN OF HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT “ALL KNOWLEDGE IS RELATIVE”)]]

S. 171 »Aber es handelt sich wohl doch nur um eine Ontologie mit beschränkter Haftung, nämlich um die Zuständigkeit für Seiendes nur insoweit, als bei ihm durch sein gesellschaftliches Gegebensein An-sich-Sein und auf Erkenntnis Bezogensein zusammenfallen, also eine Relativität herrscht, die die ontologische Fragestellung in grundsätzliche Schwierigkeiten bringt.« =

“Yet it is probably or absolutely a matter of only an ontology with limited liability, namely, it is a matter of the responsibility for being only in so far as, in it, through its societal being given, being-in-itself and being-related as regards knowledge and cognition, coincide, that is to say, a relativity dominates and rules, which brings the ontological setting of the question/problem into fundamental difficulties” [[THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER “I SMELL A RAT” MOMMENT AND OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER HORST-FURTH AND POSSIBLY P.K. IN-HOUSE JOKE ... YOU CAN GO CIRCULAR AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE, JUST LIKE A JOO AND THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY OF JUDAS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT’S SIMPLE: MAN IS IN SOCIETY AS AT LEAST BEING SOCIALLY RELATED AND RELATIVE (AS IT WERE, SO TO SPEAK) TO THE SOCIAL RELATION. BEING AS WHAT EXISTS CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAN WHO USES HIS SENSES AND INTELLECT (= EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE AND LOGIC) WHICH IS EITHER EMPIRICALLY AND LOGICALY VERIFIED OR NOT. ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION IS A MATTER OF NON-NORMATIVE “VALUE-FREE OR AXIOLOGICALLY FREE” (OF A CERTAIN VALUE-RELATED, ASCETIC STANCE OF SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION) OF ABSOLUTE LOGICAL CONSISTENCY, EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, TAKING ALL KNOWN CONCRETE DATA INTO CONSIDERATION, WITH A WILLINGNESS TO ALWAYS CHECK THE DATA WITH ANY GENERALISATIONS, ASBTRACTIONS, TYPES, IDEAL TYPES, ETC. EITHER IN RELATION TO CONCRETE SITUATIONS AND OR TO GENERALISING ABSTRACTIONS ... THERE’S NO OTHER WAY ... NO MATTER HOW “SMART” YOU TRY TO BE IN TERMS OF OBFUSCATING THINGS (LIKE A TALMUDIC JOO, PHILOSOPHISING HINDOO, A GRECO-SOPHIST, OR HAN-LEGALIST AND OR ANY SMART ARSE IN GENERAL) ...]]

S. 172  »So kommt es, daß Kondylis in seiner „Sozialontologie” ständig bemüht ist, die ontologische Überlieferung auf Distanz zuhalten und deren Zentralkategorie Substanz durch eine andere Art der Kategorienbildung zu ersetzen bzw. überflüssig zu machen.« (= “So it comes about that Kondylis in his “social ontology” constantly endeavours to keep the ontological handing down, i.e. tradition at a distance, and to replace or make superfluous its central category of substance by a different kind of category formation and development.”)  Like we’ve said “a million times”, we as rational thinking human animals (animalia rationalia) cannot equate our thought with reality, or make our thought coincide with reality, but only through our thought and perspectives can we use abstractions to grasp reality conceptually to the extent we can so grasp reality.

»Andererseits jedoch ist das soziale Sein wie im Historismus ein ständiges Werden.« (“On the other hand however, social being as in historicism is a constant becoming.”) [[YEAH, YEAH, SO WHAT? THIS IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE HEIDEGGER!!! ARE WE INTO HIGH COMEDY PARODY MODE OR SOMEHTING!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR MAYBE I’M JUST CRAZY!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]

s. 173 MORE HILARITY: »Das ständige Werden der sozialen Wirklichkeit ist zugleich unaufhörliche Vergänglichkeit; alles, was entsteht, ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht.« (“The constant becoming of social reality is at the same time unceasing transitoriness; everything which comes into being is worth destroying and being ruined.”) AAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

,,Der Mensch ist aber unverwüstlich und in ganzer existenzieller Fülle da, und die einzige Voraussetzung dafür liegt in der Tatsache seines bloßen Vorhandenseins, nicht in einer bestimmten Lebensweise.” (88) Ironisch liest sich das wie eine Paraphrase auf die Formel des von Kondylis vielgeschmähten Existenzialismus: ,,Existentia involvit essentiam.”

“However, man is resilient and indestructible and in total existential fullness there, and the only precondition or prerequisite for this lies in the fact of his mere existence, not in any particular way of life/living.” (88) Ironically, that reads like a paraphrase of the formula of the existentialism much reviled by Kondylis: “Existentia involvit essentiam.” [[One finds IRONY here only if one wants to. I find COMEDY because at the end of the day what IS, IS, and if or rather since e.g. HITLER said something RIGHT, I might or might not say that it is IRONIC or COMIC that HITLER said something RIGHT and I happen to agree with many other people that what HITLER said was factually RIGHT, even though he did say things which were factually WRONG; and likewise re: STALIN or CHURCHILL or F.D.R. or ANY OTHER FUCKING POLITICIAN OR ANY OTHER FUCKING PERSON ... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]] [[FURTHER NOTE: P.K.’s REFERENCES TO SARTRE IN THE POLITICAL AND MAN WERE DEFINITELY NOT OF A REVILING NATURE!!! I’D SAY THAT SARTRE IS SHOWN TO HAVE DONE NOT TOO BAD RE: THE SOCIAL RELATION ... THOUGH HE SUFFERED FROM A KIND OF AUTISTIC RETARDISM ... SINCE HE DID NOT GO ... “ALL THE WAY” ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....]]

S. 174 »Die Wertfreiheit ist erst dann hinlänglich verstanden, wenn man zur Kenntnis nimmt, daß sie ohne Absage an die Geschichte nicht zu haben ist, das betrifft die Geschichtsphilosophie ebenso wie den Geschichtsopportunismus des Zeitgeistes.« (= “Value freedom is only adequately understood when one takes note of the fact that value freedom is no to be had without the rejection of history which concerns the philosophy of history as well as the historical opportunism of the Zeitgeist.”)

This is a very “funny” way of putting it, but ME THINKS I KNOW WHAT THE DEAD HUN-KRAUT-TEUTON MEANS (DON’T WORRY I’LL BE DEAD VERY SOON TOO – EVERY INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE IS BUT A “BLIP” IN HISTORY’S WAVES OF CENTURIES AND TIDAL WAVES OF MILLENNIA ... ) ...

“POEM TIME”

EVERY INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE

EVERY INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE

IS BUT A

“BLIP”

IN HISTORY’S WAVES OF CENTURIES AND TIDAL

WAVES OF

DA

MYLEENIAR

DIGNEETEE

AND NOW I’M BECUMIN DA APE

COZ MY EYEDENTITEE IZ NOWCOW ODER OVA

AND DA SHIT

IZ DA SHIT

I UM LIKE DA SHIT

DE-COMPOZ

MANOO

R

*

»Gegen die Auffassung, daß die Geschichte der Prozeß der menschlichen Selbstverwirklichung sei, wird die dem Historismus selbst entstammende Erkenntnis eingesetzt, daß die geschichtlichen Gestalten der menschlichen Selbstverwirklichung nur relativ, nämlich widersprüchlich, ohne Kontinuität und unumkehrbar vergänglich sind. Kulturen entstehen und vergehen, aber Natur ist immer. So ist es auch mit der Gesellschaft. Revolutionen kommen und gehen, Gesellschaft ist immer.«

“Against or contrary to the view and perception that history is the process of human self-realisation, the knowledge stemming from historicism itself is used [[in such a way]] that the historical forms of human self-realisation are only relative, namely contradictory, without continuity and irreversibly transitory. Cultures come into being and fade away and pass on, die, disappear/vanish, but nature is always. So, it is also with society. Revolutions come and go, society is always.” (I’ll qualify that by adding that human societies are always, i.e. always exist, unless the Human Race dies out or otherwise becomes extinct).

“INSPIRED POETRY TIME”

EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ...

EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYONE WHO KNOWS

THAT HOMER AND DANTE WERE MUCH GREATER POETS

THAN Camões, SHAKESPEARE AND GOETHE.

CHICO, GROUCHO, HARPO AND ZEPPO KNEW THAT

CURLY, LARRY AND MOE KNEW THAT

JERRY LEWIS KNEW THAT

LUCILLE BALL PROBABLY KNEW THAT TOO.

(I AM NOT SURE ABOUT ZERO MOSTEL, GENE WILDER, MEL

BROOKS AND MONTY FELDMAN. NO, NO, NO, ...

NOT SURE ABOUT THAT).

SO, IT MIGHT TAKE ME A FEW CYCLES OF SOME CYCLES OF

MILLENNIA

BUT ONE DAY I SHALL BE A POET GREAT CHEW-TZCHOO.

EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYONE WHO KNOWS

THAT HOMER AND DANTE WERE MUCH GREATER POETS

THAN Camões, SHAKESPEARE AND GOETHE.

*

S. 175 »Nach den von Kondylis selbst aufgestellten Kriterien hat man seine Sozialontologie als eine Ausnahme von dem sonst in der Epoche an Theorie Herstellbarem anzusehen.« (In accordance with the criteria put forward, formulated and established by Kondylis himself, one has to regard his social ontology as an exception to what was otherwise producible (makeable, manufacturable) in theory in his/P.K.’s epoch.) ... »Die formale Soziologie konnte wegen ihr er Abhängigkeit vom analytisch-kombinatorischen Paradigma nicht bis zur Ontologie vorstoßen.« (= “Formal sociology could not advance to ontology because of its dependence on the analytical-combinatory paradigm.”)

CAUTION (AND WARNING)

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ABOUT THE LATE, GOOD (AND AT LEAST IN MINOR PART) GREAT PETER FURTH’S TREATISE ARE WRITTEN BY A MADMAN WHO HAS GONE INSANE, AND NOT ONLY CRAZY. IF YOU READ THEM YOU ARE ADVISED TO HAVE A SPECIAL “CABINET CELLAR” SELECTION SCOTCH, A CIGAR (CUBA), OR BOTH, AT HAND. GOOD LUCK.

S. 176 »Quasi-substanzialismus« YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, WHATEVER ... I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT HERE, FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES, THOUGH IT IS FAIRLY FUNNY... THAT SOMEONE COULD WRITE SUCH A BRILLIANT PIECE – (WHEN P.K. ALWAYS MAINTAINED ONE NEEDS TO READ ALL HIS TEXTS COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY AND NOT DO A PATCHWORK SUMMARY (AS BRILLIANT AS IT MAY BE)) –, WHILST MAKING A WHOLE HOST OF VALID POINTS, BUT ALSO WHILST “TAKING THE PISS” OUT OF ACADEMIA (“THE ACADEMY”) IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BRILLIANT AND (NEAR-)GENIUS!!!

»Versteht sich Kondylis selbst als Skeptiker, ...« AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S. 177 »Wie können Selbsterhaltung und ein Denken, das wie das skeptische Wertentscheidungen und Gegenstandserkenntnis in Frage stellt, zusammengehen? Wie kann es zu einem Organ kommen, das seine positive Funktion in eine negative verkehrt?« (= “How can self-preservation and a thinking, which, like sceptical value decisions (i.e. decisions as regards values) and the knowledge of objects called into question, go together? How can an organ come about which turns its positive function into a negative function?”) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’VE NEVER LAUGHED SO FUCKING MUCH IN MY LIFE SINCE WHEN I USED TO WATCH “THE PLANET OF THE APES” TV SERIES ON TV MANY DECADES AGO [[THE PLANET OF THE APES WAS FUNNY BACK THEN, BUT NOT ANYMORE, UNFORTUNATELY]] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT GETS EVEN BETTER – OR EVEN FUNNIER, WITH A “SERIOUS” REFERENCE TO A “....” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

»Denn die Frage, wie es zu einem Denken kommen kann, das seine Organfunktion aufhebt bzw. ins Negative wendet, wiederholt sich auf dieser Ebene, ja wird erst hier prinzipiell formulierbar. Kondylis gibt auf diese Frage, jedenfalls direkt, keine Antwort; er behauptet die Möglichkeit eines von seiner Organfunktion abgekoppelten Denkens als Tatsache. Wie hat man diese Tatsache zu beschreiben? Als die Tatsache einer Wendung in der Intentionalität des Denkens, einer „Umkehr in der Antriebsrichtung” (Gehlen) des Denkens.« (= “Because the question of how to come to a thinking/thought that lifts (i.e. cancels or abolishes or revokes) its organ function or turns negative, repeats itself at this level, in fact, only here in principle does it become formulable. Kondylis gives no answer to this question, in any case, not directly; he asserts the possibility of a thinking/thought decoupled and detached from its organ function as a fact. How does one describe this fact? As the fact of a turn in the intentionality of thinking (thought), a “reversal in the  direction of the drive (urge, impetus, impulse)” (Gehlen) of thinking (thought).”)

[[WHAT FUCKING ORGAN FUNCTION? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!! FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... I CAN SEE ALL THE ?OOIES AND THEIR ?OCK-SUCKING FRIENDS IN “ACADEMIA” AND “THE ACADEMY” WITH THEIR “THEORIES” AND MILLIONS OF STUDENTS IN THE “WEST” GOING INTO MOUNTAINS OF DEBT TO THEORISE ABOUT “ORGAN FUNCTIONS” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]

S. 179

»In der Tat, Kondylis springt weit,

aber er springt nicht über

Rhodos hinaus.«

“Crazy Poem Time”

Organ Failure – A Poem

When the Organs Do NOT Play

And Locke has Lost his Sensory Organs

And Aristotle’s Organon Cannot find its John

Then, the Whole of Humanity is in Trouble.

And even though I Love to Play the Organ

My Organ does NOT function

AND the Whole of Humanity is in Trouble.

The Whole of Humanity is in Trouble.

Is in Trouble.

Tro-uble.

*

S. 179 (cont.)

»... weil sein Materialismus ein Materialismus mit endogenem Idealismus ist.«

»Es is unübersehbar: Kondylis hat von Nietzsche gelernt, daß der Geist Achill überholt.«

»Und bisweilen, wenn Kondylis von der Überlegenheit ideeller Identitätsforderungen über die biologische Selbsterhaltung handelt, stellt man Ähnlichkeiten mit Simmels später Lebensphilosophie fest; ... «

I PROTEST! THAT’S NOT FAIR!!! SIMMEL WAS AND IS A LEGEND!!!!! WITH A FACE LIKE THΑΤ, JUST ON THE BASIS OF HIS PHYSIOGNOMY, HE WAS AND IS A FUCKING LEGEND!!!!!

ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑὝΤΗ Ἡ ΠΟΛΙΣ;

»Er nimmt einerseits den Integrationseffekt des Idealismus ohne seinen metaphysischen Unterbau und andererseits die metaphysische Basisrolle des Materialismus ohne seinen Reduktionismus und fügt beides zu einem neuen dritten Gebilde zusammen.«

S. 180

»Der Begriff des Ganzen spiele also im Macht kampf der Geister die entscheidende Rolle.«

S. 181

»Kondylis’ pluralistische Theorie der Rationalität hat für das an Aufklärung interessierte Denken einen enormen Effekt: Sie verhilft dem aufklärerischen Denken zu größer er Unbefangenheit, indem sie die antinomische Form des Gegensatzes von Rationalismus und Irrationalismus auflöst.« (= “Kondylis’s pluralistic theory of rationality has – for thought interested in the Enlightenment – an enormous effect: it helps Enlightenment thinking/thought have a greater impartiality by dissolving the antinomic form of the contrast and opposition between rationalism and irrationalism.”)

S. 181-182 »Für die messianische Partei der Aufklärung allerdings nimmt sich die „Sozialontologie” sicherlich gegenaufklärerisch aus, weil sie den absoluten eschatologischen Anspruch der geschichtsphilosophischen Aufklärung relativiert. Allein, sie ist in der Tat genuin aufklärerisch, denn sie enttäuscht das Wunschdenken, nicht die Wünsche und macht die ethischen und sonstigen Rationalisierungen des Wunschdenkens durchsichtig. ... « (= “For the messianic party of the Enlightenment, though, “social ontology” certainly excludes counter-Enlightenment, because it (social ontology) relativises the absolute eschatological claim of the Enlightenment pertaining to the philosophy of history. In actual fact, social ontology is genuinely Enlightenment-related because it disenchantes wishful thinking, not wishes, and makes transparent the ethical and other rationalisations of wishful thinking.”)

THE MESSIANIC PARTY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT INCLUDES THIS “PRUSSIAN-GERMAN”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S. 182

»Vor allem aber repräsentiert sie im Unterschied zur doktrinären Aufklärungstradition eine Aufklärung ohne vormundschaftliches Denken, und ist insofern schon das beste Antidot gegen Ideologie, das im Augenblick zu haben ist.«

»Die andere gegen Ideologie immunisierende Wirkung geht von Kondylis’ Ideologietheorie aus, die auch in der „Sozialontologie” enthalten ist. Ihr Effekt besteht nicht in der Herstellung eines ideologiefreien Raumes, sondern in der Verhinderung ideologischer Hegemonie. Der ihr eigene „totale Ideologiebegriff” (K. Mannheim) sorgt dafür, daß es in der Ideologienkonkurrenz nicht zur Bildung eines ,Wahrheitsmonopols‘ kommen kann.« (= “The other effect immunising against ideology effect emanates from Kondylis’s theory of ideology, which is also contained in the “social ontology”. Its effect does not consist in the making, manufacture, production or creation of an ideology-free space, but in the prevention, impediment and preclusion of ideological hegemony. Its own “total concept of ideology” (K. Mannheim) ensures that there can be no formation of a “monopoly of truth” in competition pertaining to ideology (ideological rivalry).”) LOOK, THIS IS FINE IF WE DEFINE IDEOLOGY (Ideologie) / THE IDEOLOGICAL (»das Ιdeologische«) AS INCLUSIVE OF ALL IDEAS GENERALLY, BUT PERSONALLY, I DEFINE IDEOLOGY AS RELATING TO NORMATIVE IDEAS/THOUGHT/DISCOURSE PERTAINING TO THE POLITICAL, AND I RESERVE IDEATIONAL (»ideell«) AS ENCOMPASSING ALL OF THE IDEAS WITHIN THE SOCIAL AND LANGUAGE/RATIONALITY IN GENERAL (whereas »ideal« (German) =  “ideal” (English)). BUT THIS REALLY IS A MATTER OF DEFINITIONS AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE POINT BEING MADE.

»Vom  Marxismus bleibt also eine letztinstanzliche Entscheidungssituation, die als Ernstfall maßgeblich für Denken und Handeln ist.«

»Aber nicht alles Denken in der Post-Modeme ist postmodern.«

»Es ist verständlich, wenn demgegenüber die Versuche nicht aufhören, ein maßgebendes Drittes zu finden, mit dem der Ernstfall, in dessen Perspektive Kondylis die soziale Beziehung stellt, ein gehegt werden kann. Und es ist gerade auch Kondylis’ beschreibender Wertnihilismus, der das Unweigerliche dieser Versuche verständlich macht.«

[[SUMMARY OF BOOK REVIEW FINDINGS: IF ANY P.K. TEXT IS AN 11/10, THIS BOOK WAS A 10/10 ON A 99 OUT OF 100 BASIS.]]

*

In the After Death Land

(my dear friend, Peter)

In the After Death Land

There are many people to talk to,

Some Immortal and not Human,

Others annoying but not unworthy of discussion

(there’s a lot of Time to Kill in the After Death Land – even for

Mortals like Me and YOU)

But there are also some special friends.

It matters not whether they are Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Taoist

Or Confucian,

Whether they are called Bhupati, Basho, Mustafa, Guo Xiang, Kongqiu or

Peter.

*

(Nearly Nothing – in the mass-democratic state – for the Short to Medium Term is not Planned (and Controlled or Steered))

*