To assume that science knows reality is impossible, because it can only know objects previously cut to adapt to the availability of its methods. These objects do not exist in themselves, they do not exist as reality. Everything that exists, exists simultaneously in various dimensions of reality. For example, you take a cow “Ah, the cow is a biological being!” well and isn’t she a chemical being? Isn’t a physical one? Or an economic one? Is it not a sociological being? She belongs to all of this at the same time! Is there any science that can study it on all these aspects? No. This thing has different aspects and dimensions that intersect, this is what is called the concrete being. Science does not teach us reality, it highlights certain aspects that, properly articulated with other aspects, help us to see reality.

But one science does not replace the other, and it cannot speak about the object of the other. And the idea of ​​”inter-science” is another nonsense, because you have several observations obtained by methods that are not exchangeable, and then you add everything up and think that you are talking about the concrete object when you are actually talking about a sum of abstractions. A concrete object is what any human being knows. If you take a billionaire from New York and a priest from New Guinea, they have the same understanding of concrete objects that everyone else has! What we call reality is what presents itself to human beings.

Animals do not know reality. They, like science, also know abstract things. They only know what is appropriate for their own system of perception that is not of another species, whereas we have the perception of all species! We can understand how the cat sees, how amoeba feels things, we have this notion of concrete reality in its entirety, only the human being has that! The human being and the angels, of course, but bodily beings just us. No scientist can overcome this, the vision of concreteness belongs to the human being as a species, there is no other reality.

So the reality is not there and we that do not perceive it, no, the reality is exactly what we perceive. “Ah, but it is always incomplete”, so tell me the idea of ​​a complete reality that can be presentable to anyone. You cannot. That is, showing itself only in certain aspects is proper to all reality, that is the structure of reality. For example, you take the cube; how many sides does the cube have? There are six, you only see three! Is this a limitation of our perception? No, it is a limitation of the cube, and so on.

But it's very jarring to see socialism as being named as complicit in this process. Socialism's economic principles have always lent themselves to the dilution of corporate power, not its concentration. — StreetlightX

If the objective is no longer just to enrich, but to dominate the State, and, more broadly, consciences, which model of political regime took this domain to the verge of perfection, developing a technology to control society never seen in other historical contexts? The socialist model, of course. And it is also obvious that metacapitalists only support socializing measures because they know that, in strictly economic terms, a full socialist regime is a logical and practical impossibility. They know this, moreover, as the Bolshevik Nomenklatura has always known, at least since Lenin launched the New Economic Policy. Complete nationalization of the economy is not feasible, and in order to remain standing, any socialist-type government must tolerate some degree of market economy, albeit in a clandestine manner (see, on this, USSR: The Corrupt Society — The Secret World of Soviet Capitalism, by Konstantin Simis).

Socialism's economic principles lent themselves to the dilution of the bottom 99% (mainly the phantom middle class) while enriching the top 1%. The billionaires all over the world has enriched while the major population was heavily impoverished due to the lockdown orders. And laws such as minimum wage, taxes, etc, are use by them to disrupt the small competitors and reinforce the oligopoly. Bezos has his means to circumvent/endure taxes, not the average Joe in your street corner. Boycotting Amazon and supporting local dealers is one way to disrupt this scheme.

Finally found someone lucid around here, much appreciated.

I should also add that, in order for you to better understand this it is necessary to investigate a mechanism that is generated by capitalism itself, and that works like this: the subject, within the market economy, thrives and enriches in such a way that, when he reaches a point, he perceives that he has no more reason to continue subjected to market fluctuations. The market that produced him, from then on, becomes a threat. So it is necessary to fall outside the laws of the market to guarantee the continuation of the great fortune for the following generations. The individual, then, enters with a type of consideration that is no longer capitalist, but that is of a dynastic order. From that moment on, the approach that these people take of society no longer corresponds to a capitalist perspective, but to a perspective of aristocratic type. When these great fortunes start to reason in dynastic terms, they have to overcome the market economy mechanism that constituted them, and there is only one way to do that: you have to dominate the state. This means that the power of these large organizations is economic to a certain extent, but then it becomes a political-military power that is independent of the course of economic affairs because it has the means to direct, dominate and strangle the mechanism of the market. These people [owners of great fortunes] I call metacapitalists. Metacapitalists are those who started out as capitalists, but have already transcended this condition and become a kind of new aristocratic caste.

This theory is reinforced, for example, by the confession of George Soros himself, who, in a significantly article entitled “The Capitalist Threat”, published in The Atlantic in February 1997, writes with all the lyrics, and without an ounce of shame: “Although I made a fortune in the financial market, today I fear that the unrestricted strengthening of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values to all walks of life are threatening our open and democratic society. The main enemy of open society, I believe, is no longer the communist threat, but the capitalist threat”.

It is precisely this mix of capitalist economics and socialist government that has underpinned the new world order that emerged with the end of the Cold War. In a kind of tacit agreement with the communists, the Western metacapitalists came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create some form of synthesis between the economic dynamism of liberal capitalism and the efficient technology of social control plus the imposition of consensus managed by socialist regimes. It is no wonder that, as a prototype of this synthesis, China is rising to the position of hegemonic power in the contemporary world order. With the tolerance, if not the endorsement, of the metacapitalists. As the Chinese intellectual Di Dongsheng suggested, Beijing has always had a strong influence on Wall Street, and will again do so after Joe Biden took office. And although all of this still sounds inconceivable to most people, the truth is the one that, 100 years ago, the great British novelist HG Wells (a notorious social democrat) wrote: “The big capital is by no means antipathetic to communism. The more it grows, the closer it gets to collectivism”. Bingo!

The new left ruined everything, by way of showing and advocating the ending of the complete oppression the ruling class had on the not-so-ruling class by pointing out that wealth inequities, guns, fundamental religionism, and working non-stop are not actual things that this society needs to perpetuate and hone to greater heights — god must be atheist

The Frankfurt School messed up with the idea of the proletarian revolution and passed the leadership of the revolutionary process to big capital. Those who do not realize this are blind or functionally illiterate.

Every artist’s job is to transfigure a genuine experience into a cultural good. The artist will not intellectually process the experience to reach its comprehension at the universality level; he will record it in the most eminently communicable way possible. Of course sometimes it’s not that easily communicated. Sometimes it can be so subtle that, no matter how hard he tries to be clear, it won’t be very clear — you’ll have to crack your head a little to know what he’s talking about. Not to mention the fact that to understand his experience, you will need to have sufficient maturity or imagination — if not, you will understand nothing.

It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition).

I’m still unclear about whether the New Left is better than the Old Left. — praxis

Women in soviet communism:


Women in social-democracy:


In the long run, social democracy does more damage to society and souls than autocratic communism. Since the extreme left has left economic discourse for "diversity" - gayzism, abortion, feminism, etc. - it has become dominant and mandatory in virtually all Western nations. Soon there will not be a single media body that dares to oppose it. And there are still con artists who deny there is a leftist hegemony of the media.

Wow wasn't it all conspiracy theory?

So, basically you're peddling lies. — Benkei

So tell me how is it possible that the most admired man in America (according to a Gallup poll) had fewer votes than Joe Blow, who couldn't bring fifty people together at a rally?

Couldn't find any proof of that. At all. — frank

Below is a running, selective collection of hyperlinked articles detailing charges of ballot irregularities or electronic fraud being made in various states, especially key battlegrounds such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania.


Arizona - FBI investigating voter data theft - Forbes

Data expert: between 120,000 and 306,000 fake people cast ballots - NTD Television

Maricopa GOP chairwoman: Trump votes credited to Biden - Capitol Times

Anonymous: 35,000 illegal votes for Democratic candidates - Daily Signal


Georgia - Trump campaign files suit seeking new statewide election - Reuters

House Republicans seek mail-ballot process review before Jan. 5 runoff - Epoch Times

Dekalb County can’t find chain of custody records for absentee ballots - Epoch Times

Trump campaign: Video shows ballot-counting from suitcases after poll workers sent home - Townhall, Twitter

Chief investigator: No 'mystery ballots' seen in security video - Washington Examiner

Attorney L. Lin Wood: All 900 Fulton Co. military ballots for Biden - sdfish.com

Wood: Video shows ballots shredded - Cobb County Courier

Data analyst: 40,000 ballots illegally cast by people who had moved - NTD video

Ex-gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams group investigated for seeking to “register “ineligible, out-of-state, or deceased voters” before Jan. 5 Senate runoffs - Fox News


Michigan - Judge allows probe of Dominion machines in Antrim County - Fox News

Four takeaways from the state Senate's vote fraud hearing - Daily Signal


Nevada - Nevada GOP to appeal judge’s refusal to nullify Biden win - Associated Press

Native American voter advocacy group “handed out gift cards, electronics, clothing” in tribal areas, and on Facebook some recipients documented the exchanges for votes while wearing Biden campaign gear - The Federalist

Trump legal team: Audit finds 2 percent of ballots cast in the name of people who said they never received a ballot and 1 percent by those who said they never filled one out - PJ Media

Mail ballots were sent to abandoned businesses - Public Interest Legal Foundation

Trump representatives said more than 1,500 ballots may have been cast by dead voters and that 42,248 people voted “multiple times” - Washington Examiner

Witness: Early voting tallies in Carson County were inexplicably changed on election night - Hearing transcript

Whistleblower affidavit: Clark County supervisors accepted ballots despite concerns regarding required signatures - Washington Examiner


Pennsylvania - Justice Samuel Alito moves up U.S. Supreme Court deadline in mail ballot case - Epoch Times

Lawsuit: Up to 280,000 ballots ‘disappeared’ after postal contractor's trip from New York - Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of ballots returned earlier than sent date, researcher says - Epoch Times

Mail carrier says he was ordered to collect late ballots for backdating. - Washington Times

Pittsburgh ballots sent to vacant lots - Public Interest Legal Foundation


Rampant and unbridled voter fraud everywhere. Didn’t Joe Biden himself accidentally say they put together the greatest voter fraud in history during pre-election?

The most beautiful thing is that nobody remembers that the cause of the riot in the Capitol in the first place was the biggest electoral fraud of all time, an obvious crime of high treason protected by the Senate and Big Tech. Everyone wants to give the impression that the cause of the violence was innocuous little words from Trump. Madness has become mandatory. Investigating electoral fraud was prohibited, reporting it was prohibited, and even speaking in any context was prohibited. That's what communist transparency is.

Being the form of the body, the soul contains in itself, simultaneously, all the possibilities of the body, but it, not being determined only by the body but by the entire space-time framework of earthly existence, can only realize them in very limited scale and a little bit at a time. The sadness of the soul in the terrestrial world does not come from the fact that it "alienates" itself in the body, but that the body continually frustrates and disappoints it, being devoid of that touch of immortality that the soul foresees in itself and of which it would desire, in vain, that the body would also enjoy.

Also, If there is a well-proven fact in this world, it is the extrasensory perception during the state of clinical death. An inert body, with no heartbeat or any brain activity, suddenly awakens and describes, in great detail, what happened during his trance, not only in the room where he lay, but in the other rooms of the house or hospital, which from where he was he could not see even if he was awake, in good health and with his eyes open. This has been repeated so many times, and it has been attested by so many reputable scientific authorities, that only a complete ignorant in the matter can insist on remaining incredulous. But even some of those who recognize the impossibility of denying the fact are reluctant to draw the conclusion that it necessarily imposes: the limits of human consciousness extend beyond the horizon of bodily activity, including that of the brain. The reluctance to accept this shows that the “modern man” — the product of the culture that we inherited from the Enlightenment — has identified himself with his body to the point of feeling frightened and offended at the mere suggestion that his person is something else. It is evident that this is not just a conviction, an idea, but an incapacitating self-hypnotic trance, an effective block of perception.

This state is implanted in souls by the tremendous anonymous pressure of the collectivity, which keeps them in a state of spiritual atrophy through the threat of scorn and the fear — imaginary, but no less efficient — of exclusion. Infinitely multiplied and enhanced by the educational system and the media, what was once a mere philosophical idea, or pseudophilosophical, is incorporated into individual personalities as a reflection of self-defense and, to the same extent, restricts the self-perception of each to the minimum necessary for performance in the immediate tasks of socio-economic life. It is all a self-fulfilling prophecy: if overwhelming evidence of extracorporeal perception is denied, it is not just because people do not believe it — it is because they have become truly unable to live it consciously. They live alienated from their deepest and constant psychic experience, locked in a circle of banalities in which the “cultural” and “scientific” triumphalism of the popular media instills an illusion of wealth and variety.

The “real world” in which these people believe they live is the Galilean-Cartesian dualism, already totally demoralized by the physics of Einstein and Planck, but that the media and the school system continue to impose on the souls of the crowds as the definitive truth: everything that exists in this world are “physical things” and, on top of them, “human thought”, “cultural creations”. On the one hand, the harsh reality of matter governed by supposedly inflexible laws, on which the universal and unquestionable authority of “science” is based; on the other, the soft and ductile paste of the “subjective”, of the arbitrary, where every opinion is worth the same. This “subjective” sphere includes “religion”, which is the right to believe whatever you understand, with the proviso that it never proclaims objective truth or universal value.

they do not have independent existence, i.e. they are not separate entities in any sense — Pneumenon

Mathematics is not the entire reality but only an minor aspect of it. Trying to define the concrete reality as made up of numbers is as dumb as defining it as colors. Thanks Kant for that.

Any "mathematical model" of anything - and especially regarding human society - is just a metonym, not a substantive description. Those who do not realize this, even if they have a Nobel Prize, are illiterate.

The total ban on free debate has become a permanent institution of the "new normal". You either get used to it, or you die. In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans that a technoscientific dictatorship could prove to be their fate. Almost everything that is happening now has already been described with some precision in Paul & Phillip Collins' book, "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship", in 2004, and in its vast bibliography. So-called social scientists don't read any of this, because it's "conspiracy theory", right?

Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists. — Brett

The mods are the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the forum's OPs. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they ban you and make you a renegade, a non-person.

Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas.

I have been following this since the start. This is how Trump wins: congressman in the House challenge the vote, then they just need 1 Senator to go along (which they have), then it throws the entire thing to VP Pence. He decides if there is fraud and there is a debate, then Congress is forced to vote along party lines, that means 1 Vote per state. That means 30 Republican States vote for Trump and 20 Democrat states vote for Biden. It is a little more complex than I just listed, but this is the basics on how I understand it. If Pence will follow the Constitution, then Trump is in.

Who denounces — for example, a politician or a ruler that he is plotting such a thing— is accused of conspiracy theory and, immediately, the suspicion falls on the accuser. The most powerful and most infamous capacity of journalism is to repeat over and over a name associated with something ridiculous or evil. Just do this a thousand times without proof and, above all, without arguing — the idea is not to put under discussion, but giving it as if it were common domain — something that has not even been discussed and that nobody knows, in fact, is given as if it were already proven and common domain — and one of the favorite terms for that is “conspiracy theory”.

The very narrative structure of a serious complaint is different from a conspiracy theory in the ordinary sense. Even because conspiracy theory, in the ordinary sense, is monstrously coherent in all its points, because as everything was imagined, the subject has mastery of all data. We, as we are dealing with reality, only have a part of the data, so we cannot offer a complete description. As our description is incomplete, we are obliged to work with conjectures, and knowing what is the level of reality that exists and the level of conjecture with which we are completing the data. But the individual who really believes in conspiracy theory, in the popular sense of the thing, believes that he has all the points. His version is monstrously coherent, and mine cannot be, there is no such level of coherence in the history. Interestingly, the kind of requirement that is made when you present these things is that of total consistency. You are required to present a reality, incomplete as any reality, and the subject does not believe it because it does not have the total coherence of a work of fiction. Precisely the reason he would not believe it becomes the reason for credibility This is because in the mass society everyone can have an opinion, and monstrously disabled people have an opinion. Most opinion leaders today are people who are totally disabled.

There is no such thing as a world "without time", that is nonsense. How long a time where nothing happened would last? It is inconceivable. The time that is independent of what happens is the time that is independent of duration; so it's not time at all. Also, the idea of space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure is impossible, because, as there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure.

Language, religion and high culture are the only components of a nation that can survive when it reaches the end of its historical duration. These are universal values, which, because they serve all of humanity and not only the people in which they originate, justify it being remembered and admired by other peoples. The economy and institutions are only the support, local and temporary, that the nation uses to continue living while generating the symbols in which its image will remain when it itself no longer exists. But if these elements can serve humanity, it is because they have served eminently the people who created them; and they served them because they translated not only their preferences and idiosyncrasies, but a happy adaptation to the order of the real. We call this adaptation “veracity” — a supralocal and transportable value par excellence. The creations of a people can serve other peoples because they bring with them a veracity, an understanding of reality — above all, of human reality — that is valid beyond any determined historical and ethnic condition.

That is why these elements, the most distant from any economic interest, are the only guarantees of success in the material and practical field. Every people strives to master the material environment. If only a few achieve success, the difference, as demonstrated by Thomas Sowell in Conquests and Cultures, lies mainly in “cultural capital”, in the accumulated intellectual capacity that the mere struggle for life does not give, which only develops in the practice of language, religion and high culture. No people ascended to the economic and political primacy only to later dedicate themselves to higher interests. The reverse is true: the affirmation of national capabilities in those three domains predates political and economic achievements. France was Europe's cultural center long before Louis XIV's pomp. The English, before taking over the seven seas, were the supreme suppliers of saints and scholars to the Church. Germany was the radiating focus of the Reformation and then the intellectual center of the world — with Kant, Hegel and Schelling — before it was even constituted as a nation. The United States had three centuries of devout religion and a valuable literary and philosophical culture before embarking on the industrial adventure that elevated them to the peak of prosperity. Scandinavians had saints, philosophers and poets before coal and steel. Islamic power, then, was from top to bottom a creature of religion — a religion that would have been inconceivable if it had not found, as a legacy of poetic tradition, the powerful and subtle language in which the verses of the Koran were recorded. And it is not unrelated to the fate of the Spanish and Portuguese, who were quickly moved from the center to the periphery of history, due to the fact that they achieved success and wealth overnight, without possessing a strength of intellectual initiative comparable to the material power conquered.

The millennia experience, however, can be obscured until it becomes invisible and inconceivable. It is enough for a narrow-minded people to be confirmed in their materialistic illusion by a petty philosophy that explains everything by economic causes. Believing that they need to solve their material problems before taking care of the spirit, these people will remain spiritually poor and will never become smart enough to accumulate the cultural capital necessary to solve those problems. The gross pragmatism, the superficiality of the religious experience, the disdain for knowledge, the reduction of the activities of the spirit to the minimum necessary for the conquest of the job (including university), the subordination of the intelligence to the party interests, such are the structural and constant causes of the failure of these people, and then an entire nation.

If we call "knowledge" only the set of data and relationships that a man carries with him and has at his disposal at a given moment in his existence, knowledge will not only be drastically limited, but formless and fluctuating. That is why we include in this notion the broadest set of information recorded and disseminated in his social environment, without which he could do little by his own resources.

But this set of records, in turn, implies the existence of the physical environment, that is, not only of the materials where these records are printed, but also of the world of “objects” to which they refer and with which they relate in somehow.

The notion of “knowledge” as the content of human memory and consciousness becomes totally unfeasible if we do not admit that knowledge, in the form of registration, also exists outside of them. Furthermore, we cannot admit that there are only man-made records, since any material that can serve as a board where these records are inscribed can only serve this role precisely because, in its nature and intrinsic form, it brings its own records, suitable for this purpose: you cannot write in water or produce a musical note by blowing on a compact rock. Registration is any trait that specifies and singularizes any entity.

To perceive the real world is to perceive possibilities, tensions, expectations. The concept of materialism itself cannot be enunciated without self-contradiction, it cannot even be thought of as a hypothesis. You think there is a material world, and, as we have a brain, we invent things other than the material world, but all that we invent is exactly the presence of the material world. If reduced to its “material” properties, the world could not even be material. Because what you call material is just an abstract selection of certain properties out of the countless ones that you perceive and that you hypothetically call materials, but that are not perceived separately. They are never perceived separately. All the knowledge that we can acquire from Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge must be obtained through the analysis of real perception, through the analysis of real knowledge, and not through artificial hypotheses. Real knowledge is that which is obtained in real experience, in actual experience and not in hypothetical experience.

If I think, therefore I am, at least while I think. I cannot think and, at the same time, deny that I exist. Such is the discovery he enunciates in “Cogito ergo sum”. But then, he realizes that from this purely subjective certainty he cannot deduce anything about the outside world, not even the existence of a physical universe around it. Trapped in his solipsist cage, Descartes realizes that, to get out of it, he needs a second certainty: the certainty of the physical world. And where will he pick it up? Get it in the following argument: if I have the feeling of the existence of the outside world in me and if this feeling cannot be deduced from myself, that is, from the initial certainty of the “cogito”, then it can only have been put in mine soul by God Himself; and, as God is good, he would not deceive me by infusing me with the certainty of wrong things. Therefore, it is proven that the outside world exists.

If there is awareness outside the body, without any concomitant brain activity - and it is increasingly difficult to deny that it exists - and if, on the other hand, there are innumerable states of consciousness that are inconceivable without body and brain, then it is necessary to conclude that the brain does not create the possibility of consciousness but limits, frames and determines its exercise within the conditions of terrestrial space-time. Having a body is a modality of consciousness.

A concrete object is what any human being knows. If you take a billionaire from New York and a priest from New Guinea, they have the same understanding of concrete objects that everyone else has! What we call reality is what presents itself to human beings.

So the reality is not there and we that do not perceive it, no, the reality is exactly what we perceive. “Ah, but it is always incomplete”, so tell me the idea of ​​a complete reality that can be presentable to anyone. You cannot. That is, showing itself only in certain aspects is proper to all reality, that is the structure of reality. For example, you take the cube; how many sides does the cube have? There are six, you only see three! Is this a limitation of our perception? No, it is a limitation of the cube, and so on.

Things that present themselves in all their aspects at the same time only exist ideally. For example, the ideal cube that you draw on the paper shows six sides, but this is a cube of descriptive geometry. It is a business that if you cut and assemble you can create the cube but on paper it is not. So only this non-existent cube has six sides at the same time.

This is one of Kant’s mistakes, he thinks that all of these are limitations of our knowledge, that we cannot know things in themselves, however, I assert that what I’m talking about is things in themselves! That aspect of the cube that I perceive is the aspect that the cube can show me. It cannot show that same aspect of itself to an earthworm. Only a human being can see this. Another animal will see it in yet another way. But we can understand how the bear sees itself, how the cat sees the bear, how the worm sees the bear and so on. All of these aspects are articulated, they are not separate, but distinct.

Everything that exists, exists simultaneously in various dimensions of reality. For example, you take a cow “Ah, the cow is a biological being!” well and isn’t she a chemical being? Isn’t a physical one? Or an economic one? Is it not a sociological being? She belongs to all of this at the same time! This thing has different aspects and dimensions that intersect, this is what is called the concrete being. Concrete comes from concrescere, that is to say that which grows together despite having nothing to do with the other. Has an example, there is no science of the concrete object, science only studies an abstract object, an object as such that exists only for it. It is not the same object that exists for another science.

The best modern philosophers are Louis Lavelle, Leibniz, Eric Voeglin, however, the best one by far, and very underestimated is Mário Ferreira dos Santos, I don't think there is someone better than him in the last centuries.

The most general and omnipresent feature of modern philosophy is the confusion between the order of being and the order of knowing. Defining an object by the way we know it is like defining an elephant by the properties of the lens with which we photograph it. The final scheme may be similar, but the material presence of the elephant will always be lacking. In modern times, all tigers are made of paper until the day they eat the philosopher. This error is endemic. It is present in Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Hegel and all of his heirs.

It is important to note that this permanence of the idea of ​​Empire seems natural and inherent to political power, which is expansive by its very nature. As soon as power is centralized, organized and structured, the tendency is to expand. The expansion is primarily motivated by an instinct for self-defense and aims to eliminate external enemies. While an Empire has external enemies, it is not entirely sure of itself, and ends up imitating the Roman Empire, which gradually subdued its potential enemies until it reached a point where there were only internal enemies.

Thinking that way we tend to become conspiracy theorists — Ciceronianus the White

Millions and millions of people live on the belief that their little routine scenario, including what they hear at school and see on TV, is all that exists in the world and anything that gets out of that box is madness or conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is not even a defensible scientific concept, it is a metaphor, a figure of speech designed to belittle certain ideas that you don't like.

The history of communist discourse is divided, roughly speaking, into three phases: Lenin's proletarian internationalism, Stalin to Brezhnev's "anti-imperialist" third-worldism and globalist multiculturalism from May 1968 onwards. The first disappeared from the scene. The second survives, in the world, only as nostalgic residue. The third made the left-wing world the unconscious or undeclared handmaiden of global capitalism, which feeds it because it knows that the extinction of all traditional and cultural values ​​will consecrate the economy as the only factor of social cohesion, establishing everywhere the “managed society" of its dreams. Only in this sense can it be said that "communism is over".

Communism is not a "model of society", it is not an "ideology", it is not an "economic system": it is a movement, a network of organizations, a scheme of power. To know if a subject is a communist, do not ask what he "believes in." Ask who he is associated with, ostensibly or in secret.

In the time when the communist movement identified itself with the working class, and for that reason it despised the Lumpenproletariat, there could still be, in its self-illusion and its violence, a fund of dignity. Today leftism is an alliance of vagrants and drug addicts with billionaires against the working people.

The Frankfurt School instructed American communists to put aside the proletarians and instead try to win the support of the rich and the beautiful people, they created the world we live in today. Making the old KGB jealous, the mega-entrepreneurs have become the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the media, on the internet and even in private conversations. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they deny you the services of their companies and make you a renegade, a non-person. Communism (i.e. New Left) dominate the world mentality today, except in the Islamic world and in some rare areas of resistance in Eastern Europe.

Jean Piaget, in the book Insights and Illusions of Philosophy, says the following:

"…only what gives effective knowledge are the sciences, philosophy gives only a sense of orientation and values…"

Meditate on this phrase.

He thinks that effective knowledge is that which was given by scientific experiment and, beside knowledge, there is an ornament, which is a sense of orientation and values. It happens that, to know if this scientific experiment is true and if it is valid — this is a question of orientation and values. Where does scientific knowledge exist except within the field of guidance and values? It never existed in itself, it is just an invention of the mind. Now, if the sense of guidance that allows you to judge a scientific experiment is not knowledge in itself, the result of the scientific experiment can never be knowledge.

Science appeals to the authority of the naturalistic premise and the unity of logical discourse, but none of these things, in isolation, has authority. An explanation cannot be natural because it is necessarily part of a metaphysical conception of the whole.

The unity of a logical discourse is only possible to apprehend if we already have the capacity to perceive unity and wholeness in general. It is the unity of the real that allows human action and the existence of a logical discourse, but that same discourse can deny in its content that same unity of the real — and here is the source of all mistakes in philosophy, which is denial of the unity of the real in order to put in its place a fictional world of discourse where a separate knowing self reigns. Thus, individuals believe more in the content of reasoning than in the conditions that allowed its creation. The only validation that is requested is that of the cropped scientific experience that the scientific community accepts and not the real and personal experience, thus entering into a collective delusion.

Everything that is, has been or will be, had, has and will have a principle, and that is inevitable. The principle is in a sense the foundation of anything because it has its foundation in the principle.

Beauty is food for the soul. And above all the beauty of what you imagine. This is much more important than exterior practicality. Energy comes from motivation. Motivation comes from desire. And the desire appears from the imagination. It is from what you imagine that you create the desire poles, and then go after that. So try to imagine things, imagine them well, clearly. This is very important. Many men have never had any experience in which the beautiful, the good and the true did not appear separated by insurmountable chasms. These men are victims of apeirokalia - and among them are some of the most notorious intellectuals who today make up the head of the world.

Theater and poetry (especially with regard to the epics that shape an entire society such as Odyssey or Os Lusíadas) can open souls to an influx from above. Music - certain music - cannot be denied the power to generate a similar effect. The simple contemplation of nature, a providential chance, or even, in sensitive souls, certain states of loving rapture, when associated with a strong moral appeal (remember Raskolnikov before Sonia, in Crime and Punishment), can put the soul in a kind of ecstasy that frees you from the cave and from apeirokalia.

I couldn't emphasize how important it is that you watch this film, it will clarify doubts you may have on the topic. There are also some interesting articles.

When people linked to genetic science say that there is only a 3% difference between man and chimpanzee, they show an ignorance about the validity of knowledge of genetics. Between human intelligence and animal intelligence there is a global difference that only appears in real experience and anyone can attest to that. But a science, by making a snapshot of reality to answer specific questions, is not able to capture this difference. The scientific process is very simple and ideally mechanized, which produces a lot of results in technological terms but in educational terms the product is weak, not giving science the authority to criticize or overcome the common experience.

To perceive the real world is to perceive possibilities, tensions, expectations. The concept of materialism itself cannot be enunciated without self-contradiction, it cannot even be thought of as a hypothesis. You think there is a material world, and, as we have a brain, we invent things other than the material world, but all that we invent is exactly the presence of the material world.

If reduced to its “material” properties, the world could not even be material. Because what you call material is just an abstract selection of certain properties out of the countless ones that you perceive and that you hypothetically call materials, but that are not perceived separately. They are never perceived separately. All the knowledge that we can acquire from Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge must be obtained through the analysis of real perception, through the analysis of real knowledge, and not through artificial hypotheses.

Real knowledge is that which is obtained in real experience, in actual experience and not in hypothetical experience. What is a scientific experiment? It is a hypothetical experience set up within the realm of real experience and which is only valid within the realm of real experience. When a subject, based on a scientific experience, denies the consistency of the real experience, pretending that the scientific experience has more cognitive validity than the real experience, he is incurring a monstrous self-contradiction. If he actually carried out this experiment, he did it not only within the laboratory, but within reality. Where was his laboratory? If he really did the experiment, he did it within reality. It is only valid when inserted into this field of real experience.

Without this field it has no validity. Never a particular science or the results of all of them can override the common and current perception that we have of reality. We can apprehend, through the analytical examination of the common reception, but we cannot overcome it. Where are we going to overcome it? In the hypothetical world or in the real world?

What Husserl called Lebenswelt — the world of life — in fact, I think this concept is too timid, because Lebenswelt is the only world that exists, and I assure you: the world of scientific experience, considered in itself, does not exist. It only exists as a part of Lebenswelt, which you have decided to look at separately, you are distinguishing mentally, but you are not actually separating. This means that without an Ontology and an Epistemology based on the examination of real experience, no science is worth anything, they only acquire value if properly inserted into this general scheme of reality.

An amoeba also has sensory abilities, does that mean it is conscious because of that? Does your dog happen to be capable of an infinite hypothesis, of philosophy and metaphysics? The environment your dog lives in is for him the whole world.

You mean in the same way that the human being is conscious? No way. Here's why:
1 - Man is the only animal species that knows all the others. They only know the ones immediately accessible.
2 - Man can even know the perception of other animals. A chimpanzee or a rooster cannot have a clue how a human eye works.
3 - Man is therefore the only one for whom "nature" exists. For other animals there is only their immediate environment.
4 - Man can watch over other animals and they cannot watch over him, in fact, not even for each other. Animals do not practice veterinary medicine.
5 - Man can discuss this issue, other animals cannot.
6 - If there is still any doubt, do not try to ask for clarification from a goose or an ant.

Consciousness is the human being's ability to talk to himself about himself, tell his own story and draw long-term conclusions, from where he acquires the ability to promise things.

Every artist’s job is to transfigure a genuine experience into a cultural good. The artist will not intellectually process the experience to reach its comprehension at the universality level; he will record it in the most eminently communicable way possible. Of course sometimes it’s not that easily communicated. Sometimes it can be so subtle that, no matter how hard he tries to be clear, it won’t be very clear — you’ll have to crack your head a little to know what he’s talking about. Not to mention the fact that to understand his experience, you will need to have sufficient maturity or imagination — if not, you will understand nothing.

It is also possible for the artist, in addition to fueling cultural memory with his art, making it a vehicle of intelligence and transforming art into a concept. He can do that, although he is not obligated. There are artists who worked with a very clear intellectual awareness of what they were doing, such as Henry James, who wrote an explanatory preface for each of his novel. Sometimes the preface was even better than the book. Others would not even be able to explain how they did the book, because their job is not to explain, but to do. Once done, that genuine, true experience is recorded. Hence you can easily distinguish what is genuine experience from mere copied experience, stereotype repetition (which is a thing that has little memory content and is just word repetition).

The artist’s job is to make these experiences available to other human beings. He can go on meditating and deepening it if he wants to, but it is not required for him to do so. Not everyone can be all things.

In order to win sympathy, you need to show interest in people. Only if you are interested in them just to gain sympathy, you are not really interested: your focus is not on them, but on you, it is subjective, then that will fail. So the practice is about teaching yourself to have a genuine interest in people. In other words, you don’t need to think about sympathy. Because? Because it is implied, you will gain sympathy anyway. If you are really interested in listening to the person, he’ll sympathize with you even if you don't thinking about it; so why are you going to try to win sympathy, if sympathy is already built in? So the focus shifts from winning sympathy to genuine interest, and so on many other things. I mean, there will be a change in the axis of conduct, and then you will see that the sympathy you want to get is not worth the effort, because it is very easy. Then you will not arrive with shyness and such because you know that what you are offering is good.

So you leave the subjectivism of youth because you know that you have true love for one person or for several people (not only in the sexual domain, for instance). And notice well: if you have true love and that love is rejected, you don’t feel depressed, you don’t feel diminished, you feel sorry for the person. I mean, as your concern goes up, you lose that fear, that fear of not being accepted, of not being liked. Because being liked is the easiest thing in the world! There is no reason to waste so much time on it. Have a genuine interest, have a true love for people, and they will like you; and if they don’t like it, then you’ll be sure they’re stupid.

In short, you gradually extract yourself from the judgment of others as you gain certainty of your intentions. It is not that you will despise the opinion of others — we should never despise the opinion of others — you simply do not need it because you already know what you are doing. All courses that promise to "overcome" shyness are concentrated and always return to that: love your neighbor. Anyone knows, without having to take a theology or philosophy course, that the Greek word "love" has its variations — eros, philos, and agape — and the word used to say that God is love in 1 John 4:8 is "Agape". Love is sacrifice, objective and disinterested.

If power is a concrete possibility of action, what can be the right if not the guarantee that someone from outside offers the exercise of power? “I have the right” to express my opinion when someone gives me or at least promises me the necessary guarantees that I can express it. To suppress these guarantees is to curtail the right to free speech, which shows that the
current distinction between rights and guarantees is just an elegant formalism intended to illustrate the fact that not every right that is proclaimed is an effective right. Law and guarantee are not really distinct
species, but a single species accompanied by two accidents: when the guarantee is still a promise, a commitment, an assumed duty, it is called “right”; it starts to assume the name of guarantee itself when this promise is invested in the concrete means of being fulfilled. The notion of “right” has no substance except as a guarantee promise, the guarantee means nothing if it is not a guarantee of fulfilling a previously signed commitment. For this reason, the legislator who enacts a law that has no means of being enforced already repeals it in the very act of signing it: ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.
The right is, therefore, a kind of guarantee — a guarantee of the exercise of power — and nothing
more.

However, the opposite is not true: not every guarantee is a right. Suppose I abandon these philosophical chores and become a bank robber. While, armed with a pick, I break and empty the safe, my partner, equipped with a machine gun, will guarantee me the possibility of doing so, keeping the guards at a distance: this will not make him a guardian of my rights.

In order to distinguish the law from other types of guarantees, it is necessary to highlight these two characters more: reciprocity and sociality. A guarantee is a right when it is reciprocal (in the legal sense) and when it compromises, at least in principle, an entire society, not just isolated individuals or groups.

Legal reciprocity, as Miguel Reale has already explained, is that the right of one corresponds to an obligation for another. We will see later what is an obligation. For the time being take that word in the current sense and consider the following obviousness: it is only necessary to say that a child has the right to food if someone, at the same time, has an obligation to feed him. A right exists only when it exists and the holder of the corresponding obligation is clearly indicated. If this does not exist or is blurred, the law becomes a guarantee that no one guarantees and is a mere flatus vocis.

Finally, since the right is the guarantee of the exercise of a power, and a power cannot be guaranteed except by a stronger power, independent of it and pre-existing to it, the holder of the obligation must necessarily possess some power that the holder of the right, per se, does not have. But since the
exercise of the necessary power to guarantee the exercise of the right of others must also be a right, this must in turn be guaranteed by another power, and so on, which would result in an ad infinitum retreat and would make it impossible for any right if a second and more subtle meaning of legal reciprocity did not intervene there, which can be stated as follows:

"for a right to exist, it is necessary that, if not always, at least in certain cases, the holder of a right be also holder of the obligation to guarantee in turn someone the exercise of the power necessary to guarantee that right"

Thus, for example, the mass of citizens has the right to police protection only insofar as it also has certain obligations that guarantee the police authority the exercise of its functions, such as the obligation to pay the taxes with which the corporation of the police will be sustained.

I will call the reciprocity of the first type direct; to the second, indirect. Direct legal reciprocity exists only between holders taken two by two: two individuals, two groups, two companies, a buyer and a seller, father and son, etc. Indirect reciprocity, by its very nature, is only achieved through the complex network of obligations and rights that constitute the entire legal system in force in a given society. This constitutes precisely the second specific character of the law, which is its sociality: there is no right outside the legal system in which all the guarantees and obligations in force in a given society are expressed. There is no isolated right, loose in the air, outside the support of the system.

Direct reciprocity is structurally equivalent to a simple mathematical proportion: a / b = x / y, that is: a has the right b to the exact extent that x has the obligation y. The formula for direct reciprocity is therefore the
perfect equivalence, or quantitative equality, of a right and an obligation, without leftovers or absences: children under the custody of the divorced mother are entitled to an alimony of x dollars to the extent that the divorced father has the obligation to pay them the same amount, neither more nor less. In cases where the law in question cannot be expressed quantitatively, the problem of the judge — the problem of justice — will be to find the most perfect equivalence possible between qualitative values. But, whether by the exact calculation of quantities, or by the ideal balance of qualities, direct reciprocity is always and only in equivalence, that is, in the idea of quantitative equality and leveling of differences. None of this occurs or can occur in indirect reciprocity, where only by a very rare exception can the guaranteed right be quantitatively equivalent to the obligation that the holder of this right has towards the authority that
guarantees it. Just to give a strident example: if, of the total taxes that the State collects from a citizen, say, one thousand dollars in a year, only the tenth part — one hundred dollars — goes to the maintenance of public health care services, this does not mean that this citizen should be entitled
to only one hundred dollars of medical assistance per year.

If the direct reciprocity consists of equivalence and leveling, the indirect one, on the contrary, consists precisely of differences and unevenness that cannot be compensated one by one and that, as it rises from plane to plane in the order of complexity and scope of relations, increase with the increasing amounts of power necessary to guarantee the rights of everincreasing groups of people, so that one can only find some kind of unity, equivalence or proportion at the last level, that is, at the level of total
system, the legal life of the whole society. It is also evident that direct reciprocity, covering its holders two by two, does not exist outside the indirect, that is, outside the system. Direct reciprocity is an abstract or potential right, which only takes on a concrete existence in the life of the total system. On the other hand, the network of indirect reciprocities would be of no value if it could not guarantee the predominance of law among the members of society in their relations of direct reciprocity, that is, the realm of equivalence.

There, however, a problem arises As a guarantee, it is an effective exercise of the power of the powerful man to assure the less powerful the possibility of exercising the power that belongs to it, not only the total legal system is hierarchical in itself, in the logical sense of a deductive system that descends from the fundamental norms to derived norms (in Kelsen’s sense), but, as a practice and reality, it only exists as an aspect and expression of the total system of powers, and is therefore doubly hierarchical.

Hierarchy is subordination of the multiple to the one. As an reality, embedded in the total system of powers, the legal system is a hierarchical unification of multiple strata of obligations and guarantees, one
subordinate to the other according to its greater or lesser importance for the functioning of the system as a whole. In this sense, the maximum rule of the system is its own sovereignty: there is no right above the total system of rights and guarantees, or, in other words, no isolated right or group of isolated rights can prevail over the total system that guarantees them to all.

But if the network of indirect reciprocities that make up the total system is governed by the principle of subordination and vertical unity, and if each right guaranteed by direct reciprocity is governed by the principle of equivalence or leveling, the contradiction between law as a total system and the law as the norm of direct reciprocal relations can only be eliminated in a society that succeeds in producing the perfect identity between the vertical hierarchy of power and equality between individuals. This is, however, impossible not only in practice, but even in theory, since law being the possibility of exercising power, perfect equality of rights would require an equal distribution of the possibilities for exercising power, in which contradicts the very idea of the hierarchical structure necessary to maintain
the system and guarantees.

It follows that the principle of equality before the law, if taken in a literal, flat and atomistic sense, considering only individuals as numerically distinct and qualitatively identical entities, contradicts the very idea of law as a concrete obligation to respect rights. No existing society has escaped this contradiction, nor will any society that may exist.

The contradiction between law as a system and law as the norm of relations between individuals has no logical solution, nor should it have, because it is constitutive of social life itself, where each individual is both totality and part on two different levels, without being able to reduce them to one, which would imply the perfect and impossible identity of their bodily individuality with their place and function in society, or, in other words, the final identity of nature and society. Justice as a social ideal therefore consists
only in reducing this contradiction to the minimum tolerable, and not in seeking to root it out. It is not entirely accurate to say that human justice is imperfect, because there is no imperfection in a thing being what it is, and human justice has the perfection of the provisional arrangement and the art, indefinitely variable and never exhausted, and not that of the ideal eternal norm that it somehow imitates and in which it is inspired.

Every attempt to bring human justice closer to ideal perfection has resulted and will necessarily result, either in demolishing the system of guarantees in the name of abstract equality, or in suppressing guarantees in the name of preserving the system, or in alternating these two evils. Among other practical conclusions that can be drawn from this is the following: the life of democracy does not depend on the maximum realization of justice in an abstract sense, but on the dynamic, dimensional balance between the ideal of justice and the concrete requirements of the system that makes it possible to seek justice.