Disclaimer: Nothing within this page or on this site overall is the product of Panagiotis Kondylis's thought and work unless it is a faithful translation of something Kondylis wrote. Any conclusions drawn from something not written by Panagiotis Kondylis (in the form of an accurate translation) cannot constitute the basis for any valid judgement or appreciation of Kondylis and his work. (This disclaimer also applies, mutatis mutandis, to any other authors and thinkers linked or otherwise referred to, on and within all of this website). 



All enquiries or comments can be made by sending an email to: 

pkproject@live.co.uk



A bit, some, a lot or all of the material (text(s) and narrative(s)) on this page and elsewhere on and in this Site not written by P.K. could be (accidentally or deliberately) misleading, wrong, false, in error, in SIN... please be careful, don't take yourselves too seriously, and help me understand Borges (and Kafka?) better... [[and always OBEY the LAW]]...



Under no circumstances shall I entertain enquiries or comments not about P.K.'s work or the implications of his thought. If you are interested in particular Values (and Tastes), I shall NOT debate you about the Content of those particular Values (and Tastes) because Science (Scientific Observation) knows that Values (and Tastes) are Time-Bound and Place-Bound (and (mutably) individual-bound in respect of at least some degree of (mutable) Group-bindedness) and RELATIVE (whilst all human societies must or inevitably have Dominant Values, Tastes, Norms, Customs, Laws, etc. - which I personally always abide by, or at least not knowingly breach, if I am within a particular jurisdiction, whether I agree with the Dominant Values, Tastes,... Laws or not, or whether I am "impressed" by the distribution of the various forms of Power, including GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE crystallisations, accumulations and concentrations thereof, wielded through and behind such Values, Tastes,... Laws, etc., along with the attendant Dominant Culture(s), within a society, or not). I am not interested in Wasting my Time writing to Morons. [PRELIMINARY TIP: WRITING TO ME IS LIKE SUBMITTING AN OFFICIAL APPLICATION TO AN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER LEARNING where there are real Professors and not (infinite “gender/I am allowed to be as Insane as I want to be, my Holes are my Life, and I am going to Control your Thought (as in Thought Control) because really Deep Down I am just a Power-Hungry ANIMAL like all people in the Public Sphere, etc.”) Variations on Mickey Mouse (Daffy Duck, Pluto, Goofy, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, Speedy Gonzalez, Foghorn Leghorn, Betty Boop, The Flinstones, Barney Rubble, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote,...), OR, TO A SUPERIOR COURT OF RECORD where Chief Justice is someone at the very least of the calibre of Owen Dixon - I MIGHT BE "A LITTLE BIT" STRICT, BUT I SURE DO KNOW MY P.K. BETTER THAN (ALMOST) ANYONE ELSE!!! - And given English at best is my second or third language, I might even decide to not entertain any enquiries etc. not written in Greek (ancient (Homeric, Attic(-Ionic), Doric), koine, middle or "medieval", modern), Spanish, Italian, French, Latin, Portuguese or German; though to be fair, if someone, e.g. a "Professor" sends me an email with a sample of his or her or its thought (e.g. an article or even book), and I deem that that text is, as a whole, worth at least 1%, or better still, 10%, of the value of P.K.'s texts, I'd probably be so overjoyed as to reply - and seriously too!] [TIP: Perhaps if we get all of Kondylis's work translated into English and checked, proofed, "perfected",... by a Team of Serious Scholars at least at the level of ability of e.g. a Talcott Parsons - though I doubt that even that is at a standard high enough, and then if we also, inter alia, render the Brunner, Conze, Koselleck Basic Historical Concepts into English, whilst also learning Ancient Greek and Latin from the beginning, then we might - though I seriously doubt it, be in a position to have a Discussion.]

If you do write to me bona fide, please allow some time (a few days... or longer) for me to answer. [FURTHER TIP: Don't make a fool of yourself! Knee-jerk reactions - something like an amoeba moving within its immediate environment without understanding anything of substance, or rather, anything at all - to something you read written by P.K. without contemplating fully what he is saying in the context of all of his work, essentially amount to an admission of ignorance, if not stupidity. Every book and article written by P.K. interrelates and, as it were, interlocks with every other book and article by him, which means P.K. covered everything essential from all angles and cannot be defeated in theory (of course, clarifications, expansion, etc. are always possible, and that's what he was doing, inter alia, at the time of his premature death...). But in respect of the translations within this site, Going Head-to-Head with P.K. means YOU LOSE! (Who would in their right mind get into the Ring against Sugar Ray Robinson at Sugar's peak and on a good night for Sugar, and seriously think he would stand a chance against the greatest ever practitioner of the Sweet Science?) HahahahaHa!!!]


The "Beauty" of P.K.'s work seen in toto is that Everyone [[- All Sides -]] with a genuine interest in theory and science can (potentially) learn (at least something) from it. His analyses and presentations of the subjects he grappled with are Unique in the History of Thought, and if Reinhart Koselleck's intellect could be challenged and enlightened by P.K. and if Koselleck viewed P.K.'s major works as something like reference books, then it goes without saying the rest of us - few as we are - can start a life-long process of study if we are interested, have the extreme self-discipline which is absolutely necessary, and Time. "The Academy", for good or ill, is largely staffed by Ideologues - at best, and alas too often by Total Imbeciles, to have anything to do with consistent, let alone absolutely consistent, Science (and that includes those who "pretend to be objective"). Luckily the History of Thought in the West provides for an Incomparable Academy from which P.K. drew and passed on to us in a never-to-be-repeated and very likely never-to-be-surpassed manner.




PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS: P.K.'s WORK, IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS (= NOT AN EASY MATTER, REQUIRING A LOT OF TIME,... AND NOTE THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO TRY READING HIM IN GERMAN OR GREEK DON'T GET THE FULL PICTURE...), WILL ONLY EVER BE FOR THE VERY FEW. SOCIETIES AND THE WORLD WILL GO ABOUT THEIR WAYS, INCL. THE VARIOUS (GROSSLY UNEQUAL) DISTRIBUTIONS OF FORMS OF POWER, CONFLICTS, WARS, CO-OPERATION, COMEDIES, TRAGEDIES, ETC., AND ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION WILL BE A DISCREET PLEASURE FOR THE VERY FEW WHO CAN REACH AND SAVOUR IT. THE POLITICAL, BY DEFINITION, IS ABOUT VALUES AND NORMS ETC. AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A SPHERE OF HUMAN ACTIVITY WHICH P.K.'s WORK CAN ENTER, BUT ONLY IN MUTILATED AND GROSSLY ALTERED FORM. ANYONE WHO APPROACHES ME EITHER FROM all of "THE RIGHT", all of "THE CENTRE" OR all of "THE LEFT", GETS A "PISS OFF!" OR A "F??? OFF!". AND THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS TO BE. IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN (PRETEND TO) HAVE SOME FUN, WHILST ALWAYS STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND NOT SEEKING ANY CHANGE APART FROM IN OUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES... CHANGE WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY, AND NO MATTER HOW STRONG ONE POWER THINKS IT IS, OTHERS WILL (EVENTUALLY) COME AFTER IT AND DEFEAT IT... UNTIL THE NEXT VICTORY AND DEFEAT... UNTIL...




If there are any matters of Scientific Interest pertaining to the History of Ideas and Social Theory in general (not) Covered by P.K. and raised as matters of concern by Readers, I might deal with them on this Page, if they seem to be of great interest and it is appropriate to do so. [TIP #3: P.K.'s work, immediately or eventually, one way or another, must be ignored, sidelined or destroyed. It constitutes a unique privilege for a very limited number of people to partake of "the revealing of some, most or all of its secrets"]


Science Requires Hard Work. Don't Expect Easy Answers to Difficult Questions and Complex Problems. 

I would be most grateful to anyone who points out any spelling and other such "typographical" mistakes, or any passages which are not understood even after several readings (Kondylis's texts, either in German or Greek, often require certain sentences or even paragraphs to be read a second or multiple times to be fully comprehended, so obviously or probably at least the same would apply to any faithful translation in another language. Moreover, Kondylis does not normally use multiple nouns, adjectives, whether in parentheses or not, etc. as I do in the translations simply because a German or Greek word Kondylis uses often denotes and or connotes more than one meaning in English, and I, in the translations, have placed a greater emphasis on faithfulness to the original texts than on English-language style. Personally, I made myself become a Style Councillor in Greek, not in English (which I respect, but do not love), i.e. I am a ψυχικός, διανοητικός, πνευματικὸς καὶ συναισθηματικὸς Παλιννοστών).

For readers who write to me via aliases etc.: I have no problem with that, I would always respect your anonymity, but the internet allows those with the means, to find out information such as the real sender of an email... so don't (try to) be a "smart arse' or "wise guy"... if you write to me bona fide, I shall, if I have the time, answer bona fide... though I do have a (wicked) sense of humour... too!... (by the way, don't call or text me. I would only ever answer the phone if a Παλαιολόγος or a Κομνηνὸς was calling or texting, and stuff like dat, don't happen, no dey do not...).






GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS!!! P.K.'s (strictly scientific) TEXTS, WORK AND THOUGHT DO NOT BELONG TO THE CENTRE, THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT, WHETHER "EXTREME" OR "MODERATE", BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-NORMATIVE, DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANTORY, AND QUA SCIENCE, ABSOLUTELY NEUTRAL IN TERMS OF NORMATIVE VALUES, AND NO CHANGE OF ANY KIND, SORT OR FORM WHATSOEVER IS SOUGHT, EVER.

"CONTRA OMNES" MEANS CONTRA OMNES...

AND DON'T FORGET, EVEN IF YOU ARE INTELLIGENT OR RELATIVELY INTELLIGENT, YOU'LL STILL NEED AT LEAST A FEW YEARS TO GET A FAIRLY GOOD GRASP OF THE KONDYLISIAN MIND, AND IF YOU ARE SERIOUS, YOU'LL NEED A DECADE OR SO, INCL. TO LEARN GERMAN, ANCIENT GREEK AND LATIN, IF NOT FRENCH, ITALIAN AND SPANISH AS WELL.

[ALMOST the FINAL TIP: In 2018, uploaded to YouTube are various talks, seminars, discussions about P.K. in Greek. Some of the speakers have studied P.K.'s work for decades and or even knew him personally. Most of those people are very intelligent, serious scholars, writers and thinkers. I was amazed at how much "crap" I heard!!! I'm quite sure if P.K. knew, he would die a second time from laughing too much!!! One of the sources for the various misinterpretations and misunderstandings is that Power and Decision is not seen in the context of The Political and Man (e.g. discussion on Power and Decision focused on the founding of the polity!!!, when the book clearly states on the cover that it is about "the formation of world images and the question of values"!!!, not to mention it is completely overlooked that the book refers to three subjects of the decision: mankind, the group (in extremely different social and historical forms), and the individual, with the fundamental decision(s) of mankind taking place over many long and hard millennia, etc.. In other words, the collective dimension of thousands of years of human evolution is not even contemplated as the discussion devolves into (heated and passionate verbalisations and gesticulations as to) how much Schmitt was a Fascist, along with assertions of the "inviolability" of the notion of "humanity" and that friend/foe is simply grotesque (and not an absolute, trite social(-political) reality as P.K. demonstrated comprehensively in The Political and Man)!!! It is very clear to me, as someone who knows P.K.'s thought word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, chapter by chapter, article by article, and book by book, like very few others, if anyone else (apart from two roughly contemporaries of P.K. somewhere in Germany who normally don't get involved in "academic discussions", and probably sit comfortably with a nice (wry) smile on their faces - my regards and love to them!), that lapsing into normative considerations and preferences is something nearly all people cannot get over, i.e. "spinning" matters in such a way as to take discussion to places that are absolutely irrelevant for P.K.. Apparently, it is simply too much to ask of people who have read Kondylis even for years and in detail and are "Professors" to stick to the textual meanings and overall context(s) of P.K.'s thought and the totality of his truly vast oeuvre!!! Dear-oh-dear! How much must the Dead be Laughing at Us Down Here!!! Absolutely Hilarious Stuff!!! Other assertions of Learned and or "Professorial" Madness include: that P.K.'s views of philosophy, the Enlightenment and May 1968 and the element of Space replacing Time in mass democracy as ideal type is wrong simply because they do not accord with certain normative-political views on how to best achieve "justice and democracy", without even so much as indicating where in P.K.'s argumentation there is any kind of logical or factual flaw!!!; that Darwin's evolutionary biology emphasises man's (and society's) survival strategy (in striving for his/its self-preservation) primarily of Friendship and co-operation rather than relations of domination (as if the former excludes the latter - in other words, P.K. demonstrably obvious fundamental position that all relations, co-operational and conflictual, involve relations of (forms of) power because society-culture-identity-meaning-understanding in reality cannot be separated from questions of power to begin with is NOT UNDERSTOOD AT ALL (by a Professor who has studied Aristotle and both Power and Decision, and, The Political and Man!!! Such blatant misunderstandings also go to the fundamental point P.K. makes that in wanting to save the "hope" for some kind of normative programme or hypostatisation such as "humanity" or "God" or "human rights" or "Equality" or "feeling sympathy or empathy for the plight of others" etc., etc., etc., normative thought, in a million and one ways, will do anything in argumentation to shorten or even abolish the inimical half of the social relation's spectrum, without ever being able to explain WHY on earth conflict, like co-operation, NEVER ceases to be a feature of all human societies. It is not understood at all, at the end of the day, that science qua science is not about being "nice" or "mean", but is about describing and explaining (if possible) and THAT IS ALL!!!); another common error is that because different individuals have different perspectives, it means something in terms of understanding reality other than the fact that different individuals have different perspectives - the fact that WE KNOW, that is we objectively know that different individuals have different perspectives, of itself PROVES that objective knowledge is possible, and that of course is conveniently overlooked to make P.K. seem "fuzzy like the rest of us" etc.. Well, to those of us who know, such argumentation is simply... argumentation of a Moron, because otherwise there would only be perspectives and no knowledge of reality which is scientifically (observationally, logically) verifiable, which, in turn, means that all perspectives and positions are equally valid... and out of thin air "it follows" that therefore whites should genocide themselves out of existence, or reduce their percentage of the overall population very significantly, by not being "racist"!!!, and a particular Group within its elites can exercise GROSSLY DISPROPOTIONATE forms of Power "without anyone noticing", while it plays its Satanic Circus Monkey Games of Divide and Conquer and being Nice and Humanitarian, whilst "not being racist" etc. {1} - How Brilliant and How Very Convenient!!!; even sillier, is the argument that in P.K.'s addenda to some of his books in Greek he displays his concern for Greece and its future and therefore engages in a paedagogical role. Again, a fundamental matter is not understood - science qua science strictly describes and explains, but man, i.e. no-one, not I, not you, not P.K., not Tarzan and not Jane, can live as Science. One can observe and explain as a scientist, but one has to live within the normative realm when dealing with other people when not engaged in science, i.e. one can choose to intervene in public, normative-political matters if one wants to, e.g. because of "existential bonds" or because of a preference for a particular ideology etc., and one can then present what one presents as realistically and as scientifically as possible if one chooses (all this is Max Weber 101, apart from being very clear in P.K. incl. "Science, Power and Decision"). There is even the assertion that P.K.'s view that "dignity" has no meaning accepted by everyone incl. in practice, which is patently obvious - show me how and where all over the world "dignity" is agreed upon as a meaning and acted upon in human-social-political interactions and I'll pull a Gold Mine out of my A**e!!! And yet the "Professor" insists that "luckily P.K. has been proven totally wrong that "dignity" is empty of meaning just because some U.N. Charter makes some claim which more than half the world can't agree upon in practice EVER!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!! So much are humans tied to their normative values, hopes and dreams that they simply can't do absolutely consistent science... and yet... It's not "rocket science", but time and again, commentators on P.K. don't seem to understand this at all. Most or all of these matters have been explicitly referred to by P.K. in his answers to 28 questions and in his works. Yet readers and commentators and "professors" continue to make the same mistakes time and time again... YAWN!!! BORING!!!). Given that my translations DEFINITELY require a thorough going over in terms of proofreading, editing and (stylistic) "improvement", and given that I am aware of most, if not all, of the seemingly "reasonable" objections to P.K. (we can leave aside the reactions of Simpletons, e.g. P.K. was a "fascist"; P.K. was a "Marxist", etc.), the best you can do, as a new reader in the English language, is to "shut up", think and wait. The Journey into P.K.'s thoughts world is so long that literally half to a whole lifetime is needed to perhaps get on top of things at least in part. This might be of use to you: at 14, P.K. was reading and appreciating Spinoza in Latin; when P.K. first went to Germany he did not know German. Within not much more than a few years he had produced a Ph.D. and book on Hölderlin, Schelling and Hegel et al. in German, which still ranks as an unsurpassed reference book. So "chill out" and "take it easy". Everyone should know their place, just as I know mine. Koselleck talks about modesty. Think about it. {1: In case someone doesn't get it, science qua science could not care less about whether a particular race and or ethnos "genocide(s) itself/themselves out of existence" whilst the elites of a particular Group wield GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of power, but I, as a human being not fully engaged in science, do care about certain subjective matters of taste, as everyone does or most people do... On the other hand, everyone should and must abide by the law. I am not advocating any normative-political programme. I am just making scientific observations of facts (and not necessarily of causality) with certain "matter of taste"/subjective/aesthetic colourings, figures of speech,...}] 

{{This is why there is no point in dealing with “commentators and interpreters” – further mostly angry ranting and raving about mostly IMBECILES re: talks, seminars, lectures on YouTube re: P.K.:

Prof: X????????? wants to show that there is no unbridgeable chasm between the ethical and the political = what he is saying is that he is going to talk for roughly twenty minutes about how he can “spin” things to show P.K. was not right on at least some key matters, by totally ignoring what “ultimate reality” is, and by ignoring inconvenient empirical reality = SOMETHING THAT ALL “COMMENTATORS AND INTERPRETERS AND PROFESSORS” ALWAYS DO, as well as focusing discussion on P.K. and Nietzsche, when Nietzsche at best is only marginal in P.K.’s fundamental “philosophical” positions – AND NOTWITHSTANDING P.K. REPEATED A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THE KEY = HISTORY, I.E. THE STUDY OF HISTORY, I.E. THUCYDIDES AND MACHIAVELLI (CONZE, KOSELLECK, ARON, ET AL.) AND A BROAD KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY IN GENERAL... LEADING TO AN ANALYSIS OF POWER, IDENTITY, CULTURE, ETC.,... AND NOT E.G. FOCUSING ON NIETZSCHE (WHOM WE CONNECT WITH NATIONAL SOCIALISM, WHILST TOTALLY IGNORING THE GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE POWER OF THE ELITES OF ANOTHER GROUP, AS ALWAYS WITH RETARDED “PROFESSORS”... BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS REITERATE KANTIAN NORMATIVISM, IN BRIDGING THE CHASM BETWEEN IS AND OUGHT, AND END UP AT A NON-SCIENTIFIC NORMATIVE PROGRAMME SO WE CAN AVOID “NATIONAL SOCIALISM” WHILST SAYING NOTHING ABOUT OTHER CRYSTALLISATIONS OF POWER SUCH AS THOSE OF THE ELITE OF A GROUP WHICH YIELDS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FORMS OF POWER IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES, ETC., ETC., ETC.,... YAWN!!! BORING!!! THE SAME THING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... TOTAL “PROFESSORIAL” RETARDISM... And of course all sorts of sophistry ensues in respect of attempting to decouple Reason from Power so Kant’s Practical Reason, Categorical Imperative etc. can be “saved” and P.K. rebutted etc., since God, and Ethics, and Norms are “saved, rescued, confirmed” for our own normative purposes. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT A SMALL POINT IS FORGOTTEN: WHY IS IT THAT EMPIRICAL REALITY KEEPS ON CONFIRMING THAT ALL SOCIAL-HUMAN RELATIONS ARE RELATIONS OF FORMS OF POWER BETWEEN CO-OPERATION AND CONFLICT OR BETWEEN THE POLES OF FRIEND-FOE SPECTRUM?

It is really BORING, to hear the same thing AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... and that’s what “Professors” DO... and that’s why it’s much easier to SHOUT OUT LOUD AND SAY TO THEM A BIG “FUCK YOU”!!! BECAUSE LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO GO OVER THE SAME STUFF, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... I’D RATHER LISTEN TO MUSIC, READ SOME POETRY, WATCH A MOVIE OR DREAM OF GOING HOME... or spending time with my Angel...

YES, THAT’S IT, RETARD, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS ALL YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS BULLSHIT (NOBODY IS SAYING - STANDING IN THE SHOES OF A NON-ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVER - THAT REAL, CONCRETE CIVIL RIGHTS AREN'T WORTH HAVING...) AND PRECIOUS NORMS, FROM A STRICTLY ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC (NORMATIVELY VALUE-NIHILIST) POINT OF VIEW, ARE EXACTLY “AESTHETIC PREFERENCES, i.e. MATTERS OF TASTE” – BECAUSE IF THEY WEREN’T, YOU’D DEVISE AND IMPLEMENT THE “ULTIMATE SCHEME” TO SAVE HUMANITY... OR YOU WOULD HAVE OBJECTIVE UNIVERSAL CRITERIA FOR BEAUTY ETC.... WHICH OBVIOUSLY EMPIRICAL REALITY TELLS US, DOES NOT APPLY!!! YOU POWER-HUNGRY ANIMAL WHO WANTS TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO LIKE OR DISLIKE, HOW THEY SHOULD ACT AND THINK... YAWN!!! BORING!!!

IT’S ONE THING TO SUGGEST THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL COHESION FOR THE SOCIETY YOU LIVE IN, AND WHAT THE DOMINANT VALUES AND TASTES SHOULD BE, AND ANOTHER THING TO ENGAGE IN ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENCE, DUMB FUCKING RETARDED “PROFESSOR”... FUCKING ANNOYING MORON... 

BEING BEYOND FRIEND AND FOE, RETARD, MEANS SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION DESCRIBING AND EXPLAINING WHAT IS AND NOT "ADVISING" WHAT TO DO... AND ALSO DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR ETHICISED VIEW OF THE WORLD PER SE, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO, DUMB FUCKING SPASTIC!!! – AND SINCE THE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVER DOES NOT CARE WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIM OR NOT, UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY CORRECT HIM BY PROVING TO HIM HIS ERROR IN REGARD TO EMPIRICAL REALITY OR LOGIC, THEN HE IS BEYOND FRIEND AND FOE AS TO NORMS (THOUGH IF WE PLAY WITH WORDS HE IS STILL THE FOE OF ALL NORMATIVE POSITIONS, WHILST NOT ADVOCATING ANY NORMATIVE POSITION HIMSELF)... EXACTLY THAT!!!

(As far as I know Carl Schmitt did not expressly say Friend-Foe belongs to the Social, even if he wrote it belongs to “all fields” and not just to “the political” = REQUIRES FURTHER RESEARCH, smart-arse “Professor”, as to context and what Schmitt ACTUALLY MEANT... of course we cannot but refer to Levinas and his book on totality/infinity!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE OR AT LEAST INCLUDE ONE OF THEM!!! FUCK YOU, FUCKING MORON!!! No-one is saying that the Commandment “DO NOT/THOU SHALL NOT MURDER” is not a good way to live in society, BUT REALITY, PRESENT AND HISTORICAL, TELLS US IT CAN NEVER EVER EVER APPLY UNIVERSALLY AND FOREVER, i.e. from the point of view of SCIENCE AS OBSERVATION OF EMPIRICAL REALITY, FUCKING IDIOT!!!)

There is no fucking “ethical nucleus” to P.K.'s thought (in the normative sense), fucking idiot... if one is alive, and continues living and one does science then that’s what one does... without pushing any kind of values or ethical programme... the fact that one lives and one must live with values as a human-social being, does not mean that science as non-normative, value-free observation cannot be done... so AGAIN, AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND WE GO!!!

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION: The job of a “Professor” is to TALK SHIT, CONFUSE AND MISLEAD EVERYONE (who, the reality is, simply “don’t know”, “are not sure” since they have never put in AND HAVE the TIME, i.e. years of STUDY, to confirm P.K.’s theses for themselves) and “COME OUT ON TOP” because he has just TALKED SHIT, CONFUSED AND MISLEAD EVERYONE... at the end of the day, all that the TALKING SHIT does is confirms P.K.’s basic position that the impulse of self-preservation and of extension of one’s own power kicks in, and hardly anyone with their own EGO will ever accept that someone’s else’s work is (near) PERFECT, so they have to “FIND WAYS” to undermine it, to BOOST THEMSELVES, EVEN THOUGH TIME AND TIME AGAIN, EMPIRICAL REALITY AND LOGICAL CONSISTENCY CONFIRMS ALL OF P.K.’s FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS... HAHAHAHAHA!!!

SO EVEN IF P.K.’s WORK CIRCULATED IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATAN, SATAN, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... (and of course the Satanic Circus Monkey exists in all societies with all sorts of different axiological and aesthetical content, BUT from the point of view of Hellenism vis-à-vis today’s (Zio-)USA-led state of affairs, I “propose or preach” a particular totally subjective version... though I do not mean any kind of normative-political-ideological programme whatsoever... OTHERS WILL DO ALL OF THAT,... AND A LOT MORE!!!) [Ethically speaking, most “normal” people will agree that National Socialism is a very BAD IDEA and REGIME etc., but DON’T TELL ME SMART ARSE that International Usury, International Markets, (Zio-)American Imperialism HAVE NOT been involved either very INDIRECTLY or EVEN DIRECTLY in all sorts of OPPRESSION and even VIOLENCE against INNOCENTS!!! AND THAT APPLIES EVEN IF YOU USE WORDS OTHER THAN "ZIO-" OR “INTERNATIONAL” OR “USURY” OR “MARKETS” OR “IMPERIALISM” TO MEAN THE SAME THINGS!!! FUCKING RETARDS!!! AND NO, WE’RE NOT EQUATING ANYTHING WITH ANYTHING, FUCKING MORONS!!! ALL SOCIAL PHENOMENA HAVE THEIR CONCRETE EXISTENCE IN CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES OF VARIOUS FORMS OF RELATIONS OF POWER AS VARIOUS FORMS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS, INCL. THE POLITICAL... AND THAT IS HOW THEY ARE EXAMINED SCIENTIFICALLY... FUCKING IDIOTS – CONCRETELY RE: CONCRETE SITUATIONS IN TIME AND PLACE...!!! And just because, from one point of view, or the view of the West or... you are the “better” of two or many “EVILS”, it does not mean that HanMan is going to agree or ApeMan as ANOMIE WILL JUST LIE DOWN, FUCKING RETARDS!!! NOR am I saying things would be better if someone else LIKE HAN-MAN OR APE-MAN OR “COMMUNISM” “rules the world”... FUCKING CRETINS!!!... HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED AT YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR AND NOTICED HOW FUCKING REPULSIVELY UGLY YOU ARE? I DO IT EVERY DAY RE: MYSELF, AND IT WORKS WONDERS IN KEEPING ONE’S MIND ALERT AND PREPARED FOR SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF HUMAN-SOCIAL-RELATED PHENOMENA...]

There really is no point in engaging with people who just want to “engage” for the sake of promoting their own EGOs, whilst ignoring and or misconstruing words said by P.K. and empirical reality.


Prof: F??????? does a much better job than the IDIOT above (as nice as the IDIOT above might seem to be), by sticking to facts, being descriptive, emphasising the importance of intermediate historical-social periods when the DOMINANT NORMS are not so SOLID, and therefore thinkers appear who can put forward ideas which tend towards value nihilism etc.. Polemics, which exists in the positive/natural and the social sciences too, is always in some way or another about power... Machiavelli = don’t confuse reality with the appearance of reality = the bullshit/spin/ideologems/ ideologies of those who wield real, tangible forms of POWER etc... (from Machiavelli to Hobbes, Spinoza, La Mettrie, de Sade, Nietzsche... as those who (tacitly or expressly) saw or almost fully saw the relatively of values... I’d add Hume...)... and there is some appealing discussion on Machiavelli and forms of power e.g. direct domination incl. violence vs. the guile/spin/bullshit/conniving of getting the people conquered to believed what is happening to them is for their own good etc. (sounds familiar... HAHAHAHAHA!!!)... e.g. the UN, EU, “human rights” internationalist/ universalistic positions... and we can add the “undying nation/ethnos/race” etc., etc., etc.,... have no power per se but are all instruments in the hands of the powerful... etc.,... discussion of Machiavelli and internal relations of power, i.e. internal to the Republic (with notions of justice and injustice etc.), where the Hegemon should have the support of the people, and not necessarily act violently and or by imposing himself as in the case of (some) international relations etc.,... whereas the Empire internally is not favoured by Machiavelli... = his overall relatively local patriotism... Of course, P.K. does not follow the great Machiavelli on all points re: power because P.K.’s work is more focused on social-ontological aspects fully fleshed out, whereas Machiavelli touches upon the social-ontological/anthropological, and not infrequently,... but with a narrower localised-patriotic-sociological emphasis as well... Machiavelli took a lot from Aristotle, incl. from the ?5th book, + Roman history... with a humanistic emphasis... as well as underlining social conflict internally between plebs and patricians etc.,... so the governing classes tend to think at one level in non-normative as non-ethical terms like the objective theoretician and observer, with a focus on relations of power (and with all the ideological bullshit spun to the people), whereas the people are more inclined to conflating and mixing politics and ethics etc.,... Machiavelli held that it is better for a Republic to have an armed people than to rely on mercenaries etc., but that an armed people = less of an opportunity for a Tyrant... the more just state (as in justice), is the strongest state = according to this line of thinking (of course, one could not say it applies always and everywhere, but it was the Florentine’s line of thought at that time)... for Machiavelli, justice does not necessarily always mean power (whereas Spinoza saw more deeply...), but held that interest, self-interest make justice and power overlap... so in reality Spinoza got closer to the ultimate reality in more direct, but very indirect! language it would seem at first instance... all human relations = forms of power... BUT THEN AGAIN MACHIAVELLI’S INSERTION OF “INTERESTS” REALLY AMOUNTS TO SAYING THE SAME THING ROUGHLY IN OTHER TERMS... so P.K. not in full agreement with Machiavelli always BUT I SAY – BIG SHIT, at the end of the day the GREAT FLORENTINE recognised the centrality of forms of Power and even if he did not fully flesh them all out and mixed up descriptive analysis with normative action etc., the main points were made in a seminal for the history of ideas fashion... Prof. F******* FUCKS UP at the end when he says P.K. was not true to his non-normative descriptive-non-normative self by taking an interest in Greek affairs. AS I HAVER REPEATED OVER AND OVER, IT IS ONE THING TO DO A FULLY SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, AND ANOTHER THING TO RECOGNISE ONE’S EXISTENTIAL BONDS AND TO SUGGEST A NORMATIVE PROGRAM OF ACTION FOR ONE’S GROUP BASED ON REALISM AS MACHIAVELLI DID OR IMPLIED WITH HIS PATRIOTISM, AND AS P.K. ALSO DID... The one does not contradict the other, if one is CLEAR about what one is doing... e.g. as a scientist I describe and explain the relations between Greece and Turkey dispassionately and objectively, but as a GREEK I suggest that the Greek State and Greek People do a, b, c, d, and e to combat Turkey as a Foe etc.,... I really don’t understand why the Professor doesn’t get it... there is no danger of P.K.’s descriptive, non-normative stance becoming ideological if the empirical evidence and logical consistency are air-tight in the analysis done... it is a separate matter if P.K. also chooses to make normative suggestions for the benefit of e.g. Greece and Greeks... which the fucking imbeciles totally IGNORE...

Prof. X. is unbelievable... if FUCK-FACE there is a normative-ethical presumption to all thought incl. P.K.’s descriptive decisionism, and if “parasitical consumption” is not descriptive but a value judgement re: good and bad, when “parasitical consumption” ideal-typically describes group behaviour at a sociological-historical level compared to other behaviours [[P.K. actually gives an explanation of how he uses "parasitic(al)" in the Addendum to the Greek edition of Planetary Politics...]], then WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY SAYING, DICKHEAD, IS THAT THERE CANNOT BE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND THEN WE CAN THEREFORE ALL MAKE EVERYTHING UP AS WE PLEASE... AND THAT WAY, EVERYONE SHOULD CHOOSE “MY” FUNDAMENTAL NORMATIVE POSITIONS!!! FUCKING RETARD... AGAIN, THROUGH ENDLESS DISCUSSION AND OBFUSCATION, YOU MISS THE POINT – EITHER REALITY CAN BE DESCRIBED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, OR IT CANNOT!!! AND IF IT CANNOT, THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT??? WHETHER YOUR VALUES ARE BETTER THAN MINE??? AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, TO DEFEND PARTICULAR VALUES AS LEO STRAUSS WANTED TO DEFEND “LIBERALISM” AGAINST SCHMITTIAN “TOTALITARIANISM”... WHEN SCIENCE AS SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION SAYS: I COULD NOT GIVE A FUCK WHETHER IT IS LIBERALISM OR TOTALITARIANISM, I JUST DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN WHAT IS, IF I CAN DO IT!!!

Prof X: “at the core of P.K.’s thought is an ethical element”... YAWN... again the SAME BULLSHIT... there is a stance of doing scientific observation which you can call ethical because it values doing science but IT IS NON-NORMATIVE!!! WHAT DON’T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND??? WHERE IN POWER AND DECISION, OR IN THE POLITICAL AND MAN, OR IN THE DECLINE... OR IN CONSERVATISM, OR IN MONTESQUIEU OR IN THE TWO HISTORIES OF IDEAS/PHILOSOPHY ETC. IS THERE A NORMATIVE POSITION, FUCKING IMBECILE???!!! THE ISSUE OF WHAT GREECE SHOULD DO IF SHE WANTS TO SURVIVE IS ANOTHER MATTER, FUCKING RETARD!!!

AND PROF. X. FUCK-FACE THEN ACCUSES P.K. OF DOING WHAT IS EASY IN STRIKING OUT AT EVERYONE BY LEVELING ALL SIDES... WELL THAT IS THE POSITION OF SCIENCE!!! – YOU, YOU FUCKING CRETIN, CAN’T HANDLE THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANY CONTENT AS TO NORMATIVE VALUES AND AESTHETICS... YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM FUCKING IDIOT, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO WIELD POWER OVER OTHERS’ THOUGHT LIKE POLITICIANS, JOURNALISTS AND THE MASS MEDIA AND TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS ET AL. DO ON A DAILY BASIS FUCKING IDIOT!!! WHEREAS SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION ACTUALLY SAYS “I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN OR WANT” – I JUST DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN... AGAIN THE SAME SHIT... AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... THE IDIOT EVEN ADMITS HE IS A LIBERAL AND AGREES WITH RAWLS ETC.,... LOOK, THAT’S FINE, BUT IT’S NOT SCIENCE FUCKING IMBECILE!!! (AND NEITHER DOES PROF. FUCK-FACE EVER SAY ANYTHING SURPRISE, SURPRISE ABOUT GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ACCUMULATIONS OF POWER OF THE ELITES OF A CERTAIN GROUP IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES – HAHAHAHAHA!!! FUCKING IDIOT!!!... YOU, LIKE THE REST OF YOU, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!!!)...

SO. PROF. X????????? REFERS TO HEIDEGGER AND “THAT WHICH IS NOT THOUGHT” IS “GREAT” ETC. = THE FRONT DOOR, NOT THE BACK, FOR IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHIT ARTISTS!!!... THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM WITH ALL “PROFESSIONAL” PHILOSOPHERS – THEY GO AROUND, AROUND, AROUND, IN CIRCLES AND ALWAYS TEND TO FORGET AND IGNORE EMPIRICAL REALITY... THEIR PROBLEM IS EMPIRICAL REALITY, AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE RECOURSE TO “THAT WHICH IS NOT THOUGHT” AND OTHER BULLSHIT... THAT’S THE CRUX OF THE MATTER... 

(I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO CHECK WHETHER PROF. X?’S STATEMENT THAT WHAT P.K. WRITES ABOUT KANT IS BULL-DUST («εἶναι νὰ τραβᾷς τὰ μαλλιά σου») BUT I DOUBT VERY MUCH, WITHOUT BEING ABSOLUTELY SURE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T CHECKED IT, THAT THERE’s ANYTHING IN WHAT HE IS SAYING BECAUSE GENERALLY HE HAS NEXT TO NO CREDIBILITY WHEN HE "CRITIQUES" P.K. SINCE ALL HE IS REALLY DOING IS TRYING TO DEFEND HIS OWN NORMATIVE POSITIONS AND PREFERENCES, LIKES, ETC., THOUGH IT CAN BE CHECKED OUT, I SUPPOSE, IF WE EVER FIND THE TIME... HE EVEN TRIED TO INTRODUCE KANTIAN REFLEXIVITY ETC. INTO THE SCHMITT ARTICLE’S USE OF THE CONCEPT OF DECISIONISM = FURTHER SMOKESCREEN BULLSHIT TO MAKE HIMSELF SEEM USEFUL AND PROFOUND...)

PROF F??????? who says that P.K. did not tell us what the counter-position to descriptive decisionism is... – I SAY: P.K.’s non-normative descriptive thought is a counter-position to normative thought... IT’S NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE!!! HOW FUCKING DUMB CAN “PROFESSORS” BE? – VERY FUCKING DUMB (EVEN THE GOOD OR AT LEAST BETTER ONES)...

OF COURSE ALL DECISIONS ARE RELATIVE, EVEN P.K’S... NO-ONE APPEARING OUT OF NOWHERE, OUT OF NATURE, OUT OF A PHANTASM, ETC., TELLS US THAT WE SHOULD A PRIORI BE DESCRIPTIVE, JUST AS THEY DON’T TELL US WE SHOULD BE LIBERALS OR FASCISTS ETC.,... AGAIN, IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE...

THE ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL OF THE GROUP = SOCIETY with its own historical major and minor DECISIONS, PRE-EXISTS, AND THEN INDIVIDUALS WITHIN OR IN RELATION TO THE GROUP TAKE POSITIONS...

THAT’S ALL THERE IS TO IT – THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONTRADICTION OR INHERENT NORMATIVE POSITIONING PER SE...

THOSE WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN RULING OTHERS, DO X, Y, AND Z AND GROUP THEMSELVES WITH A, B, AND C, ETC.,... and THOSE FEW WHO WANT TO ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENTLY DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN, HAVE TO DESIST FROM NORMS AND DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN – THAT’S IT !!!

YOU MAKE IT COMPLICATED BECAUSE YOU WANT TO UNDERMINE P.K. IN ORDER TO SLIP IN YOUR NORMATIVE PROGRAMME WITHIN THE ETHICAL AND POLITICAL SPHERE, AND OR SIMPLY OUT OF YOUR OWN EGOS TO “DEFEAT” P.K. WHEN YOU CAN’T... THAT’S ALL THERE IS TO IT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

THEN YOU GET ANOTHER RETARDED “PROFESSOR” ASKING ABOUT “TRUST” – NO-ONE EVER SAID FUCKING RETARD THAT THERE IS NO CO-OPERATION OR TRUST IN SOCIETIES... BUT THE ONLY THEORY WHICH CONSISTENTLY EXPLAINS THAT THERE IS ALSO MISTRUST AND CONFLICT, FUCKING MORON, IS P.K.’S BECAUSE IT DOES SO FOR ALL SOCIETIES – REGARDLESS WHETHER CO-OPERATION AND TRUST WORK OR OPERATE 99% OF THE TIME OR 60% OF THE TIME ETC.,... YOU FUCKING SPASTICS MIX YOUR VALUES IN WITH QUANTITIES AND CANNOT MAKE THE NECESSARY QUALITATIVE-EPISTEMOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WILL FOREVER BE RETARDS!!! – AS NICE OR PLEASANT AS YOU ARE AS INDIVIDUALS... Prof X? was right about referring to the objectivised decision and that Friend-Foe deals with the complete spectrum of behaviours and involves Recognition e.g. to have a group of Friends with trust etc. we need to know who the common Foe is, and that often or far more often occurs than on the simplistic basis of physical annihilation of the Foe etc., since Recognition etc. ties into culture and identity and meaning etc., with their non-physical aspects and magnitudes...

At the end of the session a much loved ethno-patriot gets up to talk SHIT, saying just as Marx can’t get his Is from Ought, so too Ought cannot be separated from Is... which really ultimately means that we cannot describe reality and that anyone can say whatever he, she or it wants to... SAME OLD PROBLEM... EITHER WE OBJECTIVELY CAN DESCRIBE WHAT REALITY IS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE (κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν!!! yes, that’s what it is... to the extent possible...) OR WE CAN’T... THE FACT THAT YOU WANT A PRIORI TO BUILD YOUR ETHICS OR NORMS INTO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT IS NOT SCIENCE’S PROBLEM, BUT YOUR PROBLEM, AND THAT IS THAT!!! (Society names a Cup a Cup. When I say that it is a cup I am scientifically describing it. When Gonzo breaks the cup and I explain that Gonzo broke the cup, again I am doing non-normative, value-free science - that's all there is to it!!! THE FACT THAT SOCIETY called it a cup and not a puc, is neither here nor there, it was done before I arrived in this world or it is done for another object during my lifetime by people using a particular new term etc.,... all this just confirms that the ultimate reality is a NOTHING, abstractly contemplated, but that all concrete humans must relate to concrete society... whether they like it or not, etc.,...).

LOOK, ALL THOUGHT IS IDEOLOGICAL IN THE SENSE THAT ALL HUMANS MUST LIVE IN SOCIETIES WITH IDEOLOGEMS, IDEOLOGIES ETC., BUT WHEN ONE DOES STRICT SCIENCE THEN ONE IS DOING IDEATIONAL THINKING... BECAUSE ONE IS NOT NORMATIVELY TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD DO... IN THAT SENSE NON-NORMATIVE SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT IS NON-IDEOLOGICAL FOR IT IS NON-NORMATIVE... AND IS PROVED BY FACT AND LOGICAL CONSISTENCY... AND THAT IS THAT!!!

At the End of the Day, whether we agree about what Science and Scientific Description is or NOT – IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE... societies, groups, individuals in THE REAL WORLD OF DAILY LIFE PROCEED OTHERWISE AND THE RELATIVELY STRONGER PREVAIL UNTIL THEY ARE KNOCKED OFF THEIR PERCH BY OTHERS... AND IT NEVER ENDS... EVEN THOUGH SOME GROUPS END, i.e. CEASE TO EXIST, (MUCH) SOONER THAN OTHERS...

TIME NOW FOR MUSIC, READING, MOVIES, GOING HOME, AND MY ANGEL... EVERYONE ELSE NOT IN MY TRIBE CAN GO AND GET FUCKED!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (AND SAME TO ME TOO, FROM YOU!!!)... THAT’S THE ULTIMATE REALITY AS MEANINGLESSNESS GIVEN MEANING...}}

[[And another thing! (There's always "another thing", HAHAHAHAHA!!!): Prof. of "Philosophy"/RETARD X????????? above, does make many correct observations - obviously the point of this page is to highlight the points of contention, and he did point out, absolutely correctly, that P.K. himself acknowledged that the ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT STANCE of a value-nihilist would be to do nothing, which in effect would mean, wait to die, but we all know that the Buddha found out that that was "not very smart", or in other words, went against the drive/urge/impulse of self-preservation, so in the case of P.K. the purpose of engaging in ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENCE is essentially to PROVOKE OTHERS, because (nearly all of) THE OTHERS are too busy with their normative fantasies and programmes and exceedingly WET DREAMS... to engage in what P.K. engaged in like no-one else in the History of Ideas... ELSEWHERE on this Site - YOU HAVE TO FIND IT, IT'S NOT CONVENIENTLY LOCATED! - I briefly discuss the few points where P.K. might have "got it wrong", and even then, it's very doubtful he got anything substantively wrong, because his wording was always so careful...]]

[                                     HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! RE: P.K. AND YOUTUBE...

SO NEXT WE HAVE ANOTHER PROF. RETARD TALKING ABOUT P.K.’S “SIMPLISTIC” METHOD AND “REDUCTIONISM” ETC. BECAUSE WHAT THIS PROF’S TASK IS, IS TO SAVE NORMS FROM THEIR RELATIVISATION. THIS KIND OF ACADEMIC RETARDISM NEVER ENDS, IT’LL ALWAYS BE THERE, BECAUSE THESE RETARDS DO NOT SERVE SCIENCE BUT SERVE THEMSELVES AND THEIR POSITIONS AND WANT TO APPEAR “USEFUL” TO SOCIETY...

REALITY ITSELF, WHICH IS VERY COMPLICATED AND FULL OF ALL SORTS OF DOMINANT NORMS THROUGHOUT ALL OF HISTORY, WHICH OFTEN CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER!!!! HAHAHAHAHA ALWAYS ANSWERS SUCH “ACADEMIC” RETARDISM.

WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO, RETARDS, NO MATTER HOW “SOPHISTICATED AND NUANCED” YOUR ARGUMENTATION, YOU CANNOT EVER, EVER, EVER, GET OVER THE HURDDLE OF

A) THE EXISTENCE THROUGHOUT ALL OF HISTORY HITHERTO OF INNUMERABLE DOMINANT NORMS AND VALUES AND OTHER CLUSTERS OF VALUES, IF NOT SO RELATIVELY DOMINANT,

B) ALL SOCIETIES HAVE FORMS OF CONFLICT, PLUS THE CO-OPERATION (AND ALONG WITH THAT, ALL SOCIETIES HAVE ELEMENTS OF EQUALITY AND HIERARCHY – NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE DEGREE AND QUANTITY AND OTHER ASPECTS OF EQUALITY AND HIERARCHY CAN AND DO VARY GREATLY)...

(TIME FOR A JOKE – IF “GREEKS” INCL. “GREEK PROFESSORS” CAN BE SO RETARDED, CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT THE OTHER TRIBAL WARRIORS OF THAT OTHER TRIBE WOULD DO??? WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM? – BECAUSE ON TOP OF ALL THE “SOPHISTICATED AND NUANCED” RETARDISM, THEY ARE SO DISGUSTINGLY UGLY TO LOOK AT, SUBJECTIVELY SEEN OF COURSE, THAT IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY UNBEARABLE – AND THE SAME APPLIES TO MOST ENGLISHMEN AND GERMANS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW AS A MATTER OF TASTE (TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE OF COURSE)...)...

NEXT, THERE IS REFERENCE TO LEO STRAUSS’S NOTES IN HIS COLLECTED WORKS AND THE IMPLICATION THAT SCHMITT MEANT FRIEND/FOE RE: THE POLITICAL BUT ALSO RE: CULTURE. AGAIN, IF ALL THIS IS THE CASE, I STILL CANNOT SEE WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR THEORISATION OF THE SOCIAL (WHICH OF COURSE EFFECTIVELY IS TANTAMOUNT TO CULTURE), AND THE POLITICAL BY EITHER SCHMITT OR STRAUSS (THIS OBVIOUSLY REQUIRES FURTHER INVESTIGATION)... IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE POLITICAL AND MAN (WHICH IS P.K.’S MAIN OR MOST REPRESENTATIVE WORK AND NOT POWER AND DECISION AS THE SEMI-RETARDED SPEAKER THINKS), BOTH THE SOCIAL AND THE POLITICAL ARE FULLY OR AT LEAST COMPARATIVELY THEORISED, AND I CANNOT SEE – UNLESS IT IS PROVEN TO THE CONTRARY AND NOT JUST ALLEGED – WHERE SCHMITT OR LEO STRAUSS “GOT INTO” THE THEORETICAL DETAILS RE: THE SOCIAL/CULTURE AND THE POLITICAL... AGAIN, WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT RETARDED “PROFESSORS” ETC. CAN’T HANDLE THAT SCIENCE MEANS NO FUCKING NORMATIVE VALUES, NO FUCKING NORMS PER SE... THAT’S WHAT SCIENCE IS, INTER ALIA OF COURSE, AND THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE, UNDERSTANDABLY, CAN’T HANDLE... (I NOTE THAT LEO STRAUSS, WHO IN MANY WAYS IS THE TRIBAL WARRIOR PAR EXCELLENCE, LIKE BUBER ET AL., IS WORTHY OF AT LEAST SOME RESPECT (LIKE SCHMITT)... I SEE A LOT THAT IS WORTH NOTING IN LEO STRAUSS (AND SCHMITT), UNLIKE IN MOST “POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS” OVERALL...)

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE CAN’T UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY SOCIETY’S ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF HAVING AN OUGHT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSITION OF SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION HAS TO SUPPLY A PARTICULAR OUGHT. SCIENCE AS A PERSON ENGAGED IN NON-NORMATIVE, DESCRIPTIVE, EXPLANATORY OBSERVATION, RECOGNISES THAT THERE MUST BE AN OUGHT FOR ALL SOCIAL PURPOSES APART FROM THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE, I.E. NON-NORMATIVE DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION WHEN AND IF THIS IS POSSIBLE...

THAT’S ALL THERE IS TO IT, BUT THEY CAN’T HANDLE IT AND SO WE GET THE NON-STOP “ACADEMIC” VERBAL DIARROHEA... IT NEVER STOPS... BORING, YAWN, LIFE IS TOO SHORT SO FUCK OFF ETC...

THERE IS A CORRECT REFERENCE TO THUCYDIDES AS BEING BEHIND BOTH P.K.’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MACHIAVELLI’S THOUGHT AND BEHIND HOBBES’S THOUGHT...

NEXT COMES THE MOST RETARDED PROF. I’VE EVER SEEN/HEARD, EVEN WORSE THAN PROF. X? – AND IF PROF. B???????????? IS MORE RETARDED THATN PROF. X? THEN WE’RE IN BIG TROUBLE!!!... –  TALKING ABOUT “METAETHICS” AND “ETHICAL RATIONALISM”... OH, HERE WE GO... FULL SPECTRUM RETARDISM... AND WE GET QUESTIONS “METAETHICAL” QUESTIONS LIKE: IS P.K.’S THEORY NORMATIVE EXACTLY BECAUSE IT’S A SCEPTICISIT THEORY? [OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! HERE WE GO, FULL SPECTRUM RETARDISM... P.K.’S THEORY FUCKING RETARD IS NOT SCEPTICIST. IT IS FULLY EMPIRICALLY BASED AND LOGICALLY COHERENT. P.K. ALWAYS MAINTAINS THE CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE RELATIVITY OF VALUES. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE HIM AND YOU ASK YOUR RETARDED QUESTION BECAUSE YOUR EGO WANTS YOU TO “DEFEAT” P.K. SO YOU DO THE USUAL BULLSHIT OF “SOUNDING SMART” IN CONFUSING YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE NOT AWARE, WITH ALL MANNER OF IDIOCY... STARTING WITH DELIBERATELY OR BY ACCIDENT GETTING THE FUNDAMENTALS WRONG, AND MISRPRESENTING P.K. FROM THE GET GO - FUCKING SPASTIC RETARD!!! FUCKING IDIOT YOUR EXAMPLE IS: A IS IN FAVOUR OF ABORTIONS, B IS AGAINST ABORTIONS, C WANTS TO IMPOSE ABORTIONS, AND D SAYS IT’S NONE OF THE ABOVE... FOR THE RETARDED “PROF”, D’S POSITION IS ETHICAL TOO BECAUSE D’S POSITION IS THAT ETHICALLY NONE OF THE ABOVE IS COMPELLING – AND THAT IS “ETHICAL” FOR THE “PROF”... THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT, D’S POSITION IS NON-NORMATIVE AND OPPOSED TO ALL NORMATIVE POSITIONS... SO YES, THERE IS A VALUE OR STANCE OF BEING NON-NORMATIVE WHICH P.K. REFERRED TO AS “AN ASCETIC” STANCE OF SORTS... BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, D’S STANCE IS NON-NORMATIVE... SO THIS GOES TO THE PROBLEM OF THE TERM “VALUE-FREE”... I’VE EXPLAINED THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES... “VALUE-FREE” OR “AXIOLOGICALLY FREE” MUST BE TAKEN TO MEAN NON-NORMATIVE... THE USE OF THE TERM “WERTFREI” HAS A HISTORY GOING BACK TO THE 19TH CENTURY, IF NOT EARLIER, AND TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THAT’S THE TERM THAT STUCK... AND THAT’S WHY IT NEEDS TO BE QUALIFIED BY "NON-NORMATIVE"... WE’VE SAID THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT THE RETARDED PROFESSORS DO THEIR RETARDED SHIT AGAIN AND AGAIN...]... THE RETARD THEN GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT COMPUTERS, MATHEMATICS, EVOLUTION, JUMPING OUT OF A HOTEL WINDOW ETC. AND IT IS ALL TOTAL BULLSHIT... HE PROVES OR DEMONSTRATES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH REGARD TO P.K.’S FUNDAMENTAL POSITIONS APART FROM THE FACT THAT P.K.S THEORY STANDS AS IS, AND THAT HE AS A “PROF” IS A RETARD... HILARIOUS AND SAD AT THE SAME TIME!!! THAT FACT THAT 2 + 2 CAN NEVER EVER = 1 (THOUGH FOR THE PURPOSES E.G. OF NOT BEING TORTURED I’D AGREE TO 2+2=1, KNOWING IT’S WRONG) PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING APART FROM THE FACT THAT 1=1 IN MATHS ETC. AND ON THAT BASIS 2+2=4... ALL OF THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH P.K.’S THEORY... JUST BECAUSE LOGIC/MATHS IS, BASED ON ITS ON CRITERIA, OBJECTIVE RE: MATHS AND 2+2=4 AND NOT 1, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OBJECTIVITY OF ETHICS OR VALUES YOU FUCKING MORON!!! AGAIN, CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION TOTALLY MISSING THE OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED EMPIRICAL REALITY OF THE (HISTORICAL) RELATIVITY OF VALUES... FUCKING SPASTIC!!!

AND THE FULLY RETARDED PROFESSOR CONCLUDES WITH SOMETHING ABOUT PAIN AND UTILITARIANISM AND THAT PHYSICAL SCIENCES USE THOUGHT... LOOK, NOBODY DENIES THE PARTS THAT ARE SELF-EVIDENT IN THAT, BUT RETARD, YOU’RE ALSO NOT PROVING ANYTHING... THE FACT THAT NEARLY EVERYONE DOES NOT WANT TO FEEL PAIN DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS... THERE ALWAYS ARE (plus see below)... BUT ALSO THAT PAIN PER SE PROVES NOTHING... AS TO ETHICS AND VALUES, NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THOUGHT IS A PART OF ALL OBSERVATION... SO, YOU REALLY ARE TOTALLY RETARDED AREN’T YOU PROF. B?????????... (the raised voice and the intensity of his speaking shows that he was really straining “to win” – what a fucking IDIOT)...

THE NEXT SPEAKER DR. S. IS MUCH BETTER, CORRECTLY FOCUSING ON (THE DRIVE OF) SELF-PRESERVATION (AS WELL AS IN RELATION TO PLEASURE FROM FUCKING, EATING AND DRINKING (INCL. AS FORMS OF POWER – AT LEAST ENERGY, THOUGH IT CAN BE MUCH MORE THAN JUST ENERGY, PHYSICAL SELF-PRESERVATION...) TO POWER AND PLEASURE RE: THE FOE IN THE STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE ETC.,... AS DE SADE OBSERVED LIKE NO OTHER), THE SPIRIT/INTELLECT, STRUGGLE, EXTENSION OF ONE’S OWN POWER AND POWER CLAIMS ETC., AND ACTUALLY OVERTURNED MANY OF THE INANITIES OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER... I HAVE DEALT WITH HIM (THIS “NEXT SPEAKER” DR. S.) ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS WITHIN THE PAGE “POWER AND DECISION” ON THIS SITE... DE SADE RIGHTLY SAW THAT THE GREATEST PLEASURE IS THE PAIN AND DEFEAT AND DEATH OF THE GREATEST FOE ETC.... A GOOD POINT IS MADE THAT FOR EVERY IDENTITY THERE IS ALWAYS A FOE AS A KIND OF COUNTER-IDENTITY AND THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IN THAT SENSE GIVEN ALL PEOPLE RELATE TO A SOCIETY ETC.,... AND THE FREEDOM THAT CONCERNED P.K. WAS VALUE OR AXIOLOGICAL FREEDOM IN SCIENCE/SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION HAVING NO NORMATIVE ETHICAL PREFERENCE EVEN THOUGH ALL PEOPLE ACTING NON-SCIENTIFICALLY IN SOCIETY DO SO IN RELATIONS TO ESPOUSING CERTAIN VALUES AS NORMATIVE VALUES, NORMS... RIGHTLY DR. S. IMPLIES THAT BEING A REALIST ETC. IS NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SOCIAL SCIENTIST, BECAUSE THE REALIST PROPOSES A NORMATIVE PROGRAMME E.G. RE: WHAT A STATE SHOULD DO RE: ANOTHER STATE OR OTHER STATES ETC.... AND RIGHTLY DR. S. POINTS OUT THAT THE ULTIMATE VALUE-FREE STANCE IS TO BE THE ABSTRACTION OF THERE IN NO ULTIMATE MEANING TO LIFE, WHICH IN EFFECT MEANS TO WAIT FOR YOUR BODY AND YOU TO DIE.... BUT HE DOES NOT POINT OUT THAT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION IS POSSIBLE, AND SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THEN WITH ONE’S DRIVE FOR SELF-PRESERVATION AND THE VALUE/ASCETIC WHICH IS NON-NORMATIVE OF SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION, THEN SCIENCE CAN BE ACHIEVED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE...

PROF. X????. ACTUALLY MAKES THE GOOD POINT THAT COMPARED TO THE UTILITARIAN STANCE AG. PAIN, THE MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN VIEW SAW PAIN AS SOMETHING GOOD RE: GETTING CLOSER TO OR SERVING GOD, DEFEATING THE SINS OF THE FLESH ETC.,... SO EVEN THAT IS RELATIVISED... PROF. X. ALSO REFERS TO THE HISTORICITY OF WORLD IMAGES AND THAT ARISTOTLE SAW THINGS AS GOING UP SUCH AS SMOKE FROM THE FIRE WHEREAS GALILEI (HE SHOULD HAVE SAID NEWTON) SAW THINGS AS GOING DOWN SO EACH HISTORICALLY SET WORLD IMAGE HAS ITS OWN RATIONALITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EMPIRICALLY BOTH ARE RIGHT ETC., AT LEAST FROM A CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW... HE FEARS THAT IN ANALYTICAL METAETHICS WE HAVE A POWERFUL AHISTORICAL DOGMATIC MODEL OF RATIONALITY... SO HE IS NOW NOT AS RETARDED AS PROF. B.... HE’S ACTUALLY MAKING A VALID POINT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! PROF. B. IS REALLY RETARDED BECAUSE HE STARTS TALKING ABOUT ABORTIONS AND RAPE AND THAT EMBRYOS HAVE NO PERSON, - WAIT A MINUTE FUCKING SPASTIC, EMBRYOS POTENTIALLY HAVE A PERSON SO WHAT IS YOU’RE FUCKING POINT??? THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE “MUST” RE: NORMATIVE STANCES FUCKING BIRD BRAIN, AND YOU SAY YOU ARE A FUCKING PROF. DUMB FUCKING IDIOT... AND TAXPAYERS PAY YOU, YOU FUCKING CRETIN!!!

THEN WE GET THE MUCH-LOVED HISTORIAN PATRIOT INSISTING THAT ALL REPRESENTATIONS COMING FROM PEOPLE HAVE AN ELEMENT OF IDEOLOGY ETC. – WE DEALT WITH THIS ABOVE... AND THE REASON HE INSISTS IS BECAUSE HE CAN’T LET GO OF HIS IDEOLOGY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SCIENCE... AGAIN IN HIS MIND HE CANNOT SEPARATE IS FROM OUGHT ETC.... HIS PROBLEM IS THAT I AND P.K. AND VERY FEW OTHERS WHO ACTUALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND P.K. DON’T GIVE A FUCKING SHIT WHAT HE OR ANYONE BELIEVES WHEN WE ARE ENGAGING IN ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT SCIENCE AS NON-NORMATIVE DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION CUM ABSOLUTE LOGICAL CONSISTENCY... "“YOUZ” CAN ALL THINK WHATEVER “YOUZ” WANT" SAYS THE WOG... AND I WOULD ALSO ADD “SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY” JUST BECAUSE I LIKE SAYING THAT HAHAHAHAHA!!! WE SAY AGAIN MUCH-LOVED, DICKHEAD, A CUP IS A CUP ETC. – THERE’S NO IDEOLOGY THERE, IT’S JUST THE DECISION OF SOCIETY TO DESCRIBE THE CUP AS A CUP... IDEOLOGY MEANS OBSCURING THE TRUTH AND CONNECTING IT WITH NORMS AND CERTAIN POWER CLAIMS... E.G. YOU SHOULD NEVER QUESTION THAT A PARTICULAR TINY GROUP AMONGST ITS ELITES WIELDS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FORMS OF POWER THROUGH PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY NETWORKING (GOING BACK EVEN CENTURIES, SLOWLY, SLOWLY, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY), ETC.,... AND THERE ARE MANY MANY MANY OTHER EXAMPLES TOO HAHAHAHAHA - (OBVIOUSLY, RETARDS, IN SCIENCE QUA SCIENCE WE DON'T TALK ABOUT SATAN ETC., BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN-GROUP NETWORKING, NEPOTISM, COLLUSION, ETC.,... WHICH ARE EMPIRICALLY OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA FOUND IN VARIOUS GROUPS, AND WITH SPECIFIC, CONCRETE CHARACTERISTICS IN SPECIFIC, CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC., ETC., ETC.,...)!!!... POOR OLD MAN, HE CONFUSES THE MARXIST CLAIM TO SCIENCE WITH ACTUAL SCIENCE AS PRACTISED BY P.K., AND MANY OTHERS AT LEAST ON AN IN PART BASIS... HE SHOULD JUST STICK TO HISTORY AND GREEK NATIONHOOD AND ETHNICITY ETC.,... AXIOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY IS NOT AN OUGHT TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO – YOU ARE BECOMING A FUCKING CRETIN IN YOUR OLD AGE, FUCKING IDIOT (BUT WE STILL LOVE YOU)!!! AXIOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY OR VALUE FREEDOM AS NON-NORMATIVE VALUE FREEDOM MEANS “DON’T FUCKING DO ANYTHING TO OTHERS OR TELL ANYONE WHAT TO DO”, WHILST YOU JUST DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN... MR. K. IS NOW BECOMING VERY ANNOYING, HE SHOULD SIT DOWN LIKE A NICE OLD MAN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! HE IS MAKING HIMSELF ALMOST AS RETARDED AS SOME FUCKING DUMB SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY TRIBAL WARRIOR REPRESENTATIVE OR PROF. B.!!!!! HUMAN NATURE AND THE COMMON HUMAN SUBSTRATUM OF THE DRIVE OF SELF-PRESERVATION, POWER CLAIMS, RATIONALITY, IDENTITY, MEANING, CULTURE, SOCIAL RELATION, FRIEND-FOE, THE POLITICAL WHEN DESCRIBED ABSTRACTLY REFER TO UNIVERSALLY EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED SOCIAL-ONTOLOGICAL AND OR ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONSTANTS AND NOT (NORMATIVE) VALUES WITH CONTENT, DUMB FUCKING OLD MAN... SIT THE FUCK DOWN (BUT WE STILL LOVE YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A GREAT ETHNO-PATRIOT AND HISTORIAN)!!!

FUCKING IDIOT PROF. B. DOES NOT GET IT AT ALL... THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AGAINST E.G. SLAVERY. SLAVERY IS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON WHICH IN CERTAIN SOCIETIES HISTORICALLY, EVEN TODAY, IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND “NATURAL” AND THAT JUST PROVES THAT IN RELATION TO HUMANS (INC. SLAVE HOLDERS WHO ARE HUMAN), VALUES ARE RELATIVE... IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THAT... THEN YOU ARE A RETARD... AND YOU CAN FUCK OFF!!!... YOU HAVE NO PLACE HERE!!!... (If Retarded Prof. B. and any other Retard like him "doesn't get it", and is "put off" by my rude, boorish, "uncultured" swearing etc., then Retarded Fucking Idiot Prof. B. should study P.K.'s book on Montesquieu, incl. p. 64ff. of the German text = p. 61ff. of the Greek text = p. 67ff. of my English translation, and try - as difficult as it might be - to grow a brain, and accept that what is, is, and is not as he says just because his pathetic little ego, which is "humanitarian" but also "just happens" to want to wield power, influence, control,... over others, says so incl. by "wishing away" "evil, enmity, hate"... so his "good, humanity and love" can prevail... that might be fine in terms of feeling good about oneself, but it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with empirical reality and science, and P.K. was - if anything - about empirical reality and science...)... and no-one here is in favour of slavery, you fucking spastics... that is not the point, RETARDS!!!]

[HERE WE GO AGAIN - LAST TIME FOR NOW AND HOPEFULLY FOREVER, BECAUSE LIFE IS SHORT AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME!!!

Sooner or Later to be Dr. S. (this is another "to be" Dr. S., and not the first Dr. S above), in general seems to be serious, level-headed, and makes good observations, for the most part. I would say though that practice or praxis which is not prima facie totally or even substantially autonomous from acting, the act and action, – unless I’m making some major error – is not something outside of scientific observation. Ch. 4 of The Political and Man makes it quite clear that action is internal and external, so it would follow that praxis/practice is not necessarily external... I stand to be corrected, I could be wrong, but my initial reaction is that sooner or later to be Dr. S. is fucking up on this point...

IF praxis/practice is defined as a form of external acting/act/action then sooner or later to be Dr. S. is correct, and my thinking is WRONG – I need to have a look into this...

I note that internal/inner action of the internal/inner mechanism of the social relation incl. intellectual-mental-spiritual acts, so my initial reaction is that the descriptive meta-level is by no means outside of practice/praxis or acting, the act, action in general... and of course there is no external/outer action of any kind whatsoever without some kind of connection to internal/inner action etc.,...

There is also theoretical activity

p. 581 of the Gk ed. of The Political and Man states that intellectual/spiritual act/praxis is not the same as the mental act ... this is in the context of talk re: pre-rational and pre-cogitating psychical activity etc...

LOOK, I NEED TO CHECK GERMAN TERMINOLOGY ETC. AND THAT WILL HAPPEN IF AND WHEN I TRANSLATE THE DREADED CH. 4 of The Political and Man...

The conceptual structure is a mental/intellectual abstraction, and in that sense does not exist as a thing in reality, but we empirically observe reality and through thinking see that there are conceptual structures across all world views or world theories such as Good v. Evil and Here/This World v. There/The Other World and Is/Being/To be/Reality v. Appearance and Friend v. Foe etc.,... so I really don’t want to start calling soon to be a Dr. S., a RETARD, because he is Serious and I respect his efforts, BUT he should not be confusing himself!!!

Sooner or Later to be a Dr. S. also forgets that The Enlightenment is multi-dimensional with several main tendencies and does NOT have a one-dimensional differentia specifica re: other philosophical periods or epochs under a schematic and never totally clear-cut periodisation etc.,...

The reference to Gadamer did not seem of any significant relevance to me...

In relation to the Decision – it seems to me that most tend to forget that the Decision(s) formulating our basic world images and world views/theories were made collectively, even going back over millennia re: some matters, and we as individual basically adopt what society has.... the Decision is another abstraction... in the real world there is no such thing as the object Decision... but it is a process and network of (historical) relations we theoretically abstract from reality by observing reality which has inter alia a friend-foe spectrum as another abstraction etc.,...

AGAIN, the problem with sooner or later to be Dr. S and Professors etc., is that they lose sight of the fundamentals and get lost in confusing themselves by “out-dumbing” themselves etc.,...

Yes, the Decision is organically connected to perspectivity... yes, the Decision as an abstraction, is the product of theoretical praxis or activity or act/ion etc.,...

Look, matey, you’ve got it wrong... power in nature is energy which is in man energy and forms of power such as influence, dominance, authority, etc.,... SO THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING POINT IN SEPARATING POWER FROM THEORETICAL ACTIVITY... YOU’RE FUCKING UP, BIG TIME!!!

ALL YOU’RE DOING IS CONFUSING YOURSELF AND OTHERS!!!

AND BEING A TYPICAL sooner or later to be ACADEMIC PROFESSOR MORON/IDIOT/ RETARD/IMBECILE...

Sooner or Later to be Dr. S. DID WELL, however, to refer to P.K. and Augustine, and faith seeks knowledge fidens quaerens intellectum which shows that Augustine got to the crux of human existence/thought much more than modern and today’s “rationalists” and or “atheists” who think their positions are not based on or relate to some kind of normative framework of faith = mechanisms of normative decisions etc.,... etc.,... and who at the end of the day do similar things deep down as theologists without recognising the fact that they are doing so... yes, all rational positions ultimately come out of an irrational basis ultra rationem for the Decision etc.,...

YES, YOU’VE GOT IT, SCIENCE IS NOT NORMATIVE VALUES, BUT SOCIETIES AND LIVING IN SOCIETIES SOCIALLY POLITICALLY ETC. HAVE TO BE ABOUT NORMATIVE VALUES...

Dr. V or Dr. B,... who is a woman, and a woman to be taken seriously, which is good, nicely contrasts Cicero and vita contemplativa and not being an animal to Machiavelli and vita activa and interest, power, violence, guile/cunning etc.,... of course I would add Cicero’s positionings are absolutely necessary in all politics at the ideological level, and Machiavelli’s positionings indicate political realities in all polities at another level...

And a very nice reference to Western mass democracy and consumption and hedonism displacing asceticism etc., and to money for the sake of money etc., AND I THOUGHT SHE WAS ABOUT TO SAY “SATAN, SATAN, MONKEY, MONKEY, SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY”!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! AND SHE DID SAY IT, JUST IN OTHER WORDS... SHE EVEN SAYS “I CONSUME THEREFORE I AM” WHICH IS WHAT I STATED ON MY TRANSLATOR’S PAGE ABOUT 9 MONTHS AGO!!! AND OBVIOUSLY OTHERS HAVE SAID TOO...

Generally, all Dr. V’s references are SPOT ON – SO SHE IS ONE SMART WOMAN!!! WELL DONE!!!... GOOD GIRL!!!... Personally, as an unreconstructed patriarchal “sexist” I’m always very impressed by SMART WOMEN... THEY ARE VERY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, GENERALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS FEWER THAN MEN, FOR VARIOUS BIOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL-SOCIAL REASONS...

Kostas Papaioannou, as great as he was, could not detach politics from “better” norms (incl. παθὸς-μαθός, and ζῆν-εὐ ζῆν distinctions in order to suggest the way of “getting over” c. 1950-1980 Western “civil democracies” with their passive masses-consumers etc., and that is one of the reasons he is of less scientific value than P.K. (I SAY), but because of his very impressive insights, remains very significant in a general sense...

Dr. V does very well in using both P.K. and Papaioannou to highlight the great relative passivity of the masses with rights to vote etc. in the political process, which of course in the context of (I SAY) (Zio-)USA-led western mass democracy leads to the GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ACCUMULATIONS, CONCENTRATIONS, CRYSTALS, CRYSTALLISATIONS OF FORMS OF POWER IN THE HANDS OF THOSE, SUBJECTIVELY SEEN, ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTINGLY UGLY DEFORMED PARASITE/LEECH-LIKE VULTURE TURDS ETC.,...

Dr. V. refers to Papaionnou drawing on Plato’s notion of theatrokratia and Weber, Gramsi,... and has similarities with Frankfurt School types like Marcuse... and “fabricated needs” coming from advanced industrial technicised societies etc.... all this, if I’m not mistaken is Marcuse taking from Benjamin who took notions from Tönnies etc.,...

LOOK, DR. V. GAVE THE BEST FUCKING TALK OF THE CONFERENCE IN QUESTION, IT WAS A KICK-ARSE TALK WITH NO ERRORS, SHE PUT (NEARLY) ALL THE MEN TO SHAME (APART FROM THE FIRST DR. S. WHO WAS QUITE GOOD TOO, as well as perhaps a couple of others), AND THE OTHER “MORE EXPERIENCED” WOMAN, AND I HOPE SHE HAS HAD 3 OR 4 CHILDREN WITH A CULTURALLY AND RACIALLY GREEK MAN WHOM SHE'S STILL WITH (THOUGH I BET YOU SHE HASN'T HAD EVEN ONE CHILD!) BECAUSE OUR TRIBE IS DYING OUT UNDER SELF-INFLICTED IDIOCY AND LOBOTOMISED STUPIDITY INCL. UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF (ZIO-)AMERICAN CULTURE WHICH I SUBJECTIVELY VIEW AS SUICIDAL GENOCIDAL DEGENERACY...

Next, during questions/comments the other (semi-retarded, at times fully retarded) woman gets up and talks total shit about Informatics/I.T. etc., and how P.K. did not take into consideration their implications when he did in some articles for FAZ etc.,... dumb fucking cow... and of course the term praxis/ practice and or act/action do not need much defining or defining at all because they mean what they mean, dumb fucking idiot...


I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE YOUTUBE TALKS ETC. RE: P.K.. I WOULD NEVER EVER EVER WANT TO TALK TO ANY OF THE SPEAKERS (I'm sure the feeling is mutual!) – I LEARNT NEXT TO NOTHING (THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE 2 OR 3 MATTERS WORTH FOLLOWING UP)... IN MORE THAN 20 HOURS MOSTLY OF CRAP... SO IT’S - OVERALL - ALL A WASTE OF TIME, IN GENERAL,... AND GROSSO MODO,...]


[ULTIMATE TIP: There's no "logical error or flaw" when (the observation of) (human, social) Reality means Logic starts in and from (human, social) Reality = no matter how much you twist words this way or that... and how much of a "smart arse" you (think you) are, there is ALWAYS more than one ontological level of Reality just as there is always nature, (human) collectives and individuals... "smart alec!"... or "τὸ the Σμᾶρτ Ἀλέκος!", as my Father used to say... (cf. Theory of War - Summary Notes, p. 108ff. of the Notes, and esp. pp. 114-115 of the said Notes!).

AND a "Final" Question: What kind of Scientific "Observer of Human Affairs" would one be if one did not observe Patently Obvious Facts which hardly anyone else, as it "just happens", seems to Notice?

Αὐτὴ τὴ Λεβεντιά μας!... στὲς ἑορτές, εἰς τὰ πανηγύρια καὶ στοὺς χοροὺς τῆς Ὁμογενείας... εἱς Λαός, μία Φιλή, ἕν Γένος, ἕν Ἔθνος, μία Πατρίς, Γυναῖκες, Ἄνδρες, Οἰκογένειες, Σόγια, Χωριά, Παιδιά, Νησιῶτες, Ἠπειρῶτες, Πελοποννήσιοι, Μακεδόνες, Ῥουμελιῶται, Κύπριοι, Ἀδέλφια μας, Χωριᾶτες, Χωρικοί,... οὕλοι Μαζί... Παλληκάρια Ἕλληνες Ὁρθόδοξοι Ῥωμιοί... Αὐτὴ τὴ Λεβεντιά!... δὲν θὰ μπορέσετε ποτὲς νὰ καταλάβετε Κληρονομιὰ τὶ θὰ πῇ, ἰδίως τώρα ποὺ τὴ Χάσαμε... εἰς τὶς ζοῦγλες τῶν Πιθήκων, ἀσχέτως χρώματος, καὶ ΒοθροΣιχαμάτων... Σατανᾶδες Ὀχτροί... Θεέ μου, Πᾶρτε μᾶς ἀπ΄ αὐτὴ τὴν Κόλασιν, ὅσο τὸ συνοτομώτερο... Ἐδῶ μᾶς Τρώει ὁ Χᾶρος... Κόλασις καὶ 'κεῖ... English translation: I am Εὔγηρος... and its three ἐκκλησιές...]

[[LET'S SAY IT AGAIN, BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF FUN: THE ABSOLUTE END POINT OF VALUE NIHILISM AS NON-NORMATIVE VALUE NIHILISM IS WHAT THE BUDDHA DID OF JUST SITTING THERE AND WAITING TO DIE... BUT, BECAUSE THE IMPULSE/DRIVE/URGE OF SELF-PRESERVATION SPURS US INTO LIFE WE CAN, IF WE WANT E.G., DO A BUDDHA "MIDDLE PATH", OR, TAKE THE STANCE OR VALUE POSITION OF VALUE-FREE AS NON-NORMATIVE DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION (THE FACT THAT A TERMINOLOGICAL "CONTRADICTION" ARISES IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE; THE TERM "VALUE-FREE" IS HISTORICAL AND IN USE; IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN "NON-NORMATIVE VALUE-FREE" FROM THE START, BUT IT WASN'T, SO GET OVER IT!!!*)... WHILST ALSO BEING ABSOLUTELY LOGICALLY CONSISTENT (E.G. P.K.'S STRICTLY SCIENTIFIC WRITINGS, WHICH ARE THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS WRITINGS)... NOW, FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR NOT FULLY CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION, WE CAN E.G. ON THE BASIS OF REALISM AND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION OF FACTS ETC., PROPOSE A NORMATIVE PLAN (E.G. P.K. RE: WHAT GREECE SHOULD DO IF IT WANTS TO SURVIVE...), OR WE CAN GO "FULLY POLITICAL" AND SUPPORT A PARTICULAR IDEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL PROGRAMME... AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE CHOOSE TO NOT SIMPLY BE SILENT AND SIMPLY DIE BY NOT DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAITING TO DIE, AND IF WE CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN NON-NORMATIVE, ABSOLUTELY LOGICALLY CONSISTENT VALUE-FREE SCIENCE AS DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION, WHAT WE CAN GAIN OUT OF IT IS... PLEASURE IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF "KNOWING MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE" OR SIMPLY THE FUN OF PROVOKING EVERYONE ELSE AND DRIVING THEM INSANE (WITHOUT EVER CARING ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK - THEY CAN THINK WHATEVER THEY FUCKING WANT)!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! - SO THAT'S THAT, IN A NUTSHELL...

*"For good or ill, the lexicographical concept(ual meaning) of terms differs, almost always, from the historical (concept(ual meaning)) – and scientific analysis would be superfluous to a great extent if perchance the two coincided" (Introduction to Montesquieu, Greek text, p. 88 - it's not included in the German text!).]]

[- You do realise that you on your own, or even in a group cannot defeat the Satanic Circus Monkey? - Of course, I do. - You do also realise that the Satanic Circus Monkey WILL be defeated, either Sooner (within decades?) or Later (within centuries?), in all kinds of different possible ways, by Other Forces and Powers, and that what comes after the Satanic Circus Monkey could or will probably or will definitely be much, much WORSE? - Of course, I do. - And you do also realise that Science qua Science sees everything as NEUTRAL, and cares not one iota about characterisations, preferences, objects of love, hate, (strong) attraction, repulsion (disgust), etc., apart from describing and explaining them? - Of course, I do. - THEN why don't you calm down? - Because I am a Human with Culture and Identity and (personal-survival, not collective since my Tribe is Dead) Power Claims, and I can only do Science for short periods of Time. Science by definition is Exhausting... That's why P.K. practised real Social Science for those who care about such things... - Then, shut the fuck up, Read and Study, and take pleasure in what you have, because Death is on his Way...] {We do love our Βάρναλη, don't we?!!!}

[[In other words: Because History Teaches us that ALL Social Formations or Kinds of Society Eventually Break Down and Become Something Else, and Because History Teaches us that the Distributions of forms of Power amongst the Elites also Inevitably Change, a society in which GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power Crystallise and are accumulated and concentrated amongst the Elites of a certain Group, and a society which, promotes all manner of "Degeneracy" - subjectively seen of course, but we could call it more objectively "non-Traditional lifestyles and life stances" - is INEVITABLY going to lead to a tremendous BACKLASH. This BACKLASH in circumstances of heightened Anomie or relative Chaos very likely will lead to a prolonged period of a Snowballing Effect of increasing Violence before some new Crystals of Power can be formed in order to impose relative Order (by then (we're talking decades if not more than a century "down the road"), "whiteness and Christianity" may be totally or effectively Dead, but another Group which sees itself as "intelligent and cosmopolitan and "anti-racist" and sophisticated" will either be, or be on its way to being, a lot Worse off than Toasted Marshmallow for another Group or other Groups),... and that is only if Generalised Anomie can be Reined In and if the World (i.e. people as individuals in Groups) hasn't and haven't done irreparable damage to itself and themselves from Nuclear and other Conflagrations, Massive Overpopulation, Massive Environmental Degradation, etc., etc., etc.,... SO talk of the "Satanic Circus Monkey" might seem outlandish today, but in Circumstances of ever increasing Anomie, the Ideological Pressure towards a more outwardly manifested Binary of Good v. Evil, which is always present Deep Down in any event as a fundamental formal-structural feature of all World Views, will become greater and greater and greater. Just watch as today's Western mass democracies, with their ideology of "universal human rights" etc. and increasing inability to "keep their promises" to the whole world, are becoming all the more less inclined towards (relative) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association,... as well as less able to Police increasing Anomie... and with more and more and more people Demanding Stuff, This and That, and becoming "Astonished" and "Amazed" and "Astounded",... by Things,... "How did we Ever Come to This?"...]].

[[LONG-TERM SOOTHSAYER SAYS:
1) Chances of an Evolutionary Biology "Indo-European" (non- or anti-Christian) "individualistic" White Revival (with imperialistic power claims) = not much above zero, if not zero.
2) Chances of a Christian-centred mostly White Revival and or Peaceful Co-Existence with the Other = not much above zero, if not zero (probably though the only tiny chance for Western Continuity).
3) Chances of Western mass democracy, incl. under GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power wielded by the elites of a particular tiny group not unlike a parasitical flea, morphing into a largely Beautiful totally Brownish-Black Society, which despite the fact it does not "see" colour, will be a largely Beautiful totally Brownish-Black Society with a tiny Whitish or Pale or Sick-Looking flea-like parasitical group wielding GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power = not much above zero, if not zero.
DIAGNOSIS:
Not Good, No, Not Good... At all!!!
SCIENCE SAYS:
It is ABSOLUTELY INDIFFERENT TO ME. If I am around, i.e. practised by people in cultures, I'll describe and explain what there is, if I can, and THAT IS ALL!!!]]

SECRET WHISPERED SOFTLY: "I have to protect Him from the Interpreters... and I'll do all I can, to do so..." [[= Scientifically, I can accept that my basic position and world view is Relative, though in Life I shall defend my basic position and world view until my Last Breath. YOU, however, RETARD, want to relativise others' basic positions and world views, BUT NEVER YOUR OWN (even when you feign, dissemble and pretend in your "sophisticated, polite, and cultured" manner), WHILST NOT SAYING, LET ALONE DOING, ANYTHING ABOUT GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE CRYSTAL(LISATION)S, ACCUMULATIONS and CONCENTRATIONS of Forms of Power, which YOU and your MOB "just happen" to enjoy and wield “in the Name of Humanity and Anti-Racism”, whilst Participating Fully and Taking the Lead in Destroying Human Groups as the Extreme Genocidal Super-Racists YOU are!!!), and that is WHY you are DISGUSTING, REVOLTING, UGLY, EVIL, SATANIC... nothing but the SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY in all its Horrific, Horrid, Abominable, Despicable, Deplorable Manifestations...]]

WHEN the Hellenes and the (more mixed) Rhomioi were Strong,... relatively: Chauvinists, Bigots, Racists,... they Projected (varying degrees of) Geo-Political and or Cultural Power for about 2,450 years. In recent decades, when Modern "Greeks" became Compulsive Anti-Racists under (Zio-)American Geo-Political and Cultural Power Projection, they have achieved birth rates and cultural levels which (almost) ensure they won't be around for many decades longer. YOU figure out how your Group can Survive. The Chinese are NOT idiots (maybe they were when they were called "Chinamen").

Personally, the greatest passage in all of World Literature as produced largely, if not exclusively, by Europeans and Asians, is the Exchange betwixt Hector and Andromache in Book = Rhapsody 6 of The Iliad. There is also another moment which for me, STANDS OUT (admittedly, apart from many other "moments"). When Gerasim holds Ivan Ilyich - on his way to Death - UP. For there is nothing more Sacred than Having a Tribe and Belonging to One's Tribe which is a People Connected to the Soil, Earth, Tradition and Collective Identity. EVERYTHING ELSE IS FILTHY SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY HOCUS POCUS, SO SATAN AND THE SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY CAN STICK THEIR BEAKS INTO WHERE IT'S NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS, AND PUSH THINGS THIS WAY AND THAT SO THAT THEY CAN ACCUMULATE MORE AND MORE AND MORE (IT'S NEVER ENOUGH)... GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FORMS OF POWER AND GOODS - WHILST SPREADING ALL THEIR DEGENERATE DISEASE-RIDDEN FILTH - FUCKING DISGUSTING ANIMALS!!! 

NOR would I, or anyone genuine about P.K., ever seek any kind of (but the tiniest) publicity, "Fame", let alone "Fortune". P.K.'s work is, strictly of its nature and texture and intellectual/emotional repercussions, for the very few, i.e., for the True Connoisseurs of Scientific Knowledge.

Just like the great Luis Buñuel, let's say it again; repeat after me: "Nada me disgustaría más moralmente que recibir un Oscar = Nothing would disgust me more morally than receiving[/winning] an Oscar.”

"¡Nada me disgustaría más moralmente que recibir un Oscar!"


[[And I know exactly who Buñuel's producer for the late French-language masterpieces was. And so what? That's reality!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!]]




Peace to All People and All Peoples, Irrespective of Race (Mix), Colour (Tone and or Shade), Ethnos, Nation, Creed, Religion, Beliefs, Group or Tribal Affiliation(s).


C.F. (Translator)

Make a free website with Yola