Monthly Archives: December 2013

The State of the Neo-Empire Is Strong

All the other guys and gals, the losers and the second-raters, the backworldspeople, are the ones who need policy and strategy: The Neo-Empire or Empire of Liberty is its own strategy and is by “being there” already the final determinant of every policy and politics. Hegemony is. It simply “lives hegemonically.” All else on Earth if not necessarily in Heaven (nor necessarily not) is secondary, though perhaps usefully diversionary, since an achieved new consensus, as we occasionally set out to remind ourselves, would be counterproductive compared to the actual, virtually inarticulable but pre-eminently successful one, and possibly the sole true danger to it.

Posted in Featured, Neo-Imperialism, US History Tagged with: , , ,

Mouth to Mouth (Report from the War on Xmas)

The violence of [the] claim takes revenge upon it

Posted in Anismism, Philosophy, Politics, Religion Tagged with: , , , , , ,

For the Theses on the World State of States: Historical Election of the USA

the administration of all of human history, including future history, in real time

Posted in International Relations, Neo-Imperialism, notes, Philosophy

His Husband, Her Wife

If a word as spoken does not contain the entire history of its usages, neither does it offer any defense against them

Posted in Marriage of Equality and Inequality Tagged with:

Standing athwart themselves

Nothing prevents those with a conservative outlook or temperament from remaining aware of dire and whole wide world-encompassing possibilities, even the possibility or perhaps the certainty of their own, or their community’s, or nation’s, or culture’s, or civilization’s eventual impossibilization, but any sensibly conservative regard for language, or any conservative understanding of the idea of a conservative understanding, does or ought to prevent its advocacy, with or without the yelling.

Posted in Anismism, Philosophy, Politics, US History

Because “The question ‘what is God?’ is impossible” (amended version of comment at @thinking_reed’s blog)

The inquiry into what we mean when we invoke the name of the deity would both determine and be determined by the result of the inquiry into what we mean when we refer to ourselves. They are nearly the same inquiry, or two different aspects of a single inquiry, which is at the same time an inquiry into inquiry – the possibility of inquiry at all and the point of inquiry at all.

Posted in Anismism, Philosophy, Religion