For me, politix and philosophy are largely joined at the hip. Yet philosophy is far bigger than the political arena, and I think it deserves a separate page on my site.
So, where do I begin? I think, therefore I am?
I’ve always been a very philosophical person, in the broad sense of the term. I remember friends commenting on it when I was in high school. Whether I was a deep thinker or just a nerdy day dreamer is a matter of perspective.
However, I don’t think I even understood what philosophy is until I was in my late fifties or sixties.
I took a philosophy class in college; I believe it was called Philosophy 101. Ironically, I remember almost nothing about it, except that it was really boring.
After that, the idea of philosophy as a formal discipline was largely forgotten until I transformed into a political activist. But I didn’t make the leap immediately. Instead, I followed the maxim experience is the best teacher.
Experience is indeed very important. However, after two decades of political activism with few visible accomplishments, I got tired of spinning my wheels. I realized that experience alone isn’t enough to really understand things. There is a place for scholarly study, whether it’s in a classroom or your living room.
Jews vs Philosophy ˆ
I can’t remember exactly when I formally embraced the study of philosophy, but I was well over fifty. I registered with the online forum StackExchange Philosophy about February 2016. By then, I had learned the awful truth about the Jews, and I knew StackExchange is just another Jewish propaganda site.
However, I figured I would find at least a few credible discussions on the forum. At the same time, lurking on such a forum would be a great way to study the Jews’ propaganda.
On the negative side, I wasn’t confident in my ability to pierce the veil of bullshit. Surely, I wasn’t smart enough to outwit a race of geniuses, was I?
To my amazement, it was ridiculously easy. At least, sometimes. Some Jewish propagandists and pseudo-philosphers can write bullshit that’s so slick it’s almost unfathomable. But if you brainstorm some simple rules and monitor the bullshitters, they often make some downright foolish mistakes, like when Noam “Blabbermouth Express” Chomsky vented, “Who cares who killed [John F.] Kennedy? Plenty of people die all the time.”
I don’t want to dwell too much on phony Jewish philosophers here, but their very existence begs the question what does it take to qualify as a philosopher?
Ordinarily, I would regard a philosopher as a person who’s pretty damn smart, with an emphasis on wisdom. I would expect a philosopher to be fairly old, with plenty of valuable life experience under his or her belt. I would also expect such a person to be familiar with the philosophical literature and the major philosophical terms and debates.
I certainly fall short regarding the latter. Hell, I still feel like a beginner sometimes. But if assclowns like Karl Popper, Ayn Rand, Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris (all five of them Jews) can be described as philosophers, then why should I have any reservations about calling myself a philosopher?
Plato’s Cave ˆ
The Greek philosopher Plato left us an intriguing story about some men who had been locked in a cave all their lives. One day, one of them escaped and ventured outside.
Dumbfounded by his glimpse of reality, he rushed back to the cave to tell his colleagues. However, what he described was so different from their pereption of the world, they couldn’t believe him. Surely, he had gone mad, or maybe his eyes had been blinded by that strange sunlight that produces the shadows they saw in their cave.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave really resonates with me. I’m that man who ventured out of the cave.
If you don’t believe me, then let me ask if you’ve ever run for public office. Have you ever worked in the classroom, and, if you have, did you ever investigate your local schools bureaucracy? Have you ever written a book? Do you still watch TV? Do you vote Republican or Democrat?
If you vote for the lesser of evils every four years and you have to get your daily dose of TV, you’re living in a cave. I don’t say I’m smarter (or better informed) than you to be arrogant; I say it simply because I threw my TV away long ago, and I loathe both of our major political parties. I’ve even gone one step further and run for public office myself. Researching and writing books and studying political science, psychology, and philosophy have been a tremendous help as well.
So, who would want to buy a book about philosophy or politics written by a TV addict who has spent his entire adult life working as a bag boy in a grocery store (like my big-mouthed neighbor Carson, who went into hiding during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, only to die a day or two after he came out of hiding)?
So what exactly do I believe? What are my views on various philosophical ideas and schools? What important insights can I contribute to the conversation?
For starters, I think we have big brains and powerful minds for a reason. I also think we have the power of speech and written communication for a reason. At the same time, I don’t believe that I was brought into this world to be shit on.
I’m a revolutionary! In that spirit, I’m a big fan of existentialism, even if I don’t have a thorough understanding of all it entails.
The most famous existentialist is the late French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. I gave him bonus points because of his reverence for the legendary Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara. He was also honest enough to admit that the “Nazis” weren’t such evil people.
On the negative side, Sartre apparently swallowed the Jews’ bullshit about the Holocaust and “antisemitism,” whatever that is.
As I understand it, Albert Camus was also an existentialist, though he reportedly didn’t describe himself as one. Camus is known for his embrace of absurdism, which I think can be roughly described as the fact that people struggle in vain to understand a universe that may be beyond our ability to comprehend. Or perhaps we can describe it as a universe that doesn’t play by our rules.
I recently discovered one of Camus’ quotes which sends shivers up my spine:
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence becomes an act of rebellion.”
I love it! Pardon the arrogance, but that is one of the best descriptions of myself I’ve ever read.
When I learned that Camus had written a novel titled The Stranger, I was intrigued. It was with some excitement that I began reading it. I read the entire thing in a day or two. My reaction? “WTF?”
It was one of the dullest books I’ve ever read. Nor was I able to extract any nuggets of wisdom from it.
In reading reviews, it sounds like the heart of the book may consist of the first two sentences.
“MOTHER died today. Or, maybe, yesterday; I can’t be sure.”
However, there is a lot of controversy over the translation of the first word from the French. The meaning of that one word can have a bearing on the entire book.
That’s the kind of thing that can make philosophy so hard to understand yet so educational at the same time. Good philosophers pay very close attention to the meaning of words. Moral: If you want to be a good writer, political activist, or attorney, study philosophy.
Practical Philosophy ˆ
OK, so far we’ve learned that I’m an existentialist. Is there anything else I should add to my résumé?
For starters, I have this crazy idea that, ideally, philosophy should have some sort of practical value. I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if we could end war, take a bite out of corruption, and figure out a way to live our lives without wrecking the very planet we live on?
Unfortunately, it’s hard to make any progress without some concept of truth to guide us. And that’s the problem with the Jews and other propagandists. They manipulate facts and ideas so wildly, it’s hard to guess what the truth could be.
At the same time, we need to learn to prioritize our problems and focus on the most important ones first. Unfortunately, propagandists bury us in an endless avalanche of diversions. How can we discuss climate change when we’re trying to make sense out of Donald Trump’s latest bizarre stunt or Joe Biden’s latest memory lapse?
Postmodernism is a school of philosophy that caught my attention some time ago. This is what Wikipedia has to say about it.
“Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse defined by an attitude of skepticism toward what it considers as the grand narratives of modernism, as well as opposition to epistemic certainty and the stability of meaning. Claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism. Postmodernism is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism; it rejects the ‘universal validity’ of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.”
Do you have a clue what they’re talking about? Do you think it’s possible that postmodernism may be nothing more than an exercise in obfuscation?
Of course, there’s no law that says a discipline has to be easy to understand. Nuclear physics is way over my head; it would probably be easier for me to learn a foreign language.
Nevertheless, if philosophy is to have any practical use, I think it’s important to make an effort to make it as easy to understand as possible. I’ve never seen any evidence of philosophers attempting to make postmodernism user-friendly. Frankly, I would almost bet money that postmodernism was invented by a pack of Jews.
Instead of speaking in the abstract, I think it can often be useful to apply philosophy to individuals. “Is Bill Gates evil?” would be a fantastic question to explore in the philosophical arena.
However, such a question would probably be wildly manipulated, if not deleted, on most philosophy forums. The Jews love Bill Gates, and there’s a reason for that.
I think Bill Gates is insanely evil, and his evil combined with his vast wealth and power makes him insanely dangerous. This begs the next question: so what?
Should Gates be criticized, fined, imprisoned, tortured, or executed?
I’m a fierce believer in accountability. Although I generally embrace humanitarian principles, I think there are situations that demand tough love. If I had the power, I would strip Bill Gates of all of his belongings—his savings, his business assets, his investments, his homes, everything. When I was finished, he would be stark naked and penniless.
I would then probably flip a coin to determine whether I should torture him to death or let him spend the rest of his pathetic life rotting in prison.
Unfortunately, I don’t have that kind of power. If I was going to hold Bill Gates accountable, I would have to do it outside the law.
That’s another great philosophical debate: What are the ethics of doing the right thing when your government is totally corrupt? What are the ethics or revenge? When is it OK to start a revolution?
There are, of course, countless philosophical questions to explore. What are the ethics of voting for the lesser of evils? Should we bother voting if there are no good candidates to vote for?
Should we support the troops? What’s wrong with burning the American flag or chanting “Fuck the troops”? Can we consider ourselves principled if we support an unprincipled society? And do we implicitly support war or corruption it if we simply don’t speak out?
Free Will ˆ
The debate over free will is pretty crazy.
Some philosophers believe in something called determinism. This doctrine holds that every atom in the universe is essentially programmed to act a certain (and very precise) way. If we had a computer powerful enough to chart every atom’s actions, we could therefore predict the future.
In plain English, we’re all little more than robots blindly obedient to the atoms that make up our bodies, even if we foolishly believe we have free will.
If you don’t subscribe to determinism, we still have a problem.
You see, we are heavily influenced by a giddy variety of things, from our parents to peer pressure to the hormones that are injected into our bodies by organs we might not even know exist. It’s no secret that people typically inherit everything from their religious and political beliefs to their economic class from their parents.
As a political activist who reveres existentialism, the suggestion that free will doesn’t exist disgusted me. However, after taking a closer look, all I can do is scratch my head.
I will say that I refuse to believe in determinism until someone can prove it. On the positive side, I don’t have much of a problem with peer pressure, but that still leaves all those hormones racing through my body.
Past vs Future ˆ
We live in a very futuristic society. Or maybe I should say future-oriented society.
Who would want to go back in time to an era when we didn’t have laptops and cell phones? Even worse, imagine going back 10,000 years to a time when our ancestors supposedly lived short, brutish lives.
Every day we go back in time could deprive us of cutting-edge medical advances that can make our lives better, not to mention the latest hit songs and Facebook memes. So who would want to dwell in the past?
In fact, I’m obsessed with the past. I think it’s spiritual, and I think there’s an endless series of trade-offs between past and future. People who lived thousands of years ago weren’t drowning in a sea of plastic, for example, and they didnct have weapons of mass destruction that could extinguish all “higher” life forms on the planet.
On the other hand, would I really want to spend my entire life without electricity, hot water, and imported dark beer?
One of the key words is technology. Is it good, bad, or neutral?
I think the other key words is balance. Without it, we’re screwed. Thus, the need for practical philosophy.
Philosophy is an important part of most of my books. However, I’m working on several books that focus primarily on philosophy.
The first is tentatively titled Political Philosophy: What’s yours? It will be published in 2023 at the earliest.
My most exciting project may be a book(s) about World War II, Adolf Hitler, and the Holocaust.
Sadly, Western historians, political scientists, and philosophers have destroyed their credibility by sucking up to the Jewish lobby. What kind of historian would deny people the right to question the mainstream narrative, even if it means suggesting there was no Holocaust?
And why can’t we ask if the Jews played a role in the Holocaust? They obviously played a major role in manipulating (and perhaps even starting) both world wars.
What amazes me most is the utterly preposterous statements that are made about Adolf Hitler. He only had one testicle. (Some sources claim he had three.) He was a drug addict, but the media can’t decide which drug he was addicted to. Perhaps to cover all their bases, some say he drank a daily cocktail of forty or even eighty drugs … including rat poison?!!
What kind of morons would believe such delusional crap? How are these people any smarter than the flat-earthers?
Even if the stories about Hitler were true, would he really qualify as the most evil person who ever lived? How was he worse than Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or the trailer park trash who have been waging a genocidal war against Native Americans for five hundred years?
There’s a lot to explore, but I’ve already unmasked one Jewish phony philosopher, Karl Popper, in my conspiracy series.