Cynical politicians beholden to globalist interests have invented a simulacrum of national politics whose main purpose is reinforcing and upholding a paradigm which is directly antagonistic to the native citizenry, and which no sane person would ever organically formulate for themselves. The politics of the Old World, in which politicians jealously protected their nation’s best interests, and earnestly sought to elevate their nation to be supreme over all, are long gone.

Useful idiots, historically illiterate, spiritually malnourished from being propagandized by this enforced paradigm, willingly participate in and perpetuate the simulacrum as an unwitting fifth column, and are the only citizens to organically do so. Otherwise, the invented politics of the occupied Western states have no basis in the citizenry, and do not reflect anything like the citizens’ sentiments or desires. It is only, and fittingly, on The Stage that the deleterious policies espoused by traitors are performatively given their artificial life. This is why young people on the internet, even when successfully peer-pressured and cajoled enough to “lean left”, still predominantly use the same iconoclastic memespeak as “the right”, and cannot help but roll their eyes at the insane policies that the political class espouse as a moral good: it is the clash between performance and reality.

This is the fundamental crisis of every Western nation today. Politics is no longer really politics: it is the smile that the occupied state gives as it shanks you.

>>25633994
I think it's more it's just the natural state of a big tent, two party system. You're never gonna agree with either party's entire platform, so strategists and politicians long since figured out it's a matter of selecting wedge issues and becoming the lesser of two evils.
>Would you rather people be able to afford food or your taxes go down by a little?
>Do you want healthcare or there to be less third-worlders?
>Trans rights or God?
>Pro-Guns or Anti-Guns?

>>25633994
for a second there I thought I saw you use the word fulcrum.
Then I was like thats a neat word I rarely see used. Then I realized You didnt use it, and that I likely need some sleep

>>25634012
Fulcrum

>>25634014
Nice! Would be a lot nicer to see it used naturally in a longer piece of writing, but heck ill take it as a standalone too

I was reading a phd thesis and the guy used the latin "simpliciter" instead of "simply"
What a freak that guy is...
Having said that, I might start popping it in from now on. It's simpliciter cool

>>25634072
Oh the decadence of youth!

File: Inevitability.jpg (27 KB, 571x350)

27 KB JPG

Seeing as that this will be (You) someday sooner than (You) think, how does this image make (You) feel?

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope

>>25634099
Nothing, I'm a philosopher. I learned how to think about death years ago

>>25634112
Which is?

>>25634102
Hope is like ichor, a weeping film coating the squirming sanctimony of ambition. When one weeps hope, they become steeped in it, tannins infusing bitterness into their very marrow, but because the wound cannot clot, the process is a carcinisation, and the continued production of this vile goop requires great metasticized organs, entirely new processes dedicated to manufacturing the substance. One does not simply hope, many hope. And who hopes for the hopeless? A demon with a human face. This demon is suffering incarnate because without the bitter wounds, putrid beyond belief, they would be unable to fester and propogate. They would simply consume all resources and die out.

I hope. Everyone does I assume. But suffering begets no hope in my instance, just resolve. And then what do I hope for? That we can continue to hope at all, free from this industrialized sociological parasite.

>>25634114
It's not any particular thought, it's just about coming to terms with death. One of the main things to give a person perspective is that nothing you do will have anything to do with you once you're dead. You could be Shakespeare, but once you die that might as well have been a different person. And for all you know, you WERE Shakespeare in a past life, if those exist. Doesn't matter now, does it?
There is both a meaninglessness and immense meaning to being a mortal with a short life, and the first step of any philosopher is finding the silver line between them without falling too far to either side and becoming either a nihilist or attached to life

>>25634112
>I'm a philosopher.
Oh yeah?? Whats your area of interest/insight?

>>25634129
Truth, the importance of truth and what the truth is. I explore it explicitly in poetry and thematically in prose
Basically ethics mixed with an assertion of materialist metaphysics

>>25634135
Does truth exist? Absolute truth that is.

>I'm a philosopher
Just a fancy way of saying "unemployed, useless, ineffectual and insufferable"