Democracy is the tradition of the dead.

Just as a true Machiavellian would never reveal his methods, a true Nietzschean would forget the name Nietzsche.

Technology surpasses art as equality of conditions. The culture war is part of the dissolution of technology – the nakedness of the titans. In Schmittean terms, it is a second interim following the failure of a strong politics.
In other words, rather than confronting the existential enemy that is the dissolution of technology, the West turns inwards, to its own criminality. Rather than a Berlin Wall moment, there is a Khrushchev Thaw.
And yet, democracy approaches the limits of its mild character.

Basic position on technical free speech (twitter restoration): a Solomon's Judgement in which the left was unwilling to give up the baby, and now the right is happy to receive the remains.

Political discourse today is repeating your position over and over to wear down opponents, to eliminate them through moral exhaustion. It is the equivalent of the bad songs repeated on the radio until the audience accepts them.

Theological Centrism:
Democracy and liberalism have always been extremist.

https://t.iss.one/BertieBassett4Life/13268

A counter-intuitive reason for why the modern state moves left.
Schmitt says anarchism's true focus is the elimination of God.
This is of course a much more powerful position than abolition of the state, and more significant than absolutism/the reaction, which is not only reduced to a defense of religion but also denial of the metamorphosis/Gestaltwandel of God.
It is also perhaps untenable, yet the whole of society struggles against the anarchist position – first creating a leftward position, then a second interim, a void.

Sensible centrism:
Professional wrestling idealism.

Theological centrism:
Relinquishment of pro wrestling to the Mexicans.

The danger of sensible centrism is that it returns the left-right distinction to reality at the very moment it was becoming a mere formality. What was indecisive in the German crisis is automatic and permanent in our own – the perfection of indecision.

Socrates will eternally be known as a reborn Silenus; Nietzsche proclaimed he was Dionysus – and then was paralyzed by vines.

Sensible center: World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

Theological center: Jacob wrestling with the angel.

The opposition of Nietzsche and Socrates is misplaced. Jünger acknowledges Nietzsche's mistakes, his limits and absolute mortality, but nevertheless stands behind him as a Nestor to Achilles. "He will fight when he can fight."
The question for Nietzscheans is this, who is the hero that would stand, no matter his weaknesses, behind Socrates? Or perhaps we must ask of that which is more than a hero. In this is also the question, what was missing in Alcibiades?

The hero, as unbounded striving, is always the question of the Dioscuri: what part of us goes to the heavens, and what to the underworld? This is also the chain which binds the heroes to the titans.

The pure will is thus an interim of the will to struggle. It is not Patroclus who is the Castor to Achilles – this is Ajax. The absolutely divided is the sacrifice which comes with the willed, absolute wrath.

Patroclus is the absolutely unbound, memory and that which waits at the end of all waters. "Dead in the king's own armour." It is this that awaits return – – infinitely. And too, in this, Hölderlin is the freedom of Ajax, the perfection of a death too good for the dying age of heroes.

If Achilles is removed from events so that he might not be tarnished, it is Ajax who is removed from time itself, the fate of the Hellenes. In this is Hölderlin's greatest achievement, something far beyond tragedy – he frees Homer from the charges of Pindar, and Ajax from death in foreign parts.

Hölderlin found Ajax in the underworld, sacrificed to the modality beyond life – – neither master nor servant, the wound of the underworld.

Some commentary on the state of exception and the medical bureaucracy

I would say that the state of exception cannot be applied to our situation. The state of exception is really a dictatorial response to an existential crisis, it is more-than-legal rather than extra-legal. It must give intensity and authenticity to life, and it does so for the people (Volk) rather than the legal or bureaucratic structures. Particularly after the defeat of Germany there are laws or conditions in place to prevent any sort of dictator as Schmitt meant it, and also what was written into the old constitutions.

What happens today is that any emergency powers are deployed to defend the critical government functions, and as such the government or party stands between the public and any supra-state force. The existential condition and intensity of the people is neutralised rather than elevated. The party is, in its view of itself, representative of the people, and it defends the people through its extra-legal measures. So long as the party survives, the people survive. This was seen in Pierre Trudeau's war measures: the government mobilises against the criminal element to neutralise it, and there is no distinction between public and criminal, everyone is classified as potential criminal. It is, rather than a decision on the exception, an extension of legalism and parliamentary discourse - parliamentarism reduced to force.

The danger is that the exception (crisis/act of god/nature) becomes permanent, and in some sense the technical measures of the government become themselves an exception. In the same way, medical intervention is not a decision, it does not treat the origin of sickness and look to health, it only treats the symptoms. This is a purely technical sense of health, and we see how it has the same traits as indecision, an inability to deal with the exception.

Now enters a doubling of the crisis, the medical institutes and government bureaucracies become a type of decision-making body made sick. But rather than an exception this is only the norm. One need only look to the response to the Bird Flu and SARs, the mass isolation of the elderly, mass prescription of painkillers to children, the AIDs crisis, and psychiatric experimentation to see that medical tyranny is the norm and acts as a depoliticising power. The multiple bodies of technical measures form together as force and crisis necessitate, it is an automatic process rather than decision. And it is why the very character of the state begins to show signs of sickness.

At an existential level this even goes back to the origins of modern health. Study of the perfection of human organs was only made possible by grave robbers, the desecration of bodies. It is in the same way that abstract treatment of the body can only extend and isolate the bodies, mask the sickness with chemical and physical prosthetics if need be. This is why medical treatment becomes itself a metastasis within the body, then outside of it. One cannot simply eat an apple because it is an apple, it must be tested, studied, and have an entire industry dedicated to the refinement of its scientific proof.

"I'm sensible as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

"Don't fuck with my superchats!"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4

'This was the story of N. P., the first instance of a man killed because of lousy superchats.'

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=37nkErzdTOA

The twitter situation was rather easy to predict, at least in the general sense, for anyone who has seen Network. The entire point was to restore a sense of normalcy, and extend this as much as possible through the acquisition process. (In the same way that rumours are equivalent to real acquisitions in the stock market.)
Both left and right play their role in the aggressiveness of progress. Without opposition this would not be possible. Wokeness was never the goal, only neutralisation. The sensible center plays right into this, the same way that MAGA was only a populism of effect.
The media is a plebiscite tout le jour, a constant discourse on policy – and then mores. That certain ideas are removed from discourse is not a question of control or oppression, they are only temporarily removed as matters of impossibility. It is akin to the voting process: one cannot vote in other districts, the senate can only be especially elected. There may even be an element of the secret ballot – one's true activity, his second consciousness must not be known.

And as we see in Network, any ideas are acceptable within the medium, even shocking death is not at all shocking.

https://t.iss.one/keith_woods/3409

Perhaps the same thing in different words:

I think this can simply be turned around to see the danger. This is what I said of the sensible center, which is really just a question of a very limited free speech:
The danger of sensible centrism is that it returns the left-right distinction to reality at the very moment it was becoming a mere formality.

Free speech is the industrialisation of value-free ideas. How it functions in what Schmitt calls the aggressiveness of progress is the problem of growth with stability. Through any sort of crisis one can imagine how certain groups might be used for growth or stability. The need of stability was waiting for the dissident right to be given amnesty at any time.

One can also look to the problem that modern man does not recognise the age until a hydrogen bomb is dropped on his head. In this situation, what real danger could statistics pose? This problem situates both the extreme idea and its total weakness.

One can also look to Network or Look Who's Back to see that anything can be promoted by the media so long as it is framed in a particular way. This not only includes the most brutal images, but even killing its own figureheads and representatives.

https://t.iss.one/ImperiumPressOfficial/1666

The total state demands the total individual. Bureaucracy is not something separate, distinct from modern man, it is his highest product. He wants to be at once within its inner depths and freed from them – hence the gutted or flayed architecture of brutalism. The foundations, the very mining process, become the shell, the outside. Inside, a completing minimum. One sees in this the defenses of a uranium world, a total sarchophagus.
Communication must be able to penetrate this structure. And the individual, to withstand its forces.