As The Worm Turns, The Ouroboros Eats Itself

Upon the other day, I read an article about the revival of Carl Schmidt as a viable political figure. As you can see, Benedict Spinoza's nightmare has come true, surely as he stated that "philosophy can only be entertained within a democratic society (demos = Greek for people or folk, see "broken clock right twice a day on Winston Churchill, despite being a despicable man over all, had less than engaging views of the common voter) but what happens when the door is opened to interpretation insomuch that anti-Democratic views are being entertained in the said society? the cycle of political thought phases in and out, going through twists and turns like a story without end, keeping the reader engaged, in a recycling and reinterpretation of old views and novel views alike. Now that Schmidt is relevant, shall the Sephardic eat his own words? this gives rise to the idea that a revolutionary or a tyrant can rise like the Phoenix, not since the days of WW2 in the first world has the realm of skeptics and rationalists have devoured their own words to allow insomuch tolerance that non-tolerance is now a virtue. Now, I've said before, opportunism will rear its ugly head. the fact remains these opportunists would never have a foothold had the said society covered its bases by seeing the charlatan than Spinoza was and banned his books throughout Europe in the 17th century. But that's not Hegelian. its already been proven, even without empirical truth, that liberal democracy was predestined to arrive at this time by now. since most of your average citizen is too dumb to entertain democracy's privileges (voting, activism, etc), they sleepily go to the polls to vote in their own individual self-interest neverminding the fact that the police state always wins when they seek out the betterment of self over their people, even if democracy demands it. A faulty system as it stands, the democratic process is a process to seek imbalance no matter what, as many scholars have pointed out its "a tyranny of the majority". but no matter what, the state wins. so what's next, you say? well now that this society has become so liberalized and democratic the Ouroboros devours the Ethics to entertain the presence of non-democratic ideas, hence why Schmidt is becoming ever so relevant. Now we seek what should have been done to Spinoza's writings of democratic philosophy, burned, feathered and tarred. Everyone has a platform now. you made the mistake of handing it to us. what follows a liberal society of free exchange? why Tyranny and Despotism ofc....as its predestined. To snuff out the ideas of the freeman, by freeman themselves who seek nothing more than to overthrow the current order since pandora's box is opened so far that nothing is off limits. And after the degradation of society, one will seek order, the pauper seeking a Prince, a Machiavellian man of the people, who speaks to them in the lowest common denominator to liberate them from the degradation of society's vices: consumerism, selfishness, capitalism, [insert any humanist progressive claptrap here]. see what I did? I turned Adorno on his head, the self-proclaimed purveyor of anti-Fascism who claimed all as previously stated as Fascism unto itself, the head of the Frankfurt School (which by all means was not entirely incorrect, but they went about it the wrong way, at worst an easy target for the uninformed about society's current ills, at best a bunch of useful idiots whose ideas can be explpited for better reasons). I see their ideas as tools, Machiavelli saw the saw the same thing, and maybe Schmidt to an extent that all ideas are tools unto themselves. out with the last man, in with the new man. 

circulus est circulus vitae et mortis. that'll be.                              

- J. Barg/A. Stalin