WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO CRITIQUE OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT II By William Thorpe

In part one to this work I basically gave a narrative composite of the value realization along with terms and relations within a Social Contract, specifically our contemporary American one, as being perverted, betrayed and distorted by the political critique and analysis of a middle and center. In sum I disabused the purported analysis of having any redemptive utility, save for treachery, which I then fleshed out how our contemporary American political moment is a defacto consequence and result of that political critique work and its analysis of a purported middle and center. In this part II, the critique I present, is simply this: why isn't critique of this political moment, presented on it's terms, without dabbling into that strawmanesque theater of firstly legitimizing its incorrectness by responding to it as if it has and can claim any intellectual, aspirational and practical legitimacy, when we know that it doesn't. Our and The American Democracy as Constituted isn't a petty reduction to just the exercise of an unchallenged and unquestioned Executive "BULLY-PULPITISM", in any form and incarnation. In other words, we cannot on the one hand claim that nobility and aristocracy are discredited Social Contract terms and relations, then affirm their conservative dynamics and existence with the resulting and inevitable antagonisms by ceding our agency of critique on our terms as we purse the affirmative realization of the inexorability of progress as organic inevitability. Which is what brings me to this, contrary to the intellectual-liberalism of reaction and its idealistic impositions, violence, respect and its fear dicta have nothing to do with the aspiration and work of perfecting the unity of the people. Yes The People as organic entity can be terrorized and cowered into that state of zombie compliance along with its attendant suppositions, but what it subsequently produces (and chronicles of our existence are replete with it and the resulting labor of rebuilding the human person, irrespective of altruistic reasons) is of course that negation of the fruits of our Sapience and claimed theological, cosmological narrative in the form of creating that one-dimensional social creature, correct political critique and analysis intends and anticipates liberating. So this corresponds to this political moment in this form and fashion. The United States as Constituted is a Nation according to Constitutional Dicta right? And we experienced this logic during the reaction to Nicole Jones's 1619 Project, where the opposition and rejectionist formulations, hinged on the sophistry that the United States didn't become a Nation till 1776 and 1789 as such The 1619 Project's thesis of the political-economy of Enslavement Of Africans as dynamic of all that is Americana must be false. This work isn't responding to that sophistry save to say that what's good for the goose is most definitely excellent to the gander, because, if this contemporary American political moment is one that is fractious, extolling the supremacy of the partisan and faction, then we are not a Nation and despite the exercised police powers and organized violence of the executive, appropriating agency under the exegesis of The National Executive in pursuit of a factionalized and fractionalized politics that is in explicit enmity with the citizenry cannot then claim National character as basis for its activities, because it is at war with the Nation as Constituted and its this level and form of critique this moment demands.

By William Thorpe

MAN WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO CRITIQUE OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT? By William Thorpe

Let me begin by disabusing us of the strawmanesque charade of a political middle or center, which critique of the Social Contract typically and fraudulently purports. So let's use the simple everyday existence of interactions and its terms of value exchange, which is the only honest and practical denominator of speaking to and describing human behavior and terms and relations of a Social Contract, which to economize brain storage space, we categorize and characterize it, "political-economy". So with that said when you the reader are hungry, is there a middle ground? or when you're in a store where stuff are sold and bought, is there a middle ground on whether you have the means to acquire anything, isn't it the either or of whether you can or not? I'm positing these rudimentary and profane examples to compel clarity on what we mean by "middle", because notwithstanding acknowledging the mechanics of any decision making process," middle" as political critique is an insidious and destructive tactic, which to put and state bluntly is traitorous to that progressive motive-force of our Human Condition and its Social Contract medium and mechanism. So now let's confront what the strawmanesque charade of a middle or center as political analysis and critique has wrought. Before we as people and humans have and assume assignation, as value realization and its maturation in the terms and relations of a Social Contract and its political-economy, we are what, just The People. Then value realization and its maturation begins its inexorable compulsion and dictatorial emergence, as process of our education and functional literacy of the terms and relations of the Social Contract, we are birthed in, or in otherwords we begin to study learn, understand and attain the cognition of what we'll need in doing the business of being human, according to the gleaned, held dearly means and methods of the Society as, THE CULTURE and TRADITIONS, which by the way, again notwithstanding the approximate utility and purpose of agency or that deflective, distractive and delusional pull yourself up by your bootstrap, "meritocracy" critique, we had nothing to do with. So as we develop with and in the cognitive Cultural and Traditions, necessities for the business of being human, we begin to realize that we are now apart from the people, despite the fact that analytically we still and always are, that dynamic of THE PEOPLE, but and because of what we have come to understand and how we have come to it of the culture and traditions of the Society, its Social Contract and political-economy that we are birthed in, we begin to have a no middle ground or center with it, because we have our particular interest and along with such interest development, according to its relative attitude and effect on its realization we then critique the entire construct of the Social Contract, that, even as our Parents, members of the Society birthed us, it in turn births our realization and need of our no middle ground, interest based critique. Okay so all of this brings us to this contemporary moment in our American Social Contract, where we are specifically, not in general terms, but specifically confronted with the consequences of all of those past moments of the political middle critique and center analysis, which are now unveiled and exposed as nothing more than space that permitted, enabled and gave cover to REACTION in its most historic form to exist and maintain its intellectual-liberalism and psychosis. Because we compromised the Progressive critique and analysis for that farcical wink and nod of a delusional CENTER.

By William Thorpe