“We’re All in This Together, then, is a mapping out of my searching and learning so far which, I hope, may serve as a conversation-starter for the sharing of confusions, questions, insights, and solutions among many kinds of groups: parents, teachers, administrators, pastors—separately and together; parish groups, ecumenical groups, any groups concerned with education and religious education, or in other words, with the future of mankind.”

-Mary Perkins Ryan, We’re All in This Together, ca. 1972

“Socialism is called to play a part in the spiritual and intellectual history of mankind by purging itself of every trace of Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the unholy [and demonic] power of the 19^th Century which undermined and destroyed the very basis of Socialism, as it undermined and destroyed the very basis of every Political Philosophy and World-Order. Socialism [has] a new national mission [not from Karl] Marx but by [every nation on Earth]: to place itself at the head of the oppressed nations and show them what are the conditions under which alone they can live.

The greatness of a Man is to be something more than his mere Self. The greatness of a Nation is to be something greater than Itself, to be able to communicate something of Itself; to possess something that it can communicate.”

-Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Das Dritte Reich, ca. 1923

Can genuine love flourish between real men and real women in politics? Can You imagine Your Mine-Self finding “That Special Someone”–a future spouse–within Your political activities? Is it a real marriage or is it a Marriage of Convenience like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and either spouse is secretly plotting their divorce like it’ll be the next Operation Barbarossa? And if it’s the latter, would the custody battle over the kids and the First Place be a normal one or would it start resembling something akin to the Battle of Stalingrad?

If it seems like I am looking for dating advice, that is not my Implicit Intent. Everyone in politics should consider asking themselves that particular question, even if they have not yet found that Special Someone. Try to imagine a newlywed couple in their twenties. Please allow me to ask:

1. If a “Communist college girl” meets her “Fascist fiancée” at the Second Place and they fall in love at the Third Place, will peace and prosperity reign for the children inside their First Place?
2. Were conditions inside the Third Place suitable enough for them to have ample opportunities for wholesome, romantic courtship, where they can perceive each other as being more than just a “Communist” and “Fascist?”
3. Will the two who still love each other despite having very different political views?
4. Or will their marriage collapse in a New Versailles Treaty, a 2+4 Agreement?

I have always been enchanted by two people falling in love, getting married and later filing a divorce because they were never open about their political-economic positions on specific topics. If they do decide to have children, I genuinely feel sorry for them because their First Place may or may not have been a very peaceful one to grow up in. Unlike the usual gamut of divorce settlements under Neoliberalism, true love must never be despoiled by any “Marriages of Convenience.” If the children’s ideology in question cannot be applied within the First Place, their ideology will never be reapplied anywhere within the Second Place and especially the Third Place itself.

To the real Fascists and real Communists who read my Blog and are curious as to why I would be interested in these kinds of questions, that is because I am shopping around for the right ingredients to make one of the Aphrodisiacs from my Financial Engineering Grimoires. However, it cannot be any Aphrodisiac; it must be an Elixir for creating a truly apolitical love that is “neither Left nor Right,” the marriage strengthened by mutually-shared opposition “against the Center,” and an elaborate wedding and honeymoon where “Independents are more than welcome to attend to their personal housekeeping needs.”

“The future of the world will be decided by the conquering force of a political-economic ideology. [Neoliberalism] is a wishy-washy term which has found no ear [in the Third World]; nobody should be fighting and dying in Russia for Jeffersonianism, Trotskyism and Hitlerism!] The [post-1945 German-speaking world is still unconsciously] dominated by two sovereign ideas: the concept of a Reich and Germany’s mission of leadership in the world. These two ideas have given [the German-speaking world the most] powerful driving force for the dynamic execution of [its] world mission. The mystical element and the religious tradition embodied in the concept of the Reich sparks our political mission and is especially attractive within the Catholic world.”

“[Humanity] is longing today for the [new] millennium [because the 20^th century never ended]. In the role of champion for peace, [They] would gain stature in world public opinion and create for [Themselves] an unshakable moral position. The propaganda against [Their] ‘militarism’ would subside entirely, old charges would be forgotten, and Europe would then be willing to follow [Their] leadership. Such a policy can be pursued successfully, especially in view of the present attitude of the Vatican. His Holiness is a realist in politics and knows well enough that, in the age of nuclear weapons, there is too much at stake for the Catholic Church and for Europe as a whole.”

Categories: Philosophy

Tags: ARPLAN, Carl Jung, Cassandra Coefficient, Catholic, Economics, Fascism, Finance, German Reich, Mary Perkins Ryan, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Richard Alan Clarke, Roman Catholicism, Rudolf Jung, Socialist Finance, Socialist Student Economy, Soviet Union, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. Johann Neumann, United States, Work-Standard