Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

I stand corrected. I did notice that my two links were identical and I did look up the correct second link but alas, I still blew it. Here is the correct link with the cartoon that depicts "sealioning" and list that targets Kevin.

http://archive.is/KLslS
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

David Quinn wrote: FYI, those two links are identical.

I don't know. It doesn’t seem that bad a term to me. Almost a badge of honour. They would have applied it to Socrates had it been around back then. He was basically sentenced to death for “sealioning” the populace, after all. Kevin has been called worse. As have I.
I agree that a thinker will be called many names and they can be seen as a medal of clear thinking! If that is what this term means in effect and is nothing more to be concerned about, then I have little to no knowledge otherwise of the hazing done to the Gamergate supporters. I have no doubt that it was quite straining for many who were involved.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:
DvR: It might be interesting to examine the rational, global individual beyond race and ethnicity. Some kind of "Übermensch ideal"? It was clearly one of the struggles of Nietzsche to define it in the face of German low brow nationalism. But I don't think the Lockean ideal is something he had in mind either. Or what he called "Chinesedom".
I was thinking more along the lines of a fully-enlightened Buddha. A person without any delusions. That is what this forum is all about, isn't it?
Well, yes but you brought up this "rational, global individual beyond race and ethnicity" and I was curious about that particular definition. One could argue that any individual going beyond divisions would breath Buddha in and out. And yet discrimination and distinctions remain.

Although it appears like the enlightened do not do very well as soon as they step too deep into the ten thousand things of politics, economy and other affairs. A million contradictions within each detail! So everything undertaken will still cast deep shadows under a certain light.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Just to get back to the earlier subject, here's an insightful article from 1964 (Harper's magazine) which does really bring home this discussion and also reveals how far the problems go back. Page after page it will dawn on you how ingrained the issue has become, how problematic and how wide spread for decades if not more.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics By Richard Hofstadter

Some excerpts since not everyone wants to read seven pages (but I think you should)
  • I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.
  • The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point.
  • The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).
  • The paranoid style is not confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon. Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies . . . systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”
  • The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest—perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands—are shut out of the political process. Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed.
Although this all will fit some of the more noisy alternative right pretty well, as well as mentally ill people who seem to prefer these powerful narratives the most (and I'd suggest that's done because of need for mental comfort or support) -- it should be noted that all modern politics has been effected in the same way. For example for many liberals it's now the specter of Putin's KGB which despite a trillion dollar NSA still hacks easily elections, minds and world events as some kind of supernatural Devil. Or Islamic terrorism which will destroy the largest civilization ever because they can target a few out of a thousand thriving large airports. And end of times predictions for our climate are regularly showered upon us in an alarmist fashion by scientific evangelists as if it's a new Armageddon arriving with the Beast climbing out the Abyss. How to distinguish this from centuries of notions of sin, punishment and expected end-time?

This does not mean there are no real problems as there could be actual sources of fire under the smoke. But lets first understand all the smoke blown in our faces!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:I agree this isn’t a great scenario. But nonetheless, it is still immeasurably better than living in an environment in which dissent is systematically quashed, journalists and activists are killed, the media is reduced to state-sanctioned propaganda, the internet is restricted and everyone lives in terror that their neighbour could be a government informant.
That is a perfect description of Stalinist USSR. Putin's Russia, not so much. While Putin is a *sinister* man who has probably had people killed, I see no reason to jerk off to the western media's rape fantasies about him. His actions on the global stage do not indicate any intention of global hegemony. In fact it is his opponents' actions that have heretofore belied such an intention over and over again.
Kevin has over the past three years become so obsessed with feminism/political correctness that he has shifted, either consciously or unconsciously, from a neutral political position to a far right one
Can quote him saying or implying this? In any case, my stance remains that he should simply start putting out his own thoughts rather than expressing support for the thoughts of others.
My hope is that the progressive movement of the past few centuries will withstand the current right-wing/medieval onslaught and, having been shaken to the core by all this tumult, will intensify and deepen its efforts to eliminate its many flaws.
They will have a *lot* to improve, and they are not showing signs of doing that when they choose not to acknowledge the points on which their opponents are in fact correct. Instead, they desperately try to feel superior to their opponents. There are socialists and progressives who understand the Trump movement in a larger context, and who reject the "movement" in favour of the principle. But such people are rare and don't write for the NYT, have "activist" as their job description or run for political office.

@ Diebert van Rhijn, that was indeed a very good read. Can you link me to any of his other work on the same/related topics?

Edit/ Some thoughts on the article:

He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

What should be pointed out however is that calling someone "totally evil" isn't necessarily identical with being wrong about them. In the case of many conspiracy theorists, they simply hate certain ideas and can't stand it when people in their countries champion them. Then there is the herd instinct which requires the idea of a well defined group superior to all others.

The Masonic/Illuminati stuff is quite obviously driven by paranoia, but that doesn't mean the people who believe in it can't point out real conspiracies. For example, bankers do manipulate markets and use their influence to be dodge litigation over it. Conspiracy theorists use that as evidence of some imagined idea like satanism. They just can't get enough of "evil" it seems, perhaps because pausing at reality would force them to judge themselves for a change.

Perhaps conspiracy theories are the best that most human beings can do when confronted with powerful people indifferent to their interests, albeit compelled to pretend otherwise from time to time.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

A good article on a fake news site summing up Trump's position and the "new normal" political reality show in the US and elsewhere:

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/ ... ach-other/
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

I didn't give hardly a care for either Clinton or Trump early on. It was either the same old corrupt politician, or a different look, a corrupt celebrity/businessman. Then the wikileaks emails came out and besides most of the obvious scandals, I eventually realized that pizzagate is likely a real thing, based on all the circumstantial evidence. So yes, Clinton's (and Obama's) party is very likely filled with satanic pedophilic child murderers. I'll take Trump over them any day.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

Dan Rowden wrote:Curious thing that people have decided to question David's philosophic credentials on the basis of his seeming involvement in the realm of politics - by people arguing every nuance of it and throwing links to political stories around like confetti. Curious thing.
One could argue that David is doing this very thing in regards to Kevin with this thread.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Russell Parr wrote:I didn't give hardly a care for either Clinton or Trump early on. It was either the same old corrupt politician, or a different look, a corrupt celebrity/businessman. Then the wikileaks emails came out and besides most of the obvious scandals, I eventually realized that pizzagate is likely a real thing, based on all the circumstantial evidence. So yes, Clinton's (and Obama's) party is very likely filled with satanic pedophilic child murderers. I'll take Trump over them any day.
I have no love for Clinton as you can see, but the pizzagate child stuff is retarded. Now, I have no problem believing that some people within elite groups like to engage in weird occult rituals. It comes from the need to feel superior to the peasants. However, it's one thing to gather with friends and family for some perfectly legal soul cooking, and quite another to sacrifice children after violently raping them. The circumstantial evidence you have cited, isn't.

As demonstrated in Exhibit D, we have connected owner James Alefantis to accused child trafficker Laura Silsby, who was got off the hook by a fake attorney who was later convicted of sex-trafficking, and who was wanted for sex trafficking in four countries.

According to the wikipedia entry on her, Laura Silsby was sent to jail for sex months on a charge of "arranging illegal travel" of Haitian children on behalf of her orphanage/charity organisation. No mention of sex trafficking, which is not identical to illegal trafficking.

Secondly, the connection between Clinton and Silsby is supposed to be that she was sent emails of Silsby's prosecution, which doesn't in any way constitute evidence of a pedophile ring. For one thing Silsby was not, in fact, convicted of sex trafficking (the sentence would be longer than sex months). For another, Clinton as Secretary of State and owner/head of her own charity received several updates and notifications about world events from many sources.

The rest of the "evidence" concerns pictures and statues, supposed paedophile innuendo and Youtube videos of pizzagate researchers accusing public personalities of openly sending them death threats. Also, "creepiness". The only piece of "evidence" that is at least arguably legitimate is the email excerpt:

Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure.

Which most probably refers to the three children in a family (all having the surname Luzzatto) coming to a non-paedophiliac, non-violent (although possibly Satanic) party (featuring a heated pool and perhaps also pizza) hosted by friends, relatives or colleagues of their parents. You *can* interpret it as some sort of orgy, but if you do you are exposing yourself to similar accusations based on all the stuff *you* have said about children. If X is evidence for Y, then all other instances of X must be evidence for the same or other instances of Y.

In sum, the circumstantial evidence cited on that page is not so unless a crime can be confirmed to have taken place to which they are connected. As it stands, the evidence is a collection of bogus theories.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Russell Parr wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Curious thing that people have decided to question David's philosophic credentials on the basis of his seeming involvement in the realm of politics - by people arguing every nuance of it and throwing links to political stories around like confetti. Curious thing.
One could argue that David is doing this very thing in regards to Kevin with this thread.
No, one could not, as it happens. One might assert it, but arguing it would be rather difficult.

Btw, anyone who saw Stephen Miller's performance over the weekend and still wants to claim this administration is no worse than blah blah blah, is not paying attention.

And, of course, Flynn has resigned. Watch that space.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Curious thing that people have decided to question David's philosophic credentials on the basis of his seeming involvement in the realm of politics - by people arguing every nuance of it and throwing links to political stories around like confetti. Curious thing.
One could argue that David is doing this very thing in regards to Kevin with this thread.
No, one could not, as it happens. One might assert it, but arguing it would be rather difficult.
Russell makes actually a fine observation which should not be obscured by a flat out assertion about it not being an argument. Not without coming with some counter arguments yourself, Dan! Is it in doubt that Kevin's current philosophic credentials were, implicitly if not openly doubted at the start of this thread because of his seeming involvement in a certain political movement? A few people have already doubted here if it's wise to take any firm position at all, considering the level of deception and historical evidence of lunatics running, at times, if not permanently, the asylum. And just claiming it's "different this time" has never been really substantiated. It's always different this time because now we're interested, now we suddenly have some stake in the game while not being that interested before?

If the claim is "old Kevin has lost his good mind" then perhaps this should be substantiated further instead of just some careful distancing? From the descriptions so far it almost sounds as symptoms of (slowly worsening) paranoid schizophrenia. It's typical establishment after all to "rationally" analyse personality issues (like with Trump's "narcissism"). And perhaps people also want to know how a logical philosophical mind could arrive at such a dark, politicized, activist position (assuming this actually happened).

One of the main drivers for right-wing "nuttiness" has always been the reaction to snooty, condescending, over-intellectual, truncated fact-obsessed reasoning of left, liberal advocates. Some implication of some universal decency, some cosmic truth about human values, equality, development, evolution, etc, which always failed to materialize in each and every larger scale progressive project rolled out against great cost. It's almost the Dionysian madness versus Apollonian dementia!
And, of course, Flynn has resigned. Watch that space.
Everyone's a political sooth sayer nowadays ;-) But to me it seems he's just the first victim of the massive de-legitimization effort, charged basically for being too eager to start détente with Russia. And in what way he'd be open for blackmail? After making a rather ambiguous statement (according to people who have seen the transcript) about the sanctions as response to what basically looks like promoted conspiracy theory about Russia infiltrating the minds of voters?

What bugs me is the tendency to embrace mainstream idiocy just so one can easier attack all the alternative idiocy. For that reason alone thinkers, in my view, should stay out of politics altogether. Every step one wades further into it, it become dirtier and sillier. My own political statements serve only one goal: to show how complex, tricky and conflicting even the simplest political "truths" can turn out to be when examined.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Curious thing that people have decided to question David's philosophic credentials on the basis of his seeming involvement in the realm of politics - by people arguing every nuance of it and throwing links to political stories around like confetti. Curious thing.
One could argue that David is doing this very thing in regards to Kevin with this thread.
No, one could not, as it happens. One might assert it, but arguing it would be rather difficult.
Russell makes actually a fine observation which should not be obscured by a flat out assertion about it not being an argument. Not without coming with some counter arguments yourself, Dan! Is it in doubt that Kevin's current philosophic credentials were, implicitly if not openly doubted at the start of this thread because of his seeming involvement in a certain political movement?
Sorry, Diebert, but this level [lack] of comprehension from you cannot be accidental. When did you guys stop being able to read? Russell is totally wrong because the issue is not about involvement in politics, per se, but an alignment with a very, VERY specific socio-political ideology and agenda. I swear, it's as though you and Jup don't want to see this specificity.

Did you see Stephen Miller's performance over the weekend? If not, here's a sample:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHusZDjesr4

That's a senior White House advisor.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:Russell is totally wrong because the issue is not about involvement in politics, per se, but an alignment with a very, VERY specific socio-political ideology and agenda.
The "alt right" has no fixed meaning and quite a few people adopting that label are reveling in Hillary's loss rather than Trump's win.

So far David's argument has been that Trump and Putin are madmen who will implement or have implemented a global police state, therefore only a lunatic or fascist can show any support for them. And people who challenge one-sided criticism are apparently cynical and fatalistic.

There is no clarity here, which is most likely the reason for Kevin's silence. If my experience of exchanging youtube pms with Kevin is anything to go by, he doesn't like responding to vague ideas and arguments that are driven by emotion.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

That's so obvious a strawman, Jup, that you should be embarrassed by it. I'm beginning to think that anyone who reads Breitbart loses their mind to some degree.

Did you see Stephen Miller's 'performance' over the weekend? If so, were you not disturbed by it?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:That's so obvious a strawman, Jup, that you should be embarrassed by it. I'm beginning to think that anyone who reads Breitbart loses their mind to some degree.
I was pointing out that the "alt right" can mean a variety of things. Not all people currently embracing that label believe that the US should be a nation of WASP men slaving away in offices or factories to support consumption-crazed model WASP housewives and their larvae.
Did you see Stephen Miller's 'performance' over the weekend? If so, were you not disturbed by it?
Yes, and found it amusing. However, Trump *still* isn't doing or planning on doing anything that others in the recent past haven't done. If you think otherwise, prove it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote: Russell is totally wrong because the issue is not about involvement in politics, per se, but an alignment with a very, VERY specific socio-political ideology and agenda.
Yes, I wrote therefore "involvement in a certain political movement". And arguing against it as a whole like you are doing again by mentioning the ideology and agenda, is just another specific political act. You are not suddenly now on some neutral, objective political platform. It's different when looking at specific false claims or people inside the administration. That's business as usual as far as I'm concerned.

You cannot go around and convert all you and Kevin wrote on absolute truth, Buddhism, enlightenment and turn it into some automatic opinions on race, nationalism, multi-cultural idea, homosexuality, the Jews or some superior fact-finding ability. It just doesn't work that way! And if you think it does, I believe you might have wavered a bit from its original intent. It's like building a Church on the foundation of Gospel verses. Managing states, governing people is an inherently dirty and complex business. It might even have little to do with "truth", despite the insistence of liberal ideology. Or humanitarian plight for that matter. This is something you seem to be morally attached to Dan? That Trump hurts your senses? That he offends your morality, that you find it painful that a bunch on nonsense is broadcast openly as political truths? Welcome to my world, Dan. This is exactly how I'm regarding the world of politics for quite a while. Trump just makes clear it was never about the reasonable, proper thing in the first place. It always was about ambitions of people, theories on economy, secrets, petty feelings and so on. That's why I'm unfazed by this development as such. Nor do I see a problem if a wise man goes along with one social idea or another (although I would never recommend it and will challenge it).

David might fear his work becomes associated with the alt-right but I'd worry more his radical thought would be associated with the New York Times :-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

Reasoning is the faculty of consciousness that tenses up when it senses the presence of contradiction. Upon engagement of reasoning, two things happen: 1, Wisdom: Consciousness acknowledges the truth that contradiction is an illusion and reasons only in accordance with this truth (it remains in the realm of philosophical reasoning) or 2, Ignorance: Consciousness forgets the truth that contradiction is an illusion and falls into the trap of fighting contradictions as if they are real (it leaves the realm of philosophical reasoning). What I see in this thread is a tasting of #1 and a gorging-on of #2.

Always good to be reminded of how easy it is to fall into delusion.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert,

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Atheists—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Bush Snr once said that atheists ought not be considered citizens. This mob are far, far worse than he ever was. It's not about morality, it's about the existential threat to facets of civilisation that ought matter to - yes, even detached philosophers - if only for purely pragmatic reasons.

The 'alt-right' - in any form - or Breitbart, as a remedy to the ills of intersectional feminism is, for me, a dangerously fatuous notion. Yet, many are climbing aboard this train of thought. I'm not interested in the moral dimensions of it, only the pragmatic.

And, and while we're busy suggesting that this apparent interest in 'politics' is highly unphilosophic, how does this relate to Kevin's own ventures? What is it you think he fears from feminism or the SJW movement such that he's decided to essentially go to war with it? What threat does the SJW movement pose to Truth that any other aspect of politics (and it is politics) does not?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

And to be very clear, I'm perfectly well aware of the cesspit that is politics - across the spectrum of it. But I refuse to indulge in what I'm seeing as the expression of broad false equivalence. The idea that it's 'all equally bad' I find to be foolish.

While it is true that the US has long since been, in certain respects, fascistic in nature, it's hard to deny that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) has caused fascism to be established in law. For me the long term implications of that are such that some engagement with the political might be necessary to halt the march of socio-political constructs that are utterly deleterious to the advancement of freedom and thought.

Oh, and there's a form of Trumpism right here in Australia. It's called One Nation. A far right party led by a red-head. Maybe it's hair and skin colour that we need to fear after all :)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:It's not about morality, it's about the existential threat to facets of civilisation that ought matter to - yes, even detached philosophers - if only for purely pragmatic reasons.
So when have you talked about resource depletion, massive debt-fuelled credit expansion, cheap labour in third world countries supporting first world living standards etc.? What you and David are doing is what people always do when faced with problems they don't understand, which is to either find or invent a more easily identifiable, blamable and fixable problem/s. Like a schoolboy the day before an examination trying to seduce a camwhore on the internet.

Trump is 70 years old. No fascist, autocrat or monarch has ever achieved anything if they came to power at that age. It is eminently clear that Trump has no idea what he is doing and no desire to follow through on any of his campaign promises except the Wall + restricting immigration. His administration will be run by others, which actually every President's is to a greater or lesser extent.

On the other hand, the Michael Flynn thing looks very interesting, so we may well get to see the record for shortest presidential term being set in the near future.
And, and while we're busy suggesting that this apparent interest in 'politics' is highly unphilosophic, how does this relate to Kevin's own ventures? What is it you think he fears from feminism or the SJW movement such that he's decided to essentially go to war with it? What threat does the SJW movement pose to Truth that any other aspect of politics (and it is politics) does not?
Perhaps he sees it as an egregious outbreak of feminine thinking which must be contrasted to the nearest and most accessible example of masculine thinking? But all of this is speculation because he still hasn't responded.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:...Then they came for the Atheists—and there was no one left to speak for me."
This is the thing Dan, when they actually came, for example for the Jews and other undesirables it happened mainly because everyone was for years very distracted fearing other things: communist influence and take-overs, international capitalist banks plotting to destroy nations and freedoms, while the real rot was not even recognized but by a few ("Wir haben es nicht gewußt" -- the population claimed after the fact). This is a main historical theme.

My point already stated earlier is that fear and paranoia are very old mechanisms. But when bad things really start to happen, it's rarely what people were expecting. It could all grow undisturbed after all, thriving in the smug, self-righteous dark.
it's about the existential threat to facets of civilisation that ought matter to - yes, even detached philosophers - if only for purely pragmatic reasons.
But then again, even if so, notable philosophers, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, the folks behind the Gospels, Chinese wisdom and so on, flourished in relatively repressive societies with little freedom. Everything had to be done through quite convoluted ways. It didn't stop them. Even better, we still know much of their writings. And there's no indication anything worthwhile written in this age of personal freedoms would be even be noticed to the same extent. It's all more like a sea of indifference and overproduction now. In fifty years the whole of GF production probably is forgotten no matter the amount of "pragmatic freedom" kept intact. It's really something you need to consider in my opinion. Are you sure wisdom prospers in the circumstances you seem to prefer? What kind of society would facilitate that "infinite capacity for giving pain"? It's not an easy question, it's loaded with all kinds of traps but I need to ask.
For me the long term implications of that are such that some engagement with the political might be necessary to halt the march of socio-political constructs that are utterly deleterious to the advancement of freedom and thought.
Perhaps your fear is justified but why not examine if your target perhaps is not? Just today I was reading some comments from "reasonable", well known journalists on the latest developments around Flynn:
  • Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.
-- Eli Lake - Bloomberg
  • 1) Trump presidency is dangerous.
    2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected Govt is dangerous.

    One can cogently believe both.
-- Glenn Greenwald
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

1) Trump presidency is dangerous.
2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected Govt is dangerous.

One can cogently believe both.
I would agree with that statement. I would also argue it doesn't apply to Flynn. Examine the timeline: http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... a-timeline

Russia has been an issue for months now. Trump was not President when this Flynn drama began to emerge. Security agencies are in a tough spot in circumstances like this. They cannot approach an outgoing administration because they have no ability to act. They cannot approach an incoming administration because they have no willingness to act. However, they can't just let seditious behaviour sit there, especially when Congressional investigations are already under way over the issue of longer term contact between Flynn, Trump's campaign and Russia.

The question is whether the actions of security agencies in this matter - whatever the specifics of that - constitute anything resembling an 'abuse' of their powers or whether one might more reasonably characterise them, given all circumstances, as an expression of their statutory obligations.

Whichever side of that 'argument' you come down on, you'd have to agree this is pretty serious stuff. I don't see Flynn being the only casualty here. Was Pence actually lied to or is he being protected? Was Spicer lied to - actually, Spicer is paid to lie his arse off every day so I don't suppose it matters in his case ....
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv,
It is eminently clear that Trump has no idea what he is doing and no desire to follow through on any of his campaign promises except the Wall + restricting immigration.
It has been eminently clear since the very beginning of his political career that he has no what idea what he is doing. His speech patterns are incoherent, his views on the world at large are blatantly ignorant, even his style of campaigning reeked of chaos and incompetence. And yet none of this harmed him politically. It actually made him more popular.

As I say, people keep on underestimating him. All throughout the campaign they laughed at him, calling him a buffoon. No one gave him a chance of even making it though the early rounds of primaries and yet here he is 18 months later, President of the United States.

The fact that he has no idea what he is doing only serves to underlie the concerns I have about him. If you recall, I wrote in my opening post:
  • There is no doubt in my mind that Trump is deliberately riding roughshod over the US Constitution and methodically trying to shut down all democratic institutions in an attempt to grab absolute power for himself. I know this because it is clear to me that he does not know how to operate in any other way. He has no capacity to govern in a normal, sensible manner. The only thing he knows is to keep sowing chaos, keep taking advantage of the resulting mayhem and keep expanding his power until he can do it no more.
It is precisely because Trump has no capacity to govern in a normal, sensible manner that he poses a grave danger to democracy in the US, and to international stability. If you cannot govern through competence, then you can only do it through chaos and fear.

Given this, the next few months are going to be boom-or-bust for Trump. Because of his overriding incompetence in almost all areas, he will have no choice but to move quickly to grab absolute power for himself. If he doesn't, he will be a goner. The longer he leaves it, the more his incompetence will undermine his presidency. His only real life-line out of this scenario is to ramp up the anti-immigration/anti-Muslim rhetoric and generate as much chaos and fear as he can surrounding it, and then use this turmoil to affect a take-over.

This relates to the link that Dan posted a couple of days ago:
Dan: Did you see Stephen Miller's performance over the weekend? If not, here's a sample:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHusZDjesr4

That's a senior White House advisor.
From the we-are-not-bothering-to conceal-it-anymore fascist rhetoric here, you can tell that Trump is just positively itching to declare a national state of emergency or some such thing. That is going to be the key to his ascension.

It is informative to go back to the travel ban that Trump and Bannon initiated a couple of weeks ago. The most interesting thing about it is that it confined itself to seven nations who, although they were all Muslim-majority nations, have not actually contributed to any terrorists attacks on US soil since 1980, while a number of countries that have contributed to such terrorism (particularly 9/11) or are known terrorists hot spots - e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan - were conspicuously left off the list.

What was the purpose of this exceedingly odd decision? The liberal establishment predictably made a big fuss about it and claimed that Trump was trying to protect his own overseas business interests, but I think there was a darker agenda involved. By engaging in a blatantly provocative manner towards Muslims in initiating the ban in the first place and by leaving the back door open, as it were, for those other countries with known terrorist-links, Trump and Bannon are hoping that some Islamic terrorists will become so riled up that they will attempt an attack in America somewhere. If and when an attack does occur, as it surely will at some point in the future, Trump will immediately claim the high ground. He will say, “See, I told you the courts were soft. I told you there was an emergency, but you didn’t believe me. This is why I need to take control of the situation. Only I can fix it. Only I can make you safe.” In this way, another big leap towards authoritarian rule is made.

And there will probably be little resistance. As GW Bush's trajectory showed in the aftermath of 9/11, people quickly rally around even the most ridiculed of leaders when there seems to be a national emergency involved. Most people are ruled by ignorance and fear; they won't discern Trump's subterfuge and they will huddle around him like frightened little sheep. And those who are more intelligent and should know better, they will probably still be in denial.

Jup: Trump is 70 years old. No fascist, autocrat or monarch has ever achieved anything if they came to power at that age.
Trump has been steadily overturning expectations and defying precedents as though they were nothing. His age is not an issue.

Some people have suggested to me that it would be great if Trump had a heart attack and died. He is, after all, grossly overweight and eats poorly. While that seems delightful at first glance, I fear that it would only excite the fevered imaginations of the far right nut jobs. You can imagine all the conspiracy theories that would go around. Some people would blame the Clintons. Others would think that Obongo had organized a hit job in cahoots with the CIA. It would keep Fox and Breitbart and all those other joke sites in business for many more years. It would be a gold mine for them.

On the flip side, Kevin would be in hog’s heaven. He could trawl through endless third rate sites and watch endless third rate videos that claim to have irrefutable proof that his death certificate was forged. It would keep him harmlessly occupied for years.

No, Trump dying wouldn't solve anything. For any good to come out of this whole fiasco, the puss needs to be thoroughly lanced.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Trump is a disaster, and Kevin's support of him makes me wonder if Kevin has gone mad. The notion that Trump will drive out the feminine does not fly with me because I see precious little about Trump that this forum would call masculine. I see greed, self-absorption. and an undisciplined temperament.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

DQ: It is easy to spread chaos, much harder to impose order, and even harder to actualize an ideal. I guess my problem is that I still believe in a universal ideal - namely, the rational, global individual beyond all race and ethnicity. Such an ideal seems to have lost all credibility in the world today, and everyone is crawling back to their tribal groups, and now we are entering a kind of neo-nationalistic era. I’m just going to have to accept this reality, I guess.

DvR: It might be interesting to examine the rational, global individual beyond race and ethnicity. Some kind of "Übermensch ideal"? It was clearly one of the struggles of Nietzsche to define it in the face of German low brow nationalism. But I don't think the Lockean ideal is something he had in mind either. Or what he called "Chinesedom".
DQ: I was thinking more along the lines of a fully-enlightened Buddha. A person without any delusions. That is what this forum is all about, isn't it?
Isn't a Buddha of a higher consciousness than one who is rational and above all race and ethnicity? Is not a Buddha one who has full comprehension of the ultimate nature of reality and teaches this truth and only this truth? How would such an individual possibly be an effective leader of a world that for the most part would consider his teachings that of a lunatic?

It seems to me as if you equate the human ideal of The Rational Man as being the highest ideal of Buddhahood. It is my experience that rational thinking guides one to comprehension of emptiness and has the power to purify the restless spirit of those things that prevent such comprehension (greed, aversion and ignorance) but that comprehension of emptiness is not the actualization of rational thinking. Yes? No?
Locked