Statement about Solway and Trump

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: Can Buddhas have desires? What else can they have? Do Buddhas seek particular outcomes? What else can they do? 

Take care not to fall into "emptiness syndrome". Focusing on emptiness is important, but it becomes a problem if you start mistaking vacuity for reality.

What is needed first is my definition of a Buddha so we can ascertain whether or not we have like definitions. My definition of a Buddha is a realized Self of what is absolute, real, permanent and eternal and what is relative, illusory, impermanent and temporal and that attachment to the latter causes suffering and awareness of the former ends suffering.

Also that everyone in the world suffers from clinging to the relative illusory in varying degrees of realization of the absolute real. Because of this, as you say, a Buddha has no choice but to have desires and to seek particular outcomes. However, I put forward that the desires of a Buddha and those of a worldly person are in direct contrast with one another. Where a Buddha desires only the enlightenment of all sentient beings of the absolute ultimate reality so clinging to the illusory relative can be ended, the worldly person’s desires are of clinging to (attachment to) the illusory relative. What I see in this thread is mostly of the latter type of desire. So no, I would not say that either political theorizing or theorizing about the motives of another person reflects the desire of an enlightened Buddha.

While I understand the aspiring Buddha sometimes forgets his task to enlighten the world to the eternal and absolute (or perhaps becomes bored with his task and falls back into the more captivating ‘reality’ world of relativity clinging and what is more captivating than the relativity banquet of politics?) this forum is about ultimate reality, is it not? I have always thought that the failure to declare this forum as a Buddhist board was an oversight, as clearly you, Dan and Kevin are heavily invested in the Buddhist path to enlightenment. Perhaps if identifying with Buddhism was instituted, there would be more focus on the Buddha ideal, opening the board up to more spiritual ‘meat’ vis a vis enlightened intellectual engagement.

While I appreciate your concern with regards to the degree to which I focus on emptiness, I hope you realize now that it is unfounded. Rather than a vacuity, I see lots of room to discuss the way to end the suffering of relativity addiction.

[jupiviv]

I think I have said all I can say on the subject of Trump vs the liberal establishment/etc. At least within the context of the opening post. Any more would venture too far into mere politics/worldly affairs, which I and others already have.

But I wish to point out some very alarming things I have noticed over the past weeks in the behaviour of David and Dan. David provided no sources for the claims he made about Kevin despite my repeated requests for such, while arguing with both myself and Diebert with a level of obstreperousness in which I did not believe him to even be capable of indulging. Meanwhile, Dan's approach was to churn out snarky, dismissive one-liners and insult Trump. I even sent Dan a pm about this last week or so, thinking he would be willing to elucidate his position in private, but I haven't yet received any response.

Some honest self-evaluation from these self-proclaimed arhats would be appreciated.

[Dan Rowden]

Jup,

Your request for clarification didn't make any real sense to me. I've written over 1600 words on this subject and that is probably 1500 more than ought be necessary.

'insult Trump' - are you joking? The evidence that Trump is batshit - and not a political liar, but a pathological one - is utterly overwhelming. He shows every single criteria trait of NPD, an incurable, progressive and certainly in his case untreatable disorder. The regime he's putting in place is Xian Fascist Kleptocracy writ large. This is also utterly obvious. That this administration and this POTUS is uniquely dangerous to society, whatever flaws we might all be able to point to with regard to that, is also, to me, based on all the evidence spread before us, utterly obvious.

In truth there is no debate to be had. There is only perspective. Yours is different. So be it. I regard your perspective to be one you've simply chosen to adopt rather than one built from that evidence, or perhaps it's simply that we are interpreting that same evidence through different filters. Whatever the case, further 'debate' seems pointless to me.

I'm not as 'Armageddon-ish' as David but I do regard the threat to liberal democracy (with its flaws duly conceded) by this mob of shites to be unique in its potential. The portents are all there. More than that, many of the signs have already become reality.

[jupiviv]

The evidence that Trump is batshit - and not a political liar, but a pathological one - is utterly overwhelming. He shows every single criteria trait of NPD, an incurable, progressive and certainly in his case untreatable disorder.

This is what I'm talking about! You haven't met Trump, yet feel qualified to diagnose him. If the evidence is so overwhelming then cite some of it; fragments from his recent speech, for example.

In truth there is no debate to be had. There is only perspective. Yours is different. So be it. I regard your perspective to be one you've simply chosen to adopt rather than one built from that evidence, or perhaps it's simply that we are interpreting that same evidence through different filters. Whatever the case, further 'debate' seems pointless to me.

The real debate to be had concerns your, and David's, irrational reactions to this phenomenon.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It should be no surprise I agree with Jupiviv here. The thread has become a statement about Rowden and Quinn, as well.

Let it then be put on record in the strongest possible terms that this forum and theabsolute.net in general, as far as they have any view on political developments at all, do not necessarily share these "new-found" darker views of co-administrators Rowden & Quinn on webmaster Kevin Solway and the supposed threat of the Trump administration or any Russians to the freedoms or comforts of Western society. These views when presented as fact should be rejected based on common-sense rationality as well as the many historical and economical realities of our society. On top of that, it's not justifiable from any higher, philosophical view, to turn the main forum into a soap box for disagreements on political views or ideas on how politicans should present themselves to the world no matter how "wrong" they are perceived as.

Furthermore, it's not reasonable to make claims without supplying evidence for example that the cabinet Trump has put in place would have anything to do with fascism, treason, fraud or malice. To maintain it does, seems closer to being under the spell of some blind ideology or old wives gossip. It should be strongly rejected as this forum is about rationality, caution with empirical claims and a distrust of the ability of emotions to dictate thoughts of the masses, enabled by the process of mass media.

[Dan Rowden]

The real debate to be had concerns your, and David's, irrational reactions to this phenomenon.

By all means have that debate. It would certainly be entertaining, if not elucidating.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As for that debate, I started one already in PM with Jupiviv and I'll organize those thoughts again in a rather long kick-off post here. But I think it would be good to separate this from discussions around the Trump phenomenon itself or American politics, for which I just started a new thread The Trump Derangement Syndrome: rational or irrational?. But here I'd like to focus on the issue as raised by Jupiviv earlier, the one about the rationality of Dan's and David's specific reactions in this thread, or Kevin's adventures on the internet and how justifiable they are considering the nature of the philosophy as it's usually discussed here. The following is the kick-off point as expressed by Jupiviv earlier in this thread.

I think I have said all I can say on the subject of Trump vs the liberal establishment/etc. At least within the context of the opening post. Any more would venture too far into mere politics/worldly affairs, which I and others already have.

But I wish to point out some very alarming things I have noticed over the past weeks in the behavior of David and Dan. David provided no sources for the claims he made about Kevin despite my repeated requests for such, while arguing with both myself and Diebert with a level of obstreperousness in which I did not believe him to even be capable of indulging. Meanwhile, Dan's approach was to churn out snarly, dismissive one-liners and insult Trump. I even sent Dan a pm about this last week or so, thinking he would be willing to elucidate his position in private, but I haven't yet received any response.

Some honest self-evaluation from these self-proclaimed arhats would be appreciated.

My take on this consisted so far of three possible scenarios to examine:

1. David, Dan and Kevin have not fundamentally changed but reveal their existing politics or ideas on society for the first time so openly and centrally. But the relative lack of in-depth discussion on social issues (beyond femininity) might have given the impression they were not interested before or were just deeply opposed to any political or ideological attempt to "solve" issues stemming from ignorance on suffering, the nature of reality and masculinity. Either way, the question is here about what is required, like sufficient intellectual development or certain moral positions, any preference on how society should be ordererd, to start addressing any "errors" or deception at the political or economical level.

2. Enlightenment correspondences with a peak in a man's life lasting perhaps with maximum of lets say 17 years with perhaps in there one really intense productive peak of a few years. And after that time, well, it might slow down gracefully or just *clunk* it becomes a farce, a dead memory of what was earlier living and singing. Then it has died, needs to die or just collapses one way or another, possibly into silliness, a simulacrum of its former light. Perhaps shooting oneself in the heart is not that crazy after all? The alternative is dabbling in the political realm, supporting one or opposing the other, something trying to re-energize a philosophy once applied with such urgency and immediacy, addressing fundamental issues of human kind instead of targeting some particular idiocy over the other.

3. Trump embodies indeed the peak of femininity and irrationality of Western society and we should indeed reject his whole project of change as delusional and start reading the NYT more to inform ourselves of what's really going on in the world. And the only reason to support Trump is the seething anger inside us, this need to oppose and challenge the world, which is being lived out by the Donald in what is to many an ugly, self-centered way. Trump as dysfunctional father. No wonder they all hate him! Unless one is dysfunctional already.

The reason this topic is touching deeper philosophical issues are the possibly conflicting elements present. For example this whole thread appears to be started as an attempt to distance Dan's and David's own philosophical projects from Kevin's current views on society and politics. But it would not make sense to start such denouncement if there's no clear, well defined clash between one and the other. But this clash needs to be addressed more convincingly thinking of what Quinn once wrote: "whatever a Buddha decided to do - rape babies, steal, murder, undermine society, etc - it wouldn't be delusional. A Buddha is incapable of delusion, by definition". Or: "the perfect willingness to behave in a morally reprehensible manner if needs be". Meaning, how would one really know if Kevin, or even Trump, is acting delusional and not intentionally and wise like some Buddha?

Besides that, the idea that the "deluded" society can be your friend as some firewall against Trump seems philosophically a "girly" thing to say: inconsistent, weak looking. If there's any social message to any masculine philosophy, at the least one would expect something along the lines Nietzsche's call on "reevaluating all values". Or at least less of a joining of the mainstream high pitch screaming, simply because it's mainstream. One always looks to distance oneself from the reaction of the masses since how much chance is it that some rational idea is behind a majority led pitch fork crowd?

As contrast I think I can see how Kevin might have arrived, as consequence of his thinking about the world and psychology, at supporting some of the alt right material and thinking. The question remains if he completely submitted to it or just sees the potential. Big difference!

But so far we have the following claimed concerns, without any example given, about Kevin's:
- obsession over gamergate
- comments to DQ about Obama and Clinton
- white, male supremacist support (Dan mentioned that)
- joylessness and anger
- sounding "traumatized"
- dark, angry and vindictive websites he'd be visiting

It would help if we can have more concrete reasoning here and how it would relate to the capacity of reason.

Another underlying question which came up in my discussion with Jupiviv was if we're now discussing elements of a philosophy risen out of life style made possible by a liberal, socialist leaning society as opposed to a philosophy hardened by real life experiences with the average state of mind within the so-called progressive Western world, a philosophy exposed and tuned by experiences in jobs, exposure to academic thought, public life and involvement into the larger society beyond the confines of a relatively sheltered place or the coloured outlook a holiday trip usually provides. In other words: how much of Dan of David's thought has become "elitist"?

[Santiago Odo]

David Quinn:

Everything he has done since has only added weight to this conclusion. 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. And when he succeeds in going all the way and securing absolute power over America, it won’t stop there. He will continue expanding ever outwards.

Hello there David. There is an angle that perhaps you are not considering. I think it should be a starting point: To understand the actual power-structure operating in the US one must hold in one's mind the idea, the fact, of the 'Deep State'. The Deep State is a set or constellation of interests that controls a great deal while remaining invisible. In this sense it is para-governmental.

If one were to start from a realistic position one would have to carefully define just how power functions in the US (and in many political systems now), one would immediately be brought face to face with the fact that it is this invisible-semi-visible structure which has, and which does, 'ride roughshod over the Constitution'. To understand what is currently happening in the US now one would need to begin to define what happens in a polity when it comes to a point of 'constitutional crisis'. The constitutional crisis is one that is very complex but certainly, and obviously, has to do with immense conflicts between various power-groups and power-concentrations.

It might be said, and it does seem possible to me that, despite blemishes and many genuinely strange characteristics, that Trump as a political phenomenon represents something, hard to say what exactly, that is threatening to the existent political systems. Trump is not so much the crisis himself, but the crisis is profound reaction occurring within the systems itself in its reaction to Trump and also something he represents. If Trump, even minimally, represents a 'true conservatism' and resetablishment of principles, even if he is just a weak shadow, that might be seen as a 'good' thing.

The system seems to give evidence of a great deal of inner turbulance. The intelligence agencies, where 'deep state' power must certainly be located, seem to be going through convolutions. Very back room, very submerged. Yet without an insider's perspective --- someone with real experience in the halls of power --- how can any average person understand what is going on?

A comment or two on Kevin's involvement in Alt-Right political ideas and themes (if indeed he would define it as such and would accept David Quinn's description): If he has been familiarizing himself with the same 'Alt-Right' and Nouvelle Droite ideas as I have, I would say that this is a commendable focus. The French Nouvelle Droite is very very interesting and has a great deal to offer anyone looking around for a solid base in ideas and upon which to construct.

I would venture to suggest that David Quinn's postings are a manifestation of a sort of reaction that one notices across the board as it pertains to left-leaning criticism. Again, the philosophical base of the Nouvelle Droite is both interesting and sound, and the degree that the American Alt-Right nourishes itself from those founts, is in my view a sign of progress. But it must be clearly stated, and thus understood, that Trump himself has next to no comprehension of the deeper dimensions in the Alt-Right/Nouvelle Droite philosophy. Steva Bannon however very well might. Yet even Bannon must be seen for what he is: one who is compromised by the system of wealth and ownership. However, and as some may have read, Bannon is said to have read widely all sorts of different material, including Hindu philosophy and even 'traditionalist' works by Julian Evola. I have no idea what it means for his political and existential outlook, yet it is interesting just of itself. Bannon is said to have a wide-ranging intellectual interest.

There is certainly one very important thing that needs to be brought out when there is discussion of the radical alt-right, which will show itself as having links to the former and purged traditional American ultra-right (the common term). There is no doubt at all that it has a strong nativist element and that there is an aspect of it that would be called 'racist' or at least 'racialist'. This is 'white identitarianism' and it is, indeed it is, a radical set of ideas which most certainly challenges the liberal present. Having researched in some depth the foundations of this identitarianim I have come to see that it is not at all 'irrational' and thus it is coherant, intelligent and discussable.

European radical identitarianism, were it to get off the ground, could in my view be a positive movement within (white) culture, but the gap between those who have made this intellectual move to a European identitarian position, and those who (like David Quinn it would seem) view racialism and a focus on race, culture and identity as severe problems, or as evil, is certainly great. But in and of itself it is a very good and necessary thing. The reasons can be explained.

I have this thought: What interests me in Kevin Solway's activity, and even in David Quinn's critique, is that both angles represent an engagement with the world. It occurs to me that, no matter what, and no matter who --- except perhaps the really renounced sage (if such exists) who we would never hear about anyway! --- that men are called to 1) hone their consciousness and 'brighten' it and strengthen it to 2) engage in one way of other with *the world*. Someone might say 'It is all futile. It is futile now and has always been futile!' and yet it is a function of active, spiritual consciousness that ideas mould the world. It seems to me that these two persons demonstrate that they have engagements in the world and commitments as well.

Finally, when one looks back into the history of the US, and when one then focuses on Donald Trump, one notices that Trump is truly 100% American. He is not so much a freak who has popped up out of nowhere but rather just one of many genuine manifestations. Even when one considers American presidents and their neuroses and obsessions he is not so far out of the ballpark.

It is a false-idea, and a paranoid notion, that Trump could within the context of American politics 'take over' and assert himself as a dictator. However, though it is unlikely that it will happen, if there were to be a coup d'etat in the US it would be carried out by a paramilitary/security state/deep state force or configuration. If such a thing were to happen --- I suppose it must be said that 'anything is possible' --- it would be the Washington Establishment, the Deep State, the Intelligence Apparatus in conjunction with the most powerful financial interests that would carry it out. And what would they 'install'? That is a difficult question to answer of course but I would suggest they would install a man as willing to serve the power structure as Barach Obama. That gives you an indication, I think, of what sort of power-structure actually does have and hold power.

---GB (AJ)

[David Quinn]

I’m sure the huckster Trump and his deluded supporters can always rustle up a bunch of endorsements from all kinds of people in whatever fields, but they will always be third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind. The bottom line is, you would have to be sick in the head to support a leader who so obviously dwells incoherently in a fact-free environment. Or greedy, like his billionaire fossil-fuel mates. Or filled with fear and hate, like much of white America.

In my view it's a sickness to pretend political and social reality over the last decades has been something way different to that, not withstanding the usual ups and downs. And to dismiss some of the supportive people as "third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind" is just akin to closing your eyes and singing "nananana". Which is of course exactly the way Trump got into power in the first place! What I think you need to realize is that there's actually support for Trump at many levels and dismissing (repressing) it like you do won't change that reality. Instead, it's better to wake up to it and try to understand what's going on.

I’m not sure that it is possible for anyone to fully understand what is going on - at least not at the moment. The whole fiasco is continuing to unfold as we speak and there are still so many variables at play. And the fan base that Trump has attracted is extremely disparate and eclectic; it is loosely composed of many different subgroups who are normally at odds with each other, all of which makes pinning down its real character a real challenge.

How much of the pro-Trump movement is driven by a primal revolt against modern life, for example? Are people rebelling against modern life altogether? How much change do they actually want? This hasn't been defined in any way. Is the plan to rewind society back to the 1950s? Or even further, back to the 1860s? Or even the 1600s? Exactly how much of the liberal establishment, an edifice heroically put together by courageous people of the progressive movement over the past few centuries, do people want to dismantle?

As I wrote to Kevin late last year:

• A major concern that I have is that no one has really defined how much change Trump has been given permission to do. He was elected as a change agent, to “drain the swamp”, to “smash the Washington elite”, etc, but what does this actually mean? Does it simply mean replacing a few people and a few rules to make things run better? Or does it mean ripping up the Constitution and starting again? There doesn't seem to be any consensus.
  
  I know what Trump wants to do. He doesn’t give a stuff about the Constitution, nor about the well-being of normal citizens in general. He only cares about his own power and wealth, and being the centre of attention. He won’t be the one putting boundaries upon himself, so who will? Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have been hijacked (in different ways), and at the moment both can only offer token resistance. The serious media is being hamstrung because of the new political correctness which deems that they are all liars. So who is going to check him? This is deeply troubling to me.

If I look at Trump from the perspective of his fan base in a bid to determine what he has to offer, I can see that he has two positive qualities - one of them real, the other illusory. The first quality is that he knows how to sow chaos. It is something he excels at. It’s in his DNA. He does it all the time, both personally and professionally, which makes him well-suited to being an instigator of change. For many Trump supporters, he is a big beautiful ball of chaos and throwing him into Washington and wreaking havoc everywhere has been a great delight.

My question is: How much change is too much change? When is enough enough? What is the end game? How are these forces which are being unleashed going to be contained? Will it all spiral out of control? People seem to have this idea that Trump can be reigned in at a moment's notice. We'll just let him blow up the place for a bit and then pull the plug on him when the time is right. That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

There are further questions: How real is this desire for change? Are people really wanting to dismantle modern life? Or are we simply being befuddled by a lot of smoke and mirrors whipped up by social media trolls, 4chan malcontents, propaganda bots, Russian operatives, jaded intellectuals, mob hysteria, etc? Have people's normal fears and gripes about life been whipped together into a perfect storm, thus creating the illusion of a movement that seems much larger than it really is?

This relates to the second quality that Trump possesses - namely, his ability to create the perception that he is a Saviour. He presents himself as the strong man, the authoritative leader, who will protect everyone from the chaos and fear that is suddenly all around us (which he is largely sowing). It's all an illusion, of course, and yet so many people are willing to suspend disbelief and run with it. A massive personality cult has thus been created, wherein Trump has gathered millions of followers who worship him and automatically believe anything that he says or does, even when they are demonstrable lies. What is going to happen when Trump meets his demise and the personality cult comes to an end? Will the current rebellion be sustained? Or will most of it dissipate? I don't think anyone has the answers to these questions.

The mainstream is still believing they are mainstream. But simply based on size and reach, the designated "fake" media are market leaders already (Fox, RT, Daily News). Based on quality, there is also a large question mark about the relevancy of mainstream reporting, the choice of topics, the lack of deep investigation and access to "secret" flows of data. Increasingly all media are in the same boat.

Almost the enemy of the people.

You're very good in lumping things together. What I said is rather established opinion amongst a broad collection of investigative journalists of some standing, some known authors on the topic and also simply based on statistics and various recent polls. It's just too easy to throw it under the Trump train just because you are so impressed by the New York Times. This might be overly harsh but it seems that at times during these discussions you are in opposition against any serious critique, any fundamental but oppositional thought on society or media "As it is". It's like you want to derail any hint of possibility that there's something deeply wrong or conflicted with Western society and that Trump might just be our own ugly face staring back at us, marking our own hypocrisy and make-belief world that "we are so different".

That is a very distorted picture you have of Western society. Very extreme. Very dark. Anyone would think that your life over there in the Netherlands was a nightmare, one that seemingly has to be torn down as soon as possible.

When I see Trump, I don’t see a mirror image of Western society. I simply see someone who embodies some of the very worse traits of the human race - in particular, ignorance, banality, hedonism, deception, narcissism, and cruelty. I don’t see any wisdom in him, nor any structured thought, nor any love of knowledge, nor any noble aims. He occupies the very dregs of Western society. He is as low as low can go.

So if it is a choice between Western society and Trump, then of course I am going to choose Western society. It is not a tough choice. I'm not insane. I don't like all of Western society, but that is no reason to overthrow the whole system in favour of a personality/movement that is clearly far more vile.

The reason this topic is touching deeper philosophical issues are the possibly conflicting elements present. For example this whole thread appears to be started as an attempt to distance Dan's and David's own philosophical projects from Kevin's current views on society and politics. But it would not make sense to start such denouncement if there's no clear, well defined clash between one and the other. But this clash needs to be addressed more convincingly thinking of what Quinn once wrote: "whatever a Buddha decided to do - rape babies, steal, murder, undermine society, etc - it wouldn't be delusional. A Buddha is incapable of delusion, by definition". Or: "the perfect willingness to behave in a morally reprehensible manner if needs be". Meaning, how would one really know if Kevin, or even Trump, is acting delusional and not intentionally and wise like some Buddha?

By opening your eyes. By looking. As Jesus said, “by their fruit you shall know them.”

Besides that, the idea that the "deluded" society can be your friend as some firewall against Trump seems philosophically a "girly" thing to say: inconsistent, weak looking. If there's any social message to any masculine philosophy, at the least one would expect something along the lines Nietzsche's call on "reevaluating all values". Or at least less of a joining of the mainstream high pitch screaming, simply because it's mainstream. One always looks to distance oneself from the reaction of the masses since how much chance is it that some rational idea is behind a majority led pitch fork crowd?

I don't care about the mainstream. I simply judge things for myself. It makes no difference to me whether the mainstream is aligned with my views or not. Sometimes the mainstream gets it right; at other times it doesn't.

A truly independent thinker ensures that his views are shaped entirely by the facts of the situation and doesn't get side-tracked by frivolous concerns. He doesn't reject a view simply because it is held by a majority, nor does he adopt a view simply because it is unpopular.

Another underlying question which came up in my discussion with Jupiviv was if we're now discussing elements of a philosophy risen out of life style made possible by a liberal, socialist leaning society as opposed to a philosophy hardened by real life experiences with the average state of mind within the so-called progressive Western world, a philosophy exposed and tuned by experiences in jobs, exposure to academic thought, public life and involvement into the larger society beyond the confines of a relatively sheltered place or the coloured outlook a holiday trip usually provides. In other words: how much of Dan of David's thought has become "elitist"?

This tells me again that you are finding life in the Netherlands to be unbearable. What is going on there, Diebert? How can that be the case?

Just to clarify, again: I am not attached to the liberal establishment. That is not why I am defending it against the current onslaught. I would be more than happy to see the establishment replaced by something better. But the key phrase is "something better". This is my problem with the pro-Trump movement. I am not hearing anything specific about how things will be better if the liberal world order were to splinter into protectionist, defensive, illiberal, pro-nationalistic, authoritarian regimes.

[David Quinn]

Alex,

There is certainly one very important thing that needs to be brought out when there is discussion of the radical alt-right, which will show itself as having links to the former and purged traditional American ultra-right (the common term). There is no doubt at all that it has a strong nativist element and that there is an aspect of it that would be called 'racist' or at least 'racialist'. This is 'white identitarianism' and it is, indeed it is, a radical set of ideas which most certainly challenges the liberal present. Having researched in some depth the foundations of this identitarianim I have come to see that it is not at all 'irrational' and thus it is coherant, intelligent and discussable.

European radical identitarianism, were it to get off the ground, could in my view be a positive movement within (white) culture, but the gap between those who have made this intellectual move to a European identitarian position, and those who (like David Quinn it would seem) view racialism and a focus on race, culture and identity as severe problems, or as evil, is certainly great. But in and of itself it is a very good and necessary thing. The reasons can be explained.

If you could explain them, that would be good.

My view on racialism and identitarianism is that it represents a futile attempt to halt the unhaltable. If we step back and look at how the world has evolved over the past few centuries, we can see that it has been getting smaller and smaller. Everything has been becoming more global, each country is becoming more multi-cultural, races are getting more mixed, the old cultural differences are disappearing. People need to grow up and accept this reality. The old ways are disappearing. It doesn't matter how much you try to make something great again, you're not going to reverse this.

[Santiago Odo]

To explain a position that is 'European identitarian', or that of a 'white racialism', or one that defends the 'integrity of the white body' in many different senses not the least being the actual body, to say nothing of the cultural, social and intellectual body, is a position that arises out of many other predicates. To ask 'Why would one bother to defend that?' Is also to become aware of everything that has interposed itself, somewhat aggressively, between such a sane and necessary identification and the modern European who has so little of it. Along those lines, and to refresh myself a bit, I did listen, briefly, to one of Kevin's talks where, among many different things, he spoke of 'cultural Marxism'. One could make a list of *forces* that have come to bear against European Identity and a good part of it has to do with conscious force and intention.

In my own researches, I have come to recognize that the main root of the break-down in the inner --- psychological --- unity of Europe, and in this sense the beginning of the destruction of Europe itself, stems out of the 2 devastating world wars. Certainly this is no revelation. But I think that now, in this radical postmodern phase, some historians and philosophers see themselves as standing *among the ruins* of integral Western culture and attempting to philosophize their way out of the apparent downfall, the decadent descent. Obviously, this has as much to do with the Inner Man who comes to feel the painfulness of his condition, that is, as loss or disunity within the self, as it does with the visible and objective symbols and manifestations that he sees around him. So, and in my own case, I simply became aware and began to read the essays and philosophizings of some of these (interesting) men.

The people that I encountered were, among numerous, Sam Francis and Jared Taylor who write topically on these themes. I even went so far as to try to make it through David Duke's 'My Awakening' which I still have on my iPad. I actually think David Duke is a pretty upstanding man, and to get to this point, I should say, I had to cover a great deal of ground given his general position on Jews. Prior to these fellows I had read Richard Weaver, a philosopher and a Southerner who wrote a very worthy book called 'The Southern Tradition at Bay' though he is more famous for 'Ideas Have Cosequences' and is considered a mainstay of American conservatism. The Southern Tradition helped me to understand the nature of the North's destructive attack on the South and to understand it as an aspect of an on-going Northern aggressiveness, the like of which, in a continuous historical line, we can still notice in America's intrusive invasions and attempts to restructure and refashion whole countries. No part of my interest is in defending a slave economy or a slave-nation. Slavery was in the process of being transformed into freedom grants into apprenticeships and would, naturally, have died away. This cataclysmic and intensely destructive Civil War was, I think, borne out of other factors.

[Santiago Odo]

Well, after a great amount of reading on this topic (the Civil War and the aftermath) I came across Eugene Genovese (a Civil War historian) who helped me to understand the intellectual roots of the Southern culture and their rather profound involvement in ideas. I then began to understand that the Northern destruction of the South, as a scorched-earth policy as they say, and the villification of the 'evil Southerner', was part of a pattern of villification that the North, and an aspect of the American Person, continually reverts to and employs. When I made that conection (and I am not suggesting it is any great achievement if only insofar as numerous others already had), it was not hard for me to become open to the possibility that the hatred-policy against Central Germanic Europe was of a similar kind. This was a bigger hurdle, so to speak, for me given my partial Jewish background. I then began to understand that the Germanic World is in a siginficant sense the heart, soul and mind of Europe in many of its better senses.

[Santiago Odo]

To make a long story shorter, I came to understand that psychological forces have been made to bear, aggressively and destructively, against the *heart* of Europe. It is known that when a conquerer can topple the temple of the conquered country that this represents a more significant defeat. I would say, with many qualifications, that the *temple* of Europe has been damaged but is not destroyed. I don't mean to say something saccharine and silly. The actual *core* of Europe, the heart and soul of Europe, is extremely valuable and worthy of every protection. But just as I would say that and refer to cultural superstructures, in the same breath, and necessarily, I would also speak of the necessity of protecting the European body. I mean this, in fact, in the eugenic sense.

Following those traces, I read Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant --- both of these now names that cannot be mentioned given their racialist views. I went even further and read Houston Chamberlain's 'Foundations of the Twentieth Century' which is another forbidden title, yet it is a really amazing and worthy history. Nothing but respect for the man though he exalted a little too much the dangerous Teutonic Imperialism which was to prove so terrifying.

This is a rather brief outline of a number of years of probing. It is my opinion that a 'white identitarian' position, or a Eurocentric Identitarian position can be articulated and defended in accord with ethical and moral principles --- as a matter of fact in accord with very high moral and ethical principles. But it certainly must be searated from a 'hate' position or one of condemnation for other people or cultures. In fact it really should have nothing to do with that and, properly situated, can avoid it. It is actually a position that mends and repairs a good deal of the arrogant and violent cultural imperialism of former Europe insofar as it extends the sense of value and worth to any culture, and to all cultures and people (and bodies and intellects) that should be able to defend their integrity.

As to American racism and racialism, in my view the US was set-up and *designed* as an Anglo-Saxon Republic. It is so much a creation of the Anglo Saxon mind that, in my view at least, it cannot be separated from its origins without radically shifting its nature or self-destructing. The post-1965 era is one of conscious immigration and conscious shift in demographic. This has not brought, and will not bring, peace and harmony but is rather bringing the Republic to the edge and to eventual social conflict. This is 'multiculturalism' and behind it (I venture to say) one can discover 'Cultural Marxism' and its specific agents. And to understand 'agent' and what I mean you need only look to your own self! And what I mean by this is that we all carry forward, in varying degrees, certain foreign ideas which have been *installed* in us and which, also in my view, we must expel.

I do wonder if Kevin has also gone over some of this material and I have to admit being quite curious to know where his philosophical ruminations have led him. If it has led to a desire to *red-pill* the feminized Western self, well, then I can relate to this in many ways.

Is any of this 'valuable work'? Will it be possible to arrest a decadent cycle well into its descent? Some of the most glorious battles have been losing battles you know ... ;-)

(Had to divide this up to get by the Forum Guard-bot. If I were a spider I'd weave it back together).

---GB (AJ)

[jupiviv]

As I wrote to Kevin late last year:

• A major concern that I have is that no one has really defined how much change Trump has been given permission to do. He was elected as a change agent, to “drain the swamp”, to “smash the Washington elite”, etc, but what does this actually mean? Does it simply mean replacing a few people and a few rules to make things run better? Or does it mean ripping up the Constitution and starting again? There doesn't seem to be any consensus.
  
  I know what Trump wants to do. He doesn’t give a stuff about the Constitution, nor about the well-being of normal citizens in general. He only cares about his own power and wealth, and being the centre of attention. He won’t be the one putting boundaries upon himself, so who will? Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have been hijacked (in different ways), and at the moment both can only offer token resistance. The serious media is being hamstrung because of the new political correctness which deems that they are all liars. So who is going to check him? This is deeply troubling to me.

Why don't you post the full conversation, David? I've asked you to do that about 6 times already. Are you ignoring my requests or refusing them?

There are further questions: How real is this desire for change? Are people really wanting to dismantle modern life?

That's a strawman. "Modern life" is an almost meaningless term, only a few steps away from "life". Like I said to you at the beginning, the surest and most common form of intellectual dishonesty is that of broadening an opponent's position and then arguing against it. So you need to provide more specifics on which defining aspects of modern life you think they want to dismantle.

You're very good in lumping things together. What I said is rather established opinion amongst a broad collection of investigative journalists of some standing, some known authors on the topic and also simply based on statistics and various recent polls. It's just too easy to throw it under the Trump train just because you are so impressed by the New York Times. This might be overly harsh but it seems that at times during these discussions you are in opposition against any serious critique, any fundamental but oppositional thought on society or media "As it is". It's like you want to derail any hint of possibility that there's something deeply wrong or conflicted with Western society and that Trump might just be our own ugly face staring back at us, marking our own hypocrisy and make-belief world that "we are so different".

That is a very distorted picture you have of Western society. Very extreme. Very dark. Anyone would think that your life over there in the Netherlands was a nightmare, one that seemingly has to be torn down as soon as possible.

Personal attack. Does it really matter if a view is dark, extreme, or derived from a nightmarish life?

Just to clarify, again: I am not attached to the liberal establishment. That is not why I am defending it against the current onslaught. I would be more than happy to see the establishment replaced by something better. But the key phrase is "something better". This is my problem with the pro-Trump movement. I am not hearing anything specific about how things will be better if the liberal world order were to splinter into protectionist, defensive, illiberal, pro-nationalistic, authoritarian regimes.

Trump did nothing to dismantle the liberal establishment. In fact quite a few of his supporters voted for it in the past. If anything, the most fearsome enemy of the liberal establishment has been the ~45% of eligible adults who didn't vote for any of the candidates and who were most likely the driving force behind the historic low approval ratings for both of the main candidates. Those are Americans living "modern lives" in the USA, so if Trump's unique threat was as obvious and egregious as you make it out to be, *they* would certainly have done something about it.

[David Quinn]

This is a rather brief outline of a number of years of probing. It is my opinion that a 'white identitarian' position, or a Eurocentric Identitarian position can be articulated and defended in accord with ethical and moral principles --- as a matter of fact in accord with very high moral and ethical principles. But it certainly must be searated from a 'hate' position or one of condemnation for other people or cultures.

Even with that separation in place, I’m still not seeing the underlying rationale for “Eurocentric Identitarian”, or indeed the need of any kind of identitarian. I mean, looking at it rationally, how does one identify with a specific race to begin with? Do we have to look into our genetic structure and define races based upon a certain percentage of shared DNA? Is that where it’s all going?

Race is an illusion. We’re all mongrels at bottom. I’m part Scottish, part Irish, part English, with a smidgeon of German thrown in. So who should I identify with? And why would I even bother?

It’s always been thus. As soon as the topic of race comes up, my eyes tend to glaze over. It all sounds like a fantasy world to me. Instead of using the mind wisely to connect to all of reality, people with limited imaginations are attempting to block out their personal insecurities by finding a herd to lose themselves in.

As to American racism and racialism, in my view the US was set-up and *designed* as an Anglo-Saxon Republic. It is so much a creation of the Anglo Saxon mind that, in my view at least, it cannot be separated from its origins without radically shifting its nature or self-destructing. The post-1965 era is one of conscious immigration and conscious shift in demographic. This has not brought, and will not bring, peace and harmony but is rather bringing the Republic to the edge and to eventual social conflict. This is 'multiculturalism' and behind it (I venture to say) one can discover 'Cultural Marxism' and its specific agents. And to understand 'agent' and what I mean you need only look to your own self! And what I mean by this is that we all carry forward, in varying degrees, certain foreign ideas which have been *installed* in us and which, also in my view, we must expel.

I don’t know anything about cultural marxism. All I know is that it is irrational to treat people differently on the basis of their skin colour or their genetic make-up, particularly if you are a philosopher. And I also know that it is irrational to deny that the world is becoming increasingly multicultural and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We have no choice but to recognize the globalized nature of the world we live in and shape our actions accordingly. Pining for a mythical past in which the races could be separated out more purely is ridiculous.

The multicultural transformation of the world is only in its earliest stages. It is far too early to say that it cannot work, or that people cannot learn to adapt to the global reality.

[David Quinn]

As I wrote to Kevin late last year:

• A major concern that I have is that no one has really defined how much change Trump has been given permission to do. He was elected as a change agent, to “drain the swamp”, to “smash the Washington elite”, etc, but what does this actually mean? Does it simply mean replacing a few people and a few rules to make things run better? Or does it mean ripping up the Constitution and starting again? There doesn't seem to be any consensus.
  
  I know what Trump wants to do. He doesn’t give a stuff about the Constitution, nor about the well-being of normal citizens in general. He only cares about his own power and wealth, and being the centre of attention. He won’t be the one putting boundaries upon himself, so who will? Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have been hijacked (in different ways), and at the moment both can only offer token resistance. The serious media is being hamstrung because of the new political correctness which deems that they are all liars. So who is going to check him? This is deeply troubling to me.

Why don't you post the full conversation, David? I've asked you to do that about 6 times already. Are you ignoring my requests or refusing them?

Both, really. It was a private conversation, so it is not appropriate for me to publish it without Kevin's permission.

Write to Kevin yourself if you want to get his views first hand. He shouldn't have any reason to hide them.

There are further questions: How real is this desire for change? Are people really wanting to dismantle modern life?

That's a strawman. "Modern life" is an almost meaningless term, only a few steps away from "life". Like I said to you at the beginning, the surest and most common form of intellectual dishonesty is that of broadening an opponent's position and then arguing against it. So you need to provide more specifics on which defining aspects of modern life you think they want to dismantle.

Yes, that was the point I was making. A kind of insurgency or revolution is suddenly happening, but it is not entirely clear what it's all about. I'm not sure that anyone knows.

Trump did nothing to dismantle the liberal establishment.

He is in the process of trying to do this as we speak, as evidenced by his daily war on evidence, facts, truth, science, the media, the judiciary, etc.

Accusing Obama of wire-tapping his phone is the latest salvo in this war. A high risk one too, it must be said.

In fact quite a few of his supporters voted for it in the past. If anything, the most fearsome enemy of the liberal establishment has been the ~45% of eligible adults who didn't vote for any of the candidates and who were most likely the driving force behind the historic low approval ratings for both of the main candidates. Those are Americans living "modern lives" in the USA, so if Trump's unique threat was as obvious and egregious as you make it out to be, *they* would certainly have done something about it.

Yes, the level of apathy in America is unbelievable. It has always been the case, of course; it's nothing new. But still, you would think that with last year easily being the strangest and most momentous election since the 1860s, a few more would have turned out. But there you go, that's America for you. I'm sure as time goes on and the idiot continues to bungle everything he touches, more and more of these people will come to regret their absenteeism.

[encode_decode]

I don't have that much of value to add here - but I will say this:

Absenteeism - indeed - I have been experiencing this second hand for a while - that is of course providing that you mean "mental absenteeism" - Indeed people will come to regret the "easy way out" and the "someone else will take care of it attitude". Theft, deception and laziness come to mind as well as narcissistic behavior from peers.

You have a narcissist in charge at some workplace and productivity as well as staff turnover increase - I am not too sure it really is any different for say a country.

Unfortunately I also see some problems with zero restraint in advertising and such which causes people to get dumb and buy things because they can. Facebook; I wont even go here.

On and on I could go but I wont - the whole world certainly has some big issues to fix one way or the other.

On one hand I did not want to say anything at all but on the other I would feel bad by not saying something even it is is of low value so I am done now.

[Dan Rowden]

Absenteeism - indeed - I have been experiencing this second hand for a while - that is of course providing that you mean "mental absenteeism" - Indeed people will come to regret the "easy way out" and the "someone else will take care of it attitude". Theft, deception and laziness come to mind as well as narcissistic behavior from peers.

Electoral absenteeism in the US is a fairly complex social phenomenon, but certain things stand out: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... icans-vote

Superficial but not bad observations.

[Dan Rowden]

I said I wasn't going to further contribute to this 'debate', but I suppose explaining my engagement with politics isn't doing exactly that. Or maybe it is. I don't think the nature of this 'debate' has been fully defined or its parameters delineated, despite Diebert's valiant attempts to do so.

I will observe. however, as I did on page 2 of this thread, to the sound of crickets:

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.

No-one can avoid politics. No-one. Not even a Buddha who'd prefer to. Being detached from the world doesn't mean you're separate from it in any practical way. The horrid nature of identity politics doesn't mean that politics doesn't matter and that people interested in enlightenment shouldn't be concerned about it.

They may have the luxury of not being thus concerned, but therein maybe lies the point here - does politics and socio-economic issues, in a broad sense, mean anything? How many are free, given the politics of their nation, to pursue philosophy to its end?

David Quinn, Kevin Solway, Claudia Grinnell, Victor Gunasekara, Matt Gregory, Martin Dudaniec (aka avidaloca), Mark Vetanen, E. Jason (aka Lobster), John Hutton, Randall Ing, Mark Vetanen, John Bird, John J. Stafford (aka Pico), Shardrol, Scot Close (aka Arnold Rimmer and a bunch of others), (Dr.) Ian Kluge, Jeff Jackson, Pamela Stenman, Cassandra Breeding, Valerian, Everett E Allie, Therese Foote, Khai-Wei Choong, Irena, Leo Bartoli, Bob Willis, Dieter Dambiec, Al Young, Marsha Faizi (aka Ma), Mitchell Porter, devil`s dance, Luke Pellen, Joe E. Dees (aka Grimrod, the tri-testicular one), Kyilkhor (Thomas), Keith Elis, John Welch, Dan Rowden, Tim Abbott, Paul Bazzar, Paul Yu, Chuck Salvo, Shaun Tuck, Giselle Morgan, Joel Thornton, Stefan (Seagul), Ronald Jump, Dale Sample, David Lawton, Chad Robb, Jason (Plugger), Lisa Long (couldn't resist including her!), Bryan McGilly, David Hodges, Adrian van der Meijden, J. R. Molloy, Greg Shantz, Jon Point, Anna Oleynik, Zagreus, Thomas Knierim, David Schnur, Sapius, Matt Timpanelli, Andrew Wiseman, Bondi, Chris Saik, Alex Meyer, Patrick (pjmciii pjmciii), Rhett, Kelly Jones

As far as I'm concerned, if you think politics doesn't matter, in a practical sense, you're ignoring reality like a religious person would do. I appreciate that many of those names won't be familiar to new members, but this isn't for them anyway ...

[encode_decode]

Thanks Dan - very interesting read - Indeed a very complex issue. My observations are quite superficial.

I also meant to say regarding the workplace: productivity decreases.

[Dan Rowden]

One of the problems with politics, as with most aspects of life, is that you have to involve yourself to a degree that involves a shower afterwards. But, you know what they say about cleanliness ...

[jupiviv]

Both, really. It was a private conversation, so it is not appropriate for me to publish it without Kevin's permission.

No it's entirely appropriate, or rather *necessary* because you started this thread to publicly denounce the views he expressed in that and presumably other private conversations. Any personal info/details can be redacted.

I will email him when I find the time. Which email address is active?

There are further questions: How real is this desire for change? Are people really wanting to dismantle modern life?

That's a strawman. "Modern life" is an almost meaningless term, only a few steps away from "life". Like I said to you at the beginning, the surest and most common form of intellectual dishonesty is that of broadening an opponent's position and then arguing against it. So you need to provide more specifics on which defining aspects of modern life you think they want to dismantle.

Yes, that was the point I was making. A kind of insurgency or revolution is suddenly happening, but it is not entirely clear what it's all about. I'm not sure that anyone knows.

It's about certain irrational and faith-based assumptions about socio-economic and -political reality prevalent amongst liberals in the US and elsewhere. For example, that immigration is necessarily a good thing, or that disenfranchising domestic industry and labour is great for an economy.

Trump did nothing to dismantle the liberal establishment.

He is in the process of trying to do this as we speak, as evidenced by his daily war on evidence, facts, truth, science, the media, the judiciary, etc.

Accusing Obama of wire-tapping his phone is the latest salvo in this war. A high risk one too, it must be said.

Obama, and indeed Trump himself, has the power to order a wiretap on a "foreign agent". Given that both Obama and Clinton have either explicitly or implicitly accused Trump of having Russian connections, it is perfectly possible he ordered it. On the other hand, it could just have been intelligence officials acting without Obama's explicit knowledge or orders.

I'm sure as time goes on and the idiot continues to bungle everything he touches, more and more of these people will come to regret their absenteeism.

The people who *actively* refused to vote in 2016 probably did so in the last few elections as well. They certainly regret something, but it's not their absenteeism.

[jupiviv]

No-one can avoid politics. No-one. Not even a Buddha who'd prefer to. Being detached from the world doesn't mean you're separate from it in any practical way. The horrid nature of identity politics doesn't mean that politics doesn't matter and that people interested in enlightenment shouldn't be concerned about it.

No-one is arguing for any of those things. Avoiding politics and rejecting them are not the same thing.

How many are free, given the politics of their nation, to pursue philosophy to its end?

You are incapable of pursuing philosophy to its end if it depends on any condition except your ability to exercise reason. The shoutouts were very sentimental, and proves my point.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Finally Alex returned, like a loyal fly to a smelly heap. What took you so long man, this thread was made for you!

Oh yeah, you were banned because of overdosing on analysing the "forum" and its members instead of modernity or ideas. It was perhaps a bit harsh. Anyway, finally there's the discussion you've been waiting for! Discord between members, between founders and all about that tangible connection between philosophy and ideas on society, modern politics and the new right! In hindsight you might have been somewhat prophetic.

Okay, enough hazing. There's some actual topics developing here which I'll try to address with the expectation the added contrasts will illuminate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How much of the pro-Trump movement is driven by a primal revolt against modern life, for example? Are people rebelling against modern life altogether? How much change do they actually want? This hasn't been defined in any way. Is the plan to rewind society back to the 1950s? Or even further, back to the 1860s? Or even the 1600s? Exactly how much of the liberal establishment, an edifice heroically put together by courageous people of the progressive movement over the past few centuries, do people want to dismantle?

Good questions. In my view it's related to the issue of (cultural) identity which has become increasingly fragmented and unusable. From that position only a few ways forward (and backward) appear to people. The past always supplies endless "crystallized" sources for a cloak of identity. The "progressive" or "globalist" angle (using terms from the right) appear as one where cultural identities are increasingly replaced or downplayed. And replaced by something way less defined. Which is seen then as exactly the problem.

"I know what Trump wants to do. He doesn’t give a stuff about the Constitution, nor about the well-being of normal citizens in general. He only cares about his own power and wealth, and being the centre of attention".

It might be not that black and white unless you have mind reading abilities. In my estimation Trump merges these concerns as being the same thing. Or what benefits him would benefit everyone in the end. People with success in some field often reason like that, as if they have uncovered the Path. Around this delusion the whole Trump University was created. Which was not meant to be scam in my opinion, just became one because it was based on an illusion, kept alive throughout the organization, as organizations tend to do.

For many Trump supporters, he is a big beautiful ball of chaos and throwing him into Washington and wreaking havoc everywhere has been a great delight.

Yes, at times I've seen him in this light. Not sure if that makes one a "supporter" as one is perhaps just trying to see possible positive outcomes. It's also part of realistic politics. It always looks like a disaster and one supports the lesser evil. For example to my mind Clinton looked more damaging as she had an actual track record by disposing Gaddafi together with the French.

People seem to have this idea that Trump can be reigned in at a moment's notice. We'll just let him blow up the place for a bit and then pull the plug on him when the time is right. That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

But the reality is that other administrations before him went out and blew up many places already, brining the nation on the brink of WW3 or financial collapse more than once. The question to me becomes more: why fearing it now?

There are further questions: How real is this desire for change? Are people really wanting to dismantle modern life?

No indeed it's more like a high-speed train going in one direction. And when the price tags are revealed, most people will pass for it. Of course there's a lot of expertise in hiding the actual price tags in terms of money as well as human life and suffering. To me, what counts are the overarching rolls of war and state. And the intimate relation between these two sisters. Can you understand that when someone campaigns on rolling back the involvements in overseas conflicts and as well announces to roll back government size, it could sound like a good plan in principle?

When I see Trump, I don’t see a mirror image of Western society. I simply see someone who embodies some of the very worse traits of the human race - in particular, ignorance, banality, hedonism, deception, narcissism, and cruelty. I don’t see any wisdom in him, nor any structured thought, nor any love of knowledge, nor any noble aims. He occupies the very dregs of Western society. He is as low as low can go.

"Worst traits" and what people call "dregs of society" are often distorted mirror images. The undesired, the ignored elements which become only more powerful when continued being ignored and when one fails to understand them but just simple blindly dismisses. This is the essence of projection and mirror theories. So your objection only describes to me the issue again.

So if it is a choice between Western society and Trump, then of course I am going to choose Western society. It is not a tough choice. I'm not insane. I don't like all of Western society, but that is no reason to overthrow the whole system in favour of a personality/movement that is clearly far more vile.

It's a choice you created but are not able to substantiate much. Therefore I suspect you have need for such choice, to simplify the issue.

Meaning, how would one really know if Kevin, or even Trump, is acting delusional and not intentionally and wise like some Buddha?

By opening your eyes. By looking. As Jesus said, “by their fruit you shall know them.”

Then by publicly distancing oneself from a fellow philosopher earlier admired and respected, only for certain political views or actions later in life, the signs are there the fruits have become rotten. And it needs to be poked through to demonstrate the state of the fruits. Hence my challenges. Mind you, if Kevin is supposed to have abandonned the path so easily, it stands to reason you will not be immune for a similar process in another direction. The difference is that at least Kevin didn't bring it to the forum, which appears to have been wiser if intentional.

This tells me again that you are finding life in the Netherlands to be unbearable. What is going on there, Diebert? How can that be the case?

National elections coming up next week! But I'm not talking about that really. Anyone with some interest in and experience with the political processes would accept that people or parties often get elected whose ideas conflict strongly with ones idea of sanity. And right now the landscape here is increasingly fragmented. It's quite possible no viable government can even be formed after next week. Which points to deeper underlying issues within the West as a whole: a certain lack of unifying ideas.

This is my problem with the pro-Trump movement. I am not hearing anything specific about how things will be better if the liberal world order were to splinter into protectionist, defensive, illiberal, pro-nationalistic, authoritarian regimes.

No, that seems your problem then with US politics in general. Or perhaps conservative politics over there. Furthermore you haven't made much effort in explaining how the proposed immigrations bans, healthcare reforms, deals with Russia and other "sins" of the Donald, could so easily lead to any "authoritarian" regime. Unless of course certain groups will oppose the current will of the voting majority and start a bloody coup. It's this lack of reasoning which I find more disturbing than any current course of Western society. I guess I have higher standards when it comes to you. Ha!