The social justice wars

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
  
  These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
  
  And they love war.
  
  While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life (...) Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.

John Pilger

[JohnJAu]

https://imgur.com/agKPiFp

Diebert's advanced humanity and David's reasonable SJW femininity.

[Pam Seeback]

How is keeping the goal of attachment purification/cutting front-and-centre not THE only important task of the philosopher?

Matters of the world are test of wisdom. If a person is irrational and uses logical fallacies with regard to matters of the world, then it means their wisdom is almost non-existent.

A person might believe they are wise, because they can speak intelligently on some topics, but reality tells a different story.

From the perspective of wisdom, reasoning matters of the world is the cause of irrationality (with the deluded/ignorant believing the opposite), with its contrast being reasoning why reasoning matters of the world is the cause of irrationality, aka, rationality.

Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.

Better to push the devil into his corner than to join him in his prancing ways.

[jupiviv]

Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.

The people who reason about the world are a part of the world, so you are also reasoning about matters of the world when you conclude that their reasoning should be ignored/rejected.

[Pam Seeback]

Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.

The people who reason about the world are a part of the world, so you are also reasoning about matters of the world when you conclude that their reasoning should be ignored/rejected.

Reasoning that reasoning about matters of the world is a delusional / irrational activity is reasoning about ignorance and by extension, suffering, and how to bring both to an end. Those most heavily invested in belief / acceptance of the 'wise' subjective - objective 'rational' masculine naturally resist examining for themselves the truth that at its root, the rational male is THE irrational concept (belief in subject = delusion = world of illusion = suffering).

Which is why the masculine reasoning I accepts the suffering of duality- relativism as an inescapable fact and how it rationalizes its divide and conquer mentality.

[Kevin Solway]

those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example)

I don't see evidence that the SJWs are using reasoning. Their conclusions are based on feelings and henids. They can't present a rational argument, which is why they are so dependent on name-calling or physical force.

[Pam Seeback]

those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example)

I don't see evidence that the SJWs are using reasoning. Their conclusions are based on feelings and henids. They can't present a rational argument, which is why they are so dependent on name-calling or physical force.

Since matters of the world is dependent on self promotion and self promotion is dependent on attachment (feeling), the rational conclusion is that any reasoning of matters of the world is based, to some degree, on feelings. There is no denying that the extreme right or left (i.e. the SJWs) fall into the high degree-of-feelings category, this is what I meant when I used the term "passionately". It would be rational then to conclude that the "passionate" are more likely to fall prey to the use of henids, name-calling and physical force. And although the rational 'male' may not be effected by such extreme emotional attachments to the concept of self, 'he' is not exempt from subjectivity of view.

My point is that If the goal of the wise (emphasis on 'if') is to attain to the absolute then is it not the wisest course of action to refrain from reasoning that which is self-enhancing, i.e., worldly matters and instead direct one's reasoning toward bringing the suffering caused by self-enhancement to an end, i.e., matters of philosophy (the Genius forum)? I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?

[Kevin Solway]

Since matters of the world is dependent on self promotion and self promotion is dependent on attachment (feeling)

I'm speaking of "worldly matters" in the sense of matters of the material world. For example, philosophical matters are of the mind, and worldly matters are of the physical world. The question as to who to vote for in an election is a worldly matter, since it is a matter of the physical world.

The more enlightened a person is, the better equipped they are to deal with matters of the world.

I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?

The main genius forum is supposed to be mainly for philosophical discussion, where absolute answers to questions can be reached, in the purely mental realm. The worldly matters forum was provided for speculative matters concerning the material world, and serves as a place to move posts to that shouldn't be on the main forum.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback: I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?

Kevin Solway: The main genius forum is supposed to be mainly for philosophical discussion, where absolute answers to questions can be reached, in the purely mental realm. The worldly matters forum was provided for speculative matters concerning the material world, and serves as a place to move posts to that shouldn't be on the main forum.

Thank you for the clarification. I will be away from wifi for a week or so, and when I return, I will post a thread in the Genius forum inspired by the above exchange.

[jupiviv]

The more enlightened a person is, the better equipped they are to deal with matters of the world.

@Pam Seeback, the crux of what Kevin, myself and Diebert were trying to say to you is stated in this quote in a roundabout way. Matters of the mind and the world are only distinguished in a conventional, worldly sense. The "Worldly matters" section was also created for a conventional, "worldly" reason, which became evident in the recent angry debates on all sides (to varying degrees), and also in the recent defacement attempt.

Emotions, like the urge to vomit, shouldn't be avoided. They should be seen through in the safe confines of a rational mind or at least within text-based discussions. Speaking of that, I've been writing a lengthy post since around David's comeback (and inspired by it) about humanity's collective avoidance of an "urge to vomit" and how that relates to recent events and politics. I can't say when I'll finish it though. Hopefully by the next game of thrones season, which curiously seems to coincide with rejuvenated forum activity.

[Pam Seeback]

The more enlightened a person is, the better equipped they are to deal with matters of the world.

@Pam Seeback, the crux of what Kevin, myself and Diebert were trying to say to you is stated in this quote in a roundabout way. Matters of the mind and the world are only distinguished in a conventional, worldly sense. The "Worldly matters" section was also created for a conventional, "worldly" reason, which became evident in the recent angry debates on all sides (to varying degrees), and also in the recent defacement attempt.

Emotions, like the urge to vomit, shouldn't be avoided. They should be seen through in the safe confines of a rational mind or at least within text-based discussions. Speaking of that, I've been writing a lengthy post since around David's comeback (and inspired by it) about humanity's collective avoidance of an "urge to vomit" and how that relates to recent events and politics. I can't say when I'll finish it though. Hopefully by the next game of thrones season, which curiously seems to coincide with rejuvenated forum activity.

You are spot on, participation in worldly matters should give rise to the 'urge to vomit.' And given that someone caught up in worldly matters would have a difficult time accepting the rug-being-pulled-from-under-themselves truth of emptiness, I understand the reasoning behind encouraging the 'urge to vomit' via the safe confines of a rational mind. Rationality is not wisdom, rather it serves to provide the illusory structure that allows wisdom its 'safe entry'. I look forward to your post, not a Thrones fan (yes, there are a few of us). I haven't yet put together the one I mentioned to Kevin (also inspired [in part] by David's comeback), however, it's on the burner and simmering.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perhaps it's time to talk further about this prediction of 21 Aug 2017 made by David Quinn in this thread. Or is it still too early? I mean one year and nine months later. "We can then compare the results and see who is more in touch with reality". Not unimportant for people dealing with wisdom!

Lets try any way.

America is entering a very dangerous period now. Trump's presidency is all but over. His sheer ineptitude and vacuousness has led him blindly into a hole from which he cannot escape. He has no choice but to go fully feral. This is not going to be pretty to watch

Nah.... David, I think you're just buying into the anxiety of the age reflecting in your daily newspapers.

Okay, let's put it to the test. The prediction I made above is a distillation of what I read in the news, combined with my understanding of Trump's psychology. Let's see if it becomes true or not.

That reminds me, Dan still owes me $̶5̶0̶ 1 kangaroo for when he tried to gamble like that last time.

My prediction is that Trump will hang on for the full four years. That's based on seeing the interests of Republican power brokers, financial institution and the ability and desire of Trump to make new deals and remake old ones without any need to be consistent. Furthermore Trump has signed on to the military command as main ally. And last but not least, the Russian conspiracy theories are falling apart and what remains of it will not be powerful enough to move anything in Washington.

All this is based on all media and analysts when common sense, logic and life experiences is added to it. But I'm also aware, like all predictions, something else entirely might happen. But I'd be really be surprised if it has anything to do with the absurd Washington Post narrative.

Lets try to make a list and check if predictions came out.

- DQ: "Trump's presidency is all but over".

It's still going on one year and 9 months later. Not exactly a lame duck president either in terms of not acting on anything because of lack of support. This was a false prediction.

- DQ: "The only way the Republican power brokers will be able to get any substantial work done is by sidelining Trump and ignoring him".

Well they didn't and many have ended up dealing with him and still are. This was a false prediction.

- DQ: " He has no choice but to go fully feral" and "ramp up their efforts to spread chaos, destabilize the nation and rile up the pitchfork brigade".

Debatable but I do note many pitchforks were also carried by the Democrat opposition and media commenters. It's too vague to judge the prediction but I think it's reasonable to state that it's not "fully feral" unless wars in Venezuela, Iraq and Iran break out soon. That probably will unify the nation though.

- DQ: "mainstream support for Trump nearly all dissipated"

Wikipedia recent polls for Trump, or Zogby 5/2/19-5/9/19 51% approval. So this was a false prediction.

- DQ: "he is going to have to try to take over the country by force, otherwise his presidency is going to crash and burn. He has become a laughing stock to the mainstream. He has made too many enemies. Mueller is circling. He is on the brink of utter humiliation"

Nothing like that happened one year and nine months later. Serious talk on re-election is happening. Numbers look okay. Another false prediction.

Now for my own predictions.

Okay, let's put it to the test. The prediction I made above is a distillation of what I read in the news, combined with my understanding of Trump's psychology. Let's see if it becomes true or not. That reminds me, Dan still owes me $̶5̶0̶ 1 kangaroo for when he tried to gamble like that last time.

My prediction is that Trump will hang on for the full four years. That's based on seeing the interests of Republican power brokers, financial institution and the ability and desire of Trump to make new deals and remake old ones without any need to be consistent. Furthermore Trump has signed on to the military command as main ally. And last but not least, the Russian conspiracy theories are falling apart and what remains of it will not be powerful enough to move anything in Washington.

- DvR: "My prediction is that Trump will hang on for the full four years."

Which is what seems to be happening. Impeachment procedures could still be started but likely do not make it before the four years (they can continue but this was about hanging on for four years).

- DvR "Russian conspiracy theories are falling apart "

As far as the collusion between Trump and Russian agents, falling apart is exactly what happened. Some other illegal things might still haunt Trump.

- DvR "what remains of it will not be powerful enough to move anything in Washington ."

This prediction came to pass and will also be good for coming twelve months!

Based on the conditions set out by David, it must be concluded he was not in touch with (political) reality when he wrote his predictions. And I think I did way better. We could review this again a year later though. But one year and nine months seems like a reasonable period.

[David Quinn]

Lets try to make a list and check if predictions came out.

- DQ: "Trump's presidency is all but over".

It's still going on one year and 9 months later. Not exactly a lame duck president either in terms of not acting on anything because of lack of support. This was a false prediction.

Not so. As a functioning coherent government, Trump’s presidency has long been over. He clearly does not know how to govern and does not even bother to pretend to anymore. Instead, he continually retreats back into his safe space, which is the persona he used during the campaign - part insurgent, part troll, part autocrat, part gaslighter.

No one trusts him. No one respects him. He does not know how to work with intelligent people. Even his closest advisers think he is a moron. He stumbles blindly from one crisis to another, lighting fires wherever he goes. He continues to make enemies everywhere. He is hopeless at doing deals. He is unmanageable.

It has reached the point where he now has to declare a national emergency every time he wants to get anything done. His stupid wall is a good example. Even though his base have made it plain that it is their number one priority and even though he controlled both Houses for two years, he was still unable to make any progress with it. He is so hopeless at negotiations that even his Republican allies couldn’t help him. And so he decided instead to bypass Congress altogether and steal the money from other parts of the country in order to get the thing started. If this is not a monumental shrine to presidential incompetence and lame-duckedness, then I don't know what is.

In terms of constructing policies that benefit the general populace of America and the world - all of which requires, you know, intelligence, goodwill and bipartisan support - he has accomplished virtually nothing. No healthcare plan, no infrastructure plan, no environmental plan, no coherent foreign policies, nothing. All he does is destroy things and hoover up as much money as possible from society into his accounts and those of his psychopathic buddies. This isn’t a government, it is a heist.

That the American people are passively allowing this to happen to them without any real pushback is, quite frankly, astonishing. I have never seen them roll over so easily. I have never seen them so submissive and weak.

- DQ: "The only way the Republican power brokers will be able to get any substantial work done is by sidelining Trump and ignoring him".

Well they didn't and many have ended up dealing with him and still are. This was a false prediction.

Trumps’s orders are routinely ignored by his aides. His impulsive policies are often overturned within 24 hours after his aides have explained reality to him. Congress have passed numerous laws and resolutions that not only ignored Trump, but explicitly opposed his edicts (e.g. Yemen, Russia sanctions etc). Diplomats are constantly having to reassure other countries to ignore the latest inane tweet or policy blurt from Trump.

It is clear that most, if not all, of the Republicans in Congress and Senate try to ignore him as much as humanly possible. They know he is a crook, they know he is ignorant, they know he is vicious, they know he is nuts. They are just hanging for dear life, desperately hoping that this rolling mess of a presidency can somehow reach the end of its first term without it all going belly-up.

- DQ: " He has no choice but to go fully feral" and "ramp up their efforts to spread chaos, destabilize the nation and rile up the pitchfork brigade".

Debatable but I do note many pitchforks were also carried by the Democrat opposition and media commenters. It's too vague to judge the prediction but I think it's reasonable to state that it's not "fully feral" unless wars in Venezuela, Iraq and Iran break out soon. That probably will unify the nation though.

If Trump does engineer a war with Iran, I wonder if his base will stick with him. After all, they were the ones who painted Hillary as a war-monger and Trump did promise them that he would withdraw from the world and not engage in any more wars. Will the base continue to act like a personality cult and worship everything the Messiah says and does? Will they make a 180 degree u-turn in order to keep the owning-the-libtards-partyfest going, even if it means having to send their children off to a manufactured war? It will be interesting to see.

-DQ: "mainstream support for Trump nearly all dissipated"

Wikipedia recent polls for Trump, or Zogby 5/2/19-5/9/19 51% approval. So this was a false prediction.

Well, I had a look at the Wiki page and most of the polls show that support for Trump continues to fall within the usual 37% - 44% range. The Rasmussen and Zogby polls are outliers and use dubious polling methods. I don’t know who you were trying to convince here, Diebert.

- DQ: "he is going to have to try to take over the country by force, otherwise his presidency is going to crash and burn. He has become a laughing stock to the mainstream. He has made too many enemies. Mueller is circling. He is on the brink of utter humiliation"

Nothing like that happened one year and nine months later. Serious talk on re-election is happening. Numbers look okay. Another false prediction.

On the contrary, Trump’s hostile take-over of America is proceeding apace. In fact, in the last few months, he has been ramping it up even further. He and his cronies are not even bothering to hide it anymore. They are openly flouting the law, trampling over the Constitution, shredding the legitimate powers of Congress, undermining the institutional checks and balances, and pouring out endless torrents of wild propaganda that are full of lies and designed to keep the population as scared and as confused as possible. It is the standard classic method for creating an absolute dictatorship.

Have a read of what has happened to Hungary and observe the similarities.

Now for my own predictions.

Okay, let's put it to the test. The prediction I made above is a distillation of what I read in the news, combined with my understanding of Trump's psychology. Let's see if it becomes true or not. That reminds me, Dan still owes me $̶5̶0̶ 1 kangaroo for when he tried to gamble like that last time.

My prediction is that Trump will hang on for the full four years. That's based on seeing the interests of Republican power brokers, financial institution and the ability and desire of Trump to make new deals and remake old ones without any need to be consistent. Furthermore Trump has signed on to the military command as main ally. And last but not least, the Russian conspiracy theories are falling apart and what remains of it will not be powerful enough to move anything in Washington.

The Russian “conspiracy theories”, as you call them, are not falling apart. I’ve read the Mueller Report and it is utterly damning to Trump from a legal perspective. It details numerous crimes performed by Trump and his associates, and hints at the existence of many others. It also details widespread collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Mueller wasn’t able to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy (a legal concept that requires a high standard of proof ) with Russia, but he did detail numerous instances of collusion (a non-legal concept with plenty of circumstantial evidence).

Basically, what happened was this: Trump and his cronies openly welcomed Russia’s offer to help with their campaign and had numerous contacts with them; they then repeatedly lied to the American people about these contacts, constantly changing their stories whenever they were found out; they then obstructed the investigation into the matter as much as they possibly could, and now they are executing a cover-up of the whole tawdry affair with even more lies and spin.

- DvR: "My prediction is that Trump will hang on for the full four years."

Which is what seems to be happening. Impeachment procedures could still be started but likely do not make it before the four years (they can continue but this was about hanging on for four years).

It is far too early to call this. They say that a week is a long time in politics, but with Trump it's more like an an hour. Trump is one careless or stupid mistake away from having the whole thing crashing down on him. It is clear, to me at least, that his Republican colleagues despise him and cannot wait to see the back of him, which is no surprise given that he regularly humiliates them. Trump is only holding onto power because he knows how to manipulate all those weak-minded people who make up his base. As soon as this popularity erodes, it will be curtains for him.

As for impeachment, the Democrats need to be stop being so timid and go after the crook now. What more evidence of his wrong-doing they need?

[David Quinn]

It was interesting rereading this thread, particularly Kevin’s contributions. What shines through is his unbearable self-righteousness and his implacable hostility and dismissiveness towards women. His close-minded contempt for their stated concerns is there for all to see.

This raises the question: when women respond negatively to his speech and mannerisms, is it really a response to his "hard truths" (as he likes to think) or are they simply reacting to his open hostility?

This raises a further question: Does Kevin really want to eliminate radical left wing feminism, as he ostensibly claims? Given that such implacable hostility on Kevin's part all but guarantees a negative and hostile response in return, one has to wonder what exactly he is trying to accomplish here.

It reminds me of what Trump does with respect to the Democrats, the media, and indeed anyone who opposes him. He deliberately riles them up with inflammatory language, displays of gross incompetence, and tyrannical posturing, and then, when they take the bait and do get riled up, complains about how he is always being persecuted. I get the sense that Kevin is doing a similar thing with respect to the “radical left”.

I don't think he has anything left in his life anymore. He has long abandoned the spiritual path and now fills his time being absorbed in these kiddie culture wars. It is the only thing in his life nowadays that gives him emotional pleasure. It looks to me that he plans to be engaged in it for the rest of his life. If it were to go away, he would have nothing. And so naturally, it is in his interests to keep the whole thing chugging along without any resolution in sight. Hence the need to remain openly hostile and to keep pushing those women's buttons.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As a functioning coherent government, Trump’s presidency has long been over.

That can be your opinion but I rather stay with facts, assuming we can still access these in some non-partisan way. How do you propose we define "functioning coherent government" in terms of presidential power or action? What kind of metrics beyond agreement or disagreement on politics?

It has reached the point where he now has to declare a national emergency every time he wants to get anything done.

Like: list of national emergencies in the United States

That the American people are passively allowing this to happen to them without any real pushback is, quite frankly, astonishing. I have never seen them roll over so easily. I have never seen them so submissive and weak.

For me that's just reality dawning. It looks almost like you've become interested in US politics for the first time :-) Perhaps the frightening thing is that people are getting involved and opinionated on national politics, more than ever! And it's not a pretty sight.

It is clear that most, if not all, of the Republicans in Congress and Senate try to ignore him as much as humanly possible. They know he is a crook, they know he is ignorant, they know he is vicious, they know he is nuts. They are just hanging for dear life, desperately hoping that this rolling mess of a presidency can somehow reach the end of its first term without it all going belly-up.

Yes, for me this was more about Republican senators as far as my predictions went. Which was about how power works, not my view on Trump's chaotic statements. What you are describing is the reason I predicted what I predicted. And I do think they work with Trump when they see it as convenient to their own position. This is simply how mainstream politics always worked, in my opinion.

If Trump does engineer a war with Iran, I wonder if his base will stick with him. After all, they were the ones who painted Hillary as a war-monger and Trump did promise them that he would withdraw from the world and not engage in any more wars.

I think Trump really believes he can change reality by maximizing pressure in any situation and creating stupendous drama. In my view that trick gets old pretty quickly. It's a great question, as with a war, conflicting sentiments arise in a population. More state of emergencies. Power obtains a lethal, seductive spiral down at that stage for all those at the wheel.

Well, I had a look at the Wiki page and most of the polls show that support for Trump continues to fall within the usual 37% - 44% range. The Rasmussen and Zogby polls are outliers and use dubious polling methods.

Well you claimed a complete lack of mainstream support. Not sure how to measure such thing. The context of these numbers would imply that even 37-44 is far from the claim: "mainstream support for Trump nearly all dissipated" Historical rankings of presidents of the United States.
Even Fox is still generally supporting Trump. Fox is the largest news broadcaster in the US. It can be called mainstream based on numbers.

If you wonder what point I'm making, you might want to think harder! It's just a matter of challenging your claims on being realistic or not. This is not about my own political views although it seems you really want to paint me in some corner, just because I'm challenging your perception of things.

The Russian “conspiracy theories”, as you call them, are not falling apart. I’ve read the Mueller Report and it is utterly damning to Trump from a legal perspective. It details numerous crimes performed by Trump and his associates

You mean you don't trust the US legal system and DoJ any more either to act on a report about possible crimes? That's up to you, I'm not that sure.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't think he has anything left in his life anymore. He has long abandoned the spiritual path and now fills his time being absorbed in these kiddie culture wars. It is the only thing in his life nowadays that gives him emotional pleasure. It looks to me that he plans to be engaged in it for the rest of his life. If it were to go away, he would have nothing. And so naturally, it is in his interests to keep the whole thing chugging along without any resolution in sight. Hence the need to remain openly hostile and to keep pushing those women's buttons.

This could be a way more interesting statement when applied a bit broader. Not just your concerns on Trump or surprising focus on the absent Kevin but more how many people are engaging with modern life. Actually I see it as the fundamental struggle of false ego to clamp on to whatever drama, whatever conflict or protection scheme it can find. All this energy to dissect "their" politics instead of delving into our own attachments a bit further.

[David Quinn]

As a functioning coherent government, Trump’s presidency has long been over.

That can be your opinion but I rather stay with facts, assuming we can still access these in some non-partisan way. How do you propose we define "functioning coherent government" in terms of presidential power or action? What kind of metrics beyond agreement or disagreement on politics?

Being connected to reality, utilizing the cerebral cortex and putting forward intelligent policies that benefit the wider populace would be a start. As opposed to simply unleashing the reptilian brain to create fear and chaos so as to pillage anything and everything that Trump and his cronies can lay their hands on.

It has reached the point where he now has to declare a national emergency every time he wants to get anything done.

Like: list of national emergencies in the United States

The list is mainly composed of the imposition of sanctions on particular foreign individuals, at least over the past 15 years. Trump's latest two "national emergencies" stand out in that they are major policies implemented without any external input from the likes of Congress. He is using it as a thin end of a wedge, getting the American people accustomed to the idea of his ruling by edict.

It is clear that most, if not all, of the Republicans in Congress and Senate try to ignore him as much as humanly possible. They know he is a crook, they know he is ignorant, they know he is vicious, they know he is nuts. They are just hanging for dear life, desperately hoping that this rolling mess of a presidency can somehow reach the end of its first term without it all going belly-up.

Yes, for me this was more about Republican senators as far as my predictions went. Which was about how power works, not my view on Trump's chaotic statements. What you are describing is the reason I predicted what I predicted. And I do think they work with Trump when they see it as convenient to their own position. This is simply how mainstream politics always worked, in my opinion.

There are major differences this time around. The Republican Senators have allowed themselves to be backed into a corner by their own blindness and greed. They have no choice but to fully back the Trump criminal enterprise because they have comprised their principles and ethics so much that they can no longer afford for it to fail.

Jim Comey's observation that Trump eats people's souls bit by bit is right on the money.

[David Quinn]

I don't think he has anything left in his life anymore. He has long abandoned the spiritual path and now fills his time being absorbed in these kiddie culture wars. It is the only thing in his life nowadays that gives him emotional pleasure. It looks to me that he plans to be engaged in it for the rest of his life. If it were to go away, he would have nothing. And so naturally, it is in his interests to keep the whole thing chugging along without any resolution in sight. Hence the need to remain openly hostile and to keep pushing those women's buttons.

This could be a way more interesting statement when applied a bit broader. Not just your concerns on Trump or surprising focus on the absent Kevin but more how many people are engaging with modern life. Actually I see it as the fundamental struggle of false ego to clamp on to whatever drama, whatever conflict or protection scheme it can find. All this energy to dissect "their" politics instead of delving into our own attachments a bit further.

Here we agree.

And yet it is difficult not to be dragged into politics at the moment, given that we live in such dangerous and consequential times. This makes it doubly important, I think, to reach even more inwards and become as nirvanic as possible.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Trump's latest two "national emergencies" stand out in that they are major policies implemented without any external input from the likes of Congress. He is using it as a thin end of a wedge, getting the American people accustomed to the idea of his ruling by edict.

Not sure why you count the Huawei action as another example of ruling by edict. While I have no strong opinion on any US border policies and there are more than one documented views possible on in how far it would constitute a crises or threat, it was one of the main themes ran by Trump during his election campaign, with the added claim that Congress was not able or willing to act sufficiently on that particular issue since a long time. It remains difficult to see this as a good example of something anti-democratic as such. A case could be made this is even closer to direct democracy although I'd never try to make that case because it assumes a majority of the people (or even Congress) would know exactly what is the best option in many complex, very technical situations. This makes the border issue act more like a principle than anything factual.

Being connected to reality, utilizing the cerebral cortex and putting forward intelligent policies that benefit the wider populace would be a start. As opposed to simply unleashing the reptilian brain to create fear and chaos so as to pillage anything and everything that Trump and his cronies can lay their hands on.

The greatest delusions and devastation known to human kind have been caused by the use of the cerebral cortex and attempts to create insane policies with the use of intellect. Always with the claim that it would benefit us all, peace, the future, our safety and so on. Only in hindsight we can see how the subversion worked and what sounded at first as justification, enlightened and confident, was often born out of destructive impulses, creating chaos it its wake.

It would then be good to have a bit more realistic view on the world and stop dividing it into cerebral, ordering forces and barbaric, chaotic agents. And even when you do, it would be interesting to wonder where the so-called "feminine" in your philosophy would thrive the best.

While my position can be described as more cynical and dark, I'd call on the more humble realization that so much of our thoughts on society, economic, politics and morality are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all on their equally complex political situations of their time. How could they attain any firm or final position on the ten thousand always shifting things with countless of perspectives available to them? It would contradict their own teachings. In the end all politics are a manifestation of the urge to organize the vast complexity of the market of things and feelings, their endless exchange and dangerous instability of the false constructs. Some intelligent comments are possible but generally of the conservative kind ("distrust', "don't panic").

And yet it is difficult not to be dragged into politics at the moment, given that we live in such dangerous and consequential times. This makes it doubly important, I think, to reach even more inwards and become as nirvanic as possible.

From my perspective, call it lighter or darker, times have always been dangerous and consequential. The current scale and global connectivity between events might be something unique and still might have to be understood fully with all the ups and downs. But I'm beyond worrying after the Cold War, nuclear MAD policies, urgent prediction on peak growth, peak oil and all the doomsday clocks for decades on 5 to 12. From my perspective the human position has always been that of blind fool walking to the edge of a cliff, mentally, physically, economically and so on.

Perhaps some sense of danger and urgency is required to get to the best of our potential? Again, show me decent, worthwhile philosophy not arising out of intense struggle, danger and the edge of abysses. Perhaps bloody, dangerous thoughts need bloody, dangerous times to grow?

[David Quinn]

Trump's latest two "national emergencies" stand out in that they are major policies implemented without any external input from the likes of Congress. He is using it as a thin end of a wedge, getting the American people accustomed to the idea of his ruling by edict.

Not sure why you count the Huawei action as another example of ruling by edict. While I have no strong opinion on any US border policies and there are more than one documented views possible on in how far it would constitute a crises or threat, it was one of the main themes ran by Trump during his election campaign, with the added claim that Congress was not able or willing to act sufficiently on that particular issue since a long time. It remains difficult to see this as a good example of something anti-democratic as such. A case could be made this is even closer to direct democracy although I'd never try to make that case because it assumes a majority of the people (or even Congress) would know exactly what is the best option in many complex, very technical situations. This makes the border issue act more like a principle than anything factual.

It is not just the Huawei decision. Trump is in full dictator mode now. He doesn’t even have to use the “national emergency" pretense anymore. That has become obsolete. Trump now swans around ruling by edict by the sheer force of his will. Bypassing Congress to sell arms to his Saudi buddies. Suddenly announcing tariffs on Mexico. Suddenly making war noises with Iran. He doesn’t consult with anyone anymore, outside of his circle of sycophants, and as a result the country as a whole is continually being blindsided by his impulsive rulings. The guy is clearly out of control.

And yet, incredibly, even now America continues to sleep, oblivious to what is going on.

Being connected to reality, utilizing the cerebral cortex and putting forward intelligent policies that benefit the wider populace would be a start. As opposed to simply unleashing the reptilian brain to create fear and chaos so as to pillage anything and everything that Trump and his cronies can lay their hands on.

The greatest delusions and devastation known to human kind have been caused by the use of the cerebral cortex and attempts to create insane policies with the use of intellect. Always with the claim that it would benefit us all, peace, the future, our safety and so on. Only in hindsight we can see how the subversion worked and what sounded at first as justification, enlightened and confident, was often born out of destructive impulses, creating chaos it its wake.

Why are you talking about insane policies? What does that have to so with anything?

Using the cerebral cortex can indeed lead to insane policy-making, but it can just as easily lead to the opposite. It depends on the level of clarity and pure-heartedness involved, as well as a good dose of luck. As with anything in the empirical realm, it’s always a bit of a gamble. But one thing is certain: *not* using the cerebral cortex is guaranteed to lead to insane policies and social disaster.

You speak against the cerebral cortex, but what is the alternative? One's feelings? Social media hysteria? Trumps’s gut?

An example of using the cerebral cortex to create sane policy-making: vaccinating all children on the planet against measles, polio and small pox.

It would then be good to have a bit more realistic view on the world and stop dividing it into cerebral, ordering forces and barbaric, chaotic agents.

Well yes, this would be a realistic view if it was your intention to obliterate the distinction between reason and unreason. That is to say, if it was your intention to obliterate reason itself.

What you are promoting here is not realism, but nihilism, pure and simple. It is your alt-rightness coming to the fore, in which you reinforce the narrative that rationality and knowledge is liberal, elitist, politically correct, ineffectual, atheistic, degenerate, unEuropean, unAmerican, etc, in nature.

Do you still make the distinction between the path to Buddhahood and normal human irrationality? Or has your alt-rightness swamped that one as well?

While my position can be described as more cynical and dark, I'd call on the more humble realization that so much of our thoughts on society, economic, politics and morality are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all on their equally complex political situations of their time.

We could just as easily use that same line of thinking to argue against the value of spiritual teaching. “People’s thoughts on philosophy and wsidom are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all engaged in trying to educate them."

How could they attain any firm or final position on the ten thousand always shifting things with countless of perspectives available to them?

What does a “final position” have to do with anything? People engage in politics in order to promote their values. You don’t need a PhD thesis to do this. You only need to stress what is most important to you. For me personally, I want people to place more value on reason.

It would contradict their own teachings. In the end all politics are a manifestation of the urge to organize the vast complexity of the market of things and feelings, their endless exchange and dangerous instability of the false constructs. Some intelligent comments are possible but generally of the conservative kind ("distrust', "don't panic").

Or alternatively, you can encourage people to have faith in reason and persuade them that rational policies are the best way forward. Your so-called conservative values are underwhelming, to say the least.

And yet it is difficult not to be dragged into politics at the moment, given that we live in such dangerous and consequential times. This makes it doubly important, I think, to reach even more inwards and become as nirvanic as possible.

From my perspective, call it lighter or darker, times have always been dangerous and consequential. The current scale and global connectivity between events might be something unique and still might have to be understood fully with all the ups and downs. But I'm beyond worrying after the Cold War, nuclear MAD policies, urgent prediction on peak growth, peak oil and all the doomsday clocks for decades on 5 to 12. From my perspective the human position has always been that of blind fool walking to the edge of a cliff, mentally, physically, economically and so on.

Perhaps some sense of danger and urgency is required to get to the best of our potential? Again, show me decent, worthwhile philosophy not arising out of intense struggle, danger and the edge of abysses. Perhaps bloody, dangerous thoughts need bloody, dangerous times to grow?

The Dark Ages in Europe would suggest this is an illusion. How long did it go for? Eight or nine centuries? Yet as far as we know, not a single sage ever emerged from it, nor even a decent philosopher of any note.

But lo and behold, as soon as we started to leave the Dark Ages behind and began organizing society along rational lines, the flood gates opened - Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc. Even in our soft, overly-organized society of today, Genius Forum and its associated sites (which has arguably managed to express wisdom in the simplest, clearest manner in all of human history) was able to emerge.

Or let’s look at war-torn countries. Plenty of danger abounds in a war-torn country, but has a single solitary sage ever emerged from such a situation? Not to my knowledge.

This is no surprise, when you think about it. Whenever great danger is present, people automatically become more emotional and defensive. All they can think about is their physical safety. All thought of higher achievement evaporates. Moreover, when the danger becomes entrenched and is prolonged over many years, children become deeply traumatized, which results in a generation of damaged adults whose minds are too swamped by turmoil to even begin thinking about becoming enlightened and wise. Whole generations are lost by such dangerous times.

By contrast, have a look at the upbringing of the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, Solway, Rowden, and myself. We have all come from stable, well-organized backgrounds. A stable background leads to a stable mind, which is the ideal platform from which to launch a high-risk enterprise into the Infinite.

Your theory is very flawed, Diebert. Indeed, it just sounds like a romantic fantasy. I can’t help thinking that your desire for chaos and destruction is a cry for help, an expression of frustration at being trapped in an ordered society and not having the inner strength to break free of it. Hence your deep urge to cheer on a wrecking ball like Trump. It is an expression of your own impotence.

[jupiviv]

And yet it is difficult not to be dragged into politics at the moment, given that we live in such dangerous and consequential times. This makes it doubly important, I think, to reach even more inwards and become as nirvanic as possible.

From my perspective, call it lighter or darker, times have always been dangerous and consequential. The current scale and global connectivity between events might be something unique and still might have to be understood fully with all the ups and downs. But I'm beyond worrying after the Cold War, nuclear MAD policies, urgent prediction on peak growth, peak oil and all the doomsday clocks for decades on 5 to 12. From my perspective the human position has always been that of blind fool walking to the edge of a cliff, mentally, physically, economically and so on.

Perhaps some sense of danger and urgency is required to get to the best of our potential? Again, show me decent, worthwhile philosophy not arising out of intense struggle, danger and the edge of abysses. Perhaps bloody, dangerous thoughts need bloody, dangerous times to grow?

The Dark Ages in Europe would suggest this is an illusion. How long did it go for? Eight or nine centuries? Yet as far as we know, not a single sage ever emerged from it, nor even a decent philosopher of any note.

I have to point out that the premise both of you are working from is totally unrealistic. Sages recognised in the Genius "tradition" are not only extremely rare compared to other types of historical figures, but have appeared among very different cultural and economic backgrounds. Thus it is effectively impossible to identify common patterns within those contexts.

For the same reason, it is also impossible to figure out what specific material conditions discourage sagehood, given that many different eras and cultures have produced no sages at all. Even the Greeks produced only *one* and his wisdom only survives tentatively via one of his dumbfuck careerist fanboys. If anything the only identifiable pattern is the decision to seek wisdom *despite* diverse societal/economic conditions that favour deluded existence in their own cosmetically unique ways.

But lo and behold, as soon as we started to leave the Dark Ages behind and began organizing society along rational lines, the flood gates opened - Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc. Even in our soft, overly-organized society of today, Genius Forum and its associated sites (which has arguably managed to express wisdom in the simplest, clearest manner in all of human history) was able to emerge.

Why limit yourself to post-antiquity Europe and divide 1.5 millennia into two ages? But assuming there is a valid philosophical or historical reason for doing this... the late medieval offers at least one (West) European bodhisattva in Meister Eckhart. That is one compared to 3 (West) Europeans i.e. Kirky, Freddy and Kev-Kev after 1500 CE. So, 0.1 vs 0.5 sages per century, which is statistically insignificant and not even remotely close to flood gates swinging open.

By contrast, have a look at the upbringing of the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, Solway, Rowden, and myself. We have all come from stable, well-organized backgrounds. A stable background leads to a stable mind, which is the ideal platform from which to launch a high-risk enterprise into the Infinite.

It's unclear what you mean by "stable" especially considering all the differences in time and circumstances. Wars, famines, plagues, repression, lack of conveniences taken for granted today etc. were fairly commonplace almost everywhere before the last century. In fact the 2 countries where those things were relatively least felt during much of the modern era - the USA and UK - have never produced any sages. Also, rejection of attachments necessarily entails some degree of failure in a practical/economic sense, being scorned and hated by others, and therefore general instability and uncertainty in life.

I'd say Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Weininger had fairly unstable backgrounds by their own admission. Nietzsche: hopeless incel, friendzoned by 5/10 pretend-girlfriend, always had screws loose but went full retard at 50. Kierkegaard: could have been normal but dumped hot girlfriend, became incel, died penniless and in severe pain. Weininger: volcel, would be incel if he actually tried, killed himself. Me: volcel but have designs on newlywed friend's wife. Diebert: cohabits with stepdaughter (or something). Alex: ditto. Kevin: Kelly Jones. You: married incel, going senile. Dan: totally fucks.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have to point out that the premise both of you are working from is totally unrealistic. Sages recognised in the Genius "tradition" are not only extremely rare compared to other types of historical figures, but have appeared among very different cultural and economic backgrounds. Thus it is effectively impossible to identify common patterns within those contexts.

You and David both missed my "times have always been dangerous and consequential". So I was not speculating too much on any particular times. Actually it was more like a reference to the Forum introduction if anything. Any sagacious man who doesn't find himself in complete opposition to whatever he once knew or believed simply never went that far from safety. In that context any impending "end of society, rights or freedoms as we know it" is really of passing interest at best. In the end the world is by definition hostile or dismissive toward wisdom and people reject or ignore it simply because it cannot be understood while the spirit always pushes for change, always provides a challenge to the false.

For the same reason, it is also impossible to figure out what specific material conditions discourage sagehood, given that many different eras and cultures have produced no sages at all.

This argument only works if one counts only famous sages. Which is a pointless selection. In any case, I haven't met two wise people agreeing on who in the course of history (and present) was definitely "enlightened" so any argument around this will not be really going anywhere soon.

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Weininger had fairly unstable backgrounds by their own admission

Nietzsche's time is like Weininger's period very interesting but simply the fact that Nietzsche functionally collapsed and Weininger dramatically suicided does indicate some instability and danger with how their minds operated. While Kierkegaard lived in a very dark time: he describe it himself in "The Present Age" as a "sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction". Basically, as he called it, the "death of rebellion". Not sure what kind of age could be darker!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But one thing is certain: *not* using the cerebral cortex is guaranteed to lead to insane policies and social disaster.

Without the cortex not even the most basic position will be possible to cause any significant blessing or disaster.

You speak against the cerebral cortex, but what is the alternative? One's feelings? Social media hysteria? Trumps’s gut?

Highlighting the contrast of good and bad results does not imply we have to find some alternative. Misguided thoughts and principles will wither away by their own accord. But sometimes a rude awakening happens first, accompanied by some level of hysteria, denial, fear and anger.

We could just as easily use that same line of thinking to argue against the value of spiritual teaching. “People’s thoughts on philosophy and wsidom are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all engaged in trying to educate them."

Correct, they're not doing anything at all. Perhaps you've been trying to hard? And created some "enlightened" socialist thought system?

The Dark Ages in Europe would suggest this is an illusion.

A term like "Dark Ages" is not seriously being used anymore for the simple reason there's little dark about it but the lack of understanding scholars once had of the period (and also where the name came from, compare the "dark continent"). Not to mention the Golden Age of the Arab Empire, any supposed darkness was mostly the idea of certain regions being "pre-Christian". But for decades already, the period is considered very interesting and just as rich as before and after in culture, development and art. Of course simpler times in terms of technology but there's not much indication people were unhinged or insane especially, living like beast or ignorant in any particular way for that time, unless it would be valid for all of the ancient times.

Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc.

Just some quick picks from times and cultures you have affinity with. It's meaningless to prove the sanity of modern times as compared with the amount of books, philosophies and teachings, the relative percentage might have gotten worse!

Even in our soft, overly-organized society of today, Genius Forum and its associated sites (which has arguably managed to express wisdom in the simplest, clearest manner in all of human history) was able to emerge.

A brief spark which seems already over if your display of ignorance and blindness triggered by political topics is something to go by. Even the websites could be gone tomorrow and virtually disappear in one of the massive archives of inanities on the Web.

By contrast, have a look at the upbringing of the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, Solway, Rowden, and myself. We have all come from stable, well-organized backgrounds. A stable background leads to a stable mind, which is the ideal platform from which to launch a high-risk enterprise into the Infinite.

I don't think you understood my point at all. Read my reply to Jupiviv for a bit more detail. It's true though that in war torn countries people probably don't hang out on the dole, promoting their own wisdom online. But I'd argue that the "stable background" will become by itself a danger. Perhaps you are the best illustration of that these days. Completely divorced from the world, confused about the difference between reasons and personal values, you pontificate your analysis of the world as some sprout of wisdom. You might have benefited from growing up in a war zone, perhaps, for some grounding in failures of decades of Western policies and thought.

... being trapped in an ordered society and not having the inner strength to break free of it. Hence your deep urge to cheer on a wrecking ball like Trump.

A bit exaggerated but it's the situation we're all in. Trump for the good or the worse has redefined, reordered normality. Interesting times ahead! At least I keep optimistic in the face of all the despair, worries, hatred and mental confusion you and many others are experiencing and relating.

[jupiviv]

Any sagacious man who doesn't find himself in complete opposition to whatever he once knew or believed simply never went that far from safety.

This is only true if the sage in question was previously 100% nuts and only knew or believed nonsensical things. Otherwise there is only the increasing clarity, scope and quantity of whatever little you possess to begin with, all driven by a great and patient love. You know, like that thing with the fishes.

In that context any impending "end of society, rights or freedoms as we know it" is really of passing interest at best.

You can't float above "The Present Moment", which includes the times and all of its attendant problems. Thinking otherwise is an illusion maintained by what your age has given you in the form of wealth, security etc.; kind of like the 600 y.o. Liberal Establishment! The apostle doesn't transcend his era but rather embraces it utterly. He is not an ass fastened to a stationary Cross and ordered to wait. He willingly carries the world as it is along that straight and narrow to Ragnarok.

In the end the world is by definition hostile or dismissive toward wisdom and people reject or ignore it simply because it cannot be understood while the spirit always pushes for change, always provides a challenge to the false.

Virgin mammies never bore any sages! The unreal never is. It is the Real that must be challenged.

For the same reason, it is also impossible to figure out what specific material conditions discourage sagehood, given that many different eras and cultures have produced no sages at all.

This argument only works if one counts only famous sages.

It works in general because the forgotten and unrecorded ones can't be counted.

In any case, I haven't met two wise people agreeing on who in the course of history (and present) was definitely "enlightened" so any argument around this will not be really going anywhere soon.

It isn't possible to say who is definitely enlightened except for oneself. Nevertheless there is consensus about what kind of thinking causes wisdom and to what degree various people manifest it.

While Kierkegaard lived in a very dark time: he describe it himself in "The Present Age" as a "sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction".

Kierkegaard did not squeal and flail, Gollum-like, atop God's jerkied corpse. Through his fatherly chastisement of "really existing Christianity" he drew out the blood it shares with all ages in a way Nietzsche's master/slave nonsense could not.

Also:

Without the cortex not even the most basic position will be possible to cause any significant blessing or disaster.

Untrue if someone without a cerebral cortex is sat in front of the big red button that launches all the nukes. Which, given the fact we have nukes as well as the means to manipulate all of them via a big red button, is not an insignificant possibility.

[David Quinn]

The Dark Ages in Europe would suggest this is an illusion.

A term like "Dark Ages" is not seriously being used anymore for the simple reason there's little dark about it but the lack of understanding scholars once had of the period (and also where the name came from, compare the "dark continent").

As I use the term, the Dark Ages refers to the lack of an entrenched and evolving rational culture in Europe, a lack that more or less began with the collapse of Rome, or arguably with the collapse of the golden era of ancient Greece. The Renaissance signaled the reawakening of such a culture. I don’t really care how other people, who have different values, choose to define the term.

To me, it is an obvious truism that when a culture becomes more rational, it increases the chances of rational philosophers emerging. If we lived in a society which truly valued rationality and wisdom and taught its children to think logically about basic truths such as cause and effect, then it would become much easier for people to launch themselves into the Infinite. To be sure, they would still have to put in the hard work and activate this launch with their own efforts, but at least they would be armed with greater reasoning powers and face fewer obstacles.

The idea that it doesn’t matter how oppressive, depraved and violent a society becomes, a genius will always find a way to break through is naive. Only the strongest and most extraordinary of geniuses would have a chance of breaking through in such a society and even then they would still need a lot of things to fall their way. They would still need a lot of luck.

Not to mention the Golden Age of the Arab Empire, any supposed darkness was mostly the idea of certain regions being "pre-Christian". But for decades already, the period is considered very interesting and just as rich as before and after in culture, development and art. Of course simpler times in terms of technology but there's not much indication people were unhinged or insane especially, living like beast or ignorant in any particular way for that time, unless it would be valid for all of the ancient times.

It was a time when war, poverty, oppressive political tyranny and religious fundamentalism strangled the life out of individual thought. It would have been a horrible time for anyone with a philosophic bent. Even artists had to toe the line and create artworks that exclusively promoted Biblical themes. But you’re right, I am referring exclusively to European culture here, and not, say, Islamic culture which was the torchbearer of science and philosophy back then.

Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc.

Just some quick picks from times and cultures you have affinity with. It's meaningless to prove the sanity of modern times as compared with the amount of books, philosophies and teachings, the relative percentage might have gotten worse!

I am making the point that with the Renaissance, an intellectual culture emerged that believed with almost religious zeal that reason could plumb the greatest philosophic mysteries and solve them. Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Weininger all fed from this belief. It helped them to enhance their logical abilities and drove their genius to greater levels.

Even in our soft, overly-organized society of today, Genius Forum and its associated sites (which has arguably managed to express wisdom in the simplest, clearest manner in all of human history) was able to emerge.

A brief spark which seems already over if your display of ignorance and blindness triggered by political topics is something to go by. Even the websites could be gone tomorrow and virtually disappear in one of the massive archives of inanities on the Web.

You might be right, but nonetheless the three of us all benefited from a stable political environment and a quality education system that promoted logic, science and critical thinking,

Any sagacious man who doesn't find himself in complete opposition to whatever he once knew or believed simply never went that far from safety. In that context any impending "end of society, rights or freedoms as we know it" is really of passing interest at best.

There are times when “complete opposition” to society is wise and warranted, and there are times when it is not. A key feature of wisdom is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to different situations. A sage has no form. He manifests differently in response to different circumstances. He doesn’t cling to a particular form or a particular way of behaving, no matter what. That is not wisdom. That is rigid dogmatism.

In light of this, and given the current circumstances, I am currently pro-woman, pro-feminist, pro-science, pro-globalism, pro-socialism, pro-intelligent policy-making, pro-cooperation between people, pro-farsightedness. And this, it must be emphasized, is the exact same wisdom that I have always expressed for the past thirty years. My approach to life is exactly the same. Only the outer form is different, and that is because the outer circumstances in the world are now different.

In the end the world is by definition hostile or dismissive toward wisdom and people reject or ignore it simply because it cannot be understood while the spirit always pushes for change, always provides a challenge to the false.

Which is precisely what I’m doing.

In all of our conversations on this topic, I have always been looking ahead, beyond the current orgiastic funfest of overthrowing modern Western culture, and speaking out against the kind of oppressive tyrannical society that will invariably come into force once the funfest dies down. Those fools who are participating in this funfest may be guffawing today, but tomorrow they will be gnashing their teeth and blankly wondering why their lives have suddenly become so impoverished. They are oblivious to what is about to hit them.

By contrast, have a look at the upbringing of the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, Solway, Rowden, and myself. We have all come from stable, well-organized backgrounds. A stable background leads to a stable mind, which is the ideal platform from which to launch a high-risk enterprise into the Infinite.

I don't think you understood my point at all. Read my reply to Jupiviv for a bit more detail. It's true though that in war torn countries people probably don't hang out on the dole, promoting their own wisdom online. But I'd argue that the "stable background" will become by itself a danger. Perhaps you are the best illustration of that these days. Completely divorced from the world, confused about the difference between reasons and personal values, you pontificate your analysis of the world as some sprout of wisdom. You might have benefited from growing up in a war zone, perhaps, for some grounding in failures of decades of Western policies and thought.

As I say, I don’t find your words on this issue to be particularly compelling, partly because you can’t seem to make up your mind as to whether culture impacts on spiritual genius or not.