Trumpism

[David Quinn]

The part I still don’t get is the connection to fascism.

What is not to get? When the mass-broadcasting of information, policy-making and interpretation of events are monopolised by a few people, there is fascism. That also applies to practical/technical fields like medicine to the extent people in general don't understand and cannot control how it affects their lives. Fascism as I define it isn't necessarily morbid or unpleasant.

Then you are departing from the common meaning of “fascism”. Normally in a fascist state when an individual opposes the state-run narrative, he is incarcerated or even killed. In contrast, in this day and age of internet freedom, the only punishment dished out for rejecting the state-run narrative is the bother of having to some up with another narrative to follow. It is disingenuous to apply the term “fascism" here, as it implies an underlying menace which doesn’t really exist.

Observations on the Modern Situation

1.
The history of the sexes has always been one of mutual tyranny. The evolution of patriarchal institutions was the male response to the oppression he suffered under woman. An equilibrium was reached, with power being spread evenly between the sexes.

Now, woman has no intention of giving up her own power but is requiring man to shed his. The end result of this will be a tyranny so complete it would have Stalin turning in his grave, cursing that he had been born both a male and a century too soon.

4.
Modern Spiritual Wisdom [SJWs in the alt-right idiom, postmodernism in both your own and alt-right idiom--jupiviv] preaches: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go.

Modern Neo-Nazis [or "neomodern postmarxists" as the sage-professor Jordan Peterson would call them--jupiviv] preach: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go.

6.
What does the modern woman want? An egalitarian society? A society of individuals, each of unique worth, where gender is irrelevant? I, for one, would whole-heartedly welcome such a society. But - and this is no mere trifle - it would need individuals[the (selective) respect for which is the putative bedrock of alt-right philosophy--jupiviv] to comprise it.

7.
Women do not want to be individuals, they want to be - women! In fact, the role of woman has evolved precisely to minimize any genuine individuality. Conflict, a something fundamentally different from the norm, an intense and sustained suffering, a conquering and striving for lofty impersonal ideals - these are the qualities of an individual, qualities which woman regards as aberrations of character. She hates the individual, who necessarily undermines her world. She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a non-entity.

[Etc. --jupiviv]

You dun goofed.

This was never written as a political treatise. It was simply an examination of the psychology of the sexes, written for the purpose of helping men to free up their minds from the sexual and emotional power of women. It pushed forward no political claims.

In Wisdom of the Infinite I described the limitations of science with respect to philosophic understanding. This didn't mean that I was calling for the practice of science to be banned.

Your insertions of “explanation” into my words above are also misleading. In point 4, for example, I was highlighting the psychological overlap between feminine New Age folk and hardcore right-wing neo-Nazis. It had nothing to do with SJWs and cultural marxists.

And can I just say, Jordan Peterson is a joke. Driven by anger, very limited in his thinking, and very dishonest when it comes to identity politics. His following (of, mainly, gullible young men) is the perfect example of a mindless alt-right herd who like to preen themselves that they are “individuals”.

What really had (and has) to be done about Kevin's perceived betrayal of that world-renowned Genius philosophy is a thorough revision of said philosophy within yourself. At the very least, a clarification of those parts of it which seem to fit the alt-right/anti-SJW/anti-feminist paradigm so very well! For example, in no. 7 above, the contrast between an individuality of "lofty impersonal ideals" and an idyllic notion of femininity which is simultaneously attractive and dangerous/disquieting to the lone rebel thinker.

Again, you grossly misunderstand what the Woman essays were about.

In principle, I have nothing against criticizing feminists and opposing their most outlandish demands. I just don't agree with the motivations and methods of the current alt-right movement. Its leaders are too mediocre and dishonest, and its followers are too passive and worshipful. The whole thing lacks intelligence and purity. It is indistinguishable from a cult.

[David Quinn]

I am adamantly -- culturally and philosophically -- opposed to 'multiculturalism projects' and I am also certain that they must be resisted, reversed. No nation, no culture, should have multiculturalism forced on it.

No amount of grandstanding on this issue will change the reality that climate change is going to impact more and more on the world over the next few decades. For example, with the energy in the biosphere steadily increasing, the regular climate patterns that we are used to seeing (and upon which we rely to grow our food) are becoming increasingly vulnerable to sudden changes, potentially causing widespread famine and vast increases to the flow of refugees around the world. In the face of this reality, all of your comments on this issue, Alex, are nothing more than whistling in the wind.

Still, you have to laugh at the irony. The right-wing White Nationalists/climate denialists are, through their ignorance, helping to create the very conditions for even further multiculturalism to take place. Who says karma doesn't have a sense of humour?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So why did you think I made an effort to construct a definition if I could have copied and pasted it from the Web?

Because until now you were constructing your own definition of Cultural Marxism, not social construct.

The discussion was never about the meaning of the term "social construct" but about what it meant inside the definition and usage of a term like Cultural Marxism. You tried to build a critique of the definition claiming that any kind of opposition to it would become also an instance of Cultural Marxism ad infinitum. But you changed the context and meaning of social construct for that to work, while ignoring all the qualifiers following in the same definition, clarifying its usage and context.

In other words, you tried to be clever and failed. Now you look rather a bit unhinged although I'm sure nobody actually dared to read this exchange as it might provide head aches.

the *stated* casus belli of the "culture wars" is fragile at best, and at worst cynical and disingenuous (mostly the latter). It's real function is DIY panem et circenses staged in dilapidated ideological amphitheatres, with occasional oversight and stimulus from the owners. It's like the mock arguments that break out between dysfunctional couples (or trios), serving as vents for chronic confrontations with the anger and confusion festering beneath.

That's just a rewrapping of the ancient idea of a society in the thrall of postmodern nihilism. Form over substance. Yawn. Was it different way back? Do you long for the days it all had more meaning for you? Get in line.

The image of the circus is right, as some cultivator for ego. To describe your "culture wars": there's irrational need to have the ego playing games on the circular stage with increasingly a rioting, deeply irrational audience rebelling and trying to stop the show.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And David, are you paying attention for once? The last paragraph above is the reason, the only reason for me that the topic remains interesting. And I really thought that was made clear before but all I see are irrational responses saying the circus is really important to maintain instead. And I don't think that ever has been the purpose of this forum, your efforts or Kevin's efforts. You can't undo all that by rewriting your intentions or consequences of your earlier ideas.

[Eric Schiedler]

And can I just say, Jordan Peterson is a joke. Driven by anger, very limited in his thinking, and very dishonest when it comes to identity politics. His following (of, mainly, gullible young men) is the perfect example of a mindless alt-right herd who like to preen themselves that they are “individuals”.

One of Jordan Peterson's most galling traits, which seem to multiply with every speech, is that his self-loathing, fear-based ideology necessitates that he pontificate while scapegoating low-status men, despite that group coomprising the core demographic that gives him donations. He looks down on his audience.

Why do they follow him? Because they egotistically perceive themselves as better than other low-status men. They hope to use the symbols he sells to posture that they are not exactly what they are loathe to become. The last thing they would want to do is the best alternative - to think for themselves.

Eric Schiedler

[Santiago Odo]

No amount of grandstanding on this issue will change the reality that climate change is going to impact more and more on the world over the next few decades. For example, with the energy in the biosphere steadily increasing, the regular climate patterns that we are used to seeing (and upon which we rely to grow our food) are becoming increasingly vulnerable to sudden changes, potentially causing widespread famine and vast increases to the flow of refugees around the world. In the face of this reality, all of your comments on this issue, Alex, are nothing more than whistling in the wind.

First, know that you are loved.

Receive my Blessings, my glorious child.

Climate change is not my subject. I don't have any set opinion on it. I suspect that human factors make contributions though we are also in a cycle of up-turning temps. But nevertheless it does seem to me that climate issues will exacerbate social conflicts.

There have often been times of famine though, and always there are ups and downs in human affairs. Everything here is unstable. Though I expect that you are now operating with a few cards short of a full deck, still I think you may have a point. And I remember that you said as much lo the many months when you referred to 'end times'.

You seem to work within this paradigm, even if unconsciously.

Guillaume Faye is a theorist who works with the idea that catastrophes approach -- are inevitable. I think he has some laudable ideas though I also think he is a bit unhinged. His idea is that it is out of the catastrophes that a new organization will take place.

I accept what you say about 'whistling in the wind'. What you seem to say is that 'all is futile'. There are times when I think this might be true. And yet we go on advocating for certain things. Diebert calls this *the circus*.

But in a sense you contradict yourself since you do seem to feel that some particular thing needs to be done for 'the world' to at least avoid destruction. You do seem a bit apocalyptic though.

Do you drink raspberry tea?
_______________________

Some quotes of Guillaume Faye from 'Why We Fight'.

“Global economic growth will soon clash with physical barriers. It is physically impossible to fulfil the ideal of progressivism: the spread of techno-scientific consumer culture to ten billion people. When this dream has faded, another will emerge.”

“It’s necessary that everyone does his duty and works in his place - devotes himself to constructing a body of fundamental values - against the common enemy - in a network of active, supple, inderdependent, and confederated resistance - present on every front, at the level of Europe - with the aim of concentrating all the energies of the combatants.”

“The present dominant values (xenophilia, cosmopolitanism, narcissistic individualism, humanitarianism, bourgeois economism, hedonism, homophilia, permissivenes, etc.) are actually anti-values - values of devirilising weakness, since they deplete a civilization's vital energies and weaken its defensive or affirmative capacities.”

[jupiviv]

But you changed the context and meaning of social construct for that to work, while ignoring all the qualifiers following in the same definition, clarifying its usage and context.

Citation needed.

the *stated* casus belli of the "culture wars" is fragile at best, and at worst cynical and disingenuous (mostly the latter). It's real function is DIY panem et circenses staged in dilapidated ideological amphitheatres, with occasional oversight and stimulus from the owners. It's like the mock arguments that break out between dysfunctional couples (or trios), serving as vents for chronic confrontations with the anger and confusion festering beneath.

That's just a rewrapping of the ancient idea of a society in the thrall of postmodern nihilism. Form over substance. Yawn. Was it different way back? Do you long for the days it all had more meaning for you? Get in line.

Any desire for substance cannot express itself in the online ADD halfwit circle jerk that makes up 95% of the culture wars.

[jupiviv]

The part I still don’t get is the connection to fascism.

What is not to get? When the mass-broadcasting of information, policy-making and interpretation of events are monopolised by a few people, there is fascism. That also applies to practical/technical fields like medicine to the extent people in general don't understand and cannot control how it affects their lives. Fascism as I define it isn't necessarily morbid or unpleasant.

Then you are departing from the common meaning of “fascism”. Normally in a fascist state when an individual opposes the state-run narrative, he is incarcerated or even killed. In contrast, in this day and age of internet freedom, the only punishment dished out for rejecting the state-run narrative is the bother of having to some up with another narrative to follow. It is disingenuous to apply the term “fascism" here, as it implies an underlying menace which doesn’t really exist.

Direct violence is probably the least effective means of silencing dissent when you're running a large modern democracy. Far more convenient to drown it out with noise. You don't need a state-run media to do that, just media conglomerates naturally sympathetic to whatever/whoever keeps them in business. A government can have fascist characteristics without being authoritarian.

This [the WOMAN essay] was never written as a political treatise.

I didn't say it was political, just pointed out that quite a few GF positions on femininity are repeated by the alt-right. Of course what really matters is the context, and that is precisely what needs to be clarified. It is apparent to me that you don't care about doing that in some cases, including the Trump/alt-right debates.

You insist on using a limited set of ideas to explain things you haven't thought about very deeply. Ideas and thoughts are worthless in isolation, even if logical. Jordan Peterson is popular because he uses a motley collection of small truths and borrowed syllogisms to create the illusion of profundity.

[David Quinn]

What is not to get? When the mass-broadcasting of information, policy-making and interpretation of events are monopolised by a few people, there is fascism. That also applies to practical/technical fields like medicine to the extent people in general don't understand and cannot control how it affects their lives. Fascism as I define it isn't necessarily morbid or unpleasant.

Then you are departing from the common meaning of “fascism”. Normally in a fascist state when an individual opposes the state-run narrative, he is incarcerated or even killed. In contrast, in this day and age of internet freedom, the only punishment dished out for rejecting the state-run narrative is the bother of having to some up with another narrative to follow. It is disingenuous to apply the term “fascism" here, as it implies an underlying menace which doesn’t really exist.

Direct violence is probably the least effective means of silencing dissent when you're running a large modern democracy. Far more convenient to drown it out with noise. You don't need a state-run media to do that, just media conglomerates naturally sympathetic to whatever/whoever keeps them in business. A government can have fascist characteristics without being authoritarian.

Again, in this internet age, there is no compulsion to accept governmental narratives and no punishment is meted out to those who do not accept them. There is not even a hint of fascism here.

Call this "fascist" is like calling American society "socialist" because it happens to dole out a few social programs for the poor.

I am not even sure what a “non-fascist” system (using your definition) would look like, given that a government, no matter what its type, will naturally always seek to paint itself in the best possible light. At a bare minimum, a society of buddhas would have to be in place to make a non-fascist system even remotely possible.

Society has never been as free as it is now, at least in the West. An individual can just about do anything he likes, read whatever he likes, speak whatever he likes. Yet sadly, the only use that many people seem to make of this tremendously rare freedom is to concoct mythical enemies who seek to oppress them.

It highlights the old adage that, despite all their lofty talk to the contrary, people actually hate freedom. They are never happy unless they are in bondage.

This [the WOMAN essay] was never written as a political treatise.

I didn't say it was political, just pointed out that quite a few GF positions on femininity are repeated by the alt-right.

Superficially, perhaps. But it’s an illusion which quickly disappears when you look more closely into it. In reality, the founding principles of GF have no more connection to the alt-right than they do to the religion of Buddhism or the atheism of scientific materialism.

Of course what really matters is the context, and that is precisely what needs to be clarified. It is apparent to me that you don't care about doing that in some cases, including the Trump/alt-right debates.

You’re right. I don’t care about the alt-right debates, any more than I care about the ins and outs of the latest Christian theological stoush. Life is too short to waste on such nonsense.

The alt-right/SJW feud is primarily a war that plays out in the hell-realms. It is a hellish war conducted by hellish people.

You insist on using a limited set of ideas to explain things you haven't thought about very deeply. Ideas and thoughts are worthless in isolation, even if logical.

Christians tell me the same thing. “David, your thinking on Christianity is so limited. You haven’t explored the nuances of what we do as Christians, nor examined our theology in any great detail. You just swan in here with your mulish, hackneyed ideas about wisdom without realizing how clumsy and ignorant you look.”

Jordan Peterson is popular because he uses a motley collection of small truths and borrowed syllogisms to create the illusion of profundity.

In other words, he is just a typical guru.

[Santiago Odo]

Society has never been as free as it is now, at least in the West. An individual can just about do anything he likes, read whatever he likes, speak whatever he likes. Yet sadly, the only use that many people seem to make of this tremendously rare freedom is to concoct mythical enemies who seek to oppress them.

The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.

—- Max Horkheimer

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Society has never been as free as it is now, at least in the West. An individual can just about do anything he likes, read whatever he likes, speak whatever he likes. Yet sadly, the only use that many people seem to make of this tremendously rare freedom is to concoct mythical enemies who seek to oppress them.

Good post! And not just the part I quoted. It's something I can agree with largely, although I think part of that freedom, especially for anyone dedicated to wisdom of the absolute, is for anyone to delve into theological or political disputes as they wish. But what you actually did, in some weird "unfree" dictatorship like way, was to create some moral outrage, some public scolding when someone chose to engage in a theology, a hellish realm too different from the ones you prefer. This is still the puzzling thing.

In any case, don't you think the anti-Trump drama is another prime example of concocting mythical enemies who seek to oppress them? Is Trump really promoting a fascist state in any sense? Is he controlling intelligence agencies to round up opponents? Last time I looked he's suspecting others using those agencies to sabotage the elected government, one which might, when unchecked, wreck part of the economy but has not made one move to endanger freedom of speech, freedom of movements for citizens, freedom to do business or moves to stop medicare, stop funding scientific research etc. But I know you are arguing the case that somehow this would be all waiting in the wings of a continuing Trump administration while I see it as another myth but one you seem to like or at least are attracted to. We might have to continue this conversation in a few years and see how it all panned out! Then again, details might get too murky even then for any particular conclusion. This is typical for all political ideologies.

[Santiago Odo]

Society has never been as free as it is now, at least in the West. An individual can just about do anything he likes, read whatever he likes, speak whatever he likes. Yet sadly, the only use that many people seem to make of this tremendously rare freedom is to concoct mythical enemies who seek to oppress them.

One aspect of what I would call your 'willed ignorance' is that your intellectual world is so narrow. I suppose this is related to your radical atheism. In any case it is part of a whole. An entire conception of *the world*.

Another rather amazing thing is that some years back you had participated in a conversation that had to do with the recognition that you lived within a society ruled (substantially) by the flowy feminine. The mindlessness of females, of both genders (as Dan had written in the introductory blurb), who surrender intellectualism for sensationalism, and a culture that is established to pander to them. The implications in this view are large and also worthwhile. There is merit in this view if it is taken properly. The world of higher reason is sacrificed to that of contingent and immediate sensation.

Here then, we do have a very good definition -- a picture -- of what 'the enemy' manages to achieve in our world. I am referring to the terms which the three of you (Quinn/Rowden/Solway) had yourselves established to define 'enemy'. This is what you opposed. And in reaction to this -- a description of reality -- you made assertions about *what a man should do* and *what is right and proper for a man to do* in view of these realities.

Therefore, 'freedom' takes on a very different meaning. You have negated or rendered irrational nearly every aspect of what *society* and the flowy female defines as 'freedom'. You have asserted that this is not freedom. It is by your definition a deliberate seeking out of freedom's opposite. It is not just *some people* who do this but according to your-plural own definitions *the whole world*. And you have a cure for this. You define that cure and you propose that you can teach someone, anyone, 'others', to apply the cure and to become (if you'll permit the turn of phrase) healed (sane, rational, 'enlightened').

Yet, in the paragraph quoted you now state that 'people are concocting mythic enemies who oppress them'. And those who 'concoct' these mythic enemies just happen to be those who look at the same world as you looked at, and seek to apply an analysis to it of what is wrong with it, and why it oppresses.

Your intellectual error is 1) that you are far too adamant in your close-mindedness, and 2) you do not understand -- you refuse to consider -- the metaphysical implications of 'bondage'.

You define 'The West' then as an entity, or an historical eventuality, that has rendered to man more 'freedom' that has ever been offered at any moment of history, which view negates substantially the critique which you yourself (and you-plural) had of 'liberal outcomes'. That is to say of 'hyper-liberalism' when the tenets of classic liberalism work against the very structure within intellectualism that brought 'liberalism' into the world as a possibility.

What amazes me is a) that you do not know enough about the Philosophical Right and the Traditional Right (which shares many of the concerns that you-plural outlined), and b) that you now have allied your hyper-rational neo-Buddhism with a hyper-liberal SJW-style reactionarianism. And you come out blazing against your emblem of the same: the Alt-Right.

It is true that in our present any given persona can say, read and think what he wishes. But this is an irrelevant freedom if at every juncture he does not conceive what 'freedom' is. Therefore, everything turns back to a definition of what freedom is and means.

You imply that you are 'free'. Certainly you imply that you are 'enlightened'. If 'enlightenment' is not 'freedom' then I wish for you to say it is not. But I say that in no sense is your narcissistic and solipsistic notion about 'enlightenment', nor your own claim to be 'enlightened', a true and proper definition of either enlightenment (as in enlightened understanding) nor does it conduce to freedom. (I would of course modify this to some degree since, in some ways, you do recognize bondage and unfreedom).

But the larger point, in my view, is that you are also in 'bondage' and in thrall. I am not at all convinced that you properly use your freedom -- the freedom offered by our liberal structures -- and I am not convinced that most of what you recommend as ways and means to gain freedom are really such. The question then must be returned to. The question must be asked all over again.

And it is this *question* that the New Philosophical Right is asking, as I understand things. It is a perennial question no doubt.

Since you cannot -- or do not in my view -- use your freedom properly, I would say that you abuse your freedom. You are definitely not alone of course. But it is important to counter you because, as I often say, your recommendations do not seem to lead to freedom, to expansion, to greater understanding, but to the shutting down of all these into a narrow solipsism.

Good post! And not just the part I quoted. It's something I can agree with largely, although I think part of that freedom, especially for anyone dedicated to wisdom of the absolute, is for anyone to delve into theological or political disputes as they wish. But what you actually did, in some weird "unfree" dictatorship like way, was to create some moral outrage, some public scolding when someone chose to engage in a theology, a hellish realms too much different that the ones you prefer. This is still the puzzling thing.

Diebert, in his own weird way, mirrors in numerous ways your 'style of thinking'. And he winds up in a special postmodern mire that spins*, has been spinning, and will continue to spin in the same general rut. Yet he is elegant about it. And he is thorough in his analysis and wide in the range of material he considers. (I always felt that he especially benefitted from instruction & counsel that Gustav Bjornstrand gave him so freely, but that is neither here nor there).

Diebert's entire activity as spinner and as spinning is here: "is for anyone to delve into theological or political disputes as they wish" in unending revelation of thought. Anything can be considered. Anything discussed. Anything 'delved into'. Diebert the Delver!

But there is no decisiveness there. Nothing decided. No specific action, recommendation nor conclusion. I think this is an important observation within this tiny little context. Therefore, the idea of 'freedom' is relevant here. That is, Diebert employs his freedom in a project of endless spinning. I am not sure, either, if that is really 'freedom'. Yet he is, indeed, free to do it.
________________________

[*Spin and spinnekop].

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, in his own weird way, mirrors in numerous ways your 'style of thinking'.

That's a compliment and at the same time a weird deflection as it's actually you who mirrors this odd insistence on a politics, a life style, a participial sentimentally or morality as linked to wisdom. Then again, you are both getting old perhaps so it's no wonder.

Anything can be considered. Anything discussed. But there is no decisiveness there. Nothing decided. No specific action, recommendation nor conclusion.

You must have misunderstood again! One can bring reasoning into the situation and the discussion. Just don't expect too much from the ultimate outcome. That is linked to what I thoughtfully described many times in many ways as the fundamental ambiguity of the object, the reality-as-thing, any stated goal included. People have a hard time to accept all the consequences, intended and unintended, of their actions, let alone their thoughts. Never mind those of others. To understand the above means opening up to a wider reality but the dangers of indecisiveness are the least of ones worries at that stage.

[Santiago Odo]

Sometimes I admit to a certain indifference to you; sometimes I feel a kind of condescending pity; but today I feel rather miserable as I contemplate your horrifying situation!

Would that I could help! Just reach out your hand!

Do spankings help? Or sitting in the corner? Nothing?!

Oh Lord . . .

Anything can be considered. Anything discussed. But there is no decisiveness there. Nothing decided. No specific action, recommendation nor conclusion.

You must have misunderstood again! One can bring reasoning into the situation and the discussion. Just don't expect too much from the ultimate outcome. That is linked to what I thoughtfully described many times in many ways as the fundamental ambiguity of the object, the reality-as-thing, any stated goal included. People have a hard time to accept all the consequences, intended and unintended, of their actions, let alone their thoughts. Never mind those of others. To understand the above means opening up to a wider reality but the dangers of indecisiveness are the least of ones worries at that stage.

My one and only, glorious flaxen-haired boy! I send torrents of compassion to you! Here, you have expanded on my description of *your philosophical situation* as if it is an argument against it.

Spinner spin!

My dear child, if one cannot depend on 'reason', and if one cannot expect 'too much' from the ultimate outcome (what does 'ultimate' here mean?), it means that this defined reason is defective in some sense. Therefore, you have undermined and negated the core proposition of QRStianity and henceforth shall be branded as a heretic!

We are just now assembling the kindling for the bonfire!

Repent, non-rational sinner!

Just don't expect too much from the ultimate outcome.

What you are saying here is that the tools which you have at your disposal are not adequate. Therefore, one must simply accept this. This is your particular strategy and it is one that is common and it is one that is classically postmodern.

If one cannot depend, shall we say, on 'reason', one what ultimately -- oh glorious glimmering one! -- do we ultimately rely?

And don't start rasping on about the Dark Void or something . . .

Have you not come to the brink of Reality and stared into the Face of the All?!?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If one cannot depend, shall we say, on 'reason', one what ultimately -- oh glorious glimmering one! -- do we ultimately rely?

On the infinite of causality, this marvelous reality, which is sometimes called God or Tao. And reasoning is but a poor reflection.

[jupiviv]

Again, in this internet age, there is no compulsion to accept governmental narratives and no punishment is meted out to those who do not accept them. There is not even a hint of fascism here.

Critics of acceptable narratives, policies and doctrines are silenced if they are correct. Again, this can easily be done without murder or imprisonment if the media is owned by holding companies that do not want said narratives, etc. challenged. People like Jordan Peterson view "worldly affairs" exactly as you do with the exception of a few values concerning the optimal *degree* of liberalism. Others, like Alex Jones, entertain their audiences by playing the character of a rebel fighting enemies contrived with blatantly false and ridiculous information. Even silencing, let alone jailing or murdering, this latter category of "critics" is counterproductive.

I am not even sure what a “non-fascist” system (using your definition) would look like, given that a government, no matter what its type, will naturally always seek to paint itself in the best possible light. At a bare minimum, a society of buddhas would have to be in place to make a non-fascist system even remotely possible.

Fascism as I define it is an integral aspect of the unique industrial era that started 200 odd years ago. It encompasses a lot more than ubiquitous human egotism. Pre-industrial societies weren't fascist, even if authoritarian.

Society has never been as free as it is now, at least in the West. An individual can just about do anything he likes, read whatever he likes, speak whatever he likes. Yet sadly, the only use that many people seem to make of this tremendously rare freedom is to concoct mythical enemies who seek to oppress them.

It highlights the old adage that, despite all their lofty talk to the contrary, people actually hate freedom. They are never happy unless they are in bondage.

This is the standard reactionary conservative argument advanced by the alt-right/culture warriors, whom you hate so much! It's nonsensical even on superficial semantic terms, i.e. the mythical enemies imagined by people who hate their own freedoms (for no reason whatsoever) would be emancipators and not oppressors. In a more substantial context, certain personal freedoms have increased dramatically because societal and economic changes made suppressing them pointless, and that trend has indeed continued to the present. Much of the political and economic power gained by the working class during the early 20th c. has receded since the 1960s/70s, and that has resulted in fewer freedoms within that domain.

This [the WOMAN essay] was never written as a political treatise.

I didn't say it was political, just pointed out that quite a few GF positions on femininity are repeated by the alt-right.

Superficially, perhaps. But it’s an illusion which quickly disappears when you look more closely into it. In reality, the founding principles of GF have no more connection to the alt-right than they do to the religion of Buddhism or the atheism of scientific materialism.

The similarity isn't entirely superficial. As I pointed out below the desire to fit unfamiliar (=most) things within familiar vocabulary and ideas is central to the culture war.

You insist on using a limited set of ideas to explain things you haven't thought about very deeply. Ideas and thoughts are worthless in isolation, even if logical.

Christians tell me the same thing. “David, your thinking on Christianity is so limited. You haven’t explored the nuances of what we do as Christians, nor examined our theology in any great detail. You just swan in here with your mulish, hackneyed ideas about wisdom without realizing how clumsy and ignorant you look.”

Quite a bit of QRS/GF philosophy is about finding wisdom in the gospels or the works of Kierkegaard. So your approach to Christianity *refutes* the point you seem to be making, i.e., nuance and the ability to connect diverse ideas and thoughts together are useless.

Jordan Peterson is popular because he uses a motley collection of small truths and borrowed syllogisms to create the illusion of profundity.

In other words, he is just a typical guru.

No he is a psychotherapist. Like gurus, they make money by getting confused and miserable people to believe that ordinary, productive human activity (or specific types of it at least) leads to enlightenment and/or happiness. You're not making money and your interlocutors aren't confused and miserable, but your worldview partially resembles the one I've just described.

[jupiviv]

Since you cannot -- or do not in my view -- use your freedom properly, I would say that you abuse your freedom. You are definitely not alone of course. But it is important to counter you because, as I often say, your recommendations do not seem to lead to freedom, to expansion, to greater understanding, but to the shutting down of all these into a narrow solipsism.

Was this goodly book made to write "wiener" upon?

Yes.

[Santiago Odo]

i.e. the mythical enemies imagined by people who hate their own freedoms (for no reason whatsoever) would be emancipators and not oppressors.

The enemy that would be defined by people who do not desire to be free, and who describe their imprisonment as 'freedom', would be defined as oppressors but would in fact attempt to bring to them higher modes of seeing *the world* and *reality* and *existence*.

Any demand made on them would necessarily be seen as an imposition, would rouse them to irrational anger and---

Oh my God! Jupi, you must have been thinking here of the Merciful Project© of Gustav Bjornstrand!

Isn't this what he had been attempting for so long?

Now, finally, in the New Phase, at last dear child! some movement.

[Santiago Odo]

If one cannot depend, shall we say, on 'reason', one what ultimately -- oh glorious glimmering one! -- do we ultimately rely?

On the infinite of causality, this marvelous reality, which is sometimes called God or Tao. And reasoning is but a poor reflection.

::: blessings to you from the centre of all being :::

Very good. You are now ready my son! You have crossed oceans and you now stand at the beginning point. Torn and weary, fate has spat you out but with at least some shnard to hang on to! Here, dry yourself next to the embers. Take a vitamin.

Now, we must carry forward this abstraction into the world of human affairs, and into the life that we live here and now.

[Santiago Odo]

“David, your thinking on Christianity is so limited. You haven’t explored the nuances of what we do as Christians, nor examined our theology in any great detail. You just swan in here with your mulish, hackneyed ideas about wisdom without realizing how clumsy and ignorant you look.”

Quite a bit of QRS/GF philosophy is about finding wisdom in the gospels or the works of Kierkegaard. So your approach to Christianity *refutes* the point you seem to be making, i.e., nuance and the ability to connect diverse ideas and thoughts together are useless.

Ouch! It was so simple, though so evident. But you did say it. And I am proud!

But then I read quotes like this from that brutish Dane, and my crest falls:

God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners.

Can we not rewrite Kierkegaard? I know that he was enlightened, I just know it, and he must have meant something different. But what, what?