Trumpism

[jupiviv]

An example is the right-wing myth that the science of climate change is primarily a politicized narrative. Not only is this completely untrue, but it shows a lack of understanding of how the scientific community operates. Science, when done properly, is apolitical in nature. It operates within a sealed world of competing theories and supporting evidence. Scientific theories are often being overturned, not because of political expediency, but because new evidence or new ways of thinking have come to light. That is the soil out of which the current thinking on climate change has emerged. Again, it has nothing to do with politics.

This is an example of the *unoriginality* of your thinking about such issues. Usually it is the left that pushes for action on climate change, and this is precisely the argument they make: the science about this is solid and objective, even though it lines up with our policies/talking points. Do you see any problem with repeating that same claim without further analysis or contextualisation?

Now here is my take on it: the *science* of climate change is indeed correct, but a lot of the *thinking* on the policies towards climate change is problematic. The *thinking* is about determining appropriate policies, what the future holds, how the past should be viewed in light of such a discovery (or lack thereof), and finally the legitimacy of entire economic/political systems. How can such a thing *not* be politicised? This is precisely where various special interests collide or where happy solutions (on both sides) are peddled for the sake of votes.

Keeping all that in mind, please answer these questions for me: does criticism about the standard progressive liberal/neoliberal narrative on climate change and concomitant policies necessarily accompany a climate change denialist perspective? Is everyone offering such criticisms doing so out of a sense of allegiance to far right worldviews? Does the mere fact of climate change denial indicate a denial of the legitimacy of *all* science? Does the mere fact of climate change acceptance indicate a total acceptance of all science?

[David Quinn]

Yet I have noticed you, jupiviv and Santiago, along with alt-right people generally, are perfectly happy to regurgitate the right-propaganda which centres around slandering scientists and using non-scientific considerations to dismiss their work. I know Santiago is incapable of rising above this, but I expect a lot more from someone like you.

WTF lumping me and Diebert in with a daft cunt like Alex?

I thought you would like that one. :)

There is something about your attitude towards experts and the equating of their presence in our lives with fascism that always pops into my head whenever I read your words nowadays. I can’t get it out my head. It has a very strong alt-right flavour to it. But perhaps I am wrong.

But since we have descended into this shit again, let me restate in brief the position I've held since the beginning:

While Trump is indubitably a contemptible *person*, he is not the cause of the political chaos we are seeing around the world, despite Diebert's recent feckless postmodernist attempts at retconing my brilliant prophecy about Trump's irrelevance into irrelevance.

The fault lines that are widening both between and within global political factions are not wreaked by the right wing hive mind.

The above assertion does not imply that the right wing, the alt-right etc. are *not* iniquitous or dangerous. Nor does it imply that right wingers have no part in causing political/cultural/economic problems. It simply means that the actions or disposition of Trump or right wingers is not a sufficient explanation of those problems.

Now I will admit that I had not communicated my position effectively to you the last time we had this Trump discussion. I was overly aggressive and dismissive in many instances. I also tried to tackle a lot of your arguments simultaneously even though most of them were peripheral to the issue at hand. Indeed my motive for participation was somewhat dishonest, because I was using your outburst against Kevin as an excuse for elucidating my own views about this issue and related others. Besides that, it was fun to be involved in and goad on a clusterfuck discussion motivated by absurd premises and assumptions from the start. And yes some of that absurdness was also on the side of your opponents, me included.

That’s a good honest passage and I appreciate it.

You have to remember that for the past few years, and specifically in 2017 when we had that “clusterfuck discussion”, there has been in general society a continuous outpouring of ridicule and demonization directed towards liberals by the alt-right, and by Trump supporters - some of it warranted, much of it absurd. And then, to my dismay, I found that the very same ridicule and demonization was also very much a feature of this forum - and still is to some extent, although it has lessened. It created the impression at the time that Genius Forum was hijacked by the alt-right. Dan saw this as well. Until this hostility and demonization ceases, it is going to be difficult for me to take what you and the others say seriously.

That said, your approach to this issue is fucking shameful. You're accusing old forum members of being racists and alt-right cultists, *obviously* not reading what we write carefully on an exclusively text-based forum dedicated to reading things carefully, and worst of all posturing as some kind of bastion of sanity while doing all of the aforesaid.

Now you are being precious. Sure, we have all known each other for a long time, but that doesn’t mean we should refrain from speaking the truth just because it might upset the old-timers here.

I don’t recall calling anyone a racist, but I do stand by my view that Diebert is a strong supporter of Trump and very enamoured with alt-right (or anti-left) thinking. In fact, he has stated as much a number of times before on this forum, and his recent Trump apologetics only served to confirm it. Perhaps you have been around him so long that you have become numb to his underlying patterns. Indeed, there is a kind of chummy familiarity between the three of you which suggests that you probably have been around each other too long.

[Santiago Odo]

Sure, but here you demonstrate how your peculiar and I’d say virulent bias blinds your capacity to see clearly. Your bias, having “possessed” you, produces an analysis that is nothing more than an emotionalized repetition of the common tropes.

Though the term Cultural Marxism is — obviously — too vague when not more carefully defined, and becomes at a point similar in use to other hot terms like “racist, Conservative, Republican, sexist”, it does have a fuller definition and does refer to real things: and this I outlined above.

Naturally though, you find only what you want to find, a result determined from the start, and what you find supports your shallow general perspective. Rather circular.

This, simply cut and pasted from one less biased item on the first page of a Google search, offers a better starting point.

Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxist ideology formulated by the Frankfurt School, which had its origins the early part of the twentieth century. Cultural Marxism comprises much of the foundation of political correctness. It emerged as a response of European Marxist intellectuals disillusioned by the early political failures of conventional economic Marxist ideology.

The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism after a gradual, relentless, sustained attack on every institution of Western culture, including schools, literature, art, film, the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the family, sexual mores, national sovereignty, etc. The attacks are usually framed in Marxist terms as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed; the members of the latter class allegedly include women, minorities, homosexuals, and adherents of non-Western ideologies such as Islam. Cultural Marxism has been described as "the cultural branch of globalism."

While Marx's Communist Manifesto focused on the alleged class struggle between bourgeois (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers), Marx did address culture, which he intimated would change after his economic vision was implemented. Patrick Buchanan argues that Cultural Marxism succeeded where Marx failed.

Among cultural Marxists, the book Dialectic of Enlightenment is considered to be a central text.

An effective way for cultural Marxists to influence the culture is to infiltrate schools and indoctrinate students, which the Democratic Socialists of America explicitly endorsed in 2018.

[David Quinn]

An example is the right-wing myth that the science of climate change is primarily a politicized narrative. Not only is this completely untrue, but it shows a lack of understanding of how the scientific community operates. Science, when done properly, is apolitical in nature. It operates within a sealed world of competing theories and supporting evidence. Scientific theories are often being overturned, not because of political expediency, but because new evidence or new ways of thinking have come to light. That is the soil out of which the current thinking on climate change has emerged. Again, it has nothing to do with politics.

This is an example of the *unoriginality* of your thinking about such issues.

I'm not trying to be original. My purpose here is to reintroduce some basic facts about science that are being lost in all the political hullaballoo.

Usually it is the left that pushes for action on climate change, and this is precisely the argument they make: the science about this is solid and objective, even though it lines up with our policies/talking points. Do you see any problem with repeating that same claim without further analysis or contextualisation?

If the science really is solid and objective, then no, I don’t.

It is also mainly the left that acknowledges and supports the science of evolutionary theory. Is it a problem that evolutionary theory aligns with the the left’s talking points and overall view of the world? No, because the science underlying evolutionary theory is extremely strong. Moreover, the kind of intellect that understands and appreciates evolutionary theory is also the same kind of intellect that wants to go beyond traditional, conservative, religious modes of thought. Thus, such an alignment is natural.

The same goes for climate change. Those who absorb and take on board the science of climate change are going to be ones who want to rise above normal human concerns and see the bigger picture and have a more global perspective on things. Again, it is a natural alignment.

Does this mean that we should refrain from questioning the views and policies of the left? Of course not. As you say, implementing policy is a political process and always needs to be properly analyzed.

Now here is my take on it: the *science* of climate change is indeed correct, but a lot of the *thinking* on the policies towards climate change is problematic. The *thinking* is about determining appropriate policies, what the future holds, how the past should be viewed in light of such a discovery (or lack thereof), and finally the legitimacy of entire economic/political systems. How can such a thing *not* be politicised?

What you say here is perfectly reasonable and I agree with it. However, it does not match my own experience of right-wing attitudes towards climate change. They are definitely not accepting the science. They continually call it a hoax, a left-wing conspiracy, a UN plot to form a One World Government, or whatever. So we are nowhere near the rosy picture you paint.

You’re right that when it comes to “determining appropriate policies", we are indeed engaging in politics. But at the moment, the "politicization" of the issue is revolving around the very notion of whether climate change should be acknowledged at all. That is how far behind the eight-ball we are.

Keeping all that in mind, please answer these questions for me: does criticism about the standard progressive liberal/neoliberal narrative on climate change and concomitant policies necessarily accompany a climate change denialist perspective?

No, I can easily imagine a supporter of climate change science being critical of left-wing narratives and policies. It’s just that I hardly ever meet anyone like this. My experience is that those who attack the left are almost invariably climate change denialists.

Again, the most pressing issue at the moment is to get people to accept that climate change is real. It is almost impossible to make effective policy when nearly half the population won’t even acknowledge there is a problem in the first place.

Does the mere fact of climate change denial indicate a denial of the legitimacy of *all* science?

No, people are very selective in their attitude towards science. They are happy enough to accept the value of science when it comes to medicine, computers and engineering, but such acceptance magically disappears the moment a branch of science begins to challenge their lifestyle and worldview in any way.

Does the mere fact of climate change acceptance indicate a total acceptance of all science?

If the acceptance involves understanding the science of climate change, and indeed the scientific method in general, then I don’t see how anybody could go around picking and choosing which branches of science to like or dislike. I mean, you either accept the scientific method or you don’t. If you do accept it, then you would necessarily have to accept all of the branches of science that practice it.

If by acceptance, you are referring instead to the social desirability of certain forms of science, then that's a different issue. Eugenics was routinely condemned by most people in the first half of the 20th century, even by those who supported science. And the science of AI is unsettling a lot of scientists today because of its potential ramifications.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, having read through this thread and all of its oh-so-clever comments, I still have no idea what Cultural Marxism is.

That's because the last page was mostly discussing the various way that term is used and abused elsewhere. Which is confusing indeed.

It seems to be nothing more than a broad term of abuse designed to slander all those who oppose the conservatism and regressiveness of the right.

That's still not explaining in any way what intellectual people might mean when they use the term. Actually, boiling it down to "slander" and "abuse" is simply doing the same: counter-slandering another part of the population. You used to do it, or it was experienced as such by many, to half of the population (women) and now again another half (political right). It seems like some need to always target half of the people and cuddle or protect the remainder?

My take on what is happening is this: The ultra-rich have completely taken over the Republican party (...) their one goal in life, which is to pathologically make as much money as possible - whether it be getting rid of social and environmental regulations, stripping healthcare and eliminating social programs, recklessly promoting massive tax cuts, or undermining any kind of coherent response to global issues such as climate change.

Why would the ultra-rich (billionaires) want to get rid of the very programs, tax arrangements and globalism that contributed to or at least didn't hinder them to gain billions? That doesn't make sense. Budding millionaires perhaps. Or do you think they all fear losing their capital in some way? But then you need to give some example, how any social program in place right now would threaten the billions in possession by some ultra-rich and evil J̶e̶w̶ white old male.

the constant demonization of the left, they are rubbing their hands with glee.

And you don't think the "right" is being demonized to the same extent? Or Russia. Or Muslims fundamentalism. It seems more interesting to me to examine this need to create categories of people, being it race, wealth, social or nation based and project some drama on it, some evil that needs to be battled or resisted, or else! This is the same pap the church pushed on us for two thousand years and yet here you are, returning to it.

[Santiago Odo]

Diebert's analysis sounds fair to my ears, but only up to a certain point.

He, too, is *captured* by certain currents that need to be seen and exposed. In any case, the traditional and philosophical right is exploring that area.

From the webpage, quoted above in full:

The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism after a gradual, relentless, sustained attack on every institution of Western culture, including schools, literature, art, film, the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the family, sexual mores, national sovereignty, etc. The attacks are usually framed in Marxist terms as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed; the members of the latter class allegedly include women, minorities, homosexuals, and adherents of non-Western ideologies such as Islam. Cultural Marxism has been described as "the cultural branch of globalism."

What I find more interesting than the bickering argumentation here -- though this is very fun indeed! -- is to turn the analysis back on you-plural. That is, on the Q-R-S project. It is a phenomenon open to a more thorough analysis. I doubt that you are aware of this.

I see your *project* as one with definite links to 'Cultural Marxism' (and I will continue to use the term because the longer definition cannot be inserted at every juncture). You especially David give an example of a man who has internalized a culturally destructive modality. It is lnot really an 'idea' but an emotional zone. I would not in the past have ever imagined it as possible, yet your storm in here with a tremendous hyper-liberal enthusiasm and make it very plain to see.

You actively undermine Greco-Christian categories and thus, witting or unwitting, you participate in a general project of 'gradual, relentless, sustained' undermining of cultural hierarchies. In the idea-realm, as is evidenced by your outrageous reductionism (!) you undermine intellectualism and the intellect.

And so it seems too does your *mode of spirituality* -- a bizarre hyper-rationalism brought out in a virulent atheism -- that connects to the intentionality of so-called Cultural Marxism. You share 'intellectual roots' I guess is how it would be expressed. One has to go back into intellectual history and discover the point of deviation and repair the damage.

[Santiago Odo]

Moreover, the kind of intellect that understands and appreciates evolutionary theory is also the same kind of intellect that wants to go beyond traditional, conservative, religious modes of thought. Thus, such an alignment is natural.

The same goes for climate change. Those who absorb and take on board the science of climate change are going to be ones who want to rise above normal human concerns and see the bigger picture and have a more global perspective on things. Again, it is a natural alignment.

A chemically pure example of how reductionist thinking functions. It is a sort of machinethink that is difficult to communicate with, simply because it has to transcend itself before conversation is possible. It is the common mode of thought in our day. It is infecting.

Alain de Benoist, of the Philosophical Right, has written extensively about ecological issues.

"We cannot face the ecological crisis without breaking with the global neoliberal order." The Impossible Equation.

It is just one example of someone on the philosophical right indicating concern for the CC issue (and other ecological issues).

The text of the accord is in fact clearly schizophrenic. On one side, the signatory countries want to react to climate change – a laudable care. On the other, the immense majority adhere to the theses of liberal economists who want to endlessly increase industrial production and commercial exchange, encourage mass tourism, base the economy on the ‘comparative advantages’ of each country, and so on. In other words, they are convinced of the virtues of capitalism that tend to suppress all the obstacles capable of slowing the headlong rush of productivity. On one side they want ‘to save the planet’, and on the other they want to keep doing what destroys it. There is enough here to remain skeptical of the results we can expect from this grand mass of the expertocracy.

______________________________

If the acceptance involves understanding the science of climate change, and indeed the scientific method in general, then I don’t see how anybody could go around picking and choosing which branches of science to like or dislike. I mean, you either accept the scientific method or you don’t. If you do accept it, then you would necessarily have to accept all of the branches of science that practice it.

And this is how your mind functions across the board. You have a rigid and impermeable view of yourself, your mind and its function, and your 'method', and this is bound up into your general politics, and out of that develops your *absolutism*.

The political left, the 'progressive left', the Cultural Marxist radical left, has a similar mind-frame. It *insists* as you insist. They weaponize their entire approach, as you seem to. There is in them a virulent enthusiasm which is absolutist in nature.

"You either accept how I view things and how I think, or you stand in opposition to absolute truth'. That's it in a nutshell . . .

[Santiago Odo]

While Trump is indubitably a contemptible *person*, he is not the cause of the political chaos we are seeing around the world, despite Diebert's recent feckless postmodernist attempts at retconing my brilliant prophecy about Trump's irrelevance into irrelevance.

The fault lines that are widening both between and within global political factions are not wreaked by the right wing hive mind.

The above assertion does not imply that the right wing, the alt-right etc. are *not* iniquitous or dangerous. Nor does it imply that right wingers have no part in causing political/cultural/economic problems. It simply means that the actions or disposition of Trump or right wingers is not a sufficient explanation of those problems.

Here, to my view, you have not said anything that has much use in understanding what is going on in our present, and you seem to have no comprehension that there is a reactionary movement that is developing which sets itself in opposition to what I term Hyper-Liberalism -- defined an extreme modification of traditional liberalism (a high and important achievement) and the emergence of a hyper-virulent liberal form -- which reactionary movement, weak and underground, begins to plot alternatives and modifications.

I assume that you are, similarly to David, ignorant of these philosophical trends. But it is a willful ignorance and a refusal (I would guess) to confront ideas that are difficult and challenging to your *pet perspective*. (For one example the questions of 'race-realism' and that of 'ethno-nationalism' which, I have gathered from your reaction, frightens you).

In order to understand what is 'iniquitous or dangerous' in the Alt-Right, the European New Right, and indeed in any movement in ideas or in politics, you'd have to establish what you mean in precise terms. As far as I know, I do not think you even have. It is very true that the New Right finds itself in intellectual areas that correspond to the "unconventional discussion ... suitable only for the brave hearted ... for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous", if I may once again quote from the Guiding Blurb.

Your ideas are weak, I have noticed, and though you have a waspish and biting demeanor -- I have chided you for being a Hindu raised by priests and consumed by ressentiment -- yet you never succeed in getting to any platform or position that has any bite in it at all. Once that is seen, you really do seem as 'an argument looking for a topic'.

Perhaps you bite too often on Cheetos, my son?

If "the actions or disposition of Trump or right wingers is not a sufficient explanation of those problems" I think you owe a general explanation. I think you have some (what seem to me) half-baked notions of 'causes' but these have seemed to me shallow opinions and little more.

I do not think you have any sense at all of what a structured, traditionalist, philosophically right-leaning social and political platform is or should be. And yet many people are working to arrive at this definition, and to inculcate it.

My understanding has arisen, partly, out of a counter-proposition to the ideas and the ideals [sic] that have been expressed in this forum over time, and therefore I link the new impetus to define operational terms and strategies to oppose and counter a swallowing hyper-liberalism, to a regeneration within Occidental categories, is of a sort that *you-plural* have missed entirely. It is categorically impossible that you-plural understand since, I venture to say, you develop a posture that opposes even the idea of its possibility. My critique of Diebert's *philosophy* centers in this. Still, I would modify this to a small degree in Diebert's case. Nevertheless it is nihilism in essence. But largely, you-plural have failed to make a connection between your-plural inclination toward a renovating philosophy and metaphysics -- this does exist -- and with what is now showing up on a larger scale. That is a failure in my view.

The term 'hive-mind' (for the Alt-Right) has a certain importance as a term given mass-phenomena and social-media communication, social hysteria, et cetera, but there is in any case a large, potent and activist hive-mind that laps up cultural products all the time that is not confined to the Right certainly. The Right might propose correctives, in fact. Yet you reduce and perhaps dismiss in this way the philosophical and political concerns of an emerging 'philosophical right' (for want of a better word). Wholly because you are ignorant of its discourse.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It has a very strong alt-right flavour to it. But perhaps I am wrong. (...) I was overly aggressive and dismissive in many instances. I

That's more like it! Keep meditating on it and realize you are still a lot like that on these particular topics. That is, not accepting you might have read too much into things and not being open to rational, documented, reasonable viewpoints not in line with what you currently believe to be true.

I don’t recall calling anyone a racist, but I do stand by my view that Diebert is a strong supporter of Trump and very enamoured with alt-right (or anti-left) thinking. In fact, he has stated as much a number of times before on this forum, and his recent Trump apologetics only served to confirm it.

As for my own political views, the few times I do relate to them, they are more or less openly left-libertarian. That is: very left on most social issues and mostly libertarian in how I see national state governments in this century as creating way more problems than they solve. That way I'm more of a regionalist, valuing the more natural borders defined by landscape, trade, culture and shared interests which rarely simply follow national interests. In any case, this might explain why I not only see Trump as danger but more so much of the "establishment" using all the myths on democracy and futuristic techno-babble to let people buy into a burden increasingly harder to carry from a psychological and economical perspective. But I'm open to discuss the details, as always.

The "amount" of government actions is meaningless if these actions lack substance.

That was only in response to Jupiviv quoting his failed prediction that were was only one action. Which also seems meaningless (the wall). But instead you turn it into somehow justifying or supporting all those "dangerous" actions I just listed for completeness! Just stop the nonsense already!

I have noticed plenty of other instances of your Trump apologetics on this forum.

You make that up. And if there's any positive I managed to distil (like wrecking the establishment to make room for something new) it's usually embedded in many negatives. You skip all that. So what we end up with is "if you're not supporting my definition of Trump as global menace to reason and livelihood, you must be supporting him". A bit of logic belonging to the neo-con G.W. Bush ideologists. What is ironic!

you ..are perfectly happy to regurgitate the right-propaganda which centres around slandering scientists and using non-scientific considerations to dismiss their work. I know Santiago is incapable of rising above this, but I expect a lot more from someone like you.

Now it's truth time. Give me one or two references where you believe I was pushing actual right-propaganda, slandering scientists or non-scientific considerations to dismiss other scientists. I think you are just living in your own fantasy or narrative where I'm doing those things. It gives you the justification you need to dismiss everything wholesale and ignore the rest what I might have to say. Or are you trying to simply slander?

It is indeed important to stay connected with reality. But that's just repeating my own earlier challenge to you as I suspect you might have lost it.

[jupiviv]

There is something about your attitude towards experts and the equating of their presence in our lives with fascism that always pops into my head whenever I read your words nowadays. I can’t get it out my head. It has a very strong alt-right flavour to it. But perhaps I am wrong.

Well you're wrong because you just made that up. I've equated fascism with unthinking trust in experts, usually those who agree with us or our worldview. NYT or whatever MSM news breastfeeds you information and commentary are not "experts". At least, they are not experts I trust with offering their readers a comprehensive rational view of world events, let alone world history. Their credibility and allegiance to truth is tentative at best. And since when is the alt-right about distrusting *all* experts?

You have to remember that for the past few years, and specifically in 2017 when we had that “clusterfuck discussion”, there has been in general society a continuous outpouring of ridicule and demonization directed towards liberals by the alt-right, and by Trump supporters - some of it warranted, much of it absurd. And then, to my dismay, I found that the very same ridicule and demonization was also very much a feature of this forum - and still is to some extent, although it has lessened. It created the impression at the time that Genius Forum was hijacked by the alt-right. Dan saw this as well. Until this hostility and demonization ceases, it is going to be difficult for me to take what you and the others say seriously.

Yeah this is made up as well. The very sparse activity on GF at that time was roughly limited to Diebert, myself and Alex. Only one of us was ridiculing and demonising liberals from an alt-right/new right pov. The other two were discussing why the rise of Trump can be explained through the intrinsic or adjunct flaws of liberal institutions and ideas.

Perhaps you have been around him so long that you have become numb to his underlying patterns. Indeed, there is a kind of chummy familiarity between the three of you which suggests that you probably have been around each other too long.

A description redolent of another trio. Moving on:

Usually it is the left that pushes for action on climate change, and this is precisely the argument they make: the science about this is solid and objective, even though it lines up with our policies/talking points. Do you see any problem with repeating that same claim without further analysis or contextualisation?

If the science really is solid and objective, then no, I don’t.

The soundness of climate science cannot lend credibility or cogency to environmental policy, or political ideologies that either accommodate or develop around acknowledgment of the need to address climate change.

It is also mainly the left that acknowledges and supports the science of evolutionary theory. Is it a problem that evolutionary theory aligns with the the left’s talking points and overall view of the world? No, because the science underlying evolutionary theory is extremely strong. Moreover, the kind of intellect that understands and appreciates evolutionary theory is also the same kind of intellect that wants to go beyond traditional, conservative, religious modes of thought. Thus, such an alignment is natural.

Actually evolutionary theory is a great example of politicisation. The alt-right and white nationalist movements regularly use it to justify their worldviews. They are even correct in some instances if you ignore the broader context! Just because it helped along the marginalisation of religion in judicature and education, doesn't make it inherently amenable to liberal/leftist worldviews.

The same goes for climate change. Those who absorb and take on board the science of climate change are going to be ones who want to rise above normal human concerns and see the bigger picture and have a more global perspective on things. Again, it is a natural alignment.

Or they may have been searching for an external source of value, a herd to identify with etc., and found it in environmental activism. They may also be legitimately concerned with local and immediate environmental destruction or problems, which fall under the category of climate change. Acknowledgment of science doesn't, in itself, represent willingness to contemplate supra-personal reality.

No, people are very selective in their attitude towards science. They are happy enough to accept the value of science when it comes to medicine, computers and engineering, but such acceptance magically disappears the moment a branch of science begins to challenge their lifestyle and worldview in any way.

Agreed.

If the acceptance involves understanding the science of climate change, and indeed the scientific method in general, then I don’t see how anybody could go around picking and choosing which branches of science to like or dislike.

Usually, people only apply reason if doing so gives them something they want, or at least doesn't force upon them what they don't want. The same holds true for science, even in the mental life of scientists and intellectuals.

[jupiviv]

The "amount" of government actions is meaningless if these actions lack substance.

That was only in response to Jupiviv quoting his failed prediction that were was only one action.

I'll make a successful prediction right now:

As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the US and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

[Santiago Odo]

First off, the whole video is simply an exercise in whining. Bowden is whining that white people shouldn’t be held accountable for the inexcusable way that non-whites were treated in the past, and continue to be treated in the present. More than that, he is whining that he is made to feel so guilty about it. Poor lamb!

A very biased, tendentious, but shallow reading (listening). Were you to look into the issues more, and with more fairness, I think that you would discover that Bowden's view is a kind of awareness of where things have wound up after a series of catastrophes. True, Bowden is at times ambivalent about European imperialism, but among others who examine the conditions of the present, there is a pained awareness of how the imperialist policies have back-fired. In the United Kingdom generally.

I might speak to the American situation if American slavery is taken as a product of imperialism and imperial 'booty'. Now, the Republic has been infected (excuse the word) by primitive Blacks (as CG Jung described primitive tribal Africans). And now the freed slaves, given power and with little to restrain them, are clamoring for more power. Taking an historical perspective, I do not think that this is now turning out well for the United States and will further deteriorate. Thus, bad choices will always show up later.

If there is a 'European grammar of self-intolerance' -- I definitely think there is, and it is now connected with PC formulas and also with Cultural Marxist attacks -- the subject of that grammar is unable to organize resistance. He is 'self-defeated'. It has 'been imposed' but it is also 'self-imposed', a result of his own crisis, and it is weakening and ultimately self-destructive. It leads to a suicidal mood as self-intolerance might be said to be a kind of suicidal intention.

These are -- this escapes you! -- Nietzschean notions, and Bowden is a pagan Nietzschean (though this is suspect in some sense since he, like you and Jupi I will add, was brought up in Catholic circumstances, Jupi by Jesuits I'd imagine (?) But that is how he defines himself and his discourse certainly expresses it.

Under the conditions, wrought by European catastrophe (the 2 wars principally), Europe and the European have lost their nerve. They are under assault.

Now, and as you say, necessary *introspection* in my interpretation of Bowden would not be swept aside, but his concern for 'cultural overpowering', or far too much immigration, or some sort of cultural and social philosophy of multicultural blending, and also of losing the capacity -- the right -- to self-identify as White European, is brought out as a concern even if 'it is undercut immediately' by the same 'grammar of self-intolerance'. Therefore, for European man and European men in their various world-locales it is a responsible and necessary task to take oneself in hand, and to reestablish oneself within oneself as powerful, as proactive.

The philosophical Left cannot do this, and it requires a philosophical Right. That is how I see it.

In this sense 'Cultural Marxism' is a tool used against European man. It is part of an infection. It has to be cast off. But how? Not easy, not simple!

But it is not used against European man *for no good reason*. It has deep historical roots. This is more my understanding than perhaps Bowden's. For us, now, the task is to begin to conceive what regeneration and renovation of Europe is. But the first order of business is to recognize a danger, a threat (White Genocide). But the grammar of self-intolerance inhibits this. It does not matter if 'the white man's situation' has been caused by his own errors. Now, in this present, he will have to come to terms with it all. Therefore, to overcome (again, in a Nietzschean sense) the imposed and self-imposed European grammar of self-intolerance is a valid endeavor.

But this does not mean, either, that it is or will be benign in effect. It may have recalcitrant aspects. I can say from my own perspective, after my own research, that race-awareness is necessary. Specifically, that means in respect to the US that after 1965 the immigration policies have been ill-advised and their effect very bad. 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. And, as you might guess, this does involve an historical introspection. It results in an awareness that imperial projects have done harm to other people, just as American policies involving neo-imperial wars in far-flung countries are harmful and damaging. Not only to the victims of them but top the perpetrators of them.

What he says about Eastern Europe having recently emerged from 'aspic' is also quite important. It problematic though too. Someone recently said that now that Eastern Europe is free of Soviet and Communist controls it "can get back to its own proper business, fascism". This is true in some degree, if 'fascism' is treated fairly, not 'hysterically'. The 'European man' that is coming out of Easter Europe -- his projects, self-definition, desire -- all have bearing on what is going on in our present and why, I gather, government and policy planners are confused and reacting against it.

Having started off the video in pure whining mode, Bowden then decides to try and pull the wool over our eyes by pretending that the horrible forces that make him feel so guilty are somehow connected to the Stalinist communist regime (!).

There is lots of conversation about how the present Left Establishment begins to show signs itself of totalitarianism-Lite. Again, you are an object-piece that demonstrates how this absolutism takes shape and becomes -- rapidly -- intolerant. There is legitimate fear of what may happen in the (I think unlikely but yet still possible) scenario of some sort of Socialist-Communist coup even of a mild variety. Those Left Regimes have been very harmful. A hyper-liberal government with access to all the tools of the NSA state. Well, perhaps it has already formed! But it is a genuine and an important area of concern.

There is more to talk about here but I will leave it at that. Your reading was superficial and really quite silly and . . . girlish.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You're fucking dead, kiddo.

That said, you might have had the best line of the thread one post earlier:

A description redolent of another trio.

And for any trio to function it seems one must receive all the blows. Or something.

[David Quinn]

There is something about your attitude towards experts and the equating of their presence in our lives with fascism that always pops into my head whenever I read your words nowadays. I can’t get it out my head. It has a very strong alt-right flavour to it. But perhaps I am wrong.

Well you're wrong because you just made that up. I've equated fascism with unthinking trust in experts, usually those who agree with us or our worldview. NYT or whatever MSM news breastfeeds you information and commentary are not "experts". At least, they are not experts I trust with offering their readers a comprehensive rational view of world events, let alone world history.

You’re right. Most mainstream journalists are not political or history experts and it would be silly for anyone to pretend that they are. But that is not their job. Their job is simply to report on what is going on each day or engage in investigative journalism, the result of which is usually a short article condensed to a few paragraphs and without a comprehensive political treatise attached each time.

In any case, I'm still not clear as to what you mean by fascism in relation to experts. Here in Australia at least, most people do trust experts, but they don't do so blindly. For example, if a doctor tells them they have cancer, they usually push for a second opinion. They do their own research before they accept what the expert has to say. But even when this happens, there will always be a point where one has to step back and simply place one's faith in another's expertise, mainly due to the fact that one does not have the expertise oneself to fashion an alternative. I don't know how that can be avoided.

And since when is the alt-right about distrusting *all* experts?

If it is the Brietbartian alt-right hordes we are talking about, then distrusting all experts is a major theme. Experts are depicted as “coastal elites”, “globalists” and “libtards” who have the arrogance to look down on them and judge them to be in error, or even worse, as evil demons out to destroy America. They distrust experts so much they are even willing to prevent vaccinating their own children against deadly diseases because they have hysterically whipped it into their heads that it is a liberal plot to infect all children with autism. That is how insane and pervasive it has become.

In the case of the prominent alt-right intellectuals, such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, they magically confine their distrust of experts to those who seem to be in league with the evil SJWs they hate so much. Hence their complete dismissal of, say, climate change experts.

You have to remember that for the past few years, and specifically in 2017 when we had that “clusterfuck discussion”, there has been in general society a continuous outpouring of ridicule and demonization directed towards liberals by the alt-right, and by Trump supporters - some of it warranted, much of it absurd. And then, to my dismay, I found that the very same ridicule and demonization was also very much a feature of this forum - and still is to some extent, although it has lessened. It created the impression at the time that Genius Forum was hijacked by the alt-right. Dan saw this as well. Until this hostility and demonization ceases, it is going to be difficult for me to take what you and the others say seriously.

Yeah this is made up as well. The very sparse activity on GF at that time was roughly limited to Diebert, myself and Alex. Only one of us was ridiculing and demonising liberals from an alt-right/new right pov.

Come on, man. We had Kevin Solway regurgitating the same points, even the same phrases, that are used by the Brietbart commentariat, even to the point of chasing down Obama conspiracies and spouting falsehoods about Clinton and asserting the standard anti-liberal rubbish such as that all mainstream news is fake; we had Russell spouting Clinton pedophile rings and vaccine-autism conspiracy theories, which are again straight out the alt-right playbook; we had Diebert spending copious amounts of energy defending Trump against the very idea that he colluded with Russia in the pretense that he knew what he was talking about, constantly trying to depict it as the so-called liberal disease of Trump Derangement Syndrome; and Alex ...well, he was just being his usual nutty White Nationalist self. The forum was completely submerged in the alt-right fog and its endless scoffing at liberalism.

Perhaps you have been around him so long that you have become numb to his underlying patterns. Indeed, there is a kind of chummy familiarity between the three of you which suggests that you probably have been around each other too long.

A description redolent of another trio.

It’s funny, but Dan, Kevin and I have hardly had anything to do with each other over the past few years. It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to Dan, and I haven’t had any contact with Kevin at all since the forum stoush back in 2017. I think we all realized a few years ago that our once close collaboration had reached its natural conclusion.

It is also mainly the left that acknowledges and supports the science of evolutionary theory. Is it a problem that evolutionary theory aligns with the the left’s talking points and overall view of the world? No, because the science underlying evolutionary theory is extremely strong. Moreover, the kind of intellect that understands and appreciates evolutionary theory is also the same kind of intellect that wants to go beyond traditional, conservative, religious modes of thought. Thus, such an alignment is natural.

Actually evolutionary theory is a great example of politicisation. The alt-right and white nationalist movements regularly use it to justify their worldviews. They are even correct in some instances if you ignore the broader context! Just because it helped along the marginalisation of religion in judicature and education, doesn't make it inherently amenable to liberal/leftist worldviews.

True, it is amenable to anyone who values knowledge and truth, whatever your political persuasion. It’s just that the American right at the moment is mainly comprised of Christians, with at least half of them evangelical. They have long seen evolution as a threat to their very identity as Christians. Everyone else doesn’t have that baggage and so there is nothing really to stop them from embracing evolution.

The same goes for climate change. Those who absorb and take on board the science of climate change are going to be ones who want to rise above normal human concerns and see the bigger picture and have a more global perspective on things. Again, it is a natural alignment.

Or they may have been searching for an external source of value, a herd to identify with etc., and found it in environmental activism. They may also be legitimately concerned with local and immediate environmental destruction or problems, which fall under the category of climate change. Acknowledgment of science doesn't, in itself, represent willingness to contemplate supra-personal reality.

But exploration of science does.

Science is inherently progressive in nature. It is restless, always seeking to develop its understanding. It is willing to cast aside any traditional certainties if they prove to be false. It relentlessly challenges and undermines conservative myths and beliefs. So it is no surprise to find that science and the left are a natural fit.

[jupiviv]

You’re right. Most mainstream journalists are not political or history experts and it would be silly for anyone to pretend that they are. But that is not their job. Their job is simply to report on what is going on each day or engage in investigative journalism, the result of which is usually a short article condensed to a few paragraphs and without a comprehensive political treatise attached each time.

Many people do not trust journalists to do their jobs, sometimes correctly.

In any case, I'm still not clear as to what you mean by fascism in relation to experts. Here in Australia at least, most people do trust experts, but they don't do so blindly. For example, if a doctor tells them they have cancer, they usually push for a second opinion. They do their own research before they accept what the expert has to say. But even when this happens, there will always be a point where one has to step back and simply place one's faith in another's expertise, mainly due to the fact that one does not have the expertise oneself to fashion an alternative. I don't know how that can be avoided.

I don't understand why you would equivocate the interpretation of geopolitics and cultural/social trends with a technical field like medicine. Well actually I do - it's because your arguments lack substance.

If it is the Brietbartian alt-right hordes we are talking about, then distrusting all experts is a major theme.

Even Breitbart trusts those experts who happen to agree with them. Ironically, the theme of "distrusting all experts" is precisely what disguises that very fact to their fentanyl-riddled Baby Boomer readership.

In the case of the prominent alt-right intellectuals, such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, they magically confine their distrust of experts to those who seem to be in league with the evil SJWs they hate so much. Hence their complete dismissal of, say, climate change experts.

Make up your mind ffs! Is it absolute or selective distrust? If the latter then your rebuttal is a non-sequitur.

We had Kevin Solway regurgitating the same points, even the same phrases, that are used by the Brietbart commentariat, even to the point of chasing down Obama conspiracies and spouting falsehoods about Clinton and asserting the standard anti-liberal rubbish such as that all mainstream news is fake

Because like you Kevin plunged himself into these issues without developing a context independently. Unlike you, though, Kevin was open to reasonable criticism. I've been having an email exchange with Kevin for the last month or so, and my impression is that wants to interpret the general worldview of anyone critical of feminism in the most rational way possible. He also does repeat anti-SJW talking points without verifying them or examining their contexts. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that he isn't brainwashed or blindly trusting of anti-SJW intellectuals.

It’s funny, but Dan, Kevin and I have hardly had anything to do with each other over the past few years. It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to Dan, and I haven’t had any contact with Kevin at all since the forum stoush back in 2017. I think we all realized a few years ago that our once close collaboration had reached its natural conclusion.

Then perhaps a reunion is in order. The unpleasantness of the 2017 discussion could have been easily avoided if you had discussed those issues with Kevin before waxing outraged on this forum.

Actually evolutionary theory is a great example of politicisation. The alt-right and white nationalist movements regularly use it to justify their worldviews. They are even correct in some instances if you ignore the broader context! Just because it helped along the marginalisation of religion in judicature and education, doesn't make it inherently amenable to liberal/leftist worldviews.

True, it is amenable to anyone who values knowledge and truth, whatever your political persuasion. It’s just that the American right at the moment is mainly comprised of Christians, with at least half of them evangelical. They have long seen evolution as a threat to their very identity as Christians. Everyone else doesn’t have that baggage and so there is nothing really to stop them from embracing evolution.

You missed my point. In brief: evolutionary theory is sometimes used to justify deluded ideas, as in the alt-right or white nationalist movements which you are calling anti-science.

Science is inherently progressive in nature. It is restless, always seeking to develop its understanding. It is willing to cast aside any traditional certainties if they prove to be false. It relentlessly challenges and undermines conservative myths and beliefs. So it is no surprise to find that science and the left are a natural fit.

We aren't talking about the idea of science itself. The practice of science can coexist with all kinds of delusions, as it has always done and still does.

[jupiviv]

Can "Cultural Marxism" be renamed "Cultural Capitalism", and then validly blamed for all of the above using the selfsame premisses of those world-views which posit the former as an important factor perpetrating sinister changes within society? Yes.

Both Marxism and Cultural Marxism, within America, have a unique relationship with capitalist systems. The intellectual and ideological structures of ideas have, in weird ways, been coopted into capitalist systems. I think that what you have written, above, is in its way correct, but only if you understand a group of different trends that began in America as far back as with the War Between the States. Interestingly, Marx was just beginning to be read and, even then in some circles, had influence.

Certainly numerous independent trends and currents have joined together though. If you believe that Cultural Marxism is an insufficient term, I would agree with you. It is a terse abbreviation for something more difficult to define.

I think the philosophies of the Frankfurt School, and the men who developed those philosophies, and who helped to create the conditions of Cultural Marxism, can be studied independently of the outcome of American Cultural Marxism.

Martin Jay wrote The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 which outlines their ideas and influences, and in my view this is interesting material, worthy of consideration.

Also, I think you might want to take into account the notion of 'critical theory' and a mind-set that develops a constant critical stance in regard to all things, and especially all hierarchies. I would say that this *attitude* or *mood* of criticism is a large part of *what is going on* and derives from Cultural Marxism insofar as CM is built out of critical theory.

"A barren superfluity of words."

[jupiviv]

For sure the forces can and will get intertwined, re-enforcing each other, like a true "death spiral". A lot of complex, dynamic processes we observe in nature have that kind of causality.

All causality is like that, which shouldn't be surprising to members of this forum! Of course in the broadest possible sense it isn't even individual forces doing the reinforcing, but rather what must be. The concept of fate is a flawed realisation of our relationship to the Universe, which is why wisdom always devolves into fatalism of some kind - "in the depths there is always much that is unpleasant to see".

...according to this definition of Cultural Marxism, it is a first world "social construct" (etc.) and hence opposition to it is also an instance of Cultural Marxism.

No I wrote that it represents a struggle against ingrained, first world "social constructs". And not all social constructs like money or countries.

Cultural Marxism and its subcategories are first world social constructs. You dun goofed.

Gender and race identities are common targets, meaning they are seen as simply created by fiat, like money without gold or oil standard. Same with traditions, celebrations, assessing worth of a culture, most if not all hierarchical relation between humans and more coming! For my amoral view on this see the last paragraph.

You're making semantic comparisons between arguments for uprooting different kinds of (perceived) traditional qualities/values. Even assuming that is valid, it's still not evidence of Cultural Marxism.

[Santiago Odo]

"A barren superfluity of words."

More factually, you don't have much of an idea of what you are talking about. So, it goes over your head. Or can't get to your head.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...according to this definition of Cultural Marxism, it is a first world "social construct" (etc.) and hence opposition to it is also an instance of Cultural Marxism.

No I wrote that it represents a struggle against ingrained, first world "social constructs". And not all social constructs like money or countries.

Cultural Marxism and its subcategories are first world social constructs.

That doesn't matter much if you read carefully what I wrote. The definition defined it more like a struggle against some or various social constructs. It's not a war against constructs. Or a war against the social. Or a war against their own struggle when "seen as another construct". By the way, it remains to be seen if cultural Marxism in any of the common definitions would qualify as "social construct" since only one part of society seems embodying the defined struggle. And to qualify as "construct of the social" it would need to be a bit more ingrained into a society and its history. Like money, which 99.9% of people live their lives with. Or nationality, which we all have listed in our birth certificate.

Even assuming that is valid, it's still not evidence of Cultural Marxism.

A definition, in social sciences, does not need evidence. It needs only to reflect sufficiency, for others, the way people are generally talking about or reporting on it. As to allow some increased understanding on why the term is being used. Why does there need to be evidence if it's "real" or "valid" or "justified"? It's like asking of proper evidence when discussing Narcissism.

[Santiago Odo]

"A barren superfluity of words."

More factually, you don't have much of an idea of what you are talking about, generally speaking. So what I have written goes over your head. Or can't get to your head. Or something.

[Avolith]

For sure the forces can and will get intertwined, re-enforcing each other, like a true "death spiral". A lot of complex, dynamic processes we observe in nature have that kind of causality.

All causality is like that, which shouldn't be surprising to members of this forum! Of course in the broadest possible sense it isn't even individual forces doing the reinforcing, but rather what must be. The concept of fate is a flawed realisation of our relationship to the Universe, which is why wisdom always devolves into fatalism of some kind - "in the depths there is always much that is unpleasant to see".

How is fate (and /or determinism?) a flawed realization? Do you think fate = determinism? Do you think fate is flawed because fate still assumes free will?

[jupiviv]

That doesn't matter much if you read carefully what I wrote. The definition defined it more like a struggle against some or various social constructs. It's not a war against constructs. Or a war against the social. Or a war against their own struggle when "seen as another construct". By the way, it remains to be seen if cultural Marxism in any of the common definitions would qualify as "social construct" since only one part of society seems embodying the defined struggle. And to qualify as "construct of the social" it would need to be a bit more ingrained into a society and its history. Like money, which 99.9% of people live their lives with. Or nationality, which we all have listed in our birth certificate.

You initially defined Cultural Marxism as a struggle against "Western social constructs", and now that has become "some social constructs"

A definition, in social sciences, does not need evidence. It needs only to reflect sufficiency, for others, the way people are generally talking about or reporting on it. As to allow some increased understanding on why the term is being used. Why does there need to be evidence if it's "real" or "valid" or "justified"? It's like asking of proper evidence when discussing Narcissism.

Your definition of Cultural Marxism doesn't reflect the conventional one. Depending on political alignment, the latter either denotes a secret and sinister conspiracy or undesirable behaviour by leftists in general. The mere fact of struggling against a social construct is not enough to qualify as that within a cogent worldview.

[jupiviv]

For sure the forces can and will get intertwined, re-enforcing each other, like a true "death spiral". A lot of complex, dynamic processes we observe in nature have that kind of causality.

All causality is like that, which shouldn't be surprising to members of this forum! Of course in the broadest possible sense it isn't even individual forces doing the reinforcing, but rather what must be. The concept of fate is a flawed realisation of our relationship to the Universe, which is why wisdom always devolves into fatalism of some kind - "in the depths there is always much that is unpleasant to see".

How is fate (and /or determinism?) a flawed realization? Do you think fate = determinism? Do you think fate is flawed because fate still assumes free will?

Determinism, as I define it, is the idea that all things are caused to exist. Fatalism is a distortion of that idea because it reduces the causes or consequences of our existence and actions to *specific* things like good works, rituals, pleasure, death etc. It is the opposite of the idea of free will because the latter posits something *within* us as the creator of value and purpose.

[Avolith]

For sure the forces can and will get intertwined, re-enforcing each other, like a true "death spiral". A lot of complex, dynamic processes we observe in nature have that kind of causality.

All causality is like that, which shouldn't be surprising to members of this forum! Of course in the broadest possible sense it isn't even individual forces doing the reinforcing, but rather what must be. The concept of fate is a flawed realisation of our relationship to the Universe, which is why wisdom always devolves into fatalism of some kind - "in the depths there is always much that is unpleasant to see".

How is fate (and /or determinism?) a flawed realization? Do you think fate = determinism? Do you think fate is flawed because fate still assumes free will?

Determinism, as I define it, is the idea that all things are caused to exist. Fatalism is a distortion of that idea because it reduces the causes or consequences of our existence and actions to *specific* things like good works, rituals, pleasure, death etc. It is the opposite of the idea of free will because the latter posits something *within* us as the creator of value and purpose.

Yes. my point was, fatalism still implies unconscious belief in free will in the sense that, a person with a fatalistic attitude will, say, rationalize different choices based on their flawed understanding of determinism, thereby still unconsciously believing in free will. But I guess we are in agreement

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You initially defined Cultural Marxism as a struggle against "Western social constructs", and now that has become "some social constructs".

Well it did not say "all", did it? Actually it was first: " certain ingrained, mostly Western "social constructs" but in the brushed up version it became against "ingrained, first world "social constructs" which are held responsible", leaving it a bit more ambiguous but still not needed to translate it implying to "all constructs". It should not need much imagination to realize that a fight against all social construct was not likely to be meant. But okay, the first version was perhaps better then.

If Cultural Marxism isn't as ingrained in society as money or religion, why is the discouragement of its usage alarming?

Not sure why or who you are asking that. Who is alarming about what?

Your definition of Cultural Marxism doesn't reflect the conventional one. Depending on political alignment, the latter either denotes a secret and sinister conspiracy or undesirable behaviour by leftists in general. The mere fact of struggling against a social construct is not enough to qualify as that within a cogent worldview.

It's true that perhaps all the particular social constructs that are being identified and challenged by a large sample should be named. But the definition was left more open with, I think, good reason.

While I do not claim everyone uses the term in the same way, my definition certainly reflects the way it's being used right now in relevant places and should be understood for what it represents, if understanding of political discourse is the motive. What conspiracy theorists or the angry mob do with it seems less relevant. Actually l think the whole term, in this context at least, is quite recent and might still be evolving. Like the term SJW is. Sometimes we cannot look all things up online or find in the books, which are all still being written. The definition I gave is pretty good, as you'll soon realize and it's already improving!