Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Locked
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:21 pm
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As terrible as it seems, he might be even more "realistic" as a person or how he views the human world compared to many moderns and progressives. Yes, his world is one of power, manipulation, outward symbols and superficial charm. But that's still closer to the human inter-relational world, where power actually works, than a world of facts, encyclopedia, 18th century humanism, skin deep rationality and outdated concept.
You can say the exact same thing about many other people with wealth and power. In other words, its the fairly old-fashioned and commonplace idea that the people running the system don't care about how it is supposed to work. So this characterisation of Trump is a convoluted version of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but in a "good" way...? He's playing evil, ruthless 4D chess out of compassion for whoever happens to love him at the moment!
Definitely caring too much about the thing what needs to be "run" would become some impossible contradiction, cracking the delusion wider open over time. In the end I'd doubt every system of power, of governing, as being troubled that way. For me Trump could become a great simplifier and demonstrator of his time. And he actually often turns it around and challenges his critics with the question: "You have a problem? Look at what you or those you prefer did and are still doing? How is that working out for you? How are those morals holding up?"

But yeah, many of the wealthy and powerful people arrived because they were good in manipulating powerful symbols (being it money, images, value, status). It's a more energetic reality, not any moral space. By placing Trump as one operating in that realm I do not believe it would be like some typical Derangement Syndrome tactic, since those usually operate from a moral analysis, like pegging him as pervert, liar, colluding with "enemies", selling snake oil and so on. These are only bad in a moral or at least fact-driven universe, one that puts a lot of value on exactitude and legislation -- the typical left-liberal conception of the humanverse.
Avolith
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:02 am

Re: Trumpism

Post by Avolith »

jupiviv wrote: Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:21 pm
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As terrible as it seems, he might be even more "realistic" as a person or how he views the human world compared to many moderns and progressives. Yes, his world is one of power, manipulation, outward symbols and superficial charm. But that's still closer to the human inter-relational world, where power actually works, than a world of facts, encyclopedia, 18th century humanism, skin deep rationality and outdated concept.
You can say the exact same thing about many other people with wealth and power. In other words, its the fairly old-fashioned and commonplace idea that the people running the system don't care about how it is supposed to work. So this characterisation of Trump is a convoluted version of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but in a "good" way...? He's playing evil, ruthless 4D chess out of compassion for whoever happens to love him at the moment!
Putting your post and Dieberts idea on Trump as unfiltered ID next to eachother, assuming you buy into the idea (apart from it being 'good') Who's to say that someone who rationalizes their ID with their ego is any more or less evil than someone who doesn't? Previous US presidents have done all kinds of evil things. Who's to say that the net sum of the Trump presidency is much worse than those, for example.

I'm thinking, what if the ego/rationalizing is only there to make the raw humanity of people more pallatable to certain people who value this.

A politician who doesn't rationalize himself also can't be held accountable for their nonsense by means of intellectual/rational debate, and their behavior can therefore not be course corrected in that particular way of rational debate, which I imagine can feel threatening to those who course correct themselves by those means. eg I imagine rational/analytical people course correct themselves reaching the spiritual through the power of rational reasoning and then reform the underlying 'stuff' of the psyche appropriately based on the new rational conclusions.

But maybe there's another mechanism for course correction that simply operates in a different way and is less visible to some. Maybe I would call it the 'channeled rebellion of the masses'...? There is obviously a very clear potentially dark side to this kind of thing and it can go to hell. But so can intellectualism if its used for scheming, duping, and manipulation. One way I'm imagining it is to see both forces going against eachother to come to a better net outcome. In that light Trump could be a refreshing arrival of a force that identifies and challenges bad ideology
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:53 pmBy placing Trump as one operating in that realm I do not believe it would be like some typical Derangement Syndrome tactic, since those usually operate from a moral analysis, like pegging him as pervert, liar, colluding with "enemies", selling snake oil and so on. These are only bad in a moral or at least fact-driven universe, one that puts a lot of value on exactitude and legislation -- the typical left-liberal conception of the humanverse.
It operates as moral analysis because it seeks to discredit or destroy what it considers to be evil *through* the genius evilness of evil's even more evil (but good because honest and real in an evil but still sort of good sense) nemesis. People who see Trump as the natural culmination of post-Reagan political space opera don't do that.
Avolith wrote:Who's to say that someone who rationalizes their ID with their ego is any more or less evil than someone who doesn't?
If you consider the non-ID thing which the ego is rationalising to be better than the ID, they are being less evil.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:17 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:53 pmI do not believe it would be like some typical Derangement Syndrome tactic, since those usually operate from a moral analysis, like pegging him as pervert, liar, colluding with "enemies", selling snake oil and so on.
It operates as moral analysis because it seeks to discredit or destroy what it considers to be evil *through* the genius evilness of evil's even more evil (but good because honest and real in an evil but still sort of good sense) nemesis.
That reads a bit convoluted. How does morality operate with terms like power, manipulation, outward symbols and superficial charm? Perhaps only if power, manipulation and superficiality are first pegged as evil or undesired attributes? In any case that was not the point I was trying to make.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:31 amHow does morality operate with terms like power, manipulation, outward symbols and superficial charm? Perhaps only if power, manipulation and superficiality are first pegged as evil or undesired attributes? In any case that was not the point I was trying to make.
If those things are seen as part of the successful opposition to the *real* evil, then the argument for their competence or legitimacy has a moral premise.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:39 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:31 amHow does morality operate with terms like power, manipulation, outward symbols and superficial charm? Perhaps only if power, manipulation and superficiality are first pegged as evil or undesired attributes? In any case that was not the point I was trying to make.
If those things are seen as part of the successful opposition to the *real* evil, then the argument for their competence or legitimacy has a moral premise.
Fair enough but that point was not made in my posts, right? Perhaps you mean the idea of it being "closer to the human inter-relational world, where power actually works"? Still I'm not sure if that's a moral judgement. Beheading someone is also closer to the human inter-relational or "real". Or flying planes into those tall twin towers. Perhaps you get the idea now.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Avolith wrote: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 pmwhat if the ego/rationalizing is only there to make the raw humanity of people more pallatable to certain people who value this.
My first reaction to that would be the thought that everything can and will be used as peacock feather by this species which is so much an expert in camouflage and symbol exchange, the social coinage and such. So yes, it would be used like that but the question remains if it can be stated so reductive, like "only" to do this or that. Lets just suggest for a moment that it might end up doing something else entirely, with a bit of luck, if there's such a thing.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:36 amPerhaps you mean the idea of it being "closer to the human inter-relational world, where power actually works"?
Yes, but the supposed realism about power-dynamics which is supposed to distinguish this idea from its antitheses is itself almost completely spurious. In other words they are imagining Trump's project of exposing the hidden truth/s of politics by being such a real person or "not playing their game". In reality the gong show has hired some millennial writer-producers and a sardonic host who doesn't wear a tie. It's the "Game of Thrones" mentality: gory action scenes, vulnerable good guys and dat ass = realism.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:28 amYes, but the supposed realism about power-dynamics which is supposed to distinguish this idea from its antitheses is itself almost completely spurious. In other words they are imagining Trump's project of exposing the hidden truth/s of politics by being such a real person or "not playing their game". In reality the gong show has hired some millennial writer-producers and a sardonic host who doesn't wear a tie. It's the "Game of Thrones" mentality: gory action scenes, vulnerable good guys and dat ass = realism.
Okay, so you're positing some kind of spectacle of realism and power becoming just another "reality show". How... post-modern :-)

Then I can trump that one: that particular spectacle, the fact that it's occurring shows a kind of resurgence of reality, through the symbolic, through the show, to spoil the show itself. The real destructive element being the expiry date of the particular illusion and Trump appears as the worm beyond good & evil, gnawing through all the physiological distortions, these "worm-riddled objects, a whole quivering kingdom of burrowing revenge", with my apologies for forcefully inserting another tired Friedrich.
Avolith
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:02 am

Re: Trumpism

Post by Avolith »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:33 pm
jupiviv wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:28 amYes, but the supposed realism about power-dynamics which is supposed to distinguish this idea from its antitheses is itself almost completely spurious. In other words they are imagining Trump's project of exposing the hidden truth/s of politics by being such a real person or "not playing their game". In reality the gong show has hired some millennial writer-producers and a sardonic host who doesn't wear a tie. It's the "Game of Thrones" mentality: gory action scenes, vulnerable good guys and dat ass = realism.
Okay, so you're positing some kind of spectacle of realism and power becoming just another "reality show". How... post-modern :-)

Then I can trump that one: that particular spectacle, the fact that it's occurring shows a kind of resurgence of reality, through the symbolic, through the show, to spoil the show itself. The real destructive element being the expiry date of the particular illusion and Trump appears as the worm beyond good & evil, gnawing through all the physiological distortions, these "worm-riddled objects, a whole quivering kingdom of burrowing revenge", with my apologies for forcefully inserting another tired Friedrich.
Nice. I like it. Is it ok if I don't disagree? :P
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo »

“[They] are making arguments bringing back a particular vision of Europe, they’re bringing back a fantasy that is their own making [that is] instantly punctured if you actually study the history of the Middle Ages.”
_________________________________

On a page devoted to Medieval Studies:
As an international organization dedicated to studying the reception of medieval culture in post-medieval times, we have been observing with increasing concern the appropriation of medieval imagery, objects, and tropes by white supremacists and nationalists. Now, as we witness the recent targeted online harassment of fellow medievalist and activist Dorothy Kim, we declare our collective resolve to counteract racism and white supremacism in all its forms and to defend the rights of contingent and untenured faculty, especially those from marginalized populations.
Here is a link to the Dorothy Kim flare-up.

It is interesting to notice that Mediaeval historical studies is going through its convulsions as certain activists, in the present, seek to access ideas and themes from the Medieval era. I suspect that, to some degree, the necessities of political correctness must operate in reverse and that *the present* determines how the past can be seen (controls the limits).
Diebert wrote:Then I can trump that one: that particular spectacle, the fact that it's occurring shows a kind of resurgence of reality, through the symbolic, through the show, to spoil the show itself. The real destructive element being the expiry date of the particular illusion and Trump appears as the worm beyond good & evil, gnawing through all the physiological distortions, these "worm-riddled objects, a whole quivering kingdom of burrowing revenge", with my apologies for forcefully inserting another tired Friedrich.
In regard to a *larger phenomenon* this does not seem quite right, though it is not totally wrong. Yes, there is 'spectacle', yes there is 'resurgence' of older forms and their content (even if attenuated and distorted), and yes there is 'show', certainly with the Showman D. Trump. But there is a sub-context, or even an over-context, which is not *unreal* as you imply. Really, you more than imply it, it is a core in your philosophical position. There is nothing that is *real* for you. There is no *real*.

Alain de Benoist, and others like Johnathan Bowden, define a project of militant resistance to Hyper-Liberalism (though the 'hyper' is my own addition). Is Hyper-Liberalism real? Is there any other things, real or unreal, that could oppose it to advantage?

I know that you are speaking perhaps limitedly to Trump himself, one of the strangest possible figures to leer over our horizon, and it is impossible not to agree with your assessment in a large degree. But to the degree that some people are *mining* in Mediaeval historical forms is not to be easily dismissed as, shall we say, irrelevant or meaningless: unless one desired for certain reasons to insist on that, and to impose it.That is, unless there is no *real* and no dissolution of the real leading to corruption of *real things* in reality.

The support letter to Dorothy Kim reveals a circling of the wagons in order to create a protection against people, their ideas, their intentions, their vision of things, against a specific one that must be *held to*. The so-called Alt-Right or the Traditionalist Right or the New Philosophical Right is manifesting itself in the present in certain definite ways. The resistance to it, it seems to me, indicates that it is not *unreal* in substance.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:10 am“[They] are making arguments bringing back a particular vision of Europe, they’re bringing back a fantasy that is their own making [that is] instantly punctured if you actually study the history of the Middle Ages.”
It's in line with what a forum member meant when he quoted Kent professor of sociology Frank Furedi : "Unable to fit into today’s world, they desperately plunder the past for symbols and slogans to validate their existence".

Back then you replied "He has no understanding at all of what is really going on there". Do you, in hindsight, still see it like that?
It is interesting to notice that Mediaeval historical studies is going through its convulsions as certain activists, in the present, seek to access ideas and themes from the Medieval era. I suspect that, to some degree, the necessities of political correctness must operate in reverse and that *the present* determines how the past can be seen (controls the limits).
My view on the struggle around Dorothy Kim is that with such call for political commitment, she voluntary entered the modern hyper-political super-charged realm including all the commentaries, reaction and primal crowd responses. Pushing for ideological divisions, choosing positions and "protest" based on the idea that "doing nothing is choosing a side" seems rather deluded to me. At that stage you get exactly what you ask for. Now I don't think people should or deserve that hatred but when seen from another vantage point, like a symbolic universe where any action can become symbolic violence, resulting in equally violent counter actions, there is not much surprise that it keeps happening like this, again and again.

You described a circling of wagons. Yes, the idealistic response from the typical academic, spending life slightly removed from the world of social passion, now in shock when certain words or critiques incite so much heated responses. And of course it results in action to protect their own or their ommunity's identity. But one can hope that internally they discuss the point of going political.
But there is a sub-context, or even an over-context, which is not *unreal* as you imply. Really, you more than imply it, it is a core in your philosophical position. There is nothing that is *real* for you. There is no *real*.
It might seem that way to you but in reality we define it a bit different. And from that point on all differentiation in vision arises.
Alain de Benoist, and others like Johnathan Bowden, define a project of militant resistance to Hyper-Liberalism (though the 'hyper' is my own addition). Is Hyper-Liberalism real? Is there any other things, real or unreal, that could oppose it to advantage?
That resistance is well understood! My own response is that it's not very interesting philosophically. But for a social scientist or historian, yes, these are very interesting developments. Sometimes it can be used for self-analysis, to deconstruct ones own views.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:Back then you replied "He has no understanding at all of what is really going on there". Do you, in hindsight, still see it like that?
Usually, when someone makes some statement, there will be elements of truth even if it is not fully correct. We arrive at platforms and perspectives and do our best to congeal them into communicable truths, no?

I think I would say that I come at the problem from a position of sympathy and not of hard criticism. The reason is, as I am sure you could guess and have divined, that I see myself and by extension all of us as being extruded out the end of long, determined, historical processes. In many senses these processes have not been kind to us. In relation to that I would speak of *fragmentation* and *soul loss* (a term from shamanism).

Specifically, I would zero in on the Postwar Era but, as you know, the causal chain extends farther back in time. You also know that though I have been critical of our Dear Founders -- and since this forum was founded by them we are enmeshed in a causal chain begun by them -- I am not unsympathetic to their effort, or perhaps I should say to the spirit of it. Recovery, self-empowerment, gaining a foothold within the world through sound metaphysics: how could any of this be described as unimportant?
My view on the struggle around Dorothy Kim is that with such call for political commitment, she voluntary entered the modern hyper-political super-charged realm including all the commentaries, reaction and primal crowd responses. Pushing for ideological divisions, choosing positions and "protest" based on the idea that "doing nothing is choosing a side" seems rather deluded to me. At that stage you get exactly what you ask for. Now I don't think people should or deserve that hatred but when seen from another vantage point, like a symbolic universe where any action can become symbolic violence, resulting in equally violent counter actions, there is not much surprise that it keeps happening like this, again and again.
I have been spending my time on various Blogs where American current events are discussed from a moral/ethical framework. Hard to classify, but many who participate seem to be 'Conservatives', American Conservatives obviously (though there are some Europeans and Australians). I have been especially learning the degree to which Conservatism is really a branch of Liberalism.

I am uncertain where you hang these days, yet you often have good insights into the American mind-set and, as it happens, everyone always seems to talk about America. As an example, the entire Solway/Rowden/Quinn thread which seemed to indicate a philosophical rupture, revolved nearly entirely around America, the Dread Republic.

Dorthy Kim is giving voice to a necessary PC Utterance that is completely common within the American discourse right now. She is a late exponent of Postwar Americanism and can only speak from within 'the tenets of the American civil religion'. It is a Weltanschauung that is rigid and in a sense final. By having that position, though, I think it indicates that she and they cannot be trusted intellectually. They will likely *revise* history to conform to their presently determined views.

Yet I assume that you also would mention that the New Right or the Reactionary Nationalist Right (if one term could suffice) is *performing* a similar manoeuvre. Well, yes. But I see this as an act of desperation. And you will remember, I hope, that I have used that term in specific ways to refer to something we all do . . . in a present that removes the foundations from under us and *seeks to have its way with us*. The Victims of the Present must then resort to *strategies* to hold on to Self. Some part of that will always be through false or invented means. But by saying that I indirectly propose that there is a *real*. Well, so did our friends of GF. They did attempt to *recover* and to *utilize* a specific grasp of metaphysics. Is metaphysics the right term? I think it is.

Dorothy Kim is, let's say it directly, 'a person of color'. I guess she is Asian? It matters to the degree that she is American and wrapped up in America's multicultural project. That is a big part of the Postwar construct. And the construction of it involves business, government and intelligence. As such, it is opposed by the Anti-Liberal faction. Jonathan Bowden for example. Alain de Benoist comes at it from another angle. But these men are obviously reactionaries! And in this sense 'victims', as we all are, of the processes I speak of.
You described a circling of wagons. Yes, the idealistic response from the typical academic, spending life slightly removed from the world of social passion, now in shock when certain words or critiques incite so much heated responses. And of course it results in action to protect their own or their ommunity's identity. But one can hope that internally they discuss the point of going political.
Some say that American Cultural Marxism is nearly 100% an enterprise of the American Academy. It originated there, it grew there, it gained its power there, and from there it spread everywhere within the American System. What do you think of that statement?

I suggest that, with certain caveats, that Cultural Marxism, and definitely American Cultural Marxism as America's export-via-warplane must be confronted. If there is anything *real* in this world, it is a real ideological power that is there, doing things. 'Circling the Wagons' for them, for *it* (the neo-empire) is a very serious act. The New American Right, according to me anyway, is working with radically threatening ideas. These ideas -- the mere mention of them -- has caused shuddering throughout the entire system. The New Right insofar as it is ideologically and intellectually sound must be destroyed. Circling the Wagons is just a superficial (but not irrelevant) motion. Underneath it is a will-to-destroy. We are speaking, naturally, about the Postwar Liberal Order and all that must be preserved.
It might seem that way to you but in reality we define it a bit different. And from that point on all differentiation in vision arises.
Go on . . .
My own response is that it's not very interesting philosophically.
Curious statement. What is philosophy, then, for you? As you can guess, as you should have guessed, and as I often say, I am interested in Recovery of Self. And then some level of engagement in this world. Otherwise, what is *philosophy* for? Sometimes, I get the impression that philosophy is not that for you. It is almost an intellectual aestheticism you are involved in.

Just found this [on Dorothy Kim].
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:24 amThe reason is ... that I see myself and by extension all of us as being extruded out the end of long, determined, historical processes. In many senses these processes have not been kind to us. In relation to that I would speak of *fragmentation* and *soul loss* (a term from shamanism).
You speak of causality, which turns nearly everything into s̶h̶i̶t̶ extrusion from some complex of tubes and the beginning of yet another journey. And then you seem to speak of suffering, which you kindly describe as "processes not having been kind to us".

The fragmentation and soul loss is something I interpret the same as Weininger's "criminal". It's what we're left with when all unifying, starry-eyed principles have been eclipsed by technicalities, nuts & bolts, matter and a fight against decline, as it's only the fragmentation that has reason to push back against its own declining nature.
Recovery, self-empowerment, gaining a foothold within the world through sound metaphysics: how could any of this be described as unimportant?
It never has been unimportant! That's the whole point, you try to project a particular image of decline onto the modern and at least some try to recover from the past some measures to counter this decline. My point is and always was that the struggle is more fundamental and not that different in the times people refer to when discussing the counter measures or firmer metaphysics. And I see my view as initially more grounded, realistic and in accordance with human experience than what you seem to propose.
I am uncertain where you hang these days, yet you often have good insights into the American mind-set and, as it happens, everyone always seems to talk about America. As an example, the entire Solway/Rowden/Quinn thread which seemed to indicate a philosophical rupture, revolved nearly entirely around America, the Dread Republic.
Well, we're all "American" now or as Baudrillard so eloquently and ironically stated, that for Europeans: "America is the original version of modernity. We are the dubbed or subtitled version".

After reading more about Dorthy Kim and the link you provided I think I generally agree with your assessment about her integrity and ideological position. But I suspect inside the academic circles (and circling) similar battles can wage. In my own country some of the most divisive "incorrect" politicians were also academics, professors at mainstream universities at some point. Ironically the murdered iconic "far-right populist" Pim Fortuyn taught first Marxist sociology at a large university.

There's this problematic aspect of "PC" and "SJW" that is victim based: once portrayed as victim they make it near impossible to put blame on their actions and choices as in "victim blaming is bad". This is a complex emotional game being played which leaves so little options for the acamedic community. But to the outside they will never dismiss their own but limit themselves, like in this case, to reject the extreme hate speech. But while it seems hollow and formulaic, they must speak for a very diverse community which is not really a community, more like a principle. They argue that Kim should live in a world she can attack a colleague online without having to live in fear.
Some say that American Cultural Marxism is nearly 100% an enterprise of the American Academy. It originated there, it grew there, it gained its power there, and from there it spread everywhere within the American System. What do you think of that statement?
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak. The fear for the specter of fascism, ironically raised by supporters of a nanny state controlling and safe guarding its people by increased monitoring and military operations abroad (and as such the very incarnation of Orwell's fears).

But to answer your question, I think it's looking in the wrong direction because of the very limited definition of what appears as a wider phenomenon. To illustrate I'll refer to what G.W. Bush declared during his inaugural address of the 2nd term, after starting the wars to restructure and liberate the Middle East. A typical "neoconservative" view, which might have indeed Marxist and globalist routes:
"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
The term appears as well in one of Dostoevsky’s novel, a fire in the minds of men, not yearning for liberty but as some nihilistic will to power. Now that, dear historian of the human soul, I'd see as expression of American Marxism and its misplaces exceptionalism.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:17 pm
Santiago Odo wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:24 amThe reason is ... that I see myself and by extension all of us as being extruded out the end of long, determined, historical processes. In many senses these processes have not been kind to us. In relation to that I would speak of *fragmentation* and *soul loss* (a term from shamanism).
You speak of causality, which turns nearly everything into s̶h̶i̶t̶ extrusion from some complex of tubes and the beginning of yet another journey. And then you seem to speak of suffering, which you kindly describe as "processes not having been kind to us".

The fragmentation and soul loss is something I interpret the same as Weininger's "criminal". It's what we're left with when all unifying, starry-eyed principles have been eclipsed by technicalities, nuts & bolts, matter and a fight against decline, as it's only the fragmentation that has reason to push back against its own declining nature.
Recovery, self-empowerment, gaining a foothold within the world through sound metaphysics: how could any of this be described as unimportant?
It never has been unimportant! That's the whole point, you try to project a particular image of decline onto the modern and at least some try to recover from the past some measures to counter this decline. My point is and always was that the struggle is more fundamental and not that different in the times people refer to when discussing the counter measures or firmer metaphysics. And I see my view as initially more grounded, realistic and in accordance with human experience than what you seem to propose.
I am uncertain where you hang these days, yet you often have good insights into the American mind-set and, as it happens, everyone always seems to talk about America. As an example, the entire Solway/Rowden/Quinn thread which seemed to indicate a philosophical rupture, revolved nearly entirely around America, the Dread Republic.
Well, we're all "American" now or as Baudrillard so eloquently and ironically stated, that for Europeans: "America is the original version of modernity. We are the dubbed or subtitled version".

After reading more about Dorthy Kim and the link you provided I think I generally agree with your assessment about her integrity and ideological position. But I suspect inside the academic circles (and circling) similar battles can wage. In my own country some of the most divisive "incorrect" politicians were also academics, professors at mainstream universities at some point. Ironically the murdered iconic "far-right populist" Pim Fortuyn taught first Marxist sociology at a large university.

There's this problematic aspect of "PC" and "SJW" that is victim based: once portrayed as victim they make it near impossible to put blame on their actions and choices as in "victim blaming is bad". This is a complex emotional game being played which leaves so little options for the acamedic community. But to the outside they will never dismiss their own but limit themselves, like in this case, to reject the extreme hate speech. But while it seems hollow and formulaic, they must speak for a very diverse community which is not really a community, more like a principle. They argue that Kim should live in a world she can attack a colleague online without having to live in fear.
Some say that American Cultural Marxism is nearly 100% an enterprise of the American Academy. It originated there, it grew there, it gained its power there, and from there it spread everywhere within the American System. What do you think of that statement?
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak. The fear for the specter of fascism, ironically raised by supporters of a nanny state controlling and safe guarding its people by increased monitoring and military operations abroad (and as such the very incarnation of Orwell's fears).

But to answer your question, I think it's looking in the wrong direction because of the very limited definition of what appears as a wider phenomenon. To illustrate I'll refer to what G.W. Bush declared during his inaugural address of the 2nd term, after starting the wars to restructure and liberate the Middle East. A typical "neoconservative" view, which might have indeed Marxist and globalist routes:
"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
The term appears as well in one of Dostoevsky’s novel, a fire in the minds of men, not yearning for liberty but as some nihilistic will to power. Now that, dear historian of the human soul, I'd see as expression of the American Soviet and its misplaced exceptionalism.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:24 amThe reason is ... that I see myself and by extension all of us as being extruded out the end of long, determined, historical processes. In many senses these processes have not been kind to us. In relation to that I would speak of *fragmentation* and *soul loss* (a term from shamanism).
You speak of causality, which turns nearly everything into s̶h̶i̶t̶ extrusion from some complex of tubes and the beginning of yet another journey. And then you seem to speak of suffering, which you kindly describe as "processes not having been kind to us".

The fragmentation and soul loss is something I interpret the same as Weininger's "criminal". It's what we're left with when all unifying, starry-eyed principles have been eclipsed by technicalities, nuts & bolts, matter and a desperate fight against decline, as it's only fragmentation that has reason to push back against its own declining nature.
Recovery, self-empowerment, gaining a foothold within the world through sound metaphysics: how could any of this be described as unimportant?
It never has been unimportant! That's the whole point, you try to project a particular image of decline onto the modern and at least some try to recover from the past the measures to counter this decline. My point is and always was that the struggle is more fundamental and not that different in the times people refer to when discussing the counter measures or firmer metaphysics. And I see my view as fundamentally more grounded, realistic and in accordance with human experience than what you seem to propose.
I am uncertain where you hang these days, yet you often have good insights into the American mind-set and, as it happens, everyone always seems to talk about America. As an example, the entire Solway/Rowden/Quinn thread which seemed to indicate a philosophical rupture, revolved nearly entirely around America, the Dread Republic.
Well, we're all "American" now or as Baudrillard so eloquently and ironically stated, that for Europeans: "America is the original version of modernity. We are the dubbed or subtitled version".

After reading more about Dorthy Kim and the link you provided I think I generally agree with your assessment about her integrity and ideological position. But I suspect that inside the academic circles (and circling) similar battles can wage. In my own country some of the most divisive "incorrect" politicians were also academics, professors at mainstream universities, at some point. Ironically the murdered iconic "far-right populist" Pim Fortuyn taught first Marxist sociology at a large university.

There's this problematic aspect of the "PC" and "SJW" that is victim based: once portrayed as victim they make it near impossible to put blame on their actions and choices as in "victim blaming is bad". This is a complex emotional game being played which leaves so little options for the academic community. But to the outside they will never dismiss their own but limit themselves, like in this case, to reject the extreme hate speech. While it often seems hollow and formulaic, they must speak for a very diverse community which is not really a community but more like a principle. They argue that Kim should live in a world where she can informally attack a colleague online without having to live in fear afterwards.
Some say that American Cultural Marxism is nearly 100% an enterprise of the American Academy. It originated there, it grew there, it gained its power there, and from there it spread everywhere within the American System. What do you think of that statement?
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and as firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak. The fear for the specter of fascism, ironically raised by supporters of a nanny state controlling and safe guarding its people by increased monitoring and military operations abroad (and as such the very incarnation of Orwell's fears).

But to answer your question, I think it's looking in the wrong direction because of the very limited definition of what appears as a wider phenomenon. To illustrate this I'll refer to what G.W. Bush declared during his inaugural address of the 2nd term, after starting wars to restructure and liberate the Middle East. A typical "neoconservative" view, which might have indeed Marxist and globalist roots:
"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
The term appears as well in one of Dostoevsky’s novels, a fire in the minds of men, not yearning for liberty but as some nihilistic will to power. Now that, dear historian of the human soul, I'd see as expression of the American Soviet and its misplaced exceptionalism.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo »

Not sure which of the three to respond to. So I'll take the last one.

Your first two paragraphs I cannot make sense of. Perhaps because it is an abstract way of speaking. Yet I do not think I am referring to abstract events when I say that we have been 'extruded out the end of long, determined, historical processes'.

This:
... unifying, starry-eyed principles have been eclipsed by technicalities, nuts & bolts, matter and a desperate fight against decline, as it's only fragmentation that has reason to push back against its own declining nature ...
Is an example of speaking in abstract terms. You are referring to something but I do not understand what precisely you are speaking of. Am I wrong to interpret it as postmodernspeak? It doesn't help me much. But it does you?
And I see my view as fundamentally more grounded, realistic and in accordance with human experience than what you seem to propose.
What view is this that is more grounded?

And what do you imagine that I propose?
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and as firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak. The fear for the specter of fascism, ironically raised by supporters of a nanny state controlling and safe guarding its people by increased monitoring and military operations abroad (and as such the very incarnation of Orwell's fears).
Well, of course!

I think I could offer a description of what 'Cultural Marxism' is that would not necessarily be grounded in ultraconservatism. It sounds like you could too. I recognize that the term has been used too widely, but I have returned to it because it does accurately describe something about the regime that dominates in our present. Ultimately, it is terrifyingly destructive to the intellect and intellectual projects (defined in relation to intellectus). Those that now come out strongly against 'Nazi-Speak' carry out campaigns that are -- in fact! -- quite Nazi-like. Yet they do not see it. They are going to push things till there is a reaction. They have to be taken down many many pegs.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:33 pmOkay, so you're positing some kind of spectacle of realism and power becoming just another "reality show". How... post-modern :-)
Is it though? Sophistry isn't very modern: criticism with faint praise and praise with faint criticism.
Then I can trump that one: that particular spectacle, the fact that it's occurring shows a kind of resurgence of reality, through the symbolic, through the show, to spoil the show itself. The real destructive element being the expiry date of the particular illusion and Trump appears as the worm beyond good & evil, gnawing through all the physiological distortions, these "worm-riddled objects, a whole quivering kingdom of burrowing revenge", with my apologies for forcefully inserting another tired Friedrich.
I can trump your trumping: the resurgent reality which follows the symbolic spoiling of the show is a part of the show, aka ice wall melted with cold fusion laser but dragongirl is pregnant (with eggs?). At bottom it's a loss of trust in institutions, replaced by "post-modern" narratives about a fractal universe of conspiracies and lies. Neither side can afford to allow a fractal distrust gap!
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and as firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak.
So a term that is used almost exclusively by reactionary far right wingers and neoconservatives has been called precisely that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvj3JIIxhI
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Santiago Odo wrote:Those that now come out strongly against 'Nazi-Speak' carry out campaigns that are -- in fact! -- quite Nazi-like.
Yeah like using the term "Nazi" to describe Nazis! Marching on the *streets*! Also, why is no one allowed to point out that the copies of Mein Kampf given to SS personnel were printed in the Schwarzesonnenschrift? Watch footage of any of these so-called "anti-Nazi" demonstrations, and you'll see like hundreds of placards with the "Black Sun" font also found in Mme Blavatsky's journals. These people are brainwashed by Jewish communist CEOs of multinational holding companies. They are *literally* devil-spawn, just like the *real* (Ashke)Nazis in Germany i.e. the scions of elite Jewish families which interbred with Saxon royalty (Eichmann, Hildebrandt) to create a master race of high IQ blond noble savages. That's not racist because I said high IQ and if you say it is *you're* a Nazi. The Weimar Jewish working class were casual and open about their racial idiosyncrasies good or bad, which is why the AshkeNAZIs hated them so much. They banned all the Yiddish anarcho-conservative publications and started calling them "rats" and who knows what else. In fact they were subliminally introducing a distinction between "Rat Jew" and "Blond Jew" in people's minds, with the latter concept designed to induce feelings of fear and respect rather than disgust. It was a technique passed down from Freud to Bernays to Chomsky and now Anita Sarkeeeeeesian. The interposition of despair between two radically opposed and ontologically comprehensive alternatives which are identical in all except a few petty details which evoke the strongest emotions, followed by redefining the "target" alternative to be *inadvertently* crucial to the resolution of whatever specific vicissitudes caused in the first place the aforementioned despair to be interposed thus.

Oh and by the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!11!!1 --@--@ xxx _/\_
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo »

Good Heavens, Jupi! The rhetorical mechanism might require a higher viscosity grease!
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Santiago Odo wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:05 pm
... unifying, starry-eyed principles have been eclipsed by technicalities, nuts & bolts, matter and a desperate fight against decline, as it's only fragmentation that has reason to push back against its own declining nature ...
Is an example of speaking in abstract terms. You are referring to something but I do not understand what precisely you are speaking of. ...It doesn't help me much.
It's for me here like you're discussing fern seeds with me addressing elephants "ten yards way in broad daylight". Or the forest itself and you show so much interest in this tree, fascinating of course. But something is only "abstract" this way when the attention is not on there -- or a lot of effort is needed to imagine instead.

But lets not get into that kind of exchange! My references are also about the broader sociocultural fragmentation, the splintering heart of the social being, the nationalist border-lining, the alienating warp of technology and so on. But it didn't start at modernity, there is no solid unity to look back on, or we look back with this unifying glance, the same glancing which might have kept stuff, and people together at some point. It's tempting to invoke it and when someone does, I do oppose the idea, naturally.
They are going to push things till there is a reaction. They have to be taken down many many pegs.
That's the radicalization of the discourse which you are describing. You have to understand you are being swept up by it, too.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:31 amI can trump your trumping: the resurgent reality which follows the symbolic spoiling of the show is a part of the show, aka ice wall melted with cold fusion laser but dragongirl is pregnant (with eggs?). At bottom it's a loss of trust in institutions, replaced by "post-modern" narratives about a fractal universe of conspiracies and lies.
Well, the postmodernologists would like that, casting everything, including itself, as another narrative! But I see you finally finished or even re-watched the Game of Thrones seasons. It might not help to improve your narrative though, plus what about the lack of sexual display and gratuitous violence after all the moral indignation of the viewers? Where is this world turning into? :-)
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and as firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak.
So a term that is used almost exclusively by reactionary far right wingers and neoconservatives has been called precisely that?
Only if you'd redefine "far right" to mean something different than it did for decades. Which is a bit of that globally heated ice wall melting I suppose. It seems just another buzz word pointing to a host of developments, like "Political Correctness" does. Or to supply the best definition I know: the political-identity infused struggle against certain ingrained, mostly Western "social constructs" which are held responsible for suppression or discrimination of minorities or otherwise vulnerable groups. The reason "Marxism" is used here has a lot to do with the link between class relations and social conflict or suppression, the general liberation movements of the political Left, the emphasis on "social transformation" within that framework and the implicit link with Communism in cultural terms like absence of social classes and money, or the various power dynamics created by monetary processes.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert, if there were an antidote to Jean Baudrillard, what would it be? C'mon, give it a shot!
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:52 am
jupiviv wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:31 amI can trump your trumping: the resurgent reality which follows the symbolic spoiling of the show is a part of the show, aka ice wall melted with cold fusion laser but dragongirl is pregnant (with eggs?). At bottom it's a loss of trust in institutions, replaced by "post-modern" narratives about a fractal universe of conspiracies and lies.
Well, the postmodernologists would like that, casting everything, including itself, as another narrative!
Nice to hear that you like what you are doing. After all I pointed out that at bottom it's a loss of trust and you posited that as another narrative!
But I see you finally finished or even re-watched the Game of Thrones seasons. It might not help to improve your narrative though, plus what about the lack of sexual display and gratuitous violence after all the moral indignation of the viewers? Where is this world turning into? :-)
I've only watched complete episodes from the last two series (they were part of my friend's cable subscription). I acquired the other five seasons for personal enwatchment but got bored halfway into series 1 and skimmed through the rest. The "vulnerable good guy" subversions are predictable and have been done *far* better elsewhere (Dune). The acting is mediocre at best, except Charles Dance, shorty and Sean Bean. Even my beloved dragongirl is wooden and redeemed only by the quality of the dialogue/story.
Actually what's happening now, at least in my small country, is that the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has been labeled as ultraconservative and as firmly embedded into xenophobe nationalism or even Nazi-speak.
So a term that is used almost exclusively by reactionary far right wingers and neoconservatives has been called precisely that?
Only if you'd redefine "far right" to mean something different than it did for decades.
Like calling Marxism/leftism evil, connecting it with Jews and blaming it for creating all the problems by ruining traditional and/or natural identity? That is essentially what Cultural Marxism means.
ingrained, mostly Western "social constructs"
Let's see... Socratism, Macedonian despotism, Tarquinian despotism, Ciceronian republicanism, the Edict against the Christians, the Edict of Milan, the Excommunications of 1054, the Magna Carta, Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism, feudalism, Bonapartism v. 1-3, Mercantilism, Ricardoism, Marxism, Christian paganism, German-Hegelian-Christian stupidity, German-Kantian-Hegelian-Schopenhauerian-Wagnerian-Christian nihilism, metaphysical femaleness and Judaism, culturo-cranial Judaism, Libertarianism (no gods, no masters, no wage slavery), Keynesianism... oh, and Cultural Marxism.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:43 am
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:52 am
jupiviv wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:31 amI can trump your trumping: the resurgent reality which follows the symbolic spoiling of the show is a part of the show, aka ice wall melted with cold fusion laser but dragongirl is pregnant (with eggs?). At bottom it's a loss of trust in institutions, replaced by "post-modern" narratives about a fractal universe of conspiracies and lies.
Well, the postmodernologists would like that, casting everything, including itself, as another narrative!
After all I pointed out that at bottom it's a loss of trust and you posited that as another narrative!
It was only meant to comment on "the resurgent reality spoiling the show is part of the show". As for the institutions, they always have been distrusted, especially when decline was being perceived, morally or economically. In that sense, it's surely a common theme in history's discourse. However, the perception is certainly not always justified and might simple express the will to an ending, a death desire waiting to re-surge and unleash its tragedy.
Like calling Marxism/leftism evil, connecting it with Jews and blaming it for creating all the problems by ruining traditional and/or natural identity? That is essentially what Cultural Marxism means.
No that's how scared children in the media and twit-twit-world have defined it for you. What it means in reality I just laid out for your edification. Here it is again, re-edited and surely has full support of anyone who has ever dealt with the topic:
diebert wrote:Cultural Marxism is used to describe the political-identity infused struggle against ingrained, first world "social constructs" which are held responsible for suppression or discrimination of minorities or otherwise vulnerable groups. The reason the term "Marxism" is used has a lot to do with a perceived link between class or gender relations and social conflicts or suppression, the general liberation movements of the political Left, the emphasis on "social transformation" within that framework and the implicit link with Communism like the suggested break-down of social classes and money or the various power dynamics created by wealth accumulation.
Locked