Trumpism

[David Quinn]

All of that falls in the category of irrelevance/gong show. NAFTA 2 hasn't and won't bring back any jobs (quite the opposite from what I've read, and the trade deficit with Mexico-Canada was inconsequential to begin with), ending TPP = proverbial closing of barn door (China's importance to the US supply chain dwarfs the US' trade deficit with China, which is why the trade war has widened it further), Paris Accord was pointless anyway. I don't and refuse to attempt to understand the religious/other significance of moving an embassy to a place.

Completely agree. It is funny how Diebert loudly trumpets these "achievements" as though they were somehow the product of prolonged serious work. In reality, Trump is so lazy and glib that he could have just as easily tweeted out all of those "accomplishments" in a single day.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Completely agree. It is funny how Diebert loudly trumpets these "achievements" as though they were somehow the product of prolonged serious work. In reality, Trump is so lazy and glib that he could have just as easily tweeted out all of those "accomplishments" in a single day.

Trumpeting? It was a factual response backed by mainstream sources without some added value judgement or political hysteria. My earlier point was that this often gets lost because when it comes to these topics everyone acts overheated. It was meant to show that the statement "the only thing Trump is determined to do is build the Wall because it is the stone that hits two campaign promises" was lacking as there's nothing to disagree on the relativity large amount of government actions within the first half term. The topic "is a certain policy a product of prolonged serious work" falls in the same category as before: it depends how you view qualities of government, economy, war, said international treaties, etc.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's a major difference between the phenomena. For example the term SJW is used to describe a motive, like actually pursuing personal validation, attention or channel some energy instead of actually having a point.

You just made up that definition to suit your argument. If SJW referred to a particular character trait regardless of political affiliation, it wouldn't make sense use "SJW" because it is also a political epithet and there are other, apolitical terms denoting the same thing.

Made up? Well I just sort of lazily quoted Wikipedia "The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments". Perhaps you should edit the line there.

It would not matter if SJW is "also a political epithet". Although calling someone a "communist" or "cultural marxist" would come close I suppose.

[Santiago Odo]

But more: it feeds into certain near-apocalyptic fears. A profound disquiet. I think it fair to say that you show how this functions, how it can capture. You blend a group of apprehensions together and charge them with reactive energy. Lots and lots of people are involved in this. It is a mental and psychological contagion. [italics added]

I am the last person to fall victim to “near-apocalyptic fears”, but it is impossible to ignore the science, which is very solid.

Talking with you is, I am afraid to say, like talking with a machine. I mean this in a very specific sense and will try to explain. But first: You declare that you are 'the last person to fall victim to "near-apocalyptic" fears' but I suggest to you that you are, in truth, the first person. I have struggled to understand the inner dimensions of why this is so, and in fact it has been an extraordinarily valuable process. It goes to the heart of everything that I think, do and write.

You are a person with a strange and bizarre 'mental structure'. It is what you mean when you refer to your 'reason' and to 'rationality'. It is a steel-like carapace [a protective, shell-like covering likened to that of a turtle or crustacean] in which an aspect of your self has 'holed up'. Your 'enlightenment' is located there with you. It is (my impression) an entirely contrived and willed state. In that limited space where you *exist*, or through the manoeuvre of holing-up there, you effectively cut yourself off from the intelligible world. I do mean 'intelligible' in a special sense. You have created for yourself a hyper-rational protective fortress. You, Dan and to a certain extent Kevin are men who are, shall I say, 'structured' naturally to be like this. However, in my view, that structure and that state of being has a pathological aspect. Or, 'modernity' in specific senses augments the primary orientation and distorts it greatly. This shows up most obviously in you with your open Delusions of Grandeur in respect to your declared/non-declared 'enlightenment' and your bizarre relationship to your contrived 'God' that is a neurotic extension of your will and self-image.

The reason it is important -- fruitful I will say -- to consider you as a problem is because you are, in many ways, an example of a contagion that infects people, not the answer to an infection as you seem to think. As you pretend. When I realized this, and in the process of coming to better understanding of why GF was such a monumental gift for me personally, I came to understand that everything that you reject in that hyper-rationalistic dismissive and absolutely certain manner, would likely be areas and zones where things of great value, relevance and importance are located. This points to the act of *discarding*, though to dis-card does not quite hold the proper sense. More like jettisoning but in the sense of abandonment. Why is this important? Because it is this mind-frame -- arrogant, certain, steel-hard -- which destroys the possibility of subtle perception. And subtle perception is needed, very needed, in a radical time of dramatic shift between one metaphysic and another, encroaching one. There is, as you might be able to imagine (or perhaps not!) a great deal more that can and should be said here.

What I notice right now, in your relationship to the climate change issue, is not some rational argument or a rational/logical concern, but rather a psychological dark-spot within which you become blinded. I use the term 'obstinacy' for you (and numerous others here structured similarly to you): for obstinacy makes one unable to hear for all that one has ears! You do not see, to all appearances, the degree that you are in fact captured by psychological hysteria (of a peculiar 'leftist' sort). And in your intense denial (this is what *carapace* refers to and what its psychic function is) you tie yourself down into it evermore. In this sense, according to my understanding, you provide an example of just how a wide-ranging social conflagration operates.

But what is its source? Why is it happening? Well, this is (in my view) the more important question to ask. It is more than just *a question*, it is in fact a PROJECT. It is an intellectual project, a social project, an historical project. It has to do with the history of ideas and, yes, it certainly has to do with *philosophy* but at another level. It is, it really is, a spiritual and metaphysical issue, that is if considered in the widest sense. And I must say that to have been given the opportunity to have been exposed to the SICK here at GF (I use the general term 'nihilism') I have been given an extraordinary opportunity to delve into the inner dimensions of these problems and to grapple with them. Obviously within myself since these are not abstract questions relevant to an exterior. It all has very deeply to do with us as persons, in this temporal modality, dealing with life.

It is true, right now, that you are *captured* in a psychological current. But it is so real for you, so immediate, so 'undeniable' to your reason, that you cannot see how deep you are in it. And this, right here, describes how masses of people are captured in the same current! The Trump-Hysteria is a symptom. But it connects to feminism issues; to sexual and gender issues; to the structure (if I can call it that) of the operation of Cultural Marxism (and I do see this as a useful, though a flawed, term). Now, I did not say and I do not say that CC does not have a human factor. But it is really not my area of interest taken on the whole. And my post on the topic made this clear. You misunderstood (a little intentionally I think!) my statement about 'experts'. I said that other interests and groups shall I say take possession of the material, place it into narrative structures, politicize it, and use it in various ways. It is in this sense that 'I do not trust experts'. Not, certainly, that I do not trust or value expertise.

In order to understand Our Present -- in my excruciatingly humble opinion -- one has to take a wide detour away from any immediate problem or conflict, and turn back into metaphysical questions. This means turning back to study the former metaphysical means of grasping 'reality' and explaining being'.

Those metaphysical questions have to do with the structure of perception about what this world is and what we are here doing in it. These are in the ultimate and most important sense metaphysical and ontological questions of the most profound order. In order to understand what is going on, psychologically, in our present, it is necessary to understand *our situation* which occurs within a tension between two competing (perhaps I could say) metaphysics and an entire relationship to being. I have made efforts to bring this question out onto the foreground but with limited success. Still, I have written a good deal about this (well or badly) and, still, it is an area of vital concern.

Be all that as it may, I find you not the revealer of important truths (and thus, Dear Avolith! of Wisdom) but the subject of an analysis of what operates against it, and what destroys the possibility of gaining it. This does not mean that the science in Climate Science is fraudulent, because climate change is not, not really, the important topic here.

But what is then the *important topic*? Well, hysteria obviously, of the sort that you are deeply enmeshed in. But in a larger sense the hysterical dysfunction that has led you to your desperate manoeuvre which describes, basically, your entire neurotic set of choices; that which you call 'spirituality' and 'reason'. You are not alone in any sense in this. It is a mass-phenomenon. It is a cultural one and an historical one.

When I said to Diebert that I would *rewrite Genius Forum* this is really what I meant. The whole thing -- the whole thing! -- must be rewritten. But what this really means is that we are in a deviating cycle within intellectual history, and certainly culturally and civilizationally (pardon the neologism). The task before us of RECOVERY is huge and demanding. We will either carry it out or we will fail extraordinarily.

You have not yet even begun. You have been stopped by your own neurosis. I can help you.

[Santiago Odo]

I don't and refuse to attempt to understand the religious/other significance of moving an embassy to a place.

Well then, you need to do a bit more research. But if you *refuse* to consider what it means to those for whom the issue is relevant, if you refuse to consider what it means to those who have engineered it, you deliberately negate the possibility of understanding.

[jupiviv]

You just made up that definition to suit your argument. If SJW referred to a particular character trait regardless of political affiliation, it wouldn't make sense use "SJW" because it is also a political epithet and there are other, apolitical terms denoting the same thing.

Made up?

Yes.

It [my stupid attempt to refute jupiviv's brilliant prophecy] was meant to show that the statement "the only thing Trump is determined to do is build the Wall because it is the stone that hits two campaign promises" was lacking as there's nothing to disagree on the relativity large amount of government actions within the first half term.

It was only lacking if you assume for no reason whatsoever that it is literally the only thing I predicted the Trump administration would try to do. I'm sorry if the fact that I am the Parousia offends you, but my apodictic Trumprophecy is apodictic.

[Santiago Odo]

The 'Wall' thing. My view is that

1) Walls are effective in certain areas, especially where there are no barriers.

2) But the larger issue here is not the wall or a wall.

3) The larger issue, and whether Trump understands and believes this I cannot say, but the larger issue is to begin a process of re-whitening America or, if you wish, de-browning. This means a reversal of the 'multicultural project' as an ideological construct. This will be a difficult row to hoe, obviously, but headway has been made. It just needs a greater clarification, and a certain hardness of analysis or intensity. This would happen much more quickly if there were not such oppositional noise. If America cannot reverse the browning trend, white America will be quickly subsumed, and 'America' in its better senses will, indeed, be lost. But this *project* is one that has very much to do with Europe and Occidental civilization as well. I gather that a similar concern plays out in Australia? The end-effect can be seen in South Africa (though I say this with caveats).

One cannot and one should not 'trust' Donald Trump (and as you point out one need only look at his cabinet picks). But what is happening, what is manifesting, among the genuine native population must be channeled into greater awareness. How?

The first order of business is a) limiting immigration, and b) in a best-case-scenario developing a will to repatriate 10-20 million Mesoamericans to their 'ancestral homelands'. But it must take place within an intolerance that must be cultivated and developed.

Another aspect of this *project* is to recover a militant 'white identity'. I mean this. But it has to be very carefully rediscovered and cultivated. The sort of self-valuation that would literally cause one to punch someone in the mouth if they said something bad, disparaging or negative about white culture and white people. That is, a refusal to put up with it. We are soooo far from that though. White America, in respect to these issues, is a terrified child.

The other aspect of this is, indeed, separation. First, controls on who is let in. But then, eventually, providing space for another state to develop. How this will happen politically I am uncertain. Yet it is talked about. But the first order of business is the will. I give it a sliver of a chance of succeeding. But it is not impossible. And, as Guillaume Faye says, only as a result of and after some larger, devastating crisis.

Greg Johnson goes over all of this point-by-point in The White Nationalist Manifesto. A good deal of it -- not all -- makes sense.

[jupiviv]

I do not think that is a fair conclusion. I think 'Cultural Marxism' is a reference, well or badly conceived, well or badly understood, to what we could understand as ressentiment-en-action. The Old Marxists unhappily found that their Marxian projects did not make headway as planned. So, they had to modify the message and the intentionality of the message. Instead, shall we say, of an incisive blade (traditional Marxism in an ideological sense), many little blades and cutting tools arise and were put to use. There was and there is a certain genius in all that.

Let's cut the bullshit and examine actual phenomena. Was second wave feminism coeval with the entry of women into the labour market, and did the latter partially cause reduced demand for labour and wage stagnation? Yes. Was third wave feminism coeval with the outsourcing of manufacturing and resultant larger service sector? Yes. Did feminism itself cause any of that above? No, it was a concomitant effect of the same broader processes.

Did Marxism/ Marxists cause any of the above, and did they have any ideological reason/s to do so (other than hysterical psychobabble)? No and no; they were marginalised even further as the traditional working class was being replaced by debt-fuelled asset inflation/speculation. Did private/business entities cause any of the above, and have any reason to do so? Yes on both counts to the extent they stood to benefit, as indeed the majority of them did. Were physical/natural factors also active and even more fundamental than all of the above? Yes, e.g. the declining affordability of fossil fuels, which are both the origin and life-blood of industrial civilisation.

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

Also stop with the racist crap before it pisses me off.

[Santiago Odo]

But I think that, at least according to your definitions, that I would be termed a racist. I much prefer to term 'race-realist' though. But my overarching concern is not body-type. It is ultimately relationship to *our civilization*.

It is not mean-spirited (at least in my case). But my notions are exclusionary. I actually think that more acute race-realism is a balm. It must be cultivated, allowed. Does that change your opinion any?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That theme is evident in Augustine's "On Lying". He understandably felt the need for total honesty as the world of Antiquity collapsed around him. The other early fathers of Christianity also placed the same desperate emphasis on the importance of whatever virtues they considered crucial to the stability and prosperity of the Roman state.

Bang on!

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.

Or it can be, or rather generally is, both. The collapse of institutions and material circumstances bringing about the "death instinct".

Well this is the chicken egg story like explored in socionomics. 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. Usually I see with this topic everything as being there already in embryonic state or through some negative feedback as confined state. This would mean that the death instinct is always fully active but when compensation for it weakens, it will become a ruling instinct pretty quickly and start the spiral downwards. The compensation is not a magical element or some form of Eros, in my view its blocking agent is at the same time the initial product of the same drive: the Artifact which functions now as its confines. However all such structures are temporal and can only be propped up for so long. Such is my rather organic view of this right now. In small things as well bigger ones.

...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. The reason I did not put more specifics in a general definition is because the phenomenon itself is fluid and changes targets regularly. 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.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes.

It was simply a rather common definition but I'm not going to bother to appeal to that authority. It's good enough and you have little to offer against it. In a year you'll be using it your self elsewhere. That''s how little I worry about it!

It was only lacking if you assume for no reason whatsoever that it is literally the only thing I predicted the Trump administration would try to do.

You literally wrote "the only thing Trump is determined to do" and I corrected that with simply listing other well documented determinations during campaign time which some significant sounding ones were implemented surprisingly fast. You are trying now to analyze the merits, use or wisdom of those actions like some Quinn or Alex. That was not my point here. Even the wall project of your prediction has no point beyond marketing and branding, as some symbol that many people in his own choir understand. My point was to show how your "prediction" was quite limited apart from your correct estimation that it would be one point he would make a show around before forging the deal. Although you didn't say that of course!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The trouble with your whole approach is that you are determined to downplay Trump’s insane behaviour and magnify everyone else’s, so as to pretend that the two are on the same level. It is like comparing a serial killer with a pickpocket and saying they are equal as they are both criminals. I reject that kind of thinking.

But Trump is not like a serial killer and his election is not throwing our whole civilization back into the dark ages no matter how you try to add that drama. It's that kind of thinking that should be rejected in my view as it lacks objective fact. It's merely sense, opinion and suspicion. It's not even something I disagree with, there's simply not enough there to take up arms.

For me, I favour sanity, hard facts, solid reasoning, and a benovelant spirit.

And timeless philosophy is not about that kind of hard, numerical fact. Neither is sociology or psychology really.

Even if we managed to successfully implement limits to procreation, it would still take decades before the population began to significantly fall. We don’t have the luxury of decades.

Are you aware all current international efforts to limit climate change are planning around counter-effects over quite a few decades? Of course this birth rate solution does not work for many other reasons. But the point I make is that you should think before making claims on topics you have barely scraped the surface of, just because you "feel" it might be wrong.

For me at least, the survival of wisdom is an existence worth protecting and fighting for.

You seem to worry too much about its chances.

The medieval beliefs of right-wing people]

Ironically coming from someone who has been tarred with the medieval feather often enough. In any case, there's no evidence "right-wing" people as a category are opposed to science at large, space flight, international traveling and trade or have much in common with medieval practices or teachings. Some definitely do. You cannot just say that and think anyone takes you seriously.

I have noticed that you have sometimes mocked by stance as being a product of my "old age". Well, boo hoo to you. I completely reject that. Indeed, in my experience, the support for Trump and the alt-right is primarily an old people’s movement. Young people generally cannot stand him or it.

So you're simply trying to be young again? Now I get it :-) But your political view is not mocked but rather the clunky and unexamined way with which you need to splash it out on this forum. And with such energy and conviction! That makes it interesting to examine. As you should too.

[David Quinn]

Completely agree. It is funny how Diebert loudly trumpets these "achievements" as though they were somehow the product of prolonged serious work. In reality, Trump is so lazy and glib that he could have just as easily tweeted out all of those "accomplishments" in a single day.

Trumpeting? It was a factual response backed by mainstream sources without some added value judgement or political hysteria. My earlier point was that this often gets lost because when it comes to these topics everyone acts overheated. It was meant to show that the statement "the only thing Trump is determined to do is build the Wall because it is the stone that hits two campaign promises" was lacking as there's nothing to disagree on the relativity large amount of government actions within the first half term.

On the contrary, you were engaging in Trumpian apologetics.

Face the truth, man, You are part of the cult.

[Santiago Odo]

OK, so I have compiled the 'score-card' up to David's last post.

The results are:

Santiago Odo is clearly in the lead with 9.3

David is sinking badly at 3.1

Pam has done surprisingly well at 6.6 (and this may change depending on what she says about paternalism and logos)

Avolith gets the benefit of a doubt and receives a polite (if reserved) 7.0

Vishesh gets a flat 5.0 Sorry old chum. You've got to write more.

Jupi, sorry to say, is just not performing. Delayed responses, convoluted phrasings, a sorry 5.4 Is your heart in this?!?

Diebert, in all proper fairness, gets high marks at 7.7 (which would have been higher except for that 'timeless nuggets' comment!)

[Santiago Odo]

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.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

as there's nothing to disagree on the relativity large amount of government actions within the first half term.

On the contrary, you were engaging in Trumpian apologetics. Face the truth, man, You are part of the cult.

Nobody disagrees on the amount, the number of them, David. Stop reading your preconceived ideas into things people say.

It's sad to see that you have all but stopped reasoning and instead of pursuing wisdom, sharing your deeper insights and holding your own feet to the fire, you descended into reading whatever you like in the words of others, making many rash judgements, last time even attacking Kevin effectively behind his back and later misquoting or misreading him non-stop and now dismissing anyone who dares to question your private collection of political truths. Wake up man! You don't want to become another Weininger when he suddenly realized that he turned into a criminal according to his own radical philosophy. So I feel I'm motivated to challenge you as you have taught me that many times over. And out or respect I spare nothing and nobody, as it would be what you once valued.

[jupiviv]

Yes.

It was simply a rather common definition but I'm not going to bother to appeal to that authority. It's good enough and you have little to offer against it. In a year you'll be using it your self elsewhere. That''s how little I worry about it!

It's a common definition if you include the political connotation which is explicitly mentioned in the wiki page, *before* the sentence you quoted.

It was only lacking if you assume for no reason whatsoever that it is literally the only thing I predicted the Trump administration would try to do.

You literally wrote "the only thing Trump is determined to do" and I corrected that with simply listing other well documented determinations during campaign time which some significant sounding ones were implemented surprisingly fast.

"Determined to do" =\= "going to do", "Trump" =\= "Trump admin" or "US govt.". Besides, my broader case for irrelevance was about Trump being either a nominal agent of actual change or a peddler of fake change, not about the complete lack of any change or any activity by Trump himself.

My point was to show how your "prediction" was quite limited apart from your correct estimation that it would be one point he would make a show around before forging the deal. Although you didn't say that of course!

What has he *not* made a show of before doing it? To the extent Trump has an independent agenda in office, its aim is to appease his real base aka the Republican base. Whatever else he does can be safely filed under the category of "would have happened under Clinton albeit with cosmetic variations". And that is and was my point exactly.

May 17:

For me, it’s all unfolding exactly as I expected. I looked into his soul last August and saw immediately that Trump as president would be a disaster on every level. It’s all so very predictable.

Actually, it's unfolding exactly as I expected (and wrote) months ago, i.e., Trump fitting in perfectly to the role of the "heel" who gets to pretend to be an agent of earth-shaking change (for good or bad, or good-good, or good-bad, or bad-good etc.) that never happens, while the rabble also pretends likewise because they can't make sense of the real changes which are occurring. Meanwhile, business as usual is sustained until it can't be. When it can't be, Trump takes the blame and nobly retires to a life of book deals and chat shows.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whatever else he does can be safely filed under the category of "would have happened under Clinton albeit with cosmetic variations". And that is and was my point exactly.

The list of items I gave that somewhat shocked part of the world (or media) cannot be reasonably claimed to have happened under Clinton with some cosmetic variation! And it's not relevant if they abide or are changed later again.

In any case, I love to discuss your fascination with Trump with you (heheh) but I'll only continue in the other section of the forum. And I might move even the Trump related posts to there but only after the discussion here winds down.

[David Quinn]

When it can't be, Trump takes the blame and nobly retires to a life of book deals and chat shows.

You're having a laugh. None of these things is going to happen.

[David Quinn]

as there's nothing to disagree on the relativity large amount of government actions within the first half term.

On the contrary, you were engaging in Trumpian apologetics. Face the truth, man, You are part of the cult.

Nobody disagrees on the amount, the number of them, David. Stop reading your preconceived ideas into things people say.

The "amount" of government actions is meaningless if these actions lack substance. Two hundred times zero still equals zero. When policy is conducted incoherently and thoughtlessly on the basis of whim, then what is really achieved? Nothing but dysfunction and chaos. As I say, given the way Trump operates, he could have just as easily performed all these "government actions" in a single day without breaking sweat. This alone shows just how insignificant his policy actions have been.

That you have rushed in to defend this farce and paint it as though it were somehow the work of a substantial, serious government speaks volumes. And this is by no means an isolated case. I have noticed plenty of other instances of your Trump apologetics on this forum. You are definitely a fully paid-up member of the Trump personality cult, which I'm guessing stems from your love of Russia.

It's sad to see that you have all but stopped reasoning and instead of pursuing wisdom, sharing your deeper insights and holding your own feet to the fire, you descended into reading whatever you like in the words of others, making many rash judgements, last time even attacking Kevin effectively behind his back and later misquoting or misreading him non-stop and now dismissing anyone who dares to question your private collection of political truths.

It pains me to say it, but Kevin is clearly part of the cult too. I can see why you would rush to defend him. Birds flock together and all that.

Wake up man! You don't want to become another Weininger when he suddenly realized that he turned into a criminal according to his own radical philosophy. So I feel I'm motivated to challenge you as you have taught me that many times over. And out or respect I spare nothing and nobody, as it would be what you once valued.

I appreciate that, but I have to stand my own ground and assert what I think is right. I reject your claim that my voice on these matters is clumsy and uninformed. Rather, I am coming to the issue with different priorities and concerns than you. One of my main concerns is that people involved in the alt-right universe have lost sight of basic realities that govern society.

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.

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.

I am using my "clumsy" and "uninformed" voice to remind you that, while you spend your days spiraling off into the alt-right fairyland, it is important to stay connected with reality.

[Santiago Odo]

One of my main concerns is that people involved in the alt-right universe have lost sight of basic realities that govern society.

First, you don't have enough information even to give a definition of Alt-Right. I think that what you refer to is the sensationalistic popular Alt-Right (Milo, Richard Spencer perhaps, various others) and it is fair to say that flared up with a certain intensity but do not necessarily carry forward a coherent philosophy. (Richard Spencer is perhaps different.)

In order to grasp the Philosophical Right you'd have to a) abandon the extreme prejudice that seems to have you in its grip, and b) begin to do some intensive reading.

Many of those people have concerns that cannot be classified as either Left or Right (which are not useful terms really). Some are very concerned for social doctrine, or environmental issues, and some would therefore be very concerned for global warming and the loosening of environmental laws, deregulation, et cetera.

You would be very wrong were you to say that people on the New Right or the Philosophical Right "universe have lost sight of basic realities that govern society". Actually they are thinking about those things with great depth. But they all -- more or less, and yet to differing degrees -- reject good portions of 'Liberalism' or extreme liberalism. And some of them -- not all but some -- are racialists and even separatists. But most are vitally concerned for 'civilization' and 'Occidental categories'. And many are informed by 'traditionalist' religious and spiritual/metaphysical concerns.

You would do better to gather more information. But the same was said to you a few years back and you obviously haven't. I suppose you likely won't.

Some of Jonathan Bowden's talks are quite informative, and though you might not agree with his general analysis he is quite smart. They'd help you to understand an aspect of the New Right of which you are ignorant.

Here is a short video with interesting ideas. Here is a longer talk.

[David Quinn]

Well, having read through this thread and all of its oh-so-clever comments, I still have no idea what Cultural Marxism is. The term evokes no intelligible meaning in me. Like “strawberry noise", or “economic mysticism”. And then when I research the matter on-line and start coming across conspiracy pieces about the evil Jews, globalists and feminists, I quickly lose interest.

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. Just another instance of the demonization that pours out daily from the right-wing propaganda machine.

My take on what is happening is this: The ultra-rich have completely taken over the Republican party and systematically use bigotry and fear to control their supporters, egging them on to fight the culture wars. This enables attention to be deflected away from the ultra-rich’s own greedy and dangerous behaviour (the true threat to America and the world), to the point where they can manipulate the Republican supporters into believing that the real enemy are foreigners, left-leaning folk, progressives, minority groups and SJWs. With such a political force at their disposal they can undermine everything that stands in the way of 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.

In effect, the Republican supporters have allowed themselves to be treated as dupes. They are pawns in a game in which they will receive no benefits and will only result in their lives becoming even more impoverished and miserable. Every time the ultra-rich pick up a right-wing paper or turn on Fox News and see the constant demonization of the left, they are rubbing their hands with glee.

[David Quinn]

One of my main concerns is that people involved in the alt-right universe have lost sight of basic realities that govern society.

First, you don't have enough information even to give a definition of Alt-Right. I think that what you refer to is the sensationalistic popular Alt-Right (Milo, Richard Spencer perhaps, various others) and it is fair to say that flared up with a certain intensity but do not necessarily carry forward a coherent philosophy. (Richard Spencer is perhaps different.)

I would give the label "alt-right" to anyone who has an irrational hatred of the left, and "far-right" to anyone who wants to turn the clock back to a mythical past. Naturally, there is a lot of overlap between the two.

Some of Jonathan Bowden's talks are quite informative, and though you might not agree with his general analysis he is quite smart. They'd help you to understand an aspect of the New Right of which you are ignorant.

Here is a short video with interesting ideas. Here is a longer talk.

I remember watching the short video a couple of years ago, when you posted it back then. Having watched it again now, I remember why I thought it was a joke.

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!

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 (!). After that, there is some more whining about how crippled he is feeling by these horrible forces. My heart really does go out to him, the poor dear. Next he tries to turn around one of the great virtues of Western/Anglo-Saxon culture - namely, a propensity towards introspection and self-criticism - and presents it as weakness and self-hate, and pines wistfully that we should become more steadfast and unquestioning like the Chinese.

Moving further forward through this pile of excrement, Bowden makes the claim that multiculturalism (or “blending of the races”) will only cause internal divisions within a country, as though internal divisions were unheard of in the pre-muticultural past. Bizarrely, he then undercuts the whole point of his video by asserting that there will always be conflicts between groups within a society “no matter what we do”, thereby successfully defeating his own argument. Breezing past that, he immediately hops back on script and stresses that there will always be divisions in a multi-racial society, again implying or pretending that divisions do not exist within mono-cultures.

He concludes the video with some more whining about how he has to self-censor his actions and speech because of these horrible forces that make him feel so guilty, and in the process ignores the reality that people are always engaging in self-censorship in all cultures, including mono-cultures.

The guy is living in a dreamworld.

[Santiago Odo]

Interesting take. I’ll give it some thought. In the meantime let me know your thoughts on the longer talk . . .

[jupiviv]

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? That by itself proves that you are arguing in a self-imposed vacuum! If you intend to change my mind about something I've written, may I suggest reading my posts.

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 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.

So here we are, exactly where we left off. If you continue trying to force your mulish, hackneyed narratives about Trump down our throats, it is where we will remain! Or you can start over and actually listen to valid criticisms of your opinions about a complex phenomenon.