Flakes and Jackasses

[David Quinn]

There will inevitably be major economic repercussions for a collective global rejection of cars, but it won't grind everything to a halt. There are many other ways of travelling like buses, trains, bicycles. There are also ways in which car owners can change their lifestyles, like moving away from the suburbs and closer to work, or working from home. You asked me for a solution and this is one that, if pursued earnestly, will definitely cause a significant reduction in fossil fuel usage.

This is pie in the sky stuff. It will never happen. It is about as likely to happen as 6 billion people suddenly offering to commit suicide for the sake of the environment.

It's obvious that you don't take the issue seriously. You offer full-blown fantasies in the same way that you offer full-blown cynicism - as a way to hide from having to deal with anything.

Thank you for proving my point! The problems we face as a species are too large and imminent to be dealt with in incremental steps without inflicting much collateral damage. They require drastic collective action and willingness to make difficult personal sacrifices, which is very unlikely to happen by your own admission.

It certainly presents a tremendous challenge and in may ways the situation looks exceedingly grim.

But I am old enough to know that things can change very quickly at the drop of a hat. A major technological breakthrough, perhaps, or a sudden sweeping realization across the world that urgent action has to be taken, or the ascension of an intelligent global leader who can galvanize people, or whatever. There is always the possibility that something unexpected can arise and overturn the tired, old ways of looking at things.

By the same token, I am also old enough to know that if people are determined to remain stuck in a pessimistic, nihilistic, cynical state of mind, then we have no hope. It becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know you like to treat your cynicism as a safe space, but it offers nothing to humanity. And not only does it offer nothing to humanity, but it puts limits on your own inner development. It is no surprise that, even after 10 years of being here, you still haven't yet reached enlightenment.

Science has repeatedly shown throughout its history that it can make seemingly intractable problems vanish. It isn't magic. It is the application of rational understanding and solid theorizing.

Science can at most identify real world problems accurately. Solving or overcoming them takes a lot more than scientific knowledge, e.g. cheaply extractable fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Do I really need to list the numerous achievements by science in countless different areas, whether it be eradicating deadly diseases, extending our life-spans, eliminating infant mortality, creating labour-saving devices, exposing the falseness of myths and superstitions, increasing freedom of speech (via the internet), increasing our understanding of the cosmos, and so on?

Just the fact that you, an Indian, can come along to a forum like this and communicate near instantaneously with Australians, Dutchmen, Americans, etc, and be exposed to a deep wisdom which is very difficult to find anywhere else, is purely due to science. Show some gratitude, man. Without science, you would probably remain stuck for the rest of your life in the narrow confines of your own primitive culture.

You might well say, and you probably will, that these achievements have generated their own problems, such as over-population, but that's irrelevant to the basic point being made here, which is that science is perfectly capable of resolving all sorts of different issues and making them vanish.

Modi was elected in 2014 and was on very good terms with Obama, who visited India twice since then.

A lot has certainly changed since then.

No.

Why do you say that? My understanding is that Modi initially started his Prime Minisitership with a far more positive and constructive message, promising to usher India into a new modern age, and Obama, who normally likes to encourage the best in people, did his bit to try and fan that ambition. But by the time Trump came along, Modi had dumped all that and confined himself to demonizing Muslims instead.

That's because the saner members of the Republican party have long ago left his administration in disgust and Trump has since stacked it with his cronies, flunkies and yes men.

Another feature of Trump Derangement - thinking that Trump and the "good" Republicans are at odds with each other. All/most disagreements on that front (thus far) have been about protocol, procedure or implementation, not content.

The good republicans would disagree with you.

The Republican party has been steadily shrinking since Trump came along and turned it into his own personality cult. Everyone with dignity and brains has left.

The Trump admin's primary aim since the beginning has been to establish a stronger executive which could function as a Bonapartist office when SHTF later on.

In other words, to establish a dictatorship.

Not exactly. The world has been shifting towards corporate oligarchy for a while, with bipartisan accord on fundamental premises. This was recognised decades ago, e.g. Wolin, Chomsky, Gross. Trump, Modi, Putin, Orban etc. are the latest brand names.

You really do have your head in the sand.

Let's call it HITS Syndrome. A big, heavy, blinding dose of HITSS. And you have got it bad. Real bad.

Yes, the world has been shifting towards corporate oligarchy for a long time now, but that doesn't mean that what we are observing now is just business as usual. There have been major changes occurring over the past several years that have caused the world to become exceedingly fragile, thus making the corporate oligarchy increasingly more powerful and dangerous.

For example, one of the major functions of the liberal establishment is to act as a buffer against the rapacious actions of the oligarchs - who are, let's not mince our words here, nothing less than dangerous psychopaths. By using the rule of law and implementing regulations that protect the rest of us from environmental vandalism, financial crimes, scam artists, soulless cruelty, corporate bullying, etc, we have managed to curtail the ability of these evil men to inflict harm upon us, at least to some degree. Yes, it has been a flawed system, a flawed form of protection, but it is the only one we have. Take it away and there is nothing left to stop these psychopaths from completely screwing us over.

This is one of the reasons why I was disgusted a couple of years ago, and still am disgusted, by the sight of senior people on this forum - specifically, you, Diebert, Russell and Kevin - happily putting the boot into the liberal establishment, of being swept up by the alt-right movement and reveling in a sort of crazed bloodlust to bring it all crashing down - seemingly oblivious to the consequences of all this. It was disgusting to see the four of you so willing to be the pawns and dupes of these oligarchs, to fight for their interests against those of us who seek to reign in their psychopathic urges. And it disgusts me that, even now, none of you are willing to face up to this.

[jupiviv]

But I am old enough to know that things can change very quickly at the drop of a hat.

All available evidence suggests you haven't seriously contemplated any of the changes that have occurred during your life, except feminism and (maybe) climate change. Ditto for Kevin.

I know you like to treat your cynicism as a safe space, but it offers nothing to humanity. And not only does it offer nothing to humanity, but it puts limits on your own inner development.

A series of facile accusations and non sequiturs. I am cynical about deluded ideas. Which is to say, I assume that any facts or reasoning employed in their service are nugatory because they are motivated by emotions and attachments. What is wrong with such cynicism? What alternative do you suggest?

Using cynicism as a safe space? What does that even mean?! Where is your evidence that I'm doing that?

It is no surprise that, even after 10 years of being here, you still haven't yet reached enlightenment.

An arrogant & meaningless statement unsupported by any reasoning or evidence apart from (I assume) your previous baseless accusation of non-specific cynicism.

Science can at most identify real world problems accurately. Solving or overcoming them takes a lot more than scientific knowledge, e.g. cheaply extractable fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Do I really need to list the numerous achievements by science in countless different areas, whether it be eradicating deadly diseases, extending our life-spans, eliminating infant mortality, creating labour-saving devices, exposing the falseness of myths and superstitions, increasing freedom of speech (via the internet), increasing our understanding of the cosmos, and so on?

From a scientific perspective, none of those things are achievements of science. They can be said to be so only in a *rhetorical* sense that assumes the part played by science in them is centrally important. Nothing wrong with that per se but it doesn't address my argument viz. Solving or overcoming (problems) takes a lot more than scientific knowledge, e.g. cheaply extractable fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Just the fact that you, an Indian, can come along to a forum like this and communicate near instantaneously with Australians, Dutchmen, Americans, etc, and be exposed to a deep wisdom which is very difficult to find anywhere else, is purely due to science. Show some gratitude, man. Without science, you would probably remain stuck for the rest of your life in the narrow confines of your own primitive culture.

The TCP/IP backbone the internet rides on was developed in the 60s, partly because of scientific research and discoveries. That was, I'm guessing, about a decade before your birth. It is not even remotely true that science has been the main, let alone the sole, cause of the improvement and propagation of that technology since then.

Instead of arguing your case you've resorted to cheap rhetoric, with appended racism in this instance (hopefully only for effect). Why? Ostentatiously, it is meant to construct an unscientific apology for science that is in no way called for in this discussion (I am clearly neither anti-science nor anti-reason). In reality, I think you do not want to fundamentally alter your infantile opinions about the world, or examine how they expose flaws in your self-attested wisdom.

On a related note, this tactic of shortchanging actual reasoned arguments with grand statements about the importance of certain concepts (like science or free speech) is also something I encountered all too often during my recent conversation with Kevin. There is a problem here and it won't be identified or solved through ad hoc paeans to science!

My understanding is that Modi initially started his Prime Minisitership with a far more positive and constructive message, promising to usher India into a new modern age, and Obama, who normally likes to encourage the best in people, did his bit to try and fan that ambition. But by the time Trump came along, Modi had dumped all that and confined himself to demonizing Muslims instead.

No. I suggest you abandon your ineffectual, Pollyannaish rhetoric of rationality and make efforts to know what things are before talking or arguing about them. As good a place to start as any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8fEP8MoGg

Another feature of Trump Derangement - thinking that Trump and the "good" Republicans are at odds with each other. All/most disagreements on that front (thus far) have been about protocol, procedure or implementation, not content.

The good republicans would disagree with you.

No. You are being intellectually lazy and refusing to understand and address my arguments. The link you want is https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... ump-score/ ...as you can see it unanimously proves me right.

The Republican party has been steadily shrinking since Trump came along and turned it into his own personality cult. Everyone with dignity and brains has left.

This is true, but approval for the Democratic Party has also declined to a lesser extent. The long-term trend in the US is shifting away from a stable two-party system. Polarisation is increasing, and has been increasing, for decades along class, cultural, racial and demographic lines. Trump as an individual has no doubt had an effect on all that, but how substantial that has been is highly debatable to say the least.

Yes, the world has been shifting towards corporate oligarchy for a long time now, but that doesn't mean that what we are observing now is just business as usual.

You seem to be arguing with an imaginary version of me. I think the accelerated decline of the neoliberal status quo in the past decade/two has exposed how corrupt it is. That is the *opposite* of "business as usual".

This is one of the reasons why I was disgusted a couple of years ago, and still am disgusted, by the sight of senior people on this forum - specifically, you, Diebert, Russell and Kevin - happily putting the boot into the liberal establishment, of being swept up by the alt-right movement and reveling in a sort of crazed bloodlust to bring it all crashing down - seemingly oblivious to the consequences of all this.

Now you seem to be arguing with an imaginary Kevin who is also me, even though our conversation up to this point makes it clear I do not approve of his support for reactionary politics. I'm revelling (in a sort of crazed bloodlust) over the fact that the veil of decency that had formerly obscured the true nature of the neoliberal world order from those people who most benefited from it, is burning down. I do not derive any enjoyment from the human suffering which is occurring in parallel to the above, or what it portends for the mid-term future of many if not most parts of the world. The fact those two phenomena are connected and have the same causes does not mean approval of one also extends to everything related to it.

There is a not-so-subtle distinction there that you have consistently failed to recognise thus far, probably because it contradicts the narrative you want me to agree with.

It was disgusting to see the four of you so willing to be the pawns and dupes of these oligarchs, to fight for their interests against those of us who seek to reign in their psychopathic urges. And it disgusts me that, even now, none of you are willing to face up to this.

Of course, disagreeing with someone on a decrepit old internet forum counts as fighting for oligarchs against some nebulous group of people who... don't want to be psychopaths???

Am I witnessing your descent into paranoia? Who the fuck are the oligarchs anyway? Monsanto, Blackwater and Alphabet predate Trump's election by quite a bit.

[David Quinn]

I know you like to treat your cynicism as a safe space, but it offers nothing to humanity. And not only does it offer nothing to humanity, but it puts limits on your own inner development.

A series of facile accusations and non sequiturs. I am cynical about deluded ideas. Which is to say, I assume that any facts or reasoning employed in their service are nugatory because they are motivated by emotions and attachments. What is wrong with such cynicism?

There’s nothing wrong with challenging deluded ideas, but cynicism is more than that. Cynicism is a philosophy unto itself, a kind of blanket attitude which derives pleasure from dismissing anything and everything. Some people, particularly the young, even go so far as to form their very identity around it. This creates an eagerness to rush to premature judgment, so as to protect their identity, which distorts their perspective and creates mental blocks. In your case, we can see this in your cynical dismissal of conventional liberal thinking and the mainstream media, which then leads to, say, a poor understanding of science, or a distorted and limited view of Trump.

What alternative do you suggest?

A clear mind and a pure heart. Not being emotionally invested in any particular conclusion or outcome. Being faithful to the Infinite.

Wisdom, in other words.

Using cynicism as a safe space? What does that even mean?!

It’s a way to make yourself believe that you are more masculine than you actually are. Cynicism is a lower form of masculinity, a pretend form of masculinity.

Where is your evidence that I'm doing that?

I’ve already pointed out several instances of it. I’ll point out more when I come across them.

Meanwhile, your posts on the Game of Thrones thread are instructive. They are silly preening posts which have you reveling in your own cleverness. They are also imbued with a heavy dose of cynicism. In fact, the cynicism is used to paper over the desire you have to escape into nonsense. It goes like this: Emotionally, you want to escape into nonsense, but a part of you knows that this is womanly and undignified. To remedy this, you express it in a hyper-cynical manner, so as to make it appear (to your own self at least) that you are engaging in a manly exercise.

It is no surprise that, even after 10 years of being here, you still haven't yet reached enlightenment.

An arrogant & meaningless statement unsupported by any reasoning or evidence apart from (I assume) your previous baseless accusation of non-specific cynicism.

It is the truth. You know it. I know it.

This is not intended to be a slight on your character. It is more a case of pointing out that perhaps you haven't prioritized wisdom as much as you could have.

Science can at most identify real world problems accurately. Solving or overcoming them takes a lot more than scientific knowledge, e.g. cheaply extractable fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Do I really need to list the numerous achievements by science in countless different areas, whether it be eradicating deadly diseases, extending our life-spans, eliminating infant mortality, creating labour-saving devices, exposing the falseness of myths and superstitions, increasing freedom of speech (via the internet), increasing our understanding of the cosmos, and so on?

From a scientific perspective, none of those things are achievements of science. They can be said to be so only in a *rhetorical* sense that assumes the part played by science in them is centrally important. Nothing wrong with that per se but it doesn't address my argument viz. Solving or overcoming (problems) takes a lot more than scientific knowledge, e.g. cheaply extractable fossil fuels and other natural resources.

The fact remains that without scientific knowledge, without the knowledge and implementation of the scientific method, there would be no science and we would be back to cowering together in nomadic tribes and chasing after wildebeest. Science has been solving problems long before the fossil fuel era.

Just the fact that you, an Indian, can come along to a forum like this and communicate near instantaneously with Australians, Dutchmen, Americans, etc, and be exposed to a deep wisdom which is very difficult to find anywhere else, is purely due to science. Show some gratitude, man. Without science, you would probably remain stuck for the rest of your life in the narrow confines of your own primitive culture.

The TCP/IP backbone the internet rides on was developed in the 60s, partly because of scientific research and discoveries. That was, I'm guessing, about a decade before your birth. It is not even remotely true that science has been the main, let alone the sole, cause of the improvement and propagation of that technology since then.

Science is not the main cause of the improvement of scientific technology....?

Without science, you would probably remain stuck for the rest of your life in the narrow confines of your own primitive culture.

Instead of arguing your case you've resorted to cheap rhetoric, with appended racism in this instance (hopefully only for effect).

This is the third time in recent times that you have accused me of racism, again on spurious grounds. If I was a troll, I would say that you seem triggered. All it takes, the troll would say, is a little prodding out of your safe space and you immediately turn into a snowflake. But I won’t say that. Instead, I’ll merely point out that you are again rushing to premature judgment.

In any case, I regard Australian culture to be primitive as well.

My understanding is that Modi initially started his Prime Minisitership with a far more positive and constructive message, promising to usher India into a new modern age, and Obama, who normally likes to encourage the best in people, did his bit to try and fan that ambition. But by the time Trump came along, Modi had dumped all that and confined himself to demonizing Muslims instead.

No. I suggest you abandon your ineffectual, Pollyannaish rhetoric of rationality and make efforts to know what things are before talking or arguing about them. As good a place to start as any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8fEP8MoGg

That video is far too long. Can you point me to where they talk about Obama and his relationship to Modi?

This is one of the reasons why I was disgusted a couple of years ago, and still am disgusted, by the sight of senior people on this forum - specifically, you, Diebert, Russell and Kevin - happily putting the boot into the liberal establishment, of being swept up by the alt-right movement and reveling in a sort of crazed bloodlust to bring it all crashing down - seemingly oblivious to the consequences of all this.

Now you seem to be arguing with an imaginary Kevin who is also me, even though our conversation up to this point makes it clear I do not approve of his support for reactionary politics. I'm revelling (in a sort of crazed bloodlust) over the fact that the veil of decency that had formerly obscured the true nature of the neoliberal world order from those people who most benefited from it, is burning down.

You are conflating the liberal establishment and neo-liberalism here. The liberal establishment (the body of ethics and laws that protect us from the psychopathic rich) and neo-liberalism (the system put in place by the psychopathic rich) are not the same thing.

It was disgusting to see the four of you so willing to be the pawns and dupes of these oligarchs, to fight for their interests against those of us who seek to reign in their psychopathic urges. And it disgusts me that, even now, none of you are willing to face up to this.

Of course, disagreeing with someone on a decrepit old internet forum counts as fighting for oligarchs against some nebulous group of people who... don't want to be psychopaths???

Here is an instance of your cynicism, of your desire to hide away.

Am I witnessing your descent into paranoia?

It is all happening in front of our eyes in plain sight. The policy-making that facilitates funneling more and more money into the hands of the psychopathic rich (tax cuts, tax loopholes, the gutting of social programs, the eroding of the administrative state, etc); the rolling back of regulations that protect the citizenry from the predatory actions of the psychopathic rich (environmental, financial, consumer protection, etc); the relentless demonization of everyone who opposes the predatory actions of the psychopathic rich; the redefining of “political correctness" to mean any kind of opposition to the psychopathic rich; the deliberate stoking of fear in the community so as to manipulate people into thinking that their enemies are foreigners and minority groups and not the psychopathic rich; the deliberate stoking of the culture wars so to keep chipping away at the liberal establishment which stands in the way of psychopathic rich; the deliberate attempt to inundate the community with chaos and confusion so as to manipulate people into supporting dictatorships run by the psychopathic rich, and so on.

In short, what we are witnessing is a full-scale assault on anything and everything that places restrictions on the psychopathic rich. Politically, the aim seems to be to install medieval/feudalistic-type societies across the West, headed by dictators, reinforced by Christian fundamentalism and fascist-style nationalism, for the purpose of giving the psychopathic rich the freedom to exploit the rest of us to their heart's content.

Again, this is happening right now before our very eyes. Yet many people remain blind to it.

Who the fuck are the oligarchs anyway?

A few that come to mind: Murdoch, Mercer, the Kochs, various Russian oligarchs, the Saudi royal family, various dictators and strongmen from around the world, and other Republican donors to numerous to mention.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Some comments on this mutual roasting effort.

Cynicism is a philosophy unto itself, a kind of blanket attitude which derives pleasure from dismissing anything and everything.

That's not what the naked term cynicism means. While it can be used to highlight problematic attitudes in a very specific context, in general it simple means any "attitude of distrust toward claimed ethical and social values and a rejection of the need to be socially involved". As such, any cynical inclination results into many critical, brief challenges and opposition as to create sufficient contrast and clarity. There's no easy way to conclude such mind necessarily would reject or dismiss "everything", although in general a critical mind would hesitate a lot before embracing, defending or praising anything. Which seems like a good thing

In any case, a term like cynicism should not be applied as a blanket statement on a whim to make it look as something flawed. Doing so would be simply muddying functional language itself. To any mind engaged in forming and growing, the most fertile mode of learning will be necessarily involve the opposite, rebellious, cynical and combative. And this masculine property is deeply connected with a healthy, reflective, self-correcting functioning of the ever-growing, ever-changing mind. All within some boundaries, some limits and reason of course.

Science has been solving problems long before the fossil fuel era.

Brains have! Science is more like a particular principle for cooperation which is about organizing research processes as to make sure less mistakes or abuses can take place, that less is forgotten, overall quality improves and errors are quicker exposed. But in essence nothing much different from how we deploy the brain itself doing smaller, simpler challenges which need solutions or predictions to move forward.

Science is not the main cause of the improvement of scientific technology....?

Jupiviv made a very general, easy to understand point. The larger causality would involve combination of brains, culture, will, power communication, opportunity, geography, populations numbers, economical factors and various scientific breakthroughs. Many of these are related with and dependent on each other as well.

The liberal establishment (the body of ethics and laws that protect us from the psychopathic rich) and neo-liberalism (the system put in place by the psychopathic rich) are not the same thing.

Defining it like that would bring it in line with how especially the right-wing defines it, ironically. They call it 'culture". Like Steve King got in trouble when defending “western civilization’s values", linking it to European (or Christian, white?) origins. Or perhaps John Cleese recently: "I think it's legitimate to prefer one culture to another For example, I prefer cultures that do not tolerate female genital mutilation. Will this will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally".

A lot of current political debate is revolving around the framing of "culture", as body of ethics and laws protecting us from what is then called (by some) "psychopathic Islam", "psychopathic communists", or criminal immigrants. While some opponents frame it often as body to protect us from foreign meddling and attack. Yet others frame it as bulwark of reasonability against developments they don't approve of or misunderstand.

It seems you are redefining here morally and personally what a term like "liberal establishment" means to you. It flies in the face of most if not all of political science and general, serious discourse on the topic. It's not that useful in the discussion, really, mainly because of the next point.

In short, what we are witnessing is a full-scale assault on anything and everything that places restrictions on the psychopathic rich. Politically, the aim seems to be to install medieval/feudalistic-type societies across the West, headed by dictators, reinforced by Christian fundamentalism and fascist-style nationalism, for the purpose of giving the psychopathic rich the freedom to exploit the rest of us to their heart's content.

My observation, based on many solid scientific publications and discourse, is that our adult brains are formed by many factors during youth, upbringing and general exposure to the world during our formative years, especially when it comes to gravitating to a socialist, capitalism, communist, anarchist or any other outlook on the world or its money and societies. This makes these topics very tough to navigate in the spiritual or philosophical sense. It's also the reason that the wise of the past rarely did go in detail on any contemporary economical or political fight.

[jupiviv]

A series of facile accusations and non sequiturs. I am cynical about deluded ideas. Which is to say, I assume that any facts or reasoning employed in their service are nugatory because they are motivated by emotions and attachments. What is wrong with such cynicism?

There’s nothing wrong with challenging deluded ideas, but cynicism is more than that. Cynicism is a philosophy unto itself, a kind of blanket attitude which derives pleasure from dismissing anything and everything. Some people, particularly the young, even go so far as to form their very identity around it. This creates an eagerness to rush to premature judgment, so as to protect their identity, which distorts their perspective and creates mental blocks. In your case, we can see this in your cynical dismissal of conventional liberal thinking and the mainstream media, which then leads to, say, a poor understanding of science, or a distorted and limited view of Trump.

Almost all of your pre-2016 output on the internet is about dismissing conventional thinking for various reasons, all of them putatively originating in your boundless love of truth. So "cynicism" turns out to mean that you disagree with my dismissals of some kinds of conventional thinking you happen to agree with, but can't be bothered to explain why. Ironically your motive for accusing me of cynicism is itself highly cynical!

A clear mind and a pure heart.

Excellent demonstration of the profound truth that both mind and heart (pure or otherwise) are empty of their own existence.

Meanwhile, your posts on the Game of Thrones thread are instructive. They are silly preening posts which have you reveling in your own cleverness. They are also imbued with a heavy dose of cynicism. In fact, the cynicism is used to paper over the desire you have to escape into nonsense. It goes like this: Emotionally, you want to escape into nonsense, but a part of you knows that this is womanly and undignified. To remedy this, you express it in a hyper-cynical manner, so as to make it appear (to your own self at least) that you are engaging in a manly exercise.

Cynicism about a stupid TV show is evidence of precisely that and nothing more.

It is more a case of pointing out that perhaps you haven't prioritized wisdom as much as you could have.

It is a case of you crossing dicks with me because I don't think your self-attested wisdom has any bearing on your opinions. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Science has been solving problems long before the fossil fuel era.

Even before the fossil fuel era solving problems required a lot more things than a rational approach to the empirical world, which is why the fossil fuel era has (temporarily) solved far more problems than all the previous eras combined.

Science is not the main cause of the improvement of scientific technology....?

Not if you account for all of the other important causes. There is no linear progression from "science" to 4G internet.

No. I suggest you abandon your ineffectual, Pollyannaish rhetoric of rationality and make efforts to know what things are before talking or arguing about them. As good a place to start as any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8fEP8MoGg

That video is far too long. Can you point me to where they talk about Obama and his relationship to Modi?

I'm not the one who ignorantly and rather childishly asserted that Modi was good until Obama stopped being POTUS. Regardless, here is a 2016 article by Mehta:https://indianexpress.com/article/opini ... gn-policy/

The liberal establishment (the body of ethics and laws that protect us from the psychopathic rich) and neo-liberalism (the system put in place by the psychopathic rich) are not the same thing.

They are different stages of industrial capitalism. Neoliberalism is liberalism stripped of the economic guarantees which stabilised western capitalist democracies in the mid-20th century, primarily bestowed upon their white citizens in order to neutralise the influence of the various erstwhile socialist (not liberal) movements across those societies. Those guarantees were made possible due to the exploitation of cheap natural resources and the systematic oppression of the "Third World". They are eroding as we speak because cheap resources are becoming expensive and new worlds are not being discovered.

What is generally understood to be "liberalism" today is not the product of "western civilisation" progressing towards it over the course of 600 years. The development of industrial capitalism necessitated the redistribution of unprecedented surpluses, the toppling of obsolete structures and the relaxation of control over certain aspects of people's lives. The consequences of those changes did not coalesce into a world-historical epoch because of our collective acceptance of transcendental liberal values. Industrial societies require more rationality than pre-industrial ones in order to function but that matters little when it's all in the service of myopic self-interest (as always). To summarise - people believe or do whatever they want; that applies to everything people believe or do.

Trump's election and its aftermath is the outcome of the latest stage of the approximately 200 year old global civilisation most people inhabit. He lacks both the will and wherewithal to govern the US or its global empire. Nor is he required to do so. His real function is to ensure that enough Americans keep believing in the latest narrative of consumption and credit creation while they grow broker and more insane by the day. Other populist leaders elsewhere in the world, as well as anti-SJW crusaders like Peterson and Shapino, serve more or less the same function. It is not a conspiracy of rich people, postcommunist neoculturalists or Jews. It is the natural outcome of a global thermodynamic system partially created by human beings, and which is unto them a massive and uncontrollable force of nature.

None of which is to say that blame cannot be assigned. The rich, if only by virtue of their riches, are more guilty of perpetuating and defending a system that allows them to stay rich than are the poor. Likewise for politicians, intellectuals etc. Nor does any of what I've said diminish the importance of sincere political action and involvement. To the extent we are conscious and responsible beings, we are morally obligated to create a just and fair society for as many people as possible. But this moral obligation cannot be founded on lies. It is not cynical to argue that much of our recent progress as a species in recent history has been a series of attempts to do precisely that.

Of course, disagreeing with someone on a decrepit old internet forum counts as fighting for oligarchs against some nebulous group of people who... don't want to be psychopaths???

Here is an instance of your cynicism, of your desire to hide away.

Sarcasm is not cynicism. OK, this is my last word on your retarded yet consistent accusations of nihilism, cynicism etc. Your conflation of criticism and cynicism is inexcusable because the credibility of your entire philosophy hinges on the proposition that one can be ruthlessly honest about the world without losing one's faith in it. Thinking that liberalism is a temporary and superficial outcropping of widely distributed prosperity, does not necessarily lead to a nihilistic conception of reality or the human condition. Thinking that it would is itself an extreme form of nihilism tempered in your case only by a treacly, one-dimensional perspective of history and the present moment. As if anything short of the European sugar high of the past few centuries means an eternity of darkness.

Human beings are overwhelmingly motivated by greed but they can also care about ideals, and understand that pleasure is not the most important thing in life. The near-to-mid term future looks bleak but far from apocalyptic; the human race will survive the collapse of industrial civilisation. The best anyone can do to help future generations is to attempt to pass on to them an accurate perspective of what went wrong and why.

[Pam Seeback]

I’m guessing some of you have already seen this. It is a video of Ben Shapiro humiliating himself during a BBC interview. It is worth looking at more closely because, to me at least, the whole affair embodies everything that is reprehensible about the alt-right movement.

Here is the interview in full: BBC: Andrew Neil and Ben Shapiro

And here is an analysis of the interview by Kyle Kulinski that, for me, is absolutely spot on.

The interview is a truly hilarious spectacle on so many levels. In the space of 15 minutes, Ben Shapiro manages to not only undermine the very premise of his newly-published book, but he completely shreds his reputation as a supposed hard-headed opponent of snowflakism and identity politics. Having spent years denigrating leftists for being easily-triggered snowflakes who need their safe spaces, he proceeds in these 15 minutes to act exactly like a triggered snowflake floundering around for his safe space. He became the very thing that he built his entire career attacking.

Astonishing.

Or rather it would be astonishing if Shapiro really was a serious thinker, which of course he is not. As his responses to Andrew Neil's questions reveal, he is a flake. He has always been a flake, just as Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and co. have always been flakes. Who could possibly take these intellectual lightweights seriously? You would have to be so mentally consumed by a blinding emotional hatred of a fringe segment of the community to even begin to take them seriously, and even then you would have to shut down large parts of your cerebral cortex just to dampen down all the cognitive dissonance.

Meanwhile, as these jackasses continue to wage their phony kiddie war against the left, they are continuing to make it as difficult as possible for us as a species to deal with the far more serious threats that face us - namely, the continuing rise of far-right fascism that is relentlessly being promoted by wealthy psychopaths and the accelerating pace of climate change and environmental destruction.

A buddha exudes infinite compassion based on knowledge of the principle of Ignorance. Flakes? Jackasses? No wisdom here.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No wisdom here.

But something is being demonstrated nevertheless. Patterns revolving around truncating and self-contradicting ideas, smearing the landscape of subtle meaning with broad strokes, invoking the nihilistic habit of favoring destruction, flattening and ridicule over construction.

Somehow, the decadent time frame is giving rise to this through increasingly intense varieties. In politics as with so much of communication.

Now the ones who think the "wise" would be immune or the "detached and disinterested" could not be caught up are ignorant of the fuller causality here. It's our larger constructed, shared senses of self which are expiring and changing. We end up with reactions, a panicking to that slow movement. Some lash out, whip up the hysteria and aggrandizing, others retreat in bubbles of walled in conviction or sense cementing.

Never exclude one self from this but study the demonstration within and without.

[Pam Seeback]

No wisdom here.

But something is being demonstrated nevertheless. Patterns revolving around initiation of truncating and self-contradicting ideas, smearing the landscape of subtle meaning with broad strokes, invoking the nihilistic habit of favoring destruction, flattening and ridicule over construction.

Somehow, the decadent time frame is giving rise to this through increasingly intense varieties. In politics as with so much of communication.

Now the ones who think the "wise" would be immune or the "detached and disinterested" would be not be caught up are ignorant of the fuller causality here. It's our larger constructed, shared senses of self which are expiring and changing. We end up with reactions, a panicking to that slow movement. Some lash out, whip up the hysteria and aggrandizing, others retreat in bubbles of walled in conviction or sense cementing.

Never exclude one self from this but study the demonstration within and without.

Indeed, study oneself regarding lapses that draw the self back into the cesspool of relativism for it is here we are reminded again and again of the universality of its folly-misery. I relate to your statement about experiencing impatience with the slow movement of relativism's expiration, which of course, is reflected back to me in the form of my own slow movement. Recently I broke my wrist which brought home to me just how attached I was yet to pain-identification. I encountered a Buddhist symbol recently, the unalome, which I believe beautifully illustrates the twists and turns encountered on the way of view-release; for those interested, googling brings up a multitude of images.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The lotus roots indeed, hidden deep in the mud, even below the moving waters.

A symbol for the context of ourselves. We show up, relatively, in our words, our spaces, accents, cultural imagery invoked by words, mental limitations and gifts, our connections, typing style, computer connections, media preferences, all kind of mannerisms and choices, to just show up, no matter if we open up and flower into a blooming wisdom reception, the genius fragrance, the roots are still there hidden in the mud.

The wise views the world and develops his views but the mud is not some result of flowering but the flower more like a result of such a rich mud! There cannot be "no-view" in this world since every view consists of what is not viewed, leaving one field, one perspective. And the word appears only by viewing, whichever way, internal or external.

Any view on life then will remain skewed, like life and suffering itself.

[Pam Seeback]

The lotus roots indeed, hidden deep in the mud, even below the moving waters.

A symbol for the context of ourselves. We show up, relatively, in our words, our spaces, accents, cultural imagery invoked by words, mental limitations and gifts, our connections, typing style, computer connections, media preferences, all kind of mannerisms and choices, to just show up, no matter if we open up and flower into a blooming wisdom reception, the genius fragrance, the roots are still there hidden in the mud.

The wise views the world and develops his views but the mud is not some result of flowering but the flower more like a result of such a rich mud! There cannot be "no-view" in this world since every view consists of what is not viewed, leaving one field, one perspective. And the word appears only by viewing, whichever way, internal or external.

Any view on life then will remain skewed, like life and suffering itself.

A view that produces tension or stress (suffering) such as my example of focusing on pain is a sign that a wise one is resisting their infinite nature, wisdom of the infinite here being defined as awareness that every being, including oneself is an integral expression of THE infinite. So it is not a matter of any view on life being skewed (such an idea would indeed cause suffering), rather, it is a matter of a lapse of ignorance of the infinite Self (for lack of a better term), which when acknowledged, releases the tension or stress (the suffering) of view-as-shadow.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So it is not a matter of any view on life being skewed (such an idea would indeed cause suffering), rather, it is a matter of a lapse of ignorance of the infinite Self (for lack of a better term), which when acknowledged, releases the tension or stress (the suffering) of view-as-shadow.

It seems misunderstood, that experiences of skewness or asymmetry, or ideas thereof, would cause suffering. If anything it might be the realization that these are the same: life as we have known and understood it in our developments.

Stress always strives for release. But liberation happens in the realization, as ignorance, the clouding of senses and the confusion of mind, is the only cause of experiencing life as suffering. As for your infinite Self (lets work with the term), not abandoning life as was known before - it was never in it.

[Pam Seeback]

So it is not a matter of any view on life being skewed (such an idea would indeed cause suffering), rather, it is a matter of a lapse of ignorance of the infinite Self (for lack of a better term), which when acknowledged, releases the tension or stress (the suffering) of view-as-shadow.

It seems misunderstood, that experiences of skewness or asymmetry, or ideas thereof, would cause suffering. If anything it might be the realization that these are the same: life as we have known and understood it in our developments.

Stress always strives for release. But liberation happens in the realization, as ignorance, the clouding of senses and the confusion of mind, is the only cause of experiencing life as suffering. As for your infinite Self (lets work with the term), is has abandoned life as was known before -- it was never in it.

It is worthwhile noting that the release of stress is experienced differently for the infinite Self than the finite self. Where the former creates purely (without self-reflection) with their spiritual energy of contraction and expansion, the latter relies on desire FOR release/expansion which is usually played out as attachment to images, beliefs, alcohol, drugs, sex, power, etc.

I stand by my wisdom that there is no interpretation of skewness or asymmetry by the infinite Self: the infinite, the limitless, is the infinite, the limitless.