Statement about Solway and Trump

[Dan Rowden]

You do not have higher standards, Deibert; you are simply not paying attention. You ought, frankly, recuse yourself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You do not have higher standards, Deibert; you are simply not paying attention. You ought, frankly, recuse yourself.

Standards and neither rationality are just determined or criticized by mere claims. Since your participation so far in this thread is mostly based on short claims and hardly augmented by any argumentation and logic, you're not really in the position to say anything about it. However it does fuel the theory that it might not be just Kevin we should worry about in this thread.

[David Quinn]

Pam,

Quote:
David Quinn: Can Buddhas have desires? What else can they have? Do Buddhas seek particular outcomes? What else can they do?

Take care not to fall into "emptiness syndrome". Focusing on emptiness is important, but it becomes a problem if you start mistaking vacuity for reality.

Pam: What is needed first is my definition of a Buddha so we can ascertain whether or not we have like definitions. My definition of a Buddha is a realized Self of what is absolute, real, permanent and eternal and what is relative, illusory, impermanent and temporal and that attachment to the latter causes suffering and awareness of the former ends suffering.

Sounds good to me. Except I would say that attachment to what is absolute, real, permanent and eternal can cause just as much suffering as attachment to what is relative, illusory, impermanent and temporal, and that awareness of neither the eternal nor the temporary is what ends suffering.

Also that everyone in the world suffers from clinging to the relative illusory in varying degrees of realization of the absolute real.

Well, that is a very charitable way to describe the deep darkness which envelopes the human race.

Because of this, as you say, a Buddha has no choice but to have desires and to seek particular outcomes. However, I put forward that the desires of a Buddha and those of a worldly person are in direct contrast with one another. Where a Buddha desires only the enlightenment of all sentient beings of the absolute ultimate reality so clinging to the illusory relative can be ended, the worldly person’s desires are of clinging to (attachment to) the illusory relative. What I see in this thread is mostly of the latter type of desire. So no, I would not say that either political theorizing or theorizing about the motives of another person reflects the desire of an enlightened Buddha.

I beg to differ. We are in the midst of dramatic social and political upheaval, the consequences of which will affect everyone on the planet. I think it is important to contemplate what is happening, not just from the practical perspective of having to prepare for whatever might occur, but also because the upheaval naturally brings the spectre of uncertainty, impermanence and death more to the forefront. Facing this squarely can inspire the mind to seek the refuge of nirvana more earnestly.

While I understand the aspiring Buddha sometimes forgets his task to enlighten the world to the eternal and absolute (or perhaps becomes bored with his task and falls back into the more captivating ‘reality’ world of relativity clinging and what is more captivating than the relativity banquet of politics?) this forum is about ultimate reality, is it not?

Which part of Trump isn’t ultimate reality?

I have always thought that the failure to declare this forum as a Buddhist board was an oversight, as clearly you, Dan and Kevin are heavily invested in the Buddhist path to enlightenment. Perhaps if identifying with Buddhism was instituted, there would be more focus on the Buddha ideal, opening the board up to more spiritual ‘meat’ vis a vis enlightened intellectual engagement.

That would be far too sterile for my tastes. We can’t live in abstractions all of the time. The world is messy. Reality is messy. We have to be a part of that messiness.

[Santiago Odo]

Even with that separation in place, I’m still not seeing the underlying rationale for “Eurocentric Identitarian”, or indeed the need of any kind of identitarian. I mean, looking at it rationally, how does one identify with a specific race to begin with? Do we have to look into our genetic structure and define races based upon a certain percentage of shared DNA? Is that where it’s all going?

Race is an illusion. We’re all mongrels at bottom. I’m part Scottish, part Irish, part English, with a smidgeon of German thrown in. So who should I identify with? And why would I even bother?

It’s always been thus. As soon as the topic of race comes up, my eyes tend to glaze over. It all sounds like a fantasy world to me. Instead of using the mind wisely to connect to all of reality, people with limited imaginations are attempting to block out their personal insecurities by finding a herd to lose themselves in.

The question you ask, and the answer that comes from it, or I should say the answer that can come from it, will bring you right into the center of the issue and the conflict. In order to arrive at some position a whole group of definitions are required. What I notice in reading first what you wrote about Kevin's idea-ventures, and then throughout the thread, and here again, is just that you are unfamiliar with the depths of the issue.

But the questions that you ask are good ones. I will attempt to point in the direction of answers. Certainly our genetic makeup is highly relevant. But just as certainly, and as you indicate, a man is part of a 'fuzzy set' when it comes to a genetic grouping. Groups of men are never absolutely distinct and in this I am reminded of some of the definitions that were carried on here that had to do with no absolute and clear separation between any phase of life, or a biological entity from his environment. So, biology and structural factors are relevant. As Richard Spencer and his crew says: "Race is real, race is relevant, race is the basis of identity'. It is false to say that racial (genetic) distinctions are unreal and thus your statement 'race is an illusion' may be seen not to be completely false but to have fallacious elements.

The way I have come to see it is more especially to see 'European Race' as a large *fuzzy set* but more importantly, or as importantly, to define Europe through its historical elements. I find that one of the best definitions of this Europe, and on that would be of continual use as the definition that supports European identity as it is strengthened, is that of Waldo Frank: 'The Last Days of Europe'. I will have to post a link to it later as I am inhibited from posting links.

I think I do understand why you eschew any sort of identitarian platform. It would seem to flow out of many of your predicates. And yet I do notice a contradiction. Because by taking a stand against an identitarian perspective --- the group of hard definitions that it requires --- you are de facto supporting or recommending another set. And indeed you express this in what you write. But the identitarian perspective, whether one ultimately agrees with it, or whether one decides to hold to one oneself, is very much based in hard definitions and decisiveness generally. This is what I have discovered. One can then ask questions about the softer definitions that support a modern race-blending ideology and, oddly enough, I would find myself defending harder definitions against one who in former times had resisted the 'flowy' feminine defitions that much of Modernism is based in! In this sense I would say that strong identitarian posture is a more *masculine* perspective. What operates against it, by definition, more *feminine*. The blending of the bodies, obviously, is a feminine act (if I can put it in this way) and we are all located within the biological femininity. But what distinguishes us, and what I think should distinguish us, is the masculine rulership over the body by the mind. In this sense then to define race-difference is to define a whole group of differences and to do this against the onslaught of a Hyper-Liberal Machine of feminized culture.

I could, rather easily, make a case for 'Why you should identify'. But these identifications would, perhaps, run against the grain of some of your former definitions if I remember them and if they are still part of your philosophy as I assume they are. What I hope to communicate to you is that the structure of ideas that you and Dan and Kevin outlined, insofar as they touched on truth or correct perspective, obviously still have relevance. What I mean is that by making hard definitions, by insisting on them, by holding to them, by solidifying them, these ideas showed themselves to have affecting power. That is, in essence, the masculine effect. That is also the *rational* effect, the effect of clarified mind, and spiritual effect according to my own definitions. In my own view a man must turn around to see himself in all relevant senses: his mind, his soul, his body, his matrix, his culture. A man is all of these things and a man is a unity within these things, though it is also true that these things too are 'fuzzy sets'. I think that you avoid, why I am not certain, a strong identification with 'self' in these above-mentioned senses. In my own case, and in a sense in reaction to your definitions, I have come to see the need to strengthen my identification with all those I mention. You veer away from it, I veer back to it.

What you say about 'losing oneself in the herd' and such, these things can be challenged. You are placing a spin on identity and making it into a negative trait. Yet it is obvious that you would not disagree with 'correct identity' and proper identification. So, identity is highly relevant but, according to you, by holding to other elements. I have come to see, and to choose, to defend identity and identitarianism as necessary identifications. Out of it comes strength and power.

[jupiviv]

Wait, Santiago is Alex? Tell me lies, Alex! Tell me sweet little lies!

Which part of Trump isn’t ultimate reality?

Your opinion of him.

[Santiago Odo]

I don’t know anything about cultural marxism. All I know is that it is irrational to treat people differently on the basis of their skin colour or their genetic make-up, particularly if you are a philosopher. And I also know that it is irrational to deny that the world is becoming increasingly multicultural and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We have no choice but to recognize the globalized nature of the world we live in and shape our actions accordingly. Pining for a mythical past in which the races could be separated out more purely is ridiculous.

The multicultural transformation of the world is only in its earliest stages. It is far too early to say that it cannot work, or that people cannot learn to adapt to the global reality.

I suggest that one must become aware of what is referred to when the term 'Cultural Marxism' is used. But as you will gather, and as with anything, it is a set of definitions, a structure of view, which takes time to describe. Especially, as seems to be your case, when there is no awareness of what it is. You will remember that I used to write about 'acid' and the 'destruction of the self'. I am still keenly concerned for all that dissolves relationship with the self. But I define the self, as you will have gathered, in solid and concrete ways that I believe you would not be comfortable with. And when I have made efforts to analyse *your* position, and the position that you fellows worked to define, I found that I came face-to-face with the 'acid' which operated against a strong self-definition. This all fits together, doesn't it? Because you-plural made it your project to dissolve identifications you felt were false. Your claims, and your assault, was often quite bold, brash and over-inclusive in my opinion, but not ineffective. You have to make a strong statement so to be able to unseat someone who is stuck in a given identity-set.

I suggest that Cultural Marxism is a very important area of study. It ties into an 'acidlike' destructive project that operates against European identity, and obviously this Marxism is not a metaphor, it is a real thing. The destruction of Europe in truly modern terms flows out of the horror and the intensity of the two European wars, insane and terrifying civil conflicts which have rent Europe. Cultural Marxism is a 'second wave Marxism' that internalized and went psychological and thus wove itself into the structure of our psychology. It can all be explained but it does take time and one has to consider many different sources.

I would suggest to you that it is precisely the philosopher who must not so much treat other people differently (or meanly or cruelly) on the basis of their differences --- this not at all --- but that a philosopher must absolutely be able to and be interested in and motivated to notice differences and to protect them and accentuate them. These are part of very difficult structures of definition, this I will admit, and when one begins to make these definitions the problems immediately arise. It is very simple to prove. I would suggest to you that there were, and there still are, very significant and meaningful differences between the Anglo-Saxon group of Colonial America and the various tribal African men and women that were brought to the colonies to work in the plantations. These people, that is to say these bodies, these cultures, these *projects*, were not compatible and were not the same by any means. And they are not interchangeable. It is an exercise in philosophical definition to see and understand such difference, not to negate it. But it is the goal of ethical philosophy not to make other men's lives miserable by enslaving them and making them beasts. Now, what I have just said here will get me branded as a vile racist and yet I do not mean it as such.

The more acutely that one trains oneself to see and to speak, the more one gets into hot-water with hyper-liberal, feminized world opinion. The harder one's definitions, the more radical one becomes.

---GB (AJ)

[Pam Seeback]

David,

Pam: What is needed first is my definition of a Buddha so we can ascertain whether or not we have like definitions. My definition of a Buddha is a realized Self of what is absolute, real, permanent and eternal and what is relative, illusory, impermanent and temporal and that attachment to the latter causes suffering and awareness of the former ends suffering.

David: Sounds good to me. Except I would say that attachment to what is absolute, real, permanent and eternal can cause just as much suffering as attachment to what is relative, illusory, impermanent and temporal, and that awareness of neither the eternal nor the temporary is what ends suffering.

Everything about life is of the nature of attachment, even to awareness of the absolute, I wholly agree with this statement. This is a necessity that cannot be avoided. However, attachment to the latter is wise attachment as it holds the promise of ending all attachment. This is the problem for the restless intellect that in a nutshell, is it not? That when all is said and done, the promise of total release of attachment is not about logic or reasoning, but instead, is about heart and faith. Logic cuts through contradictions, but only faith supports the intellect when logic’s job is done.

Pam: Also that everyone in the world suffers from clinging to the relative illusory in varying degrees of realization of the absolute real.

David: Well, that is a very charitable way to describe the deep darkness which envelopes the human race. 

Charity is precisely what is required for the seed of faith to bloom. In fact, charity is an absolute spiritual necessity. The human race has always been enveloped in darkness, without charity (compasion for suffering), how will the light of nirvana hope to shine?

Pam: Because of this, as you say, a Buddha has no choice but to have desires and to seek particular outcomes. However, I put forward that the desires of a Buddha and those of a worldly person are in direct contrast with one another. Where a Buddha desires only the enlightenment of all sentient beings of the absolute ultimate reality so clinging to the illusory relative can be ended, the worldly person’s desires are of clinging to (attachment to) the illusory relative. What I see in this thread is mostly of the latter type of desire. So no, I would not say that either political theorizing or theorizing about the motives of another person reflects the desire of an enlightened Buddha.

David: I beg to differ. We are in the midst of dramatic social and political upheaval, the consequences of which will affect everyone on the planet. I think it is important to contemplate what is happening, not just from the practical perspective of having to prepare for whatever might occur, but also because the upheaval naturally brings the spectre of uncertainty, impermanence and death more to the forefront. Facing this squarely can inspire the mind to seek the refuge of nirvana more earnestly.

But without the context of the refuge of nirvana implied or stated in every thought, how can one be expected to seek the light of this final remedy?

David: Which part of Trump isn’t ultimate reality?

It is true that Trump is of ultimate reality, all things are, however, his speech and actions give evidence that Trump is not realized of this truth. Enlightenment is about Buddha nature realization, I suggest by your thoughts in this thread that you do not believe Trump to be realized. To quote a quote you used earlier - "by their fruits you will know them."

Pam: I have always thought that the failure to declare this forum as a Buddhist board was an oversight, as clearly you, Dan and Kevin are heavily invested in the Buddhist path to enlightenment. Perhaps if identifying with Buddhism was instituted, there would be more focus on the Buddha ideal, opening the board up to more spiritual ‘meat’ vis a vis enlightened intellectual engagement.

David: That would be far too sterile for my tastes. We can’t live in abstractions all of the time. The world is messy. Reality is messy. We have to be a part of that messiness.

Of course we can’t live in abstractions all of the time, and yes, the world is messy and we are a part of its messiness. I have two adult children and two small grandchildren, much messiness comes with the territory. But being in the world is not the same as being of the world. Again, it comes down to being committed to bringing the light of faith in nirvana to every moment of the messiness. Obviously this commitment to faith in the absolute Self is difficult to sustain, this is why there is the spiritual food of thousands of sutras for absorption and discussion. I can see why you would be reluctant to make Genius a ‘Buddhist board’, but perhaps one thread dedicated wholly to the discussion of attaining to Buddha nature realization would be helpful for those of us who so highly value the Buddhist way.

[Santiago Odo]

I can’t ignore the signs. The end times are upon us. We have to prepare.

David, what do you mean by this?
________________________

I wanted to include an interesting bit of writing by Waldo Frank which, I hope, interests you. I think it provides a very succinct definition of the 'Occidental self' and the matrix of that self in the Mediterranean. To me at least this encapsulates a great deal of what I would refer to when I think on 'European identity'. I think you will appreciate the piece.

[Dan Rowden]

Diebert,

Mind you, if Kevin is supposed to have abandonned the path so easily, it stands to reason you will not be immune for a similar process in another direction. The difference is that at least Kevin didn't bring it to the forum, which appears to have been wiser if intentional.

What is it you imagine Kevin would say? That David, or I have abandoned the path because we won't acknowledge how great Milo Yiannopoulos, Brietbart and the alt-right really are? That we don't see the culturally and economically messianic qualities of Donald Trump? Ok, that's hyperbolic and unfair because Kevin doesn't really see things that way, but I'm not sure what he would say. Neither of us are supporting something that is as obviously and egregiously fucked up as Trump and his current White House.

My issue with Kevin's approach and sympathies and associations can be summed up quite succinctly: the enemy of my enemy is most emphatically not my friend.

I've already stated my agreement with Kevin regarding the horrid nature of intersectional feminism, aspects of the SJW movement (I say aspects because there's nothing inherently wrong with fighting for social justice) and the liberal establishment's tendency to pay it too much mind. My issue there is simply that none of those things previously mentioned offer any sort of remedy. Zilch. Period.

Perhaps Kevin needs to try and generate a movement of his own, one driven by actual rationality and sobriety, because in my experience alt-right and anti-feminist dynamics are as absent of those traits as the things they seek to denounce.

I'm not quite on the same page as David with regard to harm Kevin may or may not be doing to his reputation as a man utterly devoted to reason. I see his point but I remain uncertain about how much I actually agree with it. But statements of mitigation regarding Trump are something I cannot link to any rational movement of neurons, given all the evidence before us. So, that's a thing.

[jimhaz]

'Cultural Marxism'

I’m another one who has not read into many of the labels being used in this discussion, including cultural marxism. These comments may thus lack some coherence.

If one looks at the responses to the biased articles written to support Trump they are full of the angry comments shallow alpha male types, or want-ta-be types, and other sycophants such as women attached to this traditional alpha male type, tend to make in some sort of rote fashion (often the comments are so typical and predictable, I sometimes wonder how many are sock puppets).

It is this loss of the opportunity to exercise everyday low key power games, such as a bit of sexism or flirting, that makes it feel like it is sinister conspiracy-like oppression by feminists and do-gooders.
'I just get the impression that ‘Cultural Marxism' is being used as a sort of PC deflecting way, a sort of pseudo-intellectual way, of not stating that what they are really angry about is all the constraints on being a natural male that the rise of women as a power base is creating. It is not so much about what others, such as feminists, gays etc are actually doing, but about how it constrains the form of masculinity we are used to expressing as aspects of our personality (ie it is not just that we can’t mock and harass them for our own entertainment now, but we can’t even make jokes)

I’m seeing Trump as some type of super-General fighting for the form of unthinking masculinity that existed in the days of the youth of 40+ persons. Trump’s team changed this from a long standing guerrilla fight in the media between the right and the left, into an all out propaganda war. The troublesome part of this war is that one doesn’t know how far it will go – just how much bilateral sabotaging will occur under such bad example leadership is unknown – how much unnecessary and irreversible hate will be grown out of these increased levels of polarisation. Today is a world of ideological intolerance that often flares up over quite insignificant matters, and there is little in the way of respect for even beneficial authority. Will it in time be enough to break up the US into red and blue states?

The trouble for me is that I find that cultural change more often than not, are changes that come about due to the side effects of technology, rather than competing cultures. It is this technology that is providing the power vacuum for feminine values to flourish in. Technology created massive population growth, globalism and big multinationals that require feminised workers, it created an apathetic thus weak middle class, it created Affluence, it is rapidly destroying investigative and reason-balanced media (leaving only polarised opinion media that literally gets paid to upset us)…and it created the platforms for feminazis and trolls to compete loudly for attention and to feed off each other.

The very alphas that run large companies etc, expect those subservient to be everything they themselves do not wish to be – PC, obedient, gentle, calm, pliable. Often in terms of PC and feminist policies they are the very worst of offenders, jumping in early to get brownie points.

Perhaps though what Trump supporters are really scared of are mostly henid feelings of falling so far behind that white slums will become the norm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvjh3Kc9p08

I can understand Kevin falling into the Alt-Right camp as a means to prevent masculinity from being totally smothered, thus preventing opportunity for some men to rise above animalistic masculinity – but to support them politically, as they are clearly predators, is beyond me (and maybe he does not do this).

[David Quinn]

Certainly our genetic makeup is highly relevant. But just as certainly, and as you indicate, a man is part of a 'fuzzy set' when it comes to a genetic grouping. Groups of men are never absolutely distinct and in this I am reminded of some of the definitions that were carried on here that had to do with no absolute and clear separation between any phase of life, or a biological entity from his environment. So, biology and structural factors are relevant. As Richard Spencer and his crew says: "Race is real, race is relevant, race is the basis of identity'. It is false to say that racial (genetic) distinctions are unreal and thus your statement 'race is an illusion' may be seen not to be completely false but to have fallacious elements.

I take your point that the different races, broadly speaking, have different characteristics and that we shouldn't allow the political correctness nazis to blind us to this fact. I'm right with you there, but this is far removed from the bizarre and soul-destroying act of psychologically identifying with an abstraction such as race. If you’re seeking your identity in a race, it is a sure sign that you are confused and have turned your back on who you are.

The blending of the bodies, obviously, is a feminine act (if I can put it in this way) and we are all located within the biological femininity. But what distinguishes us, and what I think should distinguish us, is the masculine rulership over the body by the mind. In this sense then to define race-difference is to define a whole group of differences and to do this against the onslaught of a Hyper-Liberal Machine of feminized culture.

Agreed, it would be nice to live in a world where we could talk about things like racial differences in a calm, rational manner without it automatically being hijacked by one political movement or another.

I think I do understand why you eschew any sort of identitarian platform. It would seem to flow out of many of your predicates. And yet I do notice a contradiction. Because by taking a stand against an identitarian perspective --- the group of hard definitions that it requires --- you are de facto supporting or recommending another set. And indeed you express this in what you write.

Since nothing really exists at root, the very notion of identifying with anything at all, whatever it might be, is preposterous.

If you have to identify with something, then identify with the Infinite. That way at least you'll be rational.

But the identitarian perspective, whether one ultimately agrees with it, or whether one decides to hold to one oneself, is very much based in hard definitions and decisiveness generally. This is what I have discovered. One can then ask questions about the softer definitions that support a modern race-blending ideology and, oddly enough, I would find myself defending harder definitions against one who in former times had resisted the 'flowy' feminine defitions that much of Modernism is based in! In this sense I would say that strong identitarian posture is a more *masculine* perspective. What operates against it, by definition, more *feminine*.

I see it the other way around. The urge to blend into a simplified, homogenized, strongly-defined grouping of people is submissive and defensive by nature. It expresses the feminine desire to disappear out of existence and cease being judged.

I could, rather easily, make a case for 'Why you should identify'. But these identifications would, perhaps, run against the grain of some of your former definitions if I remember them and if they are still part of your philosophy as I assume they are. What I hope to communicate to you is that the structure of ideas that you and Dan and Kevin outlined, insofar as they touched on truth or correct perspective, obviously still have relevance. What I mean is that by making hard definitions, by insisting on them, by holding to them, by solidifying them, these ideas showed themselves to have affecting power. That is, in essence, the masculine effect.

There are other ways to drive this masculine effect. It doesn’t have to involve playing fancy dress-ups with racial labels and acting out Game of Thrones type storylines. We could aim higher than this.

[David Quinn]

I will email him when I find the time. Which email address is active?

<kevinsolway@bigpond.com>

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What is it you imagine Kevin would say? That David, or I have abandoned the path because we won't acknowledge how great Milo Yiannopoulos, Brietbart and the alt-right really are? That we don't see the culturally and economically messianic qualities of Donald Trump? Ok, that's hyperbolic and unfair because Kevin doesn't really see things that way, but I'm not sure what he would say. Neither of us are supporting something that is as obviously and egregiously fucked up as Trump and his current White House.

You're asking me? This was not about me arriving on the forum distancing myself in the strongest terms from any "horrifying" thought Kevin would have which would hurt your and David's "reputation". Personally I don't see any necessary link as I've never expected for your or Kevin's views on politics or society to agree with mine much. Actually linking philosophy directly to a certain life style, politics and ideas how society should practically work or foreign presidents should behave would turn philosophy quickly into some ideology, some pseudo-religious platform. And I think that would be an abusive and rather absurd application, if not denounced or abandoned in time. And by bringing the discussion on the forum like this, it becomes linked.

Perhaps Kevin needs to try and generate a movement of his own, one driven by actual rationality and sobriety, because in my experience alt-right and anti-feminist dynamics are as absent of those traits as the things they seek to denounce.

One could make the argument that "actual rationality and sobriety" would be hard to find in any movement. Or at least I wouldn't know of one. Perhaps the association for sewer engineers.

But statements of mitigation regarding Trump are something I cannot link to any rational movement of neurons, given all the evidence before us. So, that's a thing.

Finding Trump and his government cartoonish or insane is one thing, doubting the mental capacity of everyone who is, for whatever reason, not agreeing with you on that is another. At such moments I wonder if you're trying to make your ideological views absolute in some way. It's up for debate how destructive Trump exactly could be and if all he's trying to do is equally disagreeable. Being loud, obnoxious and often not able to be factual or keeping to a script is not something new for a US president. Perhaps it just harkens back to 19th century presidents. That means that we might be looking at cultural divides as well and not just some rational divide. Of course I need to add again that to me the larger society is not a rational place to begin with because I do not regard high degrees of organization as implicitly sane arrangements. So I also don't expect rational presidents or governments. Of course any actor can sound calm, composed, rational and factual while still engaging in the most insane or destructive policies. This is perhaps why Nietzsche listed priests, princes (turning theatre into art), social beings, diplomats and women in the same category of Big Lie.

All the media obsession with good or bad theatrics seems to me one big distraction meant to sell to a consumerist electorate. In the end I can see at the moment the good and the bad of Trump's political platform. And it's interesting to see what it will do when it hits the reality of the one-way train of modernity and its ideology based around never-ending progress.

[David Quinn]

How much of the pro-Trump movement is driven by a primal revolt against modern life, for example? Are people rebelling against modern life altogether? How much change do they actually want? This hasn't been defined in any way. Is the plan to rewind society back to the 1950s? Or even further, back to the 1860s? Or even the 1600s? Exactly how much of the liberal establishment, an edifice heroically put together by courageous people of the progressive movement over the past few centuries, do people want to dismantle?

Good questions. In my view it's related to the issue of (cultural) identity which has become increasingly fragmented and unusable. From that position only a few ways forward (and backward) appear to people. The past always supplies endless "crystallized" sources for a cloak of identity. The "progressive" or "globalist" angle (using terms from the right) appear as one where cultural identities are increasingly replaced or downplayed. And replaced by something way less defined. Which is seen then as exactly the problem.

Yes, this is an issue. The “globalist” perspective is too abstract and lofty for many people. It is not unlike how most people have difficulty dealing with the formless nature of reality and can only engage in spirituality via simplified, tangible, prepackaged beliefs in a finite god. And they need to believe that their god is superior, just as they need to believe that their race is superior.

People seem to have this idea that Trump can be reigned in at a moment's notice. We'll just let him blow up the place for a bit and then pull the plug on him when the time is right. That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

But the reality is that other administrations before him went out and blew up many places already, brining the nation on the brink of WW3 or financial collapse more than once. The question to me becomes more: why fearing it now?

Because Trump and his cohorts are clearly far more unhinged and ignorant than preceding administrations, their behaviour is far odder, the times are far stranger and the normal democratic checks and balances are not as healthy as they used to be.

If you can't see this, then we must be living in alternative realities.

Can you understand that when someone campaigns on rolling back the involvements in overseas conflicts and as well announces to roll back government size, it could sound like a good plan in principle?

Sure, it sounds fine in principle. But then I look at Trump and the whole happy facade crumbles.

[Santiago Odo]

If you can't see this, then we must be living in alternative realities.

This is of course a common way of drawing attention to viewpoints that do not coincide, yet I suggest there is a great deal here that in truth needs to be explored. It would be hard to say that there are indeed 'alternative realities' and we surely all agree that the world we live in is one and common and shared. But in fact, and I think you demonstrate this David, as we all do, you do 'live in' a distinct and 'alternate' reality. It is the reality that is held as you imagine the world. In this sense every man lives in his 'imagined world': in simple terms the world of his conscious perception. I do not think it at all hard to visualize, in a conversation as this, what is referred to. It is that *world* that is the world of the human, and there is no other *world* that we can access except the world of our human perception.

The reason I bring this to the fore is because it has appeared to me, and it appears to me more so, that when you speak you speak from the perspective of your 'imagined world'. Obviously, we all do. But the imagined world that you inhabit, or the 'structure of visualization' through which you see *your world* is unique and distinct from that of most others. Well, at least in certain features of it. But I would suggest that as a visualized and imaginary world, and a human world, it is overall non-different from any other imagined world. I would modify that declaration with the hopeful statement that the quality of your mind, your perception, your being, is of a better or higher order, and I assume that you feel this is the case. It is certainly one of the salient points that runs through most of the writing on this forum and what animated your involvement in a 'declarative philosophy', is that not so? The idea was and is to present to people possibilities for the better grounding of their awareness and consciousness within their biological, mental and social frame, is that not so? I would say therefor that your philosophy is one that has a great deal to do with 'reform'. I would also imagine that if there is a will to help, as there seems to be, it has links to the Buddhist notion of compassion and of assistance offered to man mired in nescience.

I take your point that the different races, broadly speaking, have different characteristics and that we shouldn't allow the political correctness nazis to blind us to this fact. I'm right with you there, but this is far removed from the bizarre and soul-destroying act of psychologically identifying with an abstraction such as race. If you’re seeking your identity in a race, it is a sure sign that you are confused and have turned your back on who you are.

I would point out to you that you have recommended identifying with what can only be said to be the ultimate abstration, the Absolute. Obviously, there can be no greater abstraction! As you know I find such a statement to be in many senses *meaningless*. Well, I would modify that to some degree. Not free of meaning or absent meaning, but expressing a meaning that can only be meaningful if, somehow, I were able to enter into and partake of the perception present or dominant in you 'imagined world'. While I do not think I am outside of the capability of imagining and feeling what you mean by reference to the Absolute, I am relatively certain that it cannot in fact be defined in language and thus, as I say, must be seen as a sort of mystic reference.

But the point here is not to parse through this issue, the issue of descreet perceived *worlds* which are held and entertained for discreet persons in biological frames, but rather to notice how abstractions function. My suggestion is that this abstraction is ... too abstract! I think if you were to survey ten million people on the planet now and ask them to define The Absolute that a very small percentage would have a link to whatever meaning this means for you.

Now, that is just a bit of preamble to comment on the meat of what you have written. I would take, and I do take, a very different tack and one that seems to operate against abstraction generally, but specifically against the function of your abstraction. But I would also point out that your paragraph is really filled up with all manner of statements that are formed through predicates that have to be revealed. For example you employ the term 'soul' and speak of an identification that can 'destroy' it or the relationship to it. Now I get what you mean, surely, but I do not at all agree that identifying with what one is, is a destructive undertaking. But that leads to many questions, doesn't it? What am I? How does a person go about defining, and understanding, what they are? Suffice to say that in my way of seeing things it is 'soul-destroying' not to seek tangible identification with the very structure that enables oneself to manifest in this world. Essentially, that is the biological self, the body. Around that idea or that fact coalesces many other different structures, if you will permit me to say it like that, which all combined are 'what we are'. If we were to say that we are *something else* than that, how would we say it? We would resort to symbols or, as I suggest, abstractions.

My point here is that your choice of emphasis, your selection of specific definitions, must and will lead you to a *soul-destruction* (I use this term only to mirror your usage) in the sense of a cleavage between your self and your matrix. Or, is it that you give expression, philosophically, to an existential viewpoint that is itself a manifestation of this division? In any case, this is the question I ask but not only of you. Because your abstracted mind-frame is not uncommon as a feature of consciousness, and many people have at different times shared a vision of life through an abstract lens of vision.

I am not at all convinced that choosing to or being influenced, or worse to be coerced, not to identify with 'an abstraction such as race' will lead to 'turning your back on who you are'. But I want to interrogate your terms more and see what stands behind them. I think it is clear that when you say 'who you are' you do in fact mean 'soul' or atman in one way or another. If this is so I would suggest, or in any case I propose, that your definition is part of a mistaken one that needs to be corrected. That is: the soul or atman on 'spiritual man' is absolutely part-and-parcel with his biological and physical matrix and cannot be separated from these. Therefor to define a man, a man we admire, a man we want to be, is to define a man in a time and place but moreover a man who has 'come up through the world' and through an infinity of effects of his choice in living life. The matrix cannot be separated from the result and the manifestation. I am reasonably sure that I have made my point clear enough.

Putting Trump and Bannon and all this aside for a moment, I only want to make a reference to the philosophical and idea backdrop of the Nouvelle Droite as a resistance movement to the French radicalism of the 1960, but a radicalism that also connects to extremist aspects of 'enlightenment' activism. In order to understand French activism in the 60s it becomes necessary to trace various evolutions which had led to it. And when one does this one must also understand and make reference to all that it trampled. The point is that our modernist Hyper-Liberal cultures, and the modes of perception that dominate oor present, and direct consciousness in this sense, did not arise out of a vacuum and are consequences of ideas and choices. If a person becomes interested in reforming the present, and reforming a relationship to an 'imagined world', and to all aspects of the world, there are all manner of steps that must be taken. I would suggest that the main one is not 'identification with the infinite'. Why? This is an ur-abstraction and simply cannot work for men in the society we know. It is in essence an unemployable concept therefor. Usually, men require tangible symbols (at the very least) to augment at some minor level their underatanding of their very tangible existence.

Since nothing really exists at root, the very notion of identifying with anything at all, whatever it might be, is preposterous. If you have to identify with something, then identify with the Infinite. That way at least you'll be rational.

To be truthful what is more preposterous is to assert that the notion of identity with a really fantastic abstraction can ever or will ever have any effect at all in the world of men. That is I think an inarguable statement of fact! Second to that is a question about the utility of any particular man holding to a vision or sense of 'the infinite' and the effect it has on him. I mean this, as you have stated it, at the level of 'soul'.

I know that we are touching once again the definitions which in the past have separated us, but the vehicle here is a different one, and one that I find quite interesting. It seems that the Sage of Tasmania has, to put it picturesquely, jumped ship to some degree. And you have come to make a Public Service Announcement which, I imagine, you hope will bring him back into the fold of those who were, to some degree and at one time, his followers. But what if the Master has superceded his followers? What I mean (and please excuse the mild irony) is What if Kevin is onto something of which you are, now, unaware?

Obviously, if any of my established definitions, propositions and assertions as I have made here have any validity and relevance, and if I am not wildly interpreting-in to Kevin's processes, I might make a case in support of his 'turn' if qualified to a signifcant degree. I have to agree with others here that you have not made much of a case and, too, that you avoid the more pointed questions.

[jupiviv]

Yes, this is an issue. The “globalist” perspective is too abstract and lofty for many people. It is not unlike how most people have difficulty dealing with the formless nature of reality and can only engage in spirituality via simplified, tangible, prepackaged beliefs in a finite god. And they need to believe that their god is superior, just as they need to believe that their race is superior.

Here I'm seeing one more example of what Diebert said earlier - "linking philosophy directly to a certain life style, politics and ideas how society should practically work". It's even more deluded because the attempt isn't informed by much background beyond snippets of exposition gleaned from the NYT.

Besides, aren't you on record expressing a preference for anarchy?

Because Trump and his cohorts are clearly far more unhinged and ignorant than preceding administrations, their behaviour is far odder, the times are far stranger and the normal democratic checks and balances are not as healthy as they used to be.

If you can't see this, then we must be living in alternative realities.

It's more a case that you are choosing to ignore those parts of reality. For example, calling Trump's administration "far more unhinged and ignorant" than preceding ones, when Obama's administration - let alone those of the two Bush's - was remarkably irresponsible and ignorant.

Can you understand that when someone campaigns on rolling back the involvements in overseas conflicts and as well announces to roll back government size, it could sound like a good plan in principle?

Sure, it sounds fine in principle. But then I look at Trump and the whole happy facade crumbles.

And yet this issue has almost nothing to do with Trump. He clearly can't, and most probably doesn't *want*, to act outside the limits of law, as evidenced by the revision of the travel ban. You seem to imagine that a US president's personality or views or expertise affect the policies he wants to enact in any meaningful way, when the reality is that they are not much more than figureheads for various oligarchic factions and popular ideas. Do you think Reagan had anything to do with Reaganomics apart from approving it?

Presidents, and indeed emperors, kings, doges etc. are convenient illusions of power and dignity created to serve some kind of collective. Indeed, power itself is an illusion that people are happy to entertain as long as they benefit from it in some way or form.

P.S - thanks for the email.

[jupiviv]

If you can't see this, then we must be living in alternative realities.

This is of course a common way of drawing attention to viewpoints that do not coincide, yet I suggest there is a great deal here that in truth needs to be explored. It would be hard to say that there are indeed 'alternative realities' and we surely all agree that the world we live in is one and common and shared. But in fact, and I think you demonstrate this David, as we all do, you do 'live in' a distinct and 'alternate' reality. It is the reality that is held as you imagine the world. In this sense every man lives in his 'imagined world': in simple terms the world of his conscious perception. I do not think it at all hard to visualize, in a conversation as this, what is referred to. It is that *world* that is the world of the human, and there is no other *world* that we can access except the world of our human perception.

I thought my imaginary world and David's were non-different, but I was wrong because David's imaginary world has no place for a Trump who saves humanity from itself. Earlier, I was a happy inhabitant of David's, Dan's and Kevin's imaginary world-singular. But after this terrible rift between them, I am left with a husk of henids. I have been discarded by these infighting sahibs, and too lowly of stature and dark of skin to dare approach the elfin meadows of the Uebersahib on my own.

Kevin seems to be on the right path, but it just isn't the same without a whole online community of like-minded white people who agree with each other! Dan Rowden demonstrated this perfectly with his wall of text containing names of previous forum members!

What am I to do, Alex? Can you, a Mahajew, guide this stranded Hinjew?

My point here is that your choice of emphasis, your selection of specific definitions, must and will lead you to a *soul-destruction* (I use this term only to mirror your usage) in the sense of a cleavage between your self and your matrix. Or, is it that you give expression, philosophically, to an existential viewpoint that is itself a manifestation of this division? In any case, this is the question I ask but not only of you. Because your abstracted mind-frame is not uncommon as a feature of consciousness, and many people have at different times shared a vision of life through an abstract lens of vision.

All too late do I realise this. All my past disagreements with you were mere folly! Will you forgive me and condescend to show me the path to imaginary race-plural realism?

Since nothing really exists at root, the very notion of identifying with anything at all, whatever it might be, is preposterous. If you have to identify with something, then identify with the Infinite. That way at least you'll be rational.

To be truthful what is more preposterous is to assert that the notion of identity with a really fantastic abstraction can ever or will ever have any effect at all in the world of men. That is I think an inarguable statement of fact! Second to that is a question about the utility of any particular man holding to a vision or sense of 'the infinite' and the effect it has on him. I mean this, as you have stated it, at the level of 'soul'.

Yes! The only thing that's infinite is growth, as sahibs worthy of that appellation name have believed that since the invention of the three-masted sailing ship. These race traitors exploited my innate respect for all things sahib by depicting my cultural abstractions as their cultural abstractions. I believed that these painted mediocrities were the genuine article! You have to believe me when I say that I am innocent! They painted me white!

Bright as the sun shineth the day of my shame!
O Alexfried! Alexfried! Look on my dread!

[Santiago Odo]

I'll do my best to help, if I can.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The “globalist” perspective is too abstract and lofty for many people. It is not unlike how most people have difficulty dealing with the formless nature of reality and can only engage in spirituality via simplified, tangible, prepackaged beliefs in a finite god.

Just to be clear: are you promoting here globalism as ideology because it's more formless and conductive to wisdom? At least it would be a concrete thing to work with during further discussion.

Because Trump and his cohorts are clearly far more unhinged and ignorant than preceding administrations, their behaviour is far odder, the times are far stranger and the normal democratic checks and balances are not as healthy as they used to be.

Others have already questioned the alternative reality remark. What I'll add is that your assessment of the current democratic checks and balances sounds pretty gloomy and dark! It surely could be argued that there's more oversight and transparency nowadays than there ever was before, in many areas at least. Even secret services are more on a leash than a few decades ago or are supposed to be anyway. And if they aren't, they wouldn't tell.

Can you understand that when someone campaigns on rolling back the involvements in overseas conflicts and as well announces to roll back government size, it could sound like a good plan in principle?

Sure, it sounds fine in principle. But then I look at Trump and the whole happy facade crumbles.

Perhaps you're taken in too much by appearances. Since you mentioned fruit, lets wait what they actually manage to accomplish.

[Dan Rowden]

Jup,

Dan Rowden demonstrated this perfectly with his wall of text containing names of previous forum members!

What do you imagine was my purpose for posting those names, btw? I suspect you are misunderstanding it completely.

[David Quinn]

Yes, this is an issue. The “globalist” perspective is too abstract and lofty for many people. It is not unlike how most people have difficulty dealing with the formless nature of reality and can only engage in spirituality via simplified, tangible, prepackaged beliefs in a finite god. And they need to believe that their god is superior, just as they need to believe that their race is superior.

Here I'm seeing one more example of what Diebert said earlier - "linking philosophy directly to a certain life style, politics and ideas how society should practically work".

These things are always linked. I don’t support the lifestyle of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, because my knowledge of reality and human psychology sees through that kind of sham. Nor do I support pedophillia (because my knowledge of reality and human psychology sees into the terrible affects of such behaviour). And so on and so forth.

Besides, aren't you on record expressing a preference for anarchy?

Not to my knowledge. My preferred form of government is a wise ruler, or a group of wise rulers, governing a wise population, but of course that's a utopian dream. Given the reality of how deluded and evil people are, democracy is normally the safest bet as it decentralizes power and spreads it across many different sections of society. It works as a kind of harm minimization strategy - although, admittedly, it is not working too well at the moment.

Anarchy only leads to criminals and thugs taking over, and I don’t see any value in that.

Because Trump and his cohorts are clearly far more unhinged and ignorant than preceding administrations, their behaviour is far odder, the times are far stranger and the normal democratic checks and balances are not as healthy as they used to be.

If you can't see this, then we must be living in alternative realities.

It's more a case that you are choosing to ignore those parts of reality. For example, calling Trump's administration "far more unhinged and ignorant" than preceding ones, when Obama's administration - let alone those of the two Bush's - was remarkably irresponsible and ignorant.

They may well have been irresponsible and ignorant, but Trump and his cohorts have taken it to another level completely. They are blowing previously acceptable levels of corruption and deception out of the park. This is an unmistakable reality that is occurring right now before our very eyes, and it is fascinating to see how many people have mental blocks about it.

Sure, it sounds fine in principle. But then I look at Trump and the whole happy facade crumbles.

And yet this issue has almost nothing to do with Trump. He clearly can't, and most probably doesn't *want*, to act outside the limits of law, as evidenced by the revision of the travel ban. You seem to imagine that a US president's personality or views or expertise affect the policies he wants to enact in any meaningful way, when the reality is that they are not much more than figureheads for various oligarchic factions and popular ideas. Do you think Reagan had anything to do with Reaganomics apart from approving it?

Presidents, and indeed emperors, kings, doges etc. are convenient illusions of power and dignity created to serve some kind of collective. Indeed, power itself is an illusion that people are happy to entertain as long as they benefit from it in some way or form.

That’s often true. But what undercuts it in this case is that Trump is leading a large populist movement, which means that he possesses a serious source of political power that previous administrations did not have. Most of the Republican party has been utterly cowed by it, and Trump is currently trying to nobble the media and the intelligence services in the same way. I think you and Diebert and Alex are too caught up in the old ways of political analyzing and seriously underestimating the X factor of Trump's populist power.

[Eric Schiedler]

Dan,

How many are free, given the politics of their nation, to pursue philosophy to its end?

I presumed the list represented how small, relatively, is the number of people who commit personally to philosophy, in toto. And that most of those people on that list would probably say they have not met hardly anyone else in person who is so committed.

However, I will add, that many people have the free time to pursue philosophy in the wealthier parts of countries I’ve lived in. But they’ve built their lives around their social identity and economic position and can’t bear the suffering of reflecting on what they are doing. They ever put off dealing with the millstone around their neck just one more day. The obesity epidemic is a gross (pun intended) indicator of the inner qualities of minds who pursue money not for time to think but for a temporary fix to just manage to keep going along with what they think they are doing. They prefer the public shame of raving unintelligibly about politics than the private guilt of thinking.

[Eric Schiedler]

Yes, this is an issue. The “globalist” perspective is too abstract and lofty for many people. It is not unlike how most people have difficulty dealing with the formless nature of reality and can only engage in spirituality via simplified, tangible, prepackaged beliefs in a finite god. And they need to believe that their god is superior, just as they need to believe that their race is superior.

Here I'm seeing one more example of what Diebert said earlier - "linking philosophy directly to a certain life style, politics and ideas how society should practically work".

These things are always linked. I don’t support the lifestyle of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, because my knowledge of reality and human psychology sees through that kind of sham. Nor do I support pedophillia (because my knowledge of reality and human psychology sees into the terrible affects of such behavior). And so on and so forth.

I thought of Socrates' trial - his crime of talking to Athenians behind the Long Walls during the Peloponnesian War was a philosophical act that was political. And his behavior in participation during the trial and his death was a political act that was philosophical. It is the hate of society towards the philosophical and their love of the irrational that makes a philosophical life political, not the other way around.

[David Quinn]

The reason I bring this to the fore is because it has appeared to me, and it appears to me more so, that when you speak you speak from the perspective of your 'imagined world'. Obviously, we all do. But the imagined world that you inhabit, or the 'structure of visualization' through which you see *your world* is unique and distinct from that of most others. Well, at least in certain features of it. But I would suggest that as a visualized and imaginary world, and a human world, it is overall non-different from any other imagined world. I would modify that declaration with the hopeful statement that the quality of your mind, your perception, your being, is of a better or higher order, and I assume that you feel this is the case. It is certainly one of the salient points that runs through most of the writing on this forum and what animated your involvement in a 'declarative philosophy', is that not so? The idea was and is to present to people possibilities for the better grounding of their awareness and consciousness within their biological, mental and social frame, is that not so? I would say therefor that your philosophy is one that has a great deal to do with 'reform'. I would also imagine that if there is a will to help, as there seems to be, it has links to the Buddhist notion of compassion and of assistance offered to man mired in nescience.

That's right. While each person lives in his own world, the quality and coherence of each of these worlds depends on the quality and coherence of the mind which creates them. Not all worlds are alike.

We need to stop reveling in the post-modernist fantasy that all worlds are equal. Not only is it a dead end, but it is contributing to the mess we are in, with the very concept of truth being pushed aside.

I take your point that the different races, broadly speaking, have different characteristics and that we shouldn't allow the political correctness nazis to blind us to this fact. I'm right with you there, but this is far removed from the bizarre and soul-destroying act of psychologically identifying with an abstraction such as race. If you’re seeking your identity in a race, it is a sure sign that you are confused and have turned your back on who you are.

I would point out to you that you have recommended identifying with what can only be said to be the ultimate abstration, the Absolute. Obviously, there can be no greater abstraction!

And it points to an even greater reality!

As I’ve explained many times before, there is nothing abstract about the Absolute for those whose minds are open to its true meaning. It is the very opposite of an abstraction in every possible respect.

As you know I find such a statement to be in many senses *meaningless*. Well, I would modify that to some degree. Not free of meaning or absent meaning, but expressing a meaning that can only be meaningful if, somehow, I were able to enter into and partake of the perception present or dominant in you 'imagined world'. While I do not think I am outside of the capability of imagining and feeling what you mean by reference to the Absolute, I am relatively certain that it cannot in fact be defined in language and thus, as I say, must be seen as a sort of mystic reference.

On the contrary, it can indeed be defined in language and those who are able to do so are the true mystics.

My suggestion is that this abstraction is ... too abstract! I think if you were to survey ten million people on the planet now and ask them to define The Absolute that a very small percentage would have a link to whatever meaning this means for you.

Sadly, that’s true. But nonetheless, it remains key to our species' long-term survival. I refer you to my blog on “Mastering Perspective” for further details. If we don’t start becoming more rational as a species, we are going to kill ourselves with our attachments and limited perspective on things.

Putting Trump and Bannon and all this aside for a moment, I only want to make a reference to the philosophical and idea backdrop of the Nouvelle Droite as a resistance movement to the French radicalism of the 1960, but a radicalism that also connects to extremist aspects of 'enlightenment' activism. In order to understand French activism in the 60s it becomes necessary to trace various evolutions which had led to it. And when one does this one must also understand and make reference to all that it trampled. The point is that our modernist Hyper-Liberal cultures, and the modes of perception that dominate oor present, and direct consciousness in this sense, did not arise out of a vacuum and are consequences of ideas and choices. If a person becomes interested in reforming the present, and reforming a relationship to an 'imagined world', and to all aspects of the world, there are all manner of steps that must be taken. I would suggest that the main one is not 'identification with the infinite'. Why? This is an ur-abstraction and simply cannot work for men in the society we know. It is in essence an unemployable concept therefor. Usually, men require tangible symbols (at the very least) to augment at some minor level their underatanding of their very tangible existence.

People can be trained and educated. The past few centuries have seen more and more people abandon the old, provincial deity-based religions and embrace the cold, impersonal realities of science, Buddhism, pantheism, etc. As people become more educated and learn to prosper through their own powers, their need for religion and prepackaged, simplified world-views fades away.

I know that we are touching once again the definitions which in the past have separated us, but the vehicle here is a different one, and one that I find quite interesting. It seems that the Sage of Tasmania has, to put it picturesquely, jumped ship to some degree. And you have come to make a Public Service Announcement which, I imagine, you hope will bring him back into the fold of those who were, to some degree and at one time, his followers. But what if the Master has superceded his followers? What I mean (and please excuse the mild irony) is What if Kevin is onto something of which you are, now, unaware?

You could be right. Has Obama's birth certificate really been forged? Are student demonstrators against Milo Yiannopoulos engaging in "protests" or "riots"? Is Milo Yiannopoulos being treated more unfairly by the media than Lena Dunham? These are surely momentous issues for the human race.

[jimhaz]

[Can you understand that when someone campaigns on rolling back the involvements in overseas conflicts and as well announces to roll back government size, it could sound like a good plan in principle?]

Like his nuclear..umm..policy/statements/rant/fucked up tweets?

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/18/1431 ... -explained