Statement about Solway and Trump

[jupiviv]

the unethical nature of Trump as a man should be enough to alienate and repulse anyone who values virtuous behaviour.
[...]
Up until a year ago, I was a philosopher standing up for the values of truth, structured thought and rationality. Now suddenly, without changing my values or behaviour in any way, I’m a patsy for the liberal establishment.

The sarcasm falls flat because you *are* a patsy for the liberal establishment, or at least are behaving like one. If you think virtuous people should be repulsed by unethical ones, then why exactly are you defending individuals or groups who are acting at *least* as unethically as Trump? Not to mention that the renewed call for a complete rejection of all things Trump by all right-thinking Christians, er, sages as the only rational approach, is itself a model of irrational rhetoric and argumentation because it supplants evidence and explanation with appeals to emotion and conscience.

[David Quinn]

Alex: I can follow, completely, the prescription for retirement from active life and to work within the concepts and the theory of an absolute neo-Buddhism. I can follow the requirements of taking a personal stand against feminization-of-self, appetite, desire, and the inevitable tendency of these attitudes to suck one into inprisonment, if I will be permitted to put it like this, within illusory 'realities'. So far so good. What I cannot understand is how such a stance can have any relationship at all with support for liberalism, economic, social or interpersonal.

Support is not the right word for it. There is some overlap, which is inevitable. Take gay rights, for instance. I don’t have any reason to come down hard and say that gays cannot marry and have full legal status or whatever. Why would I discriminate in such a fashion? I would have to make up a reason. There, straight away, is 90% of my “liberal bias”.

To the degree that the liberal establishment favours openness, truth, science, education, logic, thoughtfulness, etc, it has my support.

I reject the new political correctness which deems all liberal thinking to be wrong. I find this to be so far removed from reality that it is laughable.

To answer your question more directly. I do not think it possible to dissolve identity. As you seem to imply the dissolution of identity, as a project, is bound up with the creation of another identity, or another aspect of identity. Therefor the question is more one of purifying identity or perhaps *sorting it out*. At the same time personality is certainly an identity, is it not? And you and I and Dan and David and everyone else certainly have personalities. Thus, identity is inevitable.

I had a chat with some teenagers the other day, who asked me why I grew a beard. I told them it was because I didn’t like staring into the mirror and grooming myself, that I had better things to do with my time. They thought I was deliberately cultivating a scruffy image as part of a sage persona, and so I explained to them how it was the reverse, that I was operating by the basic ascetic principle of spending as little time as possible over my image and that the scruffiness was a natural offshoot of this. They didn’t understand this principle at all. In their world, everyone obsesses over their image.

So, in this sense, it can be seen as very wise indeed the establishment of circumstances that allow people to simply come into life and to live it unencumbered. So then, the creation of 'prosperous' conditions, and I make reference to the Australian welfare state as you, Jupi, did too, really does represent a form of wisdom. It is certainly an Occidental form which, and I do note this, you seem to show a bit of resentment toward. I do not see going on welfare as a very good choice for the individual if it is a life-choice, but the prosperity and the general circumstances that allows it seems to me uniquely Occidental and also very worthy.

It’s also the future. There is an irreversible trend happening in which more and more jobs are being lost to robots and automated processes, a trend that seemingly neither side of politics can arrest. Who is going to look after these displaced workers? The state will have to, which means that government welfare is here to stay. Progressive, socialist-leaning governments are going to be the norm.

In my own view, it is not this 'wisdom' that must be resisted. It is not that culture has allowed so much freedom and prosperity (within limits, as is always the case), but rather that --- in the Schopenhauerian sense, satiated man becomes a man of ennui and ... seeks suffering.

I’m getting a strong sense of that, yes. A lot of people are wanting to trade in the bland monotony of their regulated, modern lives for more tumultuous, exciting forms of hell. This in turn feeds into the dark undercurrent of the whole pro-Trump movement, which is in open rebellion against knowledge, expertise, rationality, science, and facts, and which seeks to overturn the established order on a scale that no one has yet defined.

How could it possibly go wrong.....?

[David Quinn]

Now 'identity' with oneself in the sense I mean is different from identification with a transient body or the skin's color, hair color, etc. The identity that I focus on is both that which is a product of consciousness, and what consciousness has produced in its cultuvation of the 'self' in the expanded sense that I mean. What is self? It is one's body, which is also subject over time to moulding by conscious choices; one's mind in the sense of the fields of knowledge that one has assembled (library to give it an image); and also one's 'cultural vehicle'.

When one looks at one's body (in this exalted sense) one is forced to recognize that: What I see, what is manifest before me, is nothing more and nothing less than what ancestral consciousness, as previously defined, had been able to create by its activity of cultivation within the manifest world; i.e. 'the body'.

That raises an interesting issue. When you look at what Anglo-Saxons in particular, and Europeans more generally, have specifically brought to the world over the past few centuries, we see that it is nothing other than the global, progressive, liberal movement. The development of science and medicine, of parliamentary democracy, equality before the law, individual human rights, transparency, non-politicized judiciary, the welfare state, etc - these things have primarily come from white consciousness. They have been the white race's gift to the world. It is ironic, then, that so many white people are now turning their backs on their ancestral consciousness, and instead are sinking back into a more tribal, more animalistic, more African form of culture. The alt-right effort to make America white again is leading America to become even more black than before.

[Santiago Odo]

My endeavor, if I can be so presumptuous as to assert I have one, and in relation to the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite, is really only to point in its direction and perhaps indicate what is interesting and important in it. I have a sense that there are many people who, as I have, have been actively researching how, within strict and defensible terms, one can ethically defend a turn to the right. Now, when I say 'right' I do not mean the Neo-Con right. I cannot only mean American Constitutionalism because, in fact, that is a form of Radicalism and is linked in numerous ways to the French Revolution. One must define a 'right' or a 'conservative' pole too by consideration of what liberalism and hyper-liberalism have brought forward.

In order to define a Conservatism, then, there is a tremendous amount of work that one has to do. I do not think that liberalism, that is, hyper-liberalism, can be ethically defended. I think European Liberalism of the 19th century sort has tremendous merit. But I also think that that liberalism could only have functioned in that environment, and that was a *prepared* environment, and what prepared it was essentially the Church. I mean 'church' in the widest possible sense. It is not possible to understand Europe without understanding Greek rational Christianity. That much I am 100% certain of. You are far too dismissive of Christianity as a cultural influence and as a building block in the foundations of the European self. There is so much you do not understand and, I will venture to say, the influence of your own Catholicism in your own formation as a person. You simply do not understand how European Paideia is an amalgamation of a range of different influences, no one of them which can be dismissed, denied or ignored. You also have very little comprehension of how relevant, and I will say necessary, is a personalized God-concept. You just do not understand how hierarchization of concept work. So, you are all in favor of a depersonalization of the God-concept as it pertains to Europe. This is a severe mistake. I can of course explain all this but I will only allude to it now.

One would need to stop and linger for a good long while over what, exactly , Europe 'brought to the world'. That would have to be a careful, nuanced conversation which would begin by articulating and defining a peculiar European anthropology: a set of definitions that encapsulate metaphysics, notions of the salvific, a defined program of activity vis-a-vis the World, and also a violent (I do not mean this only in a bad way) intellectual violence which was perpetrated on and against 'the world'. That is, these Heathen nations.

When one analyses what is progressive and liberal about Anglo-Saxon culture, one has at the same time to fully register an absolute violence and 'imposition' of intentionality.

The best illustration is to use that of the imported slaves --- 'robbed from the shores of Africa' as Angela David put it. These primitive tribal people, humans with their own relationship to the world and life, were torn from their context and forced to serve 'in the Empire of the white man's will'. But more: they were remoulded, through applied anthropology, by that Will to become something they were not, not really. There you have an example of what the 'white man' does. He imposes models on 'the world' and structures the world according to his will. And there you have an encapsulation of masculinity. These are elements that need to be examined and sorted through.

The influence of Europe on the world is inestimable, there is no doubt of that. But in your case, David, for you to understand the argument for the preservation of Europe as-against 'the world', will involve you in study toward which you are not naturally disposed. I think this is because you have been informed, consciously and unconsciously, by the 'social doctrine of the Catholic Church'. It really does eminate from your opinions. I would not argue against these social doctrines, nor the metaphysics that underpins them, but yet I would and I do articulate a position where 'the preservation of Europe' is stressed. Again, all of this can be articulated and indeed it must be articulated. None of this can be done in a few paragraphs.

There is no, not yet, 'Alt-Right effort to make America white again'. There is an awareness that in the early 60s America was largely a white, Anglo-Saxon nation. There is awareness that various forces came to bear on this situation --- and these forces can be located and described (critiqued) --- and that now, 60 years on, America is 67% white and the 'browning of America' is on-going. There are really only two attitudes to take in the face of that. One is feminine, essentially. You simply do not form any opinion or idea about it. You 'accept'. You adapt. You allow. The other attitude is to become aware of a) how this happened and why, b) what the long-term ramifications are, and c) that one in a masculine, conscious and active sense structure the arguments and the viewpoints that will allow these conditions to be reversed. If it all took place in 50-60 years, and time was the friend of this change, then similarly it stands to reason that it can be reversed.

In the same sense that a 'white anthroplogy' has come, over the course of 3-4 ceneturies, to mould, remodel and shift the World, now it become relevant for that anthropology to become active in a culture-wide and also civilizational anthropological project of redefinition and self-preservation.

What you are doing, which is obvious to me but not obvious to yourself, is approaching these questions from a position of ignorance. You simply have not ever throught about any of this. You are not alone. Europeans, 'white people', our people, our culture: we are not allowed to think in these terms. It is illegal and profoundly immoral. In this sense --- and all of this needs to be articulated and described --- the European soul turns against the European soul. It cannot defend itself, and what I mean is that it cannot defend its body-self, and it allows others to reverse-impose defining structures against it.

Most of this stems from vast shifts in self-view and self-concept which, as bottomless guilt complex and suicidal self-hatred, arose as cultural and social reaction to the events of the 2 devastating European civil wars. The core of Europe shattered, the heart shattered.

I have always appreciated David-as-Pontificator, please don't think I don't. But you are so far out of any familiar waters as you wade into topics about which you have very little background that I hope that you come to recognize that you need to do more research.

[Santiago Odo]

The irony of it is that this time you do have a - somewhat - legitimate basis for doing this kind of pseudo-psychoanalysis on David and Dan. One would think you would have jumped at the opportunity and started digging for the elusive QRSian "story". Instead, as usual, you are conjuring up flawed mannequins of anti-Occidental badness to be held up in stark contrast against your assburgers-induced fantasies about western Judeo-Christian (now also "ancient" apparently) culture. This bears out my observation about your irrelevance.

There is no way --- there is no way --- that we cannot engage in psychological analysis. In the sort of endeavor we presume to be involved in, especially so. I suppose we must use all available tools and turn them against ourselves, and one of them is psychological. The same tools are used constructively too.

Despite what you think though I am not really doing 'psychoanalysis of David or Dan', I am doing psychoanalysis (pseudo or other) on myself. If you understood this you would be in a better position ot critique me.

The story of David and Dan and Kevin and Diebert and Russel and also of you, and so many of the voices that sound here, is the story of a vast cultural meltdown. It is the decay of the collapsed 'body' of Europe that Waldo Frank talked interestingly about. It is the *lighting up* of the individual cell as the larger structures fall asunder. The 'soul' very definitely has a relationship to these vast processes. This 'psychology' is relevant.

My Occidental critique has a great deal more nuance than you are aware, and so does my (developing) sense of what restoration is.

[David Quinn]

The influence of Europe on the world is inestimable, there is no doubt of that. But in your case, David, for you to understand the argument for the preservation of Europe as-against 'the world', will involve you in study toward which you are not naturally disposed. I think this is because you have been informed, consciously and unconsciously, by the 'social doctrine of the Catholic Church'. It really does eminate from your opinions. I would not argue against these social doctrines, nor the metaphysics that underpins them, but yet I would and I do articulate a position where 'the preservation of Europe' is stressed. Again, all of this can be articulated and indeed it must be articulated. None of this can be done in a few paragraphs.

Have Europeans ever had a European sense of identity? It sounds very doubtful to me. Most people in Europe lived in small villages up until the 20th century and generally found their identity through their neighbours and friends. The whole sense of being part of a country, let alone a vast continent, is a very recent development. Even the modern French language was just another another local dialect 100 years ago. So what we are meant to be conserving here?

It sounds as though people are arbitrarily latching onto whatever happens to appeal to them and demanding that these things be conserved. This is what passes for "conservatism" nowadays.

There is no, not yet, 'Alt-Right effort to make America white again'. There is an awareness that in the early 60s America was largely a white, Anglo-Saxon nation. There is awareness that various forces came to bear on this situation --- and these forces can be located and described (critiqued) --- and that now, 60 years on, America is 67% white and the 'browning of America' is on-going. There are really only two attitudes to take in the face of that. One is feminine, essentially. You simply do not form any opinion or idea about it. You 'accept'. You adapt. You allow. The other attitude is to become aware of a) how this happened and why, b) what the long-term ramifications are, and c) that one in a masculine, conscious and active sense structure the arguments and the viewpoints that will allow these conditions to be reversed. If it all took place in 50-60 years, and time was the friend of this change, then similarly it stands to reason that it can be reversed.

I’m definitely not understanding the program. So what’s the purpose of all this? To preserve racial purity? How do we measure such a thing? And given the overall trend of the world, how do we reverse the ever-increasing blending of the various races together? Are we advocating apartheid-style policies here? Are we looking at eugenics and genetic engineering?

[Russell Parr]

Hi Jim!

I don’t really get why anyone would care about that nowadays. In fact it is a stupid idea to concentrate only on philosophical wisdom when the number of contributors is so low. They need to allow more ‘ordinary’ people a bit of space – they actually need to be looser and less academic, thus allowing newbies to participate and thus create attachment. They still need a clear speaking teacher type though - like David was.

Call me old fashion but I'd rather not the have the monastery become a casual hangout for political debates when the pub around the corner works just fine for that.

Thanks for your words otherwise.

___

David,

Yes, that’s not a bad way of putting it. There is an ethical dimension to the whole matter which is being suppressed in this discussion. To my way of thinking, the unethical nature of Trump as a man should be enough to alienate and repulse anyone who values virtuous behaviour. Nothing else is required.

I don't think it's being suppressed as much as you think. No one in here, as far as I can tell, is championing Trump as some sort of virtuous saviour or even good for that matter. But if bad people can stop or curtail the efforts of worse people, we're better off for it.

This is not to mention the religious nature of the personality cult which has emerged around Trump - this, by rights, should also be a deal-breaker. Nor do I need to mention the folly, from a practical standpoint, of allowing a man who cannot think rationally and habitually avoids facts to make decisions affecting the whole planet. For me at least, all of these things come together to make the rejection of Trump and his movement a no-brainer.

It seems to me that you are taking the worst examples of the Trump supporters and lumping any and everyone that isn't totally appalled by Trump together with them. This is precisely what the established elites (many of whom are corrupt, a few are apparently flat out evil) are encouraging via their controlled arms of the MSM.

But clearly I am out of step with the times here. Up until a year ago, I was a philosopher standing up for the values of truth, structured thought and rationality. Now suddenly, without changing my values or behaviour in any way, I’m a patsy for the liberal establishment. Just this alone, just the fact that I have to nowadays mount a justification for defending the old-fashioned values of truth and rationality - on Genius Forum no less - shows how much the times have changed, and explains why I think Trump and his cohorts loom in this ethical vacuum as a very real danger to civilization.

You've erroneously bought into the mainstream narrative is all. You've got to step your alternative news game up. Zerohedge is pretty good, albeit the occasional crap. There are good reasons that the MSM is being trusted less and less these days.

Ok, finally a bit of honesty from the pro-Trumpers. So if I may ask: 1)What are you hoping for Trump to achieve? 2)How far do you want him to go? 3)How much of the liberal establishment do you want him to dismantle? 4)What would trigger in your mind that he has gone too far?

I've added numbers for convenience.

1)Usurping the powers of the corrupt, oligarchic bureaucrats is enough. Prosecuting the worst of them would be dandy as well, but I'm not holding my breath. Implementing his proposed tax plan would be pretty sweet though.
2)As far as he can.
3)Just root out anyone who is clearly serves the elite few. This isn't about left vs right.
4)Whenever he begins to trample upon the constitution. He hasn't done anything to this effect yet, as far as I've seen, but I wouldn't put it past him.

[David Quinn]

But clearly I am out of step with the times here. Up until a year ago, I was a philosopher standing up for the values of truth, structured thought and rationality. Now suddenly, without changing my values or behaviour in any way, I’m a patsy for the liberal establishment. Just this alone, just the fact that I have to nowadays mount a justification for defending the old-fashioned values of truth and rationality - on Genius Forum no less - shows how much the times have changed, and explains why I think Trump and his cohorts loom in this ethical vacuum as a very real danger to civilization.

You've erroneously bought into the mainstream narrative is all. You've got to step your alternative news game up. Zerohedge is pretty good, albeit the occasional crap. There are good reasons that the MSM is being trusted less and less these days.

Yes, I’ve been keeping my eye on Zerohedge ever since jupiviv pointed it out. The site is ok, but I find that reading unsubstantiated opinion pieces by anonymous authors quickly gets tiresome, especially when they are so unrelentingly bitter in their tone. And of course, with these kinds of sites, you never come across any kind of critical comment on Trump’s bizarre psychology and actions, not even an acknowledgement that such bizarreness exists. There seems to be a need to maintain the pretense that Trump is just another politician, just another normal guy.

This is a big problem that I have with the alternative media in general, besides its unrelenting darkness. The picture of Trump these sites paint doesn’t match what I experience directly of Trump with my own eyes and ears, which tells me that a huge distorting force is at play.

I also have to laugh at the way these sites act as though no one has heard of the “deep state” before, or that the CIA and the civilian government have never clashed before. Such things have been going ever since I can remember, as far as back as the 70s. Yet if you read these alternative sites, you would think that the whole evil ordeal was started by Obama and Clinton in the last few years. I find this kind of disconnect from reality very off-putting.

Ok, finally a bit of honesty from the pro-Trumpers. So if I may ask: 1)What are you hoping for Trump to achieve? 2)How far do you want him to go? 3)How much of the liberal establishment do you want him to dismantle? 4)What would trigger in your mind that he has gone too far?

I've added numbers for convenience.

1)Usurping the powers of the corrupt, oligarchic bureaucrats is enough. Prosecuting the worst of them would be dandy as well, but I'm not holding my breath. Implementing his proposed tax plan would be pretty sweet though.
2)As far as he can.
3)Just root out anyone who is clearly serves the elite few. This isn't about left vs right.
4)Whenever he begins to trample upon the constitution. He hasn't done anything to this effect yet, as far as I've seen, but I wouldn't put it past him.

2) and 4) seem to be at odds. Does this mean that you don’t think Trump has the ability to succeed in his coup? Do you take comfort in the idea that he will shake up the place without actually destroying it?

In any case, he’s been trampling on the constitution since day one, via his many businesses and conflicts of interests, greatly enriching himself in the process. Suits are being filed against him as we speak. Again, you won’t read about this kind of thing in the alternative media.

This leads me to wonder, who is really the more impoverished - those who confine themselves to reading the mainstream media, or those who confine themselves to reading the alternative media? I know the new political correctness says the latter, but I have my doubts.

[jupiviv]

When you look at what Anglo-Saxons in particular, and Europeans more generally, have specifically brought to the world over the past few centuries, we see that it is nothing other than the global, progressive, liberal movement. The development of science and medicine, of parliamentary democracy, equality before the law, individual human rights, transparency, non-politicized judiciary, the welfare state, etc - these things have primarily come from white consciousness. They have been the white race's gift to the world. It is ironic, then, that so many white people are now turning their backs on their ancestral consciousness, and instead are sinking back into a more tribal, more animalistic, more African form of culture. The alt-right effort to make America white again is leading America to become even more black than before.

Or, the surplus of wealth which allowed those things to arise has become unsustainable. Spain, Portugal, France and England were able to pillage the wealth of distant nations with their three-masted sailing ships. What the British later possessed, which the Ottomans and Russians didn't, was their own currency, commercial banks, central bank, government treasury and "risk-free money" (gold) in the hands of its countrymen and not in those of others. The banks could finance massive industrial developments with the potential wealth gained from exploiting their overseas holdings used as collateral. The enterprises which didn't accumulate debt got wiped out, while the irresponsible borrowers thrived. Germans started doing the same thing around Nietzsche's time, but didn't spare other Europeans (the rest of the world was mostly "taken"), which is why they are fascist pigs and the British are champions of liberty.

That doesn't make white people uniquely evil or their achievements any less admirable, but it does put into perspective the self-referential and self-rationalising logic you employed there. It boils down to - all good things sprung out of the nebulous globalist, progressive, liberal movement.

Getting back to the point of this thread, none of this is relevant to the search for wisdom. The kind of rationality you seem to be defending relies upon ever-increasing sybaritism, which in turn relies upon wastage, exploitation and squandering the inheritance of future generations. Is it really that much better than plainer forms of irrationality just because it's less harmful in the short term, and for a relatively small number of people? Would you rather be the son of a widowed trophy wife who blows your rich father's bequeathal on gigolos and shoes while ignoring you, or a drunk harridan who abuses you because she married your dead deadbeat father? Think of the children!

So, in this sense, it can be seen as very wise indeed the establishment of circumstances that allow people to simply come into life and to live it unencumbered. So then, the creation of 'prosperous' conditions, and I make reference to the Australian welfare state as you, Jupi, did too, really does represent a form of wisdom. It is certainly an Occidental form which, and I do note this, you seem to show a bit of resentment toward. I do not see going on welfare as a very good choice for the individual if it is a life-choice, but the prosperity and the general circumstances that allows it seems to me uniquely Occidental and also very worthy.

It’s also the future. There is an irreversible trend happening in which more and more jobs are being lost to robots and automated processes, a trend that seemingly neither side of politics can arrest. Who is going to look after these displaced workers? The state will have to, which means that government welfare is here to stay. Progressive, socialist-leaning governments are going to be the norm.

Yes, that is indeed an example of what you call "liberal thinking". The conservative counterpart would be that the newly unemployed people don't need welfare because they can occupy themselves with new jobs magically created by Trump. The point of agreement lies in assuming that automation will *create* wealth. Yet, robots require energy and fuel to run and make products which do not by themselves create energy and fuel unless specifically intended for that very purpose. Neither do they spend money.

In the end, the government or free market or (most likely) both has to subsidise the robots *and* the people they replace. So the government can tax the robots and give the money to the unemployed folk who can then buy the products from the companies employing those robots. Companies can create new jobs that effectively produce nothing and employ the people replaced by robots so they can be taxed as well. As you say, how could it possibly go wrong?

[jupiviv]

I also have to laugh at the way these sites act as though no one has heard of the “deep state” before, or that the CIA and the civilian government have never clashed before. Such things have been going ever since I can remember, as far as back as the 70s. Yet if you read these alternative sites, you would think that the whole evil ordeal was started by Obama and Clinton in the last few years. I find this kind of disconnect from reality very off-putting.

This doesn't make much sense, but it does seem to directly contradict what you've said about Trump vis-a-vis intelligence agencies.

In any case, he’s been trampling on the constitution since day one, via his many businesses and conflicts of interests

What the hell are you even talking about, David? These statements are on the level of youtube comments.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Up until a year ago, I was a philosopher standing up for the values of truth, structured thought and rationality. Now suddenly, without changing my values or behaviour in any way, I’m a patsy for the liberal establishment. Just this alone, just the fact that I have to nowadays mount a justification for defending the old-fashioned values of truth and rationality (....)

But that's simply not true! You're only being questioned on why you needed to defend your, Dan's and all of the forum members "reputation" against the so far rather gossipy sounding news of Kevin being into Breitbart news and endorsing Trump’s presidency. What you're presenting here as argument is not consistent with that particular discussion. It's moving the goal posts at will, to radicalize everything into: you're with or against me. A "me" which now would equal reason and is actually the very thing being challenged: if you're still being reasonable here.

And yes, you used to stand for truth, structured thought and rationality. But you are the one undermining that here, all by yourself. You seem to have started confusing values like truth and rationality with values based on some liberal or globalist ideology or some lukewarm support for a society where lies are still the main currency, which you always have snubbed and labeled wholly deluded.

.... on Genius Forum no less - shows how much the times have changed, and explains why I think Trump and his cohorts loom in this ethical vacuum as a very real danger to civilization.

The ethics of politics, of all power brokering, you seem to defend here as if it's under some kind of threat. But these very ethics have all easy to spot causes, making them all part of a facade and surely wouldn't require any defending from the wise. You're way above and beyond that sham of good and evil! The insanity and danger (to truth) of one government, or even a world war, should not upset you more than all other massive ignorance of this world. Not because I say so but it's right there as consequence of the ideas you once were upholding consistently. And even the threat of nuclear wars or police states: we've all been there many times before. We're living on the brink of extinction and upheaval. But what's new? Only your newly found concern appears to be.

Ergo, the suspicions arise that you came to the forum defending something else, some persona, some life style, a science fiction dream or something? But what you're certainly not doing here is defending any deeper philosophy or reputation. If anything, you've been attacking both! Especially Kevin and a few other good folks, creating with that at least the impression that the Trump issue is for you and a part of modern society more about offloading some denied, personal evil on to some ugly, easy scapegoat which happens to be in the spotlights. The fashionable thing to do as well, the ultimate modern thing perhaps. And yes I think it's philosophically sound to see hypocrisy as defining element of modernity, which is why I'm caused to be interested in any force challenging it, at the surface, no matter how ugly it might look to our "refined" tastes.

Even the most cursory understanding of cause and effect brings one to the reality that all life and all things are interconnected, which is the basis of a globalist perspective.

No you're here just changing the idea of the globalist ideology to mean just what you need it to mean personally. But it's not the case at all! There's no reason, nothing underlying your statement. The globalist world view is a very specific political and economical set of ideas, not some general notion of "we are one" and lets melt everything down in some universal sense. From the point of view of someone who understands the immense scale of causality, this whole activity to engage in lofty, unstructured thoughts on the scale of the global is bound to enter, at some point, completely delusional, unsubstantiated realms. It's quite possible nothing we know could apply at all at that scale. There's simply no reason to support that point of view with certainty and it will remain a matter of debate how wise the direction itself even is.

[Santiago Odo]

Have Europeans ever had a European sense of identity? It sounds very doubtful to me. Most people in Europe lived in small villages up until the 20th century and generally found their identity through their neighbours and friends. The whole sense of being part of a country, let alone a vast continent, is a very recent development. Even the modern French language was just another another local dialect 100 years ago. So what we are meant to be conserving here?

My role is to reveal but not necessarily to defend. That is, I have done a good deal of reading in order to gain background so to understand the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite. I am drawn to comment on Russel's statement about this space as 'monastery' and the notion of dual life in one zone or the other. In my case I do not make this strict separation. I begin with the awareness and I start from the awareness of my self as part of an organic whole that is collapsing in on itself. (I refer to Waldo Frank because he so nicely describes it). The recovery of self is a holistic project which spans the mundane and the monastic (to use Russel's term).

This is how I see culture and in this context I notice what goes on in people. There is, I suppose, a certain futility in holding to Order and Reason and Structure as the outer surfaces cave in on themselves. So what's the motive? On one level it is about 'restructuring the self' and holding to an integral vision which does not have a great deal to do with the outer world. But then, too, there is the sense that if the outer world is ever to come into order it can only happen as a manifestation of the inside influencing and determining the outside.

As to Europe and Identity, I will refer again to my understanding of masculinity as opposed to femininity. My view is that 'identity', in the best sense, but also in the essential sense, is part-and-parcel of the masculine project. It is elite as well. This is self-evident and I do not think it requires a defense. Turning to 'Rome, Greece, Judea and Alexandria', as Waldo Frank interestingly points out, will lead you to groups of men who carved out Idea and Identity from intellect, experience and reason and, though I do not know how to state it, put it all in motion. Judea represents the god-ideal and idea; Greece the power of profound intellect and reason; Rome the will and the power focussed into establishing the cultural matrix as applied structure; and Alexandria as a unique, but also strange, meeting point and amalgamation point where it blends together. That describes, in a nut shell, the stuff out of which 'self' is constructed. It is certainly the stuff of Occidental culture and identity.

Now, you refer to what I would describe as the 'field' or the 'unformed' and the 'chaos' when you refer to peasants in the European countryside. It is not hard to notice that this corresponds to the 'female body' which is acted upon by 'masculine mind'. I do not think that this needs to be explained in much more detail. This simply demonstrates that it is 'Idea', in one way or another, which moulds the world.

If one wishes to understand 'European Identity' one has to define it. Definition has two faces: One is discovery, as in intellectual archaeology or historical recovery. The second aspect is creative, decisive, determining. Both require will and intent. In your case --- I suggest you consider this --- you have 'gone flaccid'. You are speaking from extreme feminine viewpoints! It is amazing to watch it unfold. If you cannot define a 'European Self', how in the heck can you define yourself and anything else? So, what I notice is something that I have always talked about in relation to *you* (in a plural and general sense): You are involved in, and a part of, and you act out of and in relation to an 'acidic project of dissolution of self'.

Remember, the structure around us, like the walls of an old moat, fall in on themselves. The outer structures collapse and the *we* of us light up as the living body with which we were once identified and composite with, dies. Your entire project, as I understand it, arose out of this dying body: the collapsing, ridiculous, aimless, topsy-turvy, senseless, voluptuous female cultural reaction body. You desires to 'be a man' and to make 'absolute definitions'. The definitions that give power and structure to a man's life.

So, what is going on here? Well, this is why this is all so interesting, to me at least. And I am attempting to articulate it. All the relevant questions come to the fore: What is wisdom? What is the purpose of definition? What is this plane of existence and what am I to do here? What is correct activity? What is wasted action and wasted effort? What is my relationship to myself, my family, my people, my nation, the world? How am I to sort all this out and in relation to what set of values am I to live? In relation to this, and in relation to 'creative life', I am not convinced that you have correctly founded yourself. Why? Because you are 'acidic' to (what I see and understand) as correct identity and identification. In one way or another you do indeed propose identity, and your whole discourse (here, now) is based in assertions of identity. But they are ones that, in my view, are evidence of dissolution of identity. Your vision of things becomes a general vision which is that of hyper-progressivism and mass-mind.

I’m definitely not understanding the program. So what’s the purpose of all this? To preserve racial purity? How do we measure such a thing? And given the overall trend of the world, how do we reverse the ever-increasing blending of the various races together? Are we advocating apartheid-style policies here? Are we looking at eugenics and genetic engineering?

Questions are good. They are always the place to start from. You have to start with an example that can make the conversation concrete. Let's find an example. I am sorry to use such a common example but let's take Sweden. Does Sweden in your view of things and with all those fine speciments of Nordic whiteness have the right to defend itself --- as body --- against other bodies which, for different reasons, wish to merge with it? Or come to inhabit it? What will allow Sweden as discreet body to hold to its definition of itself, biologically, culturally, socially and in all senses? Let's examine it from the other side. Let us suppose there exists an ideological platform that has established as a moral axiom that 'Sweden' (a discreet white enclave) cannot and should not exist? And should be 'diversified' by the deliberate importation of non-Swedish people. To have that ideological position is a definition, is it not? It is active, declarative, and effective insofar as it will impliment itself and thus produce change. And what if there is no counter-current? Nothing to push back against it?

You see, this is what it all hinges in. And I don't think I need to explain further, the meaning is grasped. For something to be what it is, had required a creative and decisive effort over time. Man works on his world, and man works on his bilological and cultural self, by processes that can only be described as 'eugenic'. That is, opposed to 'dysgenics'. Dysgenics would be chaos, or falling apart, or losing the will, or surrendering to the inevitable, or giving in to external processes. Don't you see? Man must think in eugenic terms and must take this thinking to the farthest point.

The first order of business is clear seeing, clear enunciation, simply being able to see and describe something.

I simply said that in 1960 America was 90% Anflo-Saxon and thus 'white'. And a group of decisions were made which have resulted in an application of a definition (if you will). And that definition is? Well, what is it? What happened there and why? I suggest that when you look into this question (a group of questions) that you can discover the 'active agents' that brought it about. And thus the 'active ideas'.

Who measures? Well, who does measure? What is measurement? In order to measure something you have to define what you will measure, why you will measure it, and then you require a system by which you measure it. And this is where you, David, right now, are quite weak. Why is this?

If you want to understand the thinking that stands behind 'preservation of Europe' you will have to undertake to study it. Lothrop Stoddard's 'The Rising Tide of Color' and 'Racial Realities of Europe', and Madison Grant's 'Passing of the Great Race' will, I think, make the issue plain. Allow me to say the following: These men and these ideas were once common and 'popular' if I may say it. They became not only unpopular but came to be seen as tinged with vile immorality. To understand the use of moral shaming I suggest listening to this talk by Kevin McDonald. I find his discourse interesting and revevant and his points worthy of consideration. The core of it, in my view, is how the Progressives and the Hyper-Liberals use moral guilt-slinging as a tool to topple strong, masculine definition. I will not say and I do not say that we can or should abandon our 'moral sense' but that, yes, we are in processes of profound examination of morality and ethics. That is why I say it is moral and it is ethical for a people, any people, to define themselves and to defend themselves.

Support is not the right word for it. There is some overlap, which is inevitable. Take gay rights, for instance. I don’t have any reason to come down hard and say that gays cannot marry and have full legal status or whatever. Why would I discriminate in such a fashion? I would have to make up a reason. There, straight away, is 90% of my “liberal bias”.

Bizarre. I am again amazed by some of your positions. I think that a principled position must be that society, as a general rule, should shun homosexuality. I do not say that homosexuality does not exist, it does and likely always will. But it should not ever be given and be seen as having the same *metaphysical status* as the heterosexual union which produces life, continance, culture and civilization. As an 'idea' homosexuality is badly founded. A culture that has reached a decadent crisis-phase (see Camille Paglia on this topic) will begin to fail to distinguish 'sound metaphysical base' and will glorify the deviant. This is simply inappropriate if it is not also tragic. Yet it is part-and-parcel of the crisis of our modernity and the confusion of values. Homosexuality had been kept in a closet and for good reason ... and back it should go.

To be able to say these things, and to make these definitions, is a result of being able to see clearly it seems to me. Through what lens, David, are you channeling your sight?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I begin with the awareness and I start from the awareness of my self as part of an organic whole that is collapsing in on itself.

Remember, the structure around us, like the walls of an old moat, fall in on themselves...

...the collapsing, ridiculous, aimless, topsy-turvy, senseless, voluptuous female cultural reaction body.

In my view, that's the normal state of affairs for us humans. Sometime the waves are high, sometimes lower. However, the dramatizing, the signs and crossed signals of this particular age (21st century) are somehow creating a larger spectacle out of it. The benefits would be that it's easier to see, the downside is that people start believing something special is going on, needing special measures to prevent the tide.

As to Europe and Identity, I will refer again to my understanding of masculinity as opposed to femininity. My view is that 'identity', in the best sense, but also in the essential sense, is part-and-parcel of the masculine project. It is elite as well. This is self-evident and I do not think it requires a defense.

It's also circular at least when it's connected to a certain tradition, religion, gender or race. The historical fact that some cultural division has been a driving force of some development and was in charge of the definition, of the whole discourse really, does not provide any certainty about all the causality involved.

Bizarre. I am again amazed by some of your positions. I think that a principled position must be that society, as a general rule, should shun homosexuality. I do not say that homosexuality does not exist, it does and likely always will. But it should not ever be given and be seen as having the same *metaphysical status* as the heterosexual union which produces life, continance, culture and civilization. As an 'idea' homosexuality is badly founded. A culture that has reached a decadent crisis-phase (see Camille Paglia on this topic) will begin to fail to distinguish 'sound metaphysical base' and will glorify the deviant. This is simply inappropriate if it is not also tragic. Yet it is part-and-parcel of the crisis of our modernity and the confusion of values. Homosexuality had been kept in a closet and for good reason ... and back it should go.

A more interesting inquiry would be the topic of legal status and marriage in modern times. How I read David here (and I agree with him) is the question for what reason one would prevent gays to obtain the sense of equality within a certain institution. Any anti-gay activism in this sense would require belief in the "purity" and sanity of the thing one now is suddenly "defending" against corruption.

However the same argument I was actually using against David's opening post. To protect the institutionalized governments and corrupt society against Trump, one is required to explain better why it needs to be defended and against what precisely. It cannot remain vague.

In my eyes, you, Alex and David, are both verbally still resisting a change which is leading to unknown territory. But you cannot defend rationally, in terms of the philosophy of the absolute at least, the notion that it needs to be "fixed" or "prevented". Or even dismissed. Revealed perhaps, as Santiago said.

[Santiago Odo]

• A world ends when its metaphor has died.
  
  An age becomes an age, all else beside,
  When sensuous poets in their pride invent
  Emblems for the soul's consent
  That speak the meanings men will never know
  But man-imagined images can show:
  It perishes when those images, though seen,
  No longer mean.
  
  _______

OK, it is a normal state of affairs. But I think we would do well to establish the 'metaphysical core' (if you will allow me to speak of it in this way). To build something, anything, is to structure in relation to an idea and an ideal. I place this within a Platonic division: Being and Becoming. Every person, and any person, cannot but be engaged in some level of constructive activity. Even destruction is construction in fact. And all structures, including the construction of self, are brought into being as mirrors of Being. I do not mean to get too fancy and I think that what I have said is clear.

There has to be an ideal, there has to be an idea, there has to be a definition, and --- to bring this home in the context of the philosophical assertions surrounding 'masculinity' that stand at the center of the project --- it is imperative that a man create in relation to, in response to, at the behest of, his held and defined ideal. Any conversation about this, any musing on this 'project', is essentially a musing on masculinity. There is a duality then: since one is bound to action everything hinges on What action? There we have the core ethical issue and the polarization between responsible and irresponsible activity. If this is not one of the core Questions at the heart of the Project as defined here (by these fellows), then I must surely have been mis-reading. But I have not been mis-reading.

Now, if I notice that 'the walls of the moat sink back into what they were dug from', that is, that the structures are collapsing, at some point or other it will, once again, become necessary to dig out of chaos the foundations of a creatd world. I do not think that you would deny this. Or that you could.

But you assert something else. Perhaps it is that all structures should be allowed to descend in their death? That no attempt should be made to shore up 'structure' as I use the term? I think this position would be consistent with much of your writing. Perhaps it defines something 'essentialist' in you. Or --- also possible --- that you are simply at a point in a trajectory in which dissolution is the dominant feature. Thus, you have not arrived at a position where a counter-movement is initiated because necessary?

Clearly though, to keep this topical to this thread (sort of), there is now in Europe the glimmering of a reactive movement against excesses of postwar liberalism. Is the resistance futile? Will it only hasten a more severe crisis? That would be consistent with some of the philosophy of the Nouvelloe Droite, notably Guillaume Faye who presages severe crisis before restoration can begin. But perhaps you *deny* restoration?

My position is likely somewhat similar to David's and therefor it is relevant to note it. Essentially I would identify as a Johannine Christian-of-sorts. That might be the closest definition-category into which i'd fit myself (and definitions --- self-definitions --- are not so easy!). But there is nothing so very complex about it. Johanninism is in my view a branch of Platonism or is certain infused with it. It harkens to the notion of a Universal and constant Principle as the base of creative activity in this world and all worlds. It is totally metaphysical and yet is sound in principle ... if one accepts the principle.

Circularity is in fact the gist of it. It takes consciousness to define consciousness; it takes the power to define, to define. It is totally circular.!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But you assert something else. Perhaps it is that all structures should be allowed to descend in their death? That no attempt should be made to shore up 'structure' as I use the term? I think this position would be consistent with much of your writing. Perhaps it defines something 'essentialist' in you. Or --- also possible --- that you are simply at a point in a trajectory in which dissolution is the dominant feature. Thus, you have not arrived at a position where a counter-movement is initiated because necessary?

To answer with your own thoughts: a man arises out of his context. And I'd add: he dissolutes just the same. So I'm not advocating "allowing" and neither advocating "countering" because they're implying already way too much about the specifics of his context. Perhaps I should say: resistance is the good (the great build-up!) as much as it's evil (the great hollowing out), also known as zombification.

There has to be an ideal, there has to be an idea, there has to be a definition, and --- to bring this home in the context of the philosophical assertions surrounding 'masculinity' that stand at the center of the project --- it is imperative that a man create in relation to, in response to, at the behest of, his held and defined ideal.

Currently I don't regard these "ideals" as arriving from some random, willful act. They appear as invading like some divine or devilish virus. But how the mechanics of this really work? Who knows. It might need some virginal, pure mindscape to become impregnated with the kind of vision from where others will derive various masculine ideations. All I know as philosopher is that it cannot be grasped, that it cannot be "held", controlled or steered. Anyway, god is dead, killed, buried and the remaining aliens have starting to leave the atmosphere somewhere after the 1950's (metaphorically spoken).

That brings me to my own meaning: a stillness is needed which cannot be achieved by merely some individual achievement or meditation. The stillness of winter, a cultural, spiritual winter, will be a context as well, for men. And perhaps it won't look like winter for most because of all the festivities. But it's quite possible a lot more has to be undone before anything can start again, in that regard.

[Russell Parr]

Yes, I’ve been keeping my eye on Zerohedge ever since jupiviv pointed it out. The site is ok, but I find that reading unsubstantiated opinion pieces by anonymous authors quickly gets tiresome, especially when they are so unrelentingly bitter in their tone. And of course, with these kinds of sites, you never come across any kind of critical comment on Trump’s bizarre psychology and actions, not even an acknowledgement that such bizarreness exists. There seems to be a need to maintain the pretense that Trump is just another politician, just another normal guy.

This is a big problem that I have with the alternative media in general, besides its unrelenting darkness. The picture of Trump these sites paint doesn’t match what I experience directly of Trump with my own eyes and ears, which tells me that a huge distorting force is at play.

Many alternative sites exist as a counter and contrast to the MSM. You won't see them point out Trump's flaws because the MSM is already doing that in overkill. For them to also pile on is to beat a dead horse. Their purpose is to expose the flaws of the establishment.

I also have to laugh at the way these sites act as though no one has heard of the “deep state” before, or that the CIA and the civilian government have never clashed before. Such things have been going ever since I can remember, as far as back as the 70s. Yet if you read these alternative sites, you would think that the whole evil ordeal was started by Obama and Clinton in the last few years. I find this kind of disconnect from reality very off-putting.

Chalk it up to clickbait headlines and sensationalism. In order to get any attention these days, it's a necessary evil that these sites must engage in order to spread their message.

1)Usurping the powers of the corrupt, oligarchic bureaucrats is enough. Prosecuting the worst of them would be dandy as well, but I'm not holding my breath. Implementing his proposed tax plan would be pretty sweet though.
2)As far as he can.
3)Just root out anyone who is clearly serves the elite few. This isn't about left vs right.
4)Whenever he begins to trample upon the constitution. He hasn't done anything to this effect yet, as far as I've seen, but I wouldn't put it past him.

2) and 4) seem to be at odds. Does this mean that you don’t think Trump has the ability to succeed in his coup? Do you take comfort in the idea that he will shake up the place without actually destroying it?

2) is a follow up on 1). I honestly don't know if Trump is really trying to perform a coup. It only looks like it. Perhaps he is only seeking protection. Perhaps there really are some evil, sick mofos in the government who will go as far as an assassination attempt to protect themselves from exposure.

In any case, he’s been trampling on the constitution since day one, via his many businesses and conflicts of interests, greatly enriching himself in the process. Suits are being filed against him as we speak. Again, you won’t read about this kind of thing in the alternative media.

Perhaps he is. But as others pointed out, he's not doing much that others haven't done. The Bushes made many millions (*Trump tone*) off the wars in the middle east with their Halliburton holdings. The Clintons made many millions from their various so called political involvements. Obama signed in horrific laws like the NDAA, which allows the president to detain any citizen indefinitely without trial.

Do keep an eye on sites like Zerohedge. They do and will call out Trump on his BS too, but their focus as of now is on the already existing corruption and Trump's apparent efforts to thwart it.

This leads me to wonder, who is really the more impoverished - those who confine themselves to reading the mainstream media, or those who confine themselves to reading the alternative media? I know the new political correctness says the latter, but I have my doubts.

The point is not to confine yourself to either. Any news source will be biased to some degree so it is up to us to discern which elements are realistic, exaggerated, or propagandic.

Along with Zerohedge, I'd even go so far as to suggest a bit of WeAreChange and Infowars for some really juicy stuff once you figure out what to consider and what to reject.

[Eric Schiedler]

A political news story is a collection of trivial facts about an appearance. These facts do not contain the opposing observations on the same topic. Nor do they contain the connection between the positions of competing factions, thus failing in a threefold manner. The political wonks, desperate to place themselves at the center of a collection of important facts, begin to scour the media in an unending perusal of opinions, articles, and loosely-applied theories. Conceiving of themselves as rationalists and scientists, they abandon reason altogether and look for others to help them find a paradigm shift - after which they look forward to shift it again, ever holding sacred and separate from this process their delusions about their ego, the pursuit of happiness and their addiction to love.

For in love, they find the ultimate paradigm shift, their own submission to mystery. The rational to them becomes mysterious, and thus politics becomes essential. And they become essential relative to politics. They join the herd mind of other rationalists and consider themselves superior to those they deem irrational, while at the same time they remain perplexed that the unscientific and irrational neighbors manage to corner political power. Thus, they betray their desire to dominate, the one delusion that they’ve tried to keep hidden from all, including themselves.

[Santiago Odo]

Currently I don't regard these "ideals" as arriving from some random, willful act. They appear as invading like some divine or devilish virus. But how the mechanics of this really work? Who knows. It might need some virginal, pure mindscape to become impregnated with the kind of vision from where others will derive various masculine ideations. All I know as philosopher is that it cannot be grasped, that it cannot be "held", controlled or steered. Anyway, god is dead, killed, buried and the remaining aliens have starting to leave the atmosphere somewhere after the 1950's (metaphorically spoken).

That brings me to my own meaning: a stillness is needed which cannot be achieved by merely some individual achievement or meditation. The stillness of winter, a cultural, spiritual winter, will be a context as well, for men. And perhaps it won't look like winter for most because of all the festivities. But it's quite possible a lot more has to be undone before anything can start again, in that regard.

Yes, it seems to be true in a way. So much of our activity is a possession of one sort or another. Captured by ideals, by 'mission', by plans, aspirations, objects. I think of Waldo Frank's statement about the 'death of the cultural body' but then the intensification of movement, or perhaps obsession, within the individual cells which 'light up'. And then their being lunged forward in outer movement by some inexpressible questing which can truly be seen as both divine and demonic, but more demonic and Faustian overall.

Still, and as might be predicted, I can't quite go along with you but perhaps that is a Faustian symptom? I do not notice many festivities, do you? Possibly the most festive occassions I observe in my world (there is an article in the Times today on the Coffee region of Antiochia, Colombia, my region though I am to the south quite a bit) is that of people with their children. But something like a real festival? I don't really see it.

Following up on the word 'festival': Medieval Latin fēstivālis (diēs) holy (day), it is tied to the traditions of honoring divinity. This is an honest question: Do you really think that man can be festive in the absence of his *sustaining god*? You woud agree, I reckon, that one of the outcomes of His burial is despair and angst. Was the Nietzschen declaration of 'festivals' not a little colored with romanticism?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I do not notice many festivities, do you? Possibly the most festive occassions I observe in my world (...) is that of people with their children. But something like a real festival? I don't really see it.

It was meant more metaphorically, I suppose. Or carnivalesque in the broader as well as the specific sense of the Carnival, with its "mock battles, satire,mockery of authorities; the grotesque body displaying exaggerated features, especially large noses, bellies, mouths, and phalli, or elements of animal bodies; abusive language and degrading acts; depictions of disease and gleeful death; and a general reversal of everyday rules and norm".

[Glostik91]

I would be interested to know exactly what Kevin thinks about the thread topic, but if he doesn't want to comment, perhaps I will just try to understand his point of view.

Trump was certainly not an acceptable candidate for president, however considering the political situation in America is thoroughly diseased, Clinton was certainly not acceptable either. Kevin has long been the enemy of feminism and the effeminate mind. Hillary Clinton appeared to be a paragon of this. (parental advisory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxj-VSex4vQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftuA2KUf0d0) Moreover, despite Trump focusing his masculine energy into being a bloodsucking brute, he does possess some (gulp) qualities which may become of value.

The presidency has far, far too much power. 50+ years of presidents have pushed this trend. We are in a state of Imperial Presidency. Congress reminds me of the Roman Senate. Checks and balances only exist where there is money and fundraising to back them up. This isn't Trump's doing. He is a natural phenomenon. He is an opportunist who is exploiting the flaws in our system and ripping them open wide for all to see. He is a cleansing masculine energy like chemotherapy which, perhaps, we can reason will be a wake up call, and serious changes will have to be made to the government.

At least this is what I imagine Kevin would say.

[jupiviv]

2) is a follow up on 1). I honestly don't know if Trump is really trying to perform a coup. It only looks like it. Perhaps he is only seeking protection. Perhaps there really are some evil, sick mofos in the government who will go as far as an assassination attempt to protect themselves from exposure.

Just out of curiosity, what has Trump done to provoke assassination? He clearly has no quarrel with the MIC or the oil industry.

Do keep an eye on sites like Zerohedge. They do and will call out Trump on his BS too, but their focus as of now is on the already existing corruption and Trump's apparent efforts to thwart it.

Zerohedge used to be a financial site with a very informed readership, but over time lunatics took it over. I still read it regularly for the financial news, but in the last 2/3 years that has taken a backseat to political "news" (i.e. opinion pieces as David says) to keep the lunatic commenters happy. The good commenters are still around, but only post on the finance/economy-related articles.

[David Quinn]

I would be interested to know exactly what Kevin thinks about the thread topic, but if he doesn't want to comment, perhaps I will just try to understand his point of view.

Trump was certainly not an acceptable candidate for president, however considering the political situation in America is thoroughly diseased, Clinton was certainly not acceptable either. Kevin has long been the enemy of feminism and the effeminate mind. Hillary Clinton appeared to be a paragon of this. (parental advisory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxj-VSex4vQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftuA2KUf0d0) Moreover, despite Trump focusing his masculine energy into being a bloodsucking brute, he does possess some (gulp) qualities which may become of value.

The presidency has far, far too much power. 50+ years of presidents have pushed this trend. We are in a state of Imperial Presidency. Congress reminds me of the Roman Senate. Checks and balances only exist where there is money and fundraising to back them up. This isn't Trump's doing. He is a natural phenomenon. He is an opportunist who is exploiting the flaws in our system and ripping them open wide for all to see. He is a cleansing masculine energy like chemotherapy which, perhaps, we can reason will be a wake up call, and serious changes will have to be made to the government.

At least this is what I imagine Kevin would say.

Good post. That would certainly be the wisest possible spin we could put on it. I can definitely see the merit in it. I am almost seduced by it. But then a questions arises: Isn't this too much of a sledgehammer approach? Isn't there a danger that the destructiveness being wrought will become too wide and too deep? This is not an academic exercise. People’s lives are at stake here. It is one thing to want to take down the political elites, the oligarchs, their corrupt networks, etc, but quite another to push for a force so destructive that it unravels the entire system for everyone. I’m not sure it is possible to judge how destructive Trump could or could not be in this regard. Too many people are underestimating him, in my opinion.

To put the same question another way: The very idea that the bloodsucking brute, Trump, is capable of being of value to the world is predicated on the assumption that the system is so corrupt and rotten that it needs to be blown apart. Is the system really this corrupt and rotten? Or have too many people allowed their daily, petty grievances get the better of them?

The bottom line is, I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of this course of action. I think we are playing with fire. I can see, however, that a lot of people are wanting this upheaval to happen, and thus there appears to be certain inevitability about it, and so it looks like we will soon get to see just how wise or foolish it turns out to be.

[jupiviv]

I would be interested to know exactly what Kevin thinks about the thread topic, but if he doesn't want to comment, perhaps I will just try to understand his point of view.

Trump was certainly not an acceptable candidate for president, however considering the political situation in America is thoroughly diseased, Clinton was certainly not acceptable either. Kevin has long been the enemy of feminism and the effeminate mind. Hillary Clinton appeared to be a paragon of this. (parental advisory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxj-VSex4vQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftuA2KUf0d0) Moreover, despite Trump focusing his masculine energy into being a bloodsucking brute, he does possess some (gulp) qualities which may become of value.

The presidency has far, far too much power. 50+ years of presidents have pushed this trend. We are in a state of Imperial Presidency. Congress reminds me of the Roman Senate. Checks and balances only exist where there is money and fundraising to back them up. This isn't Trump's doing. He is a natural phenomenon. He is an opportunist who is exploiting the flaws in our system and ripping them open wide for all to see. He is a cleansing masculine energy like chemotherapy which, perhaps, we can reason will be a wake up call, and serious changes will have to be made to the government.

At least this is what I imagine Kevin would say.

Good post. That would certainly be the wisest possible spin we could put on it. I can definitely see the merit in it. I am almost seduced by it.

Isn't that what I've been saying since you started this thread? Why this sudden change in position?

To put the same question another way: The very idea that the bloodsucking brute, Trump, is capable of being of value to the world is predicated on the assumption that the system is so corrupt and rotten that it needs to be blown apart. Is the system really this corrupt and rotten? Or have too many people allowed their daily, petty grievances get the better of them?

You should provide your definition of what level of corruption in the system you would consider to be the threshold for "blowing apart", or even what "blowing apart" is supposed to mean. I don't see Trump trying to blow anything apart. In fact, he has as good as abandoned every policy position he adopted during his campaign except the low immigration + infrastructure spending twofer.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That was indeed a good post, Glostik, a brave attempt to find a potential perspective that would make sense. But I've some questions on David's reply, there are a few elements which might be interesting to explore further.

a force so destructive that it unravels the entire system for everyone.

But in what way exactly would it threaten anything you as philosopher would deeply value? From the perspective of a human being living a relaxed kind of life (presumably) I can see the point. But it's really about compatibility with absolute truth and the personal will to truth. Discussions around personal implementations and preferences are so much contextual that I just cannot see that much value in it, unless the discussion would appear in the same context.

Is the system really this corrupt and rotten? Or have too many people allowed their daily, petty grievances get the better of them?

If too many people become full of daily, petty grievances, the system as a consequence will rot and become corrupted. This is an important element here: society is for the most part not a rational construct (like the human body is for the most part not skeleton): it functioned so far by certain shared social moods, trust levels, enthusiasm and belief. Remove it and it becomes powerless and possibly full of ressentiment. And if one tries to analyse the cause of that decline, one needs to find out what caused the social mood, trust level and enthusiasm to go down the drain. Just blaming the outcome, Trumpism, is putting the horse behind the carriage. One needs to delve deeper into causality before one can even decide if Trump as "cure" would be worse than any disease.

In that context it's interesting to think about the supposed "Trump Bump" in the financial markets (Dow, S&P, and Nasdaq record highs) or the sudden historical drop of illegal immigration (and likely the related trafficking of humans and drugs) at the Southwest border breaking radically with a 20 years upwards trend. And without doing anything yet. Society is about emotion as much as about policy. Sometimes I think Trump has understood this early in life and "makes things happen" by just stirring pots.

and so it looks like we will soon get to see just how wise or foolish it turns out to be.

The sad thing here is that it's rarely, if ever, the case that one would get into a position, looking back, and get some clear summary of what happened, with the exact list of benefits and downsides. Or some inventory of damages in terms of money, life, effects on reason, science and so on.

It's the irony of history. Hindsight at that scale is never perfect but actually severely limited when it comes to the more complex, global movements. For example how to calculate the good or bad from upheavals of the past, the decline and dissolutions of former empires, the big wars, the crazy spending bubbles and so on. Historians are still discussing most of it. And that will never stop but I'm not advocating some "I cannot know anything" attitude. Just reservation and certainly not trying to make certain social views absolute or its reverse: claims of being fundamentally incompatible with wisdom.

[Santiago Odo]

For good or for evil, very hard to say how such things play out, the American Alt-Right has tended to see in Trump an event or phenomenon that 'opens political space'. For some, just the fact that he curtails Meso-American immigration is, from the perspective of America's demographics, a positive firrt step. And these people indeed define a 'race-realist' position which is openly labeled as racist and immoral in all media, in any country today, more or less throughout the world. The race-realist posture is indeed radical. It is an axial stance against one pillar of liberalism.

The more thoughtful among the ideologues of the Alt-Right (Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson have been most audible) do not place too much faith or hope in Trump as a political agent. In their eyes, and their eyes are set on long-range shifts in awareness among their 'constituents' (white people, Europeans, and the far-flung diaspora of Europe in America, Australia, South America, South Africa, etc.), Trump is likely not to be trusted. The more thoughtful recognize this but take advantage of the moment to spread their message. Possibly the most helpful event for this Alternative Right was Hillary Clinton's reference which brought the term into the public discourse. Again, the Alt-Right among its more thoughtful ideologues notices that there is an 'Alt-Lite' (Yiannopoulous and numerous others) which steals some of their thunder as it were. Greg Johnson for example wishes that Yiannopoulous 'would just go away'.

Possibly, or probably, the best representative website for an 'authentic' Alt-Right is Counter-Currents. Greg Johnson is always lucid and always seems to have interesting things to say. His background is that he has a PhD in philosophy which gives him certain advantages, not the least being articulate, ordered thought.

The relationship of the American Alt-Right to the Constitution is an interesting question. It is not really talked about. It is pretty clear, given their demographic positions (racialist, race-realist and also separatist and 'white nationalist') that the American Constitution, if taken a a document supporting multicultural blending and as a philosophical-political statement that inhibts the establishment of the sort of definitions they favor (separatism in essence, though there is considerable nuance that has to be carefully described), the Constitution as 'law of the land' is a problem for them. I would imagine, though I have read nothing on the topic, that they would necessarily have issues with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and, as historical revisionists, would have many misgivings about the legal inclusion of former slaves into the political body. To understand that position, that is philosophically, Richard Weaver's 'The Southern Tradition at Bay' contains a great deal of information. It is interesting to note that Carl Jung, sometime around the turn of the 20th Century, wrote of the psychological effect of the presence and incorrporation of 'the primitive man' into the social body of a more advanced European man. Seen from this perspective, and if one accepts it, the influence of the black man on American Ango-Saxon society and culture has not been *good* and is part of a *seduction*, as it must necessarily be when a slave population of a radically different stock is all on the sudden granted full rights-of-incorporation and full legal status. What is interesting, though it is difficult to do it without bias contaminating the project, is to rationally describe the effect of primitive Black culture on the host population. This involves, of course, a devastating critique of slave-culture itself and the sheer stupidity (from a certain perspective) of establishing a slave culture in the New World (and certainly in America).

These are some of the areas that the Alt-Right explores. Even in what one would imagine is its most unsavory locale --- Stormfront --- what I noticed was that, aside from the 'Chimpmania' crowd, that there is a core of people who are readers of history and often quite articulate. Again, David Duke (who I determined I woudl read, and did up to a point) is an articulate and very well-educated man. His Jewish-Critical posture (which most would call antisemitic) is, overall, a form of American patriotism. I'd imagine that his Southern heritage would bring him into opposition to Jews and 'Papists', but his Jewish Critique is far less about Jews-as-such (the Shtetl Jew for example) and much more about the International Jewish clique (et cetera) best articulated in my view by Hilaire Belloc in 'The Jews'.

It is necessary to state that the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite does indeed have and does develop a Jewish Critical position. However, and this is a bit odd, there is a srong Protestant Christian movement within the Alt-Right which holds tightly to a Jesusonian identification and a white-identitarianism. Some of these people write in venues like Stormfront. I have made the effort to listen to their podcasts and I do not find them 'hateful' people at all. In fact I find them thoughtful, intelligent and concerned for their community, State and family. I do admit to some confusion as to how, within Christian Identity, they will succeed in defining the hierarchy between a white identitarianism as-against the necessary Christian universalism. Yet this is part of the challenge I suppose: a certain revision of and a rearticulation of some of the general doctrine (and not only Christian, but cultural).

What I notice that no one in this thread is talking about, perhaps because they are focussing on the view of Trump offered by MSM and are not getting under the surface that has to do with the initiation of a European Identitarianism as a cultural movement opposed to the Liberal Model, is just that: a movement that arises spontaneously (to put it like that, whcih is not quite accurate) in a wide groupd of differnet people. The reaction to the Liberal Cultural and Economic Project (the postwar project, headed by America by and large) that arises as a 'natural reaction' to the artifificial construct of post war hyper-liberalism. In order to combat that, one requires doctrine and ideology. If one does not have access to a clear and articulatable position one must 1) work with a limited framework which is imperfect and even *ridiculous*, or 2) seek out a coherant, defensible posotion that can be intelligently articulated but also ethically represented. The ethical aspect is paramount. I notice, here, that David operates from a basic position that is 'moral' and 'ethical' in mood and sentiment, but not really 'rational'. In fact irrational! But there is no blame in this, really, because I think all of our information is tinged and distorted by tinging and distorting lenses.

At least this is what I imagine Kevin would say.

That is a funny line! Because what we seem to do here is to project all manner of different content into and onto the Tasmanian Sage who, for whatever reason, though surely aware of this conversation (I like the wood trim on the walls of your YouTube studio, Kevin, but I also think you should trim your beard...), declines to enter the fray and offer his Apologia.

I would have to say that were Kevin to say anything he would have to say rational things excusively. Intelligent, well thought-out things. And in this that his positions would in many areas run counter to David's which are far less rational than David imagines! And I would wager that he has become familiar with the philosophers of the Nouvelle Droite. Until he appears at the window of the Palace we will just have to guess! I am starting a Novena and I remain faithful & hopeful!