Statement about Solway and Trump

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That's the best response possible to posts of two women who are starting here in the middle of feeble male attempts to get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all, to delve into the intrigues of Gnostic thought or the fascinating quality of theological writing (like poetry) to mirror any willed message back to you as affirmation. Yawn.

[Santiago Odo]

Ah yes, the Diebert I know best! The team-up with Jupi in relation to the sexual references is a fairly common gambit though, isn't it? The Virgin-Weiningerian and the Dutch Philosopher-Matron. This could be interesting.

[jimhaz]

get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all

They are still human aren’t they. What should they do – go dancing naked in the forest all day?

You seem willing to excuse Kevin for getting indirectly involved in politics, but not David.

Its not really political anyway. It is an acknowledgment of potential danger to the human race, by electing a ultra shallow child to the most powerful position on earth. We’ve all seen what this can do with Hitler and others.

It is not like they are in say the circumstances of Nietzsche where philosophy was incomplete. It is complete now – there ain’t nothing left to discover.

Personally I like the fact that they have some interest or concern about worldly matters – it more or less demonstrates to me that enlightenment is not anything more than training the brain to think more accurately. Wish there was a lot more of it from philosophers - such training should be put to use when the need arises.

Like any skill one should move on once it has been mastered. I fail to see how being a stoic Kierkegaard type is a good thing – it may be good for the hard journey up the mountain, but surely one can relax as one goes down the other side. It might also be useful persona when teaching – but surely teaching is also something one eventually has to move away from due to the staleness of repetitive experiences.

[Russell Parr]

Infowars. Infowars. Juicy, huh? [link removed, only 3 urls allowed]

Of course. AJ's outrageous religious antics can be very off-putting when it isn't hilarious. Both AJs that is. Here's another good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntWieh7YIgY

Truth be told I mentioned the extreme examples of Infowars and WeAreChange because you really can find truth in degrees on that side of the web once the effects of the obvious outrageousness wears off and no longer deter you. But it certainly takes a required taste. I would definitely be the "conspiracy nutter" of us geniuses but I wouldn't want to worry anyone into thinking I visit these sites more than about once or twice a month. My allure to these sources of information stem from a long fascination with Freemasonry and its important role in Western society, as well as the ultra rich like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

I'll throw in one more guilty pleasure of mine which is VigilantCitizen, which focuses moreso on the media and entertainment industry. The introductory article provides a solid initiation into an understanding of how the MSM is able to sway the masses for special interest groups.

See what you and David have done? I hope you're happy...

get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all

This thread is quite the fiasco, isn't it? Who of us, after 14 pages going nowhere, has the most accurate image of worldly matters? Agreements abound, yet still all quite different approaches. That's the trouble with trying to pin down an accurate analysis of something so vast and complex like global politics, especially without (and even regardless of) direct involvement. IMO it is best (and easiest) to evaluate such a macro-scale subject in a simplified way as it relates to our knowledge of human psychology, much like Dan did in response to a thread I made some time ago, and others here and there within this thread. As above, so below. Otherwise we inevitably get into dick measuring contests (Pam does indeed have a point), flexing ultimately finite viewpoints that will never tell us anything absolute about the world, much to Alex's glee. Eventually we should all get back to horrifying him.

No wonder Lao Tzu suggests such a simplistic approach to rulership.

[Russell Parr]

Personally I like the fact that they have some interest or concern about worldly matters – it more or less demonstrates to me that enlightenment is not anything more than training the brain to think more accurately. Wish there was a lot more of it from philosophers - such training should be put to use when the need arises.

Like any skill one should move on once it has been mastered. I fail to see how being a stoic Kierkegaard type is a good thing – it may be good for the hard journey up the mountain, but surely one can relax as one goes down the other side. It might also be useful persona when teaching – but surely teaching is also something one eventually has to move away from due to the staleness of repetitive experiences.

I do see and agree with your point, but as far as this thread and subject goes, there isn't much for us to do, nor should we care. The world goes as it goes. Our role and message is for the few out there that are receptive to spiritual wisdom. How this wisdom affects our daily lives and activities is subjective to each of us, and resides beyond these realms.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all

You seem willing to excuse Kevin for getting indirectly involved in politics, but not David.

Where are you reading "excuses", Jimbo? It's exactly that kind of bias or filling in the blanks which is way more interesting to expose in any supposed thinkers. As for Kevin, I reject the endless gossiping about what exactly he might have said or how. When I try to find any political statement online, I cannot find much bad for anyone's reputation so far. That's the reason I find it ironic: the amount of people knowing the possible connection between Trump and Kevin has been seriously multiplied by this very discussion, damaging even more "reputations"!

By the way, I was the one starting discussing Trump on this forum last year during the election process. Which attracted exactly one person. It was interesting and balanced enough, all what has been written there. The fact that everyone is now here getting wound up has little to do with wanting to discuss thoughtfully the issues of Trump or visiting the forum for its content (you'll notice there doesn't seem much interest to do so, like with yourself). People have gathered now because of what is I believe the "show" of a somewhat aggressive dishing of the forum owner, on his own forum, in absentia, and all the division which followed from there. It's a bit womanish move altogether so it's interesting to see if there are more feminine elements creeping in when challenging it.

And I think they did and you'd be wise to study it. That's to me the main value of this thread right now. If you think that I really am questioning if human beings should have political opinions of not, then you're a bit of an idiot or would have immense reading problems. So I'll ignore it. The question was rhetorical or when taken literally: a bit more complex. If philosophers would have political views, and all the ethics and morality connected to how one sees the economy, political correctness, the rights of citizens, war, the ability of politicians to be direct and truthful and so on, can they somehow be derived from a basic, rational principle? And my take on that should be clear by now: life is messy, society is fundamentally irrational, geopolitics is complex. At every turn, you'll find unintended effects. Which has shaped my opinion that while analysis is fine, a position might be necessary but truth remains illusive. For that reason alone (I always thought) the main section of the forum was about enlightenment, sometimes the personal struggle or choices, psychology which one can experience and encounter and so on. There's wisdom in focussing on universal truth or human scale spirit and not on endlessly divisive, theological topics. It's a fundamental thing to me. By turning this around now, what David and Dan appear to have done, I find highly questionable. And I believe they might have become more emotional with age and are not yet able to see it.

We’ve all seen what this can do with Hitler and others.

Marching boots! Camps! Bombing cities. The lowest of humanity in power, exercising increasingly desperately, genocidal policy. What could be rationally defended to be exactly the state of certain Middle East countries, spilling over in Europe and elsewhere, arguably, as results of the last two US government. That's why I think it's definitely unreasonable or at least slightly ignorant to play the Hitler card now, after the last fifteen years of carnage engaged or enabled elsewhere by what's basically a war machine.

Personally I like the fact that they have some interest or concern about worldly matters – it more or less demonstrates to me that enlightenment is not anything more than training the brain to think more accurately. Wish there was a lot more of it from philosophers - such training should be put to use when the need arises.

I've been way more active in the Wordly Matters section of this forum (not to mention elsewhere) than Kevin and David combined.

I fail to see how being a stoic Kierkegaard type is a good thing – it may be good for the hard journey up the mountain, but surely one can relax as one goes down the other side.

Whatever you mean with that exactly, it's not philosophy. It doesn't sound even like any realistic psychology.

[jupiviv]

See what you and David have done? I hope you're happy...

get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all

This thread is quite the fiasco, isn't it? Who of us, after 14 pages going nowhere, has the most accurate image of worldly matters?

I won't just roll over for an impasse after 14 pages of dealing with annoying bullshit and obtuseness - both about the issue under discussion and my stance on that issue - from our beloved founders.

David responding to me on page 2:

DQ: Trump is trying to pretend there is no difference between Putin’s regime and normal US governing because he aims to turn America into a Putin-like state.

J: The ills of the US government pointed out by Trump aren't lies or pretense. This doesn't mean that Trump is wise and good. Trump is a hypocrite, but so are his opponents.

That is certainly what Trump wants us to think.

The cleverness of Trump lies not in what he is criticising but in what he *isn't*. And frankly it isn't even that clever because politicians have always criticised only those problems that make them look relevant while ignoring those that don't.

If you want to forecast what Trump's or any other politician's regime will look like, concentrate on the issues he ignores. For example, Trump changed his tune about the stock market being a bubble the moment he assumed office. Indeed, that Trump is taking credit for the stock market bubble proves beyond a doubt how incompetent and stupid he is. When the stock market goes down, everyone will be tearfully remembering the awesome stock market Obongo left behind and which Trump ruined.

“Obongo”. There is that hatred again.

According to David, the ills of the US government which I pointed out are what Trump wants us to think. Also, David interpreted my clearly stated opinion about Trump's idiocy and incompetence as hatred, either towards things in general or the "liberal establishment" in particular, because I said "Obongo" instead of "Obama".

David's last post on this thread, in response to 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.

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.

Here, David suddenly realises the merit in the exact same point which I made 10 pages ago.

[Santiago Odo]

From my perspective, as one who has always noticed a ridiculous and postured 'sage' stance among the 'geniuses', it is very relevant and interesting to be concerned and curious about Kevin's political positions insofar as he is said to be the Founder of this forum and he gave impetous to all that has occurred by initiating it.

From any perspective, a radical, reformist religious movement like that initiated by Kevin, is a 'conversation' with general culture and is a set of ideas and principles which are articulated and offered as a contribution to social and cultural processes, or a critique of them. But it is impossible that there is no relationship, that the fact of 'relationship' between a citizen and surrounding culture cannot be denied nor should it be.

There is really no 'spiritual life' independent and unrelated to the cultural life of a people. This is one reason why the pretentiousness of the assertions of Kevin & Co., the rather arrogant distancing from all others and a contrived attitude of superiority, and all the silly self-declarations that accrete around this false declaration of sagacity and genius, invite a thorough critique. And now, some years on, it is the inevitable time of revision.

What have these people done? In what way have they contributed to their social matrix? In what way have they contributed even to higher ideation? In what ways has their influence actually worked to reform society (as was their intention) but more especially any of those who came to the 'philosophy' and came under its spell as it were? Most will recognize the type: the arrogant bratty snot who takes 'the philosophy' as a method of self-justification for a pretentious posture, but few seem interested in exploring if this stance is really creative and valuable and productive, or if it leads to what, from my perspective at least, looks like an elaborate trap in which some people seem to get snared.

Talking about that 'trap', if such a thing exists and is real, and talking in depth about any sort of existential platform and position --- the outcome of philosophical musing and self-interrogation --- is entirely good and also necessary. Similarly, it is of vital interest to observe and take notes about those areas where the Sage's existential ideas are translated, in one way or another, into policy choices. While I accept that it is possible for a person to live in relative isolation and silence and conduct their spiritual life, whatever it may be, I do observe that when that spiritual or philosophical platform actively seeks recruits; seeks to bring them into a fold, scold them, 'haze' them, train them up in idea but moreover in *attitude*, at that point it has become, essentially, political in the Greek sense.

The most interesting aspect of this recent event was on one hand that The Sages return to make an appearance. 'Back in the saddle' as David put it. Side-saddle on the Golden Calf perhaps but not really a bucking bronco. I discovered that David did not really like what he saw, and that in itself is very interesting. That Kevin remains aloof is certainly interesting. But the more interesting thing, really, is simply to stand back and observe how these fellows connect and relate to 'their world'.

What has happened 'in the world' and what is now on-going is something that seems related to the intentions of these blokes. I mean, if one sees what they initiated as an aspect of a Revolt Against the Modern. That is interesting in and of itself. Their 'spiritual' position (or whatever one would call it) is a form of conservatism overall. Could it be otherwise? It is a platform that calls for a radical reassessment of the self's use and relationship with the self (if I can put it in that way). It is said to foster a sober and prolonged look at onself and into oneself and this can only lead to sober and serious choices. Conservatism in a nutshell.

Yet how curious it is that David comes out with a discourse that is nearly completely aligned with the general Liberal Culture which dominates most of European culture and its outposts! But wait! I thought 'Genius' was a radical stance against *all that*? And though it is speculation, and we only have some reference to some dark ivolvement with 'Breitbart' and some purported 'support' for Trump's policies, the possibility that Kevin may be involving himself in the traditionalism and deep-conservatism that stands behind Trump and Bannon and the Nouvelle Droite movement in Europe, it is an intriguing issue!

The real point is that a man's philosophical and spiritual position must find and must seek out a relationship with other people and 'the world'. It is necessary that it do this. But in doing that, that man will have to confront everything about the human world. It is one thing to come to a decision after reading the Tao Te Ching that 'I think I will become a sage' and to do that, and quite another to enter the fray of Western culture in this decadent, hyper-modern phase, and propose to initiate a reform-movement. And this is what Genius Forum really was right from the start.

What I came to notice is that these men, unfortunately for them really, were not and are not in any sense adequate to the task. That has to be stated again and again and again. In this they have revealed themselves as near-total failures. If you really want to gain knowledge, if you really want to have understanding, if you really want to make use of a 10 year+ adventure, then this needs to be brought out into the open, discussed, understood and interiorized. On that basis then the adventure will not have been in vain, don't you see? The failure is part of the process of coming to a more grounded realization, and then of becoming competent to influence others and to influence culture.

Once one has penetrated, with some clarity, the absolute pretentiousness of the Pose of 'the Sage' with all his self-elevation and self-worship, his vast condemnations of all others, and a whole nest of absurd declarations, there is really not too much more work to do except to attempt to clarify, inside of oneself, and in relation to the life one has to live, what really has value and what gives purpose.

It also has to be stated --- I do this as a public service! --- that the forum passed out of Kevin's hands (and out of the two Ds) and was bequeathed to Diebert, and now it is Diebert's philosophical project. This led to all sorts of purgings and such and so many that were a part of this forum-process are no longer seen. This 'purge' needs to be addressed and understood becuase it is vitally relevant. In my view this places a great deal of emphasis on Diebert himself, and Diebert has a specific background which can be looked into and understood, and a particular philosophical and existential stance which defines his own relationship to Europe.

The emphasis here is, of course, on Europe. And that is where the emphasis should be. But with this in mind one must then turn to the *events of Europe* and the culture-wide conservative movement which is developing. Thus, the Alt-Right and the Nouvelle Droite and all of the upset and turmoil which swirls in *our world* now takes on a different importance. And what we do, think, say and teach also has relevance and importance.

I asked myself: Now what's going to happen? What will 'being back in the saddle' mean? What relationship do these founders have to the forum? What is their project now? Will it all fall apart? Will there occur again as always has happened that the denizens turn against each other and brand each other Female Heretics and begin that whole series of bizarre games all over again.

There is a book that has been important in American conservatism called 'The Road to Serfdom'. It is a statement which asserts that this is, or perhaps will be, the process that is occurring within European culture (I take America as an extension of Europe). Hyper-Liberalism seems to embody it, in my view. I wrote the following in anotebook thinking about David as I mused on Russell's attempts to 'go on welfare' (sorry it didn't work out but keep trying m'boy!):

• But with David it is the Serf who has self-defined his serfdom by voluntarily giving-over his free will, his creative, organizing power of will, relinquishing hiself into volunteered serfdom, which then allows a more general 'philosophy to accrete around it, not of responsibility but at a basic level of irresponsibility. Such a 'philsophy' does not then have much to do with freedom, the object of Occidental processes. Rather it enmeshes one in non-freedom.

What final statement must one make here? What is the final message?

Suite à la prochaine, mes cheres ....

[jimhaz]

If philosophers would have political views, and all the ethics and morality connected to how one sees the economy, political correctness, the rights of citizens, war, the ability of politicians to be direct and truthful and so on, can they somehow be derived from a basic, rational principle?

And my take on that should be clear by now: life is messy, society is fundamentally irrational, geopolitics is complex. At every turn, you'll find unintended effects. Which has shaped my opinion that while analysis is fine, a position might be necessary but truth remains illusive.

Perhaps the only truth is that of evolution. I mean it is impossible to know the truth of whether one action or another is ultimately for the betterment of the human race or not. The one thing I do know though is that we have to evolve our technology much much further to allow our strain of life to continue on its path to godliness (power over the universe to continue indefinitely) – we have no protection from the most severe events the world has experienced in the past.

For that reason alone (I always thought) the main section of the forum was about enlightenment, sometimes the personal struggle or choices, psychology which one can experience and encounter and so on. There's wisdom in focussing on universal truth or human scale spirit and not on endlessly divisive, theological topics. It's a fundamental thing to me. By turning this around now, what David and Dan appear to have done, I find highly questionable. And I believe they might have become more emotional with age and are not yet able to see it.

I don’t think you are wrong. In so far as enlightenment is possible it can only do so when the circumstances are optimal for that form of consciousness to arise. However, one would expect that form of consciousness to easily be reinstated when considering a significant social issue.
Never having considered myself enlightened, I’m afraid it is not something I’m qualified to make a determination about, though I’ve always had grave doubts about the concept. I came to see it as more of a change of the form of ones ego, and therefore one’s emotional activity, rather than a freedom from being a being of ego and emotionless.

For me enlightenment manifests more of a flattening of the ego than a decrease in potential ego. The path to enlightenment is one of forming the crude masculine ego into a sword of masculinity to pierce into reality, which is then hammered flat by the blows of truths of reality. A flat ego is a feminine ego, though in a positive form - it spreads itself out past the self and envelops reality. Enlightenment is post masculinity, unless a need arises, in which case it can then call upon the emotions to re-masculinise as it wishes. Pretty low maintenance though – yes aging means less testosterone, so us oldies don’t wish to do much.

For David, “Kevin and Trump” is probably just an overflow effect. The mountain underneath it is the whole issue of people’s judgement of character and therefore the loss of character in people as well. It is a significant issue. Lol, how can one be immortal if circumstances cease for enlightenment to arise.

Seriously though, this judgment of character issue is one I do sympathise with. It demonstrates a lack of bodhisattva to accept bad characters as acceptable leaders, just because they might be catalysts for some other end result that is desired. Sometimes this is justifiable, for reasons of being pragmatic, where the choice is between two devils with limited impact, but one still should choose the person/party with the least worst character.

With Trump there was little need to go into much detail. Even from one viewing, his character is so clearly anti-sagelike, so crude, so shallow that he needs to be rejected outright. He is a role model, an advertisement, to the world that it pays to use false arguments and logic, blatant lies, and duress like tactics, to be successful.
It is too significant for his election to just be an academic consideration. Any success he might have, and I’m not seeing anything intelligent, will be the sort that does not last as it was not built on a basis of truthful arguments.

Perhaps I’m wrong and Trump will provide the environment, in much quicker time than otherwise, for a fully fledged assault against the machinations of the rich - from the centre, not the nazi poles.

[Pam Seeback]

That's the best response possible to posts of two women who are starting here in the middle of feeble male attempts to get to the bottom of the question if philosophers should have a political opinion at all, to delve into the intrigues of Gnostic thought or the fascinating quality of theological writing (like poetry) to mirror any willed message back to you as affirmation. Yawn.

Diebert, perhaps spirituality for you, and perhaps all the men here goes not further than the discursive opining intellect, but for me (I can't speak for Alex) spirituality uses the intellect to express an actual transformative experience from the world of opinion (relativism) to total realization of the absolute. To reduce the reality of our worlds by putting them into pat little boxes of your choice speaks more to the limitations (and anger) of the 'masculine' reasoning intellect than anything else could.

A little dancing in the forest might just be the medicine you need.

[Santiago Odo]

I have never subscribed, and I do not think I ever will, to the more or less typical or standard 'masculine' pose which is, in my humble view, a terrible defect.

However, I do not think that the underpinnings (in Weininger for example) of the terms of this discussion can or should be dismissed. I think they should be expanded. At the same time, to understand men and women and what these definitions and roles mean, is a project that requires a good deal of time, sensitivity and intelligence. I think that one can draw an ideal picture of 'the man' and also one of 'the woman'. Gertrude von le Fort for example has written a very interesting book on woman as 'symbol', but she is out of the old Catholic school. To define what a *man* is, or should be, is of vital interest to me as it should be for all. It is a crucial question. The topic is hardly touched on when pose is the main emphasis.

I am completely certain that on this thread, and in this forum, the Primary Suspects play mind games between themselves, and within forum conversations, where the labels 'masculine' and 'feminine' are used as weapons. For example, though it does not need to be accentuated much, Jupi who seems to have fairly profound issues that revolve around his sexual self and being, has taken up the GF attack-terms and shown how they can be used. It is simply a mode that has become part-and-parcel of the forum as a sort of psychological constituent. Until it is seen through and understood it will keep coming up in the exact same way (with minor modifications befitting the context).

What is interesting, and what can be discussed fruitfully, is the nature of these men's incapacity to have relationships, and certainly to have relationships with women. The model is, I suppose, Kierkegaard's rejection of Regine (...). On one hand, it is true, some active men have avoided marriage and for good reasons, but there is another aspect of the question, and that is when it happens that men cannot have relationships and, in fact, do not even form relationships with other men. It seems to me that this is some part of evidence of an issue or problem that becomes buttressed with all sorts of other levels of pose.

I make these comments because I force myself when I encounter certain unconscious and unstated aspects of people within this forum, and I always force myself to say what seems to be the wrong or the inappropriate thing. This for me is part of a realization I had which has proven useful. What these fellows reject, and 'protest (against) too much', is likely something or an area within the Self that needs attention. I do notice that Diebert, just above, was very quick to make a somewhat harsh statement, designed as a stab, against you as a woman and then (grave insult...) of me as womanly because ... well, you'd be hard pressed to really get to the bottom of what Diebert's issue is or what he means. But, to do so would be fruitful for a greater understanding.

Diebert grew up in and was significantly informed by a definite Pauline Christian training. Yet he sees himself, which is likely true, as having grown out of it and thus to remain in such 'ignorance' as, say, a practiced Christianity, makes him feel queasy. I choose this word with some care. It has to do with a revulsion for what, in fact, informed him and what is, in fact, a part of him. But you see Europe is essentially a Christian accomplishment, and there is no way now, and there will likely never be a way, to divest our selves of these precedents. The fact that I described what I understand to be not my own but every man's existential situation (awareness in a body and the body as a filter of human being) rubbed Diebert the wrong way and made him uncomfortable. He has always been uncomfortable with you, though he tolerates you, and would rather there be no 'biological females' in the forum.

It is all very peculiar and, as I have always said, there are large and wide psychological undercurrents. This is normal as far as I am concerned. We are beings that exist within a very subjective matrix and what we are, in my view, is essentially psychological being.

It must be said, because it is true indeed, that Diebert has very definite and ideological notions of what 'spirituality' is or should be. Actually, in this sense, he is something of an ideologue. It is important to understand this.

I am fairly sure that my relationship to these things (for example 'Pauline Christianity') is somewhat different than yours, at least here on the forum, because I am vitally interested in understanding Christianity as a primary influence on European life. Without it, you cannot understand much of anything. I think your relationship, as expressed in the forum, is different (and I won't attempt to define it). Obviously though you do combine better than I do if only insofar as you can and do use terms like 'the absolute'.

To reduce the reality of our worlds by putting them into pat little boxes of your choice speaks more to the limitations (and anger) of the 'masculine' reasoning intellect than anything else could.

This is good because it does point to and makes one notice the 'angry' aspect. It is really important to understand this factor in the context of the general GF position as a reform movement, but also as a group of persons struggling with and at times against their own selves. In my view, that can be undertaken honestly and it can also be undertaken dishonestly. Again, in my own view, I notice a certain amount of dishonesty in some people's approach.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, perhaps spirituality for you, and perhaps all the men here goes not further than the discursive opining intellect, but for me spirituality uses the intellect to express an actual transformative experience from the world of opinion (relativism) to total realization of the absolute.

You should not assume that others are using intellect in "lesser" lofty ways just because you are disagreeing or feel challenged or irritated by it.

To reduce the reality of our worlds by putting them into pat little boxes of your choice speaks more to the limitations (and anger) of the 'masculine' reasoning intellect than anything else could.

All words are pat little boxes of ones choice, Pam. There's no more or less "boxed reality" lurking in anyone's phrasing anywhere, no matter the style, anger or intention. Perhaps you should get more into touch with your own anger and indignation. That way you'll pick it up way less from others.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perhaps the only truth is that of evolution.

It's an interesting topic. Apart from change being a fundamental driver here, evolution shows a particular direction in the sense that the arrow goes in one direction only. But I don't mean necessary bigger or more complex, or more fit or even "evolved" (that's debatable on the larger scales). But at the genetic level the mutations and changes behave as they're "one way" only. A bit like time or entropy.

For me enlightenment manifests more of a flattening of the ego than a decrease in potential ego. The path to enlightenment is one of forming the crude masculine ego into a sword of masculinity to pierce into reality, which is then hammered flat by the blows of truths of reality. A flat ego is a feminine ego, though in a positive form - it spreads itself out past the self and envelops reality. Enlightenment is post masculinity, unless a need arises, in which case it can then call upon the emotions to re-masculinise as it wishes. Pretty low maintenance though – yes aging means less testosterone, so us oldies don’t wish to do much.

Actually I do not disagree with the gist of that. You might dream a bit too much though about the retirement stage. For me it's all transpersonal, bigger than all human relativism. If giant enlightened aliens wipe out the human race tomorrow for whatever rationality involved, nothing at all is lost. Nothing really will be changed in the great unfolding reality of nature. If a stupid space rock would do it, idem dito. If ones mind doesn''t dwell at the very least at that scale (and I used crude examples) what would be enlightened about it?

It demonstrates a lack of bodhisattva to accept bad characters as acceptable leaders, just because they might be catalysts for some other end result that is desired. Sometimes this is justifiable, for reasons of being pragmatic, where the choice is between two devils with limited impact, but one still should choose the person/party with the least worst character.

If they are seen as catalyst for the desired result, it means they have the right character for the purpose. Do you think the characters you are thinking of as "good" could come anywhere near a few % approval rate in the primaries? In the end people go with the familiar I suppose. I know I can probably better relate as human being to Hillary or Bill Clinton. But that doesn't mean that I should prefer them just because I'm comfortable personally.

With Trump there was little need to go into much detail. Even from one viewing, his character is so clearly anti-sagelike, so crude, so shallow that he needs to be rejected outright. He is a role model, an advertisement, to the world that it pays to use false arguments and logic, blatant lies, and duress like tactics, to be successful.

But if ones purpose is to learn about ones own self, and the nature of our society, no better character on display could be wished for! Yes perhaps I see him in the end as more human than most other candidates in the running.

Perhaps I’m wrong and Trump will provide the environment, in much quicker time than otherwise, for a fully fledged assault against the machinations of the rich - from the centre, not the nazi poles.

Do you have problem with the rich? Why not fearing the poor instead?

[Russell Parr]

Lest we all forget, the only reason we have these websites and forums is due to the utter and outright dedication to wisdom by the founders. To really know what's going on these days in this rapidly changing world takes a lot of time surfing and reading around the internet, including the tedious task of sorting through all the BS. This is something the rest of us, including Kevin it seems, are far more interested in than David and Dan. For them to be somewhat out of the loop, or duped by the propaganda, is entirely forgivable.

The easiest, obvious, and most accessible source for world news is the MSM. If one relies solely on mainstream sources for information, as is the case with most people, confusion and chaos would indeed be the only reasonable explanation to the current state of things. Every TV channel was virtually demonizing Trump from the onset and religiously projected his loss nearly the entire time leading up to the election. Only the most attentive of us knew he had a chance. I'll never forget watching the NYT's election forecast chart swap from almost entirely in Clinton's favor to Trump's as the night went on, to all the commentators great surprise and horror.

As far as I can tell, the main crux of this thread is to call out Kevin for what David sees as a lack of focus. Those of us that have been around long enough have seen this before. As it so happens, Kevin's so called involvements isn't as ill-advised as David projected it to be. Clearly David has backed off of this stance to some degree, it just took a little persuasion from others. And Jup, the reason David or anyone would hesitate to change their mind on the account of you is because you can indeed come off as quite impudent, as David pointed out in his first response to you.

Anyway, I'm going to unstick this thread (if I can figure out how...). I'm tempted to move it to Worldly Matters but I think there's enough valuable content here to keep it here. David already gave me the OK to do what I want with it early on.

[Kevin Solway]

Today I was told by Jupta about the existence of this post, which contains countless untruths. I will deal with them now.

David Quinn wrote:

Kevin Solway has given himself entirely over to the Breitbart worldview

I have no idea what the "Breitbart worldview" is, and I certainly can't "give myself entirely over" to something that I don't even know what it is.

From what I can tell, Breitbart is opposed to many of the positions currently being taken by the Left. And I too, am currently opposed to many of the positions currently being taken by the Left, mainly because of my opposition to the SJWs (the "Social Justice Warriors"), including the feminists, postmodernists, marxists, etc.

endorses Trump’s presidency.

Given a choice between Trump and Clinton, I personally favour Trump, for the above reason. As far as I can tell, Trump is strongly opposed to the views of the SJWs, and to that extent, I support him.

I consider the Breitbart site to be a sick joke.

While David is entitled to his opinion, I personally think the Breitbart site - while it has many flaws - and in its current state, ranks very favourably when compared to the mainstream "fake news" media when it comes to reporting the truth.

He believes that Trump is so far doing a fine job

Insofar as Trump is a spanner-in-the-works for the SJWs and the mainstream media, I do indeed think Trump is doing a fine job. I don't agree with his ideas on the environment, and I'm indifferent to his views on immigration. I agree with his opposition to radical Islam. And I agree with his opposition to the "fake news" mainstream media.

I knew for sure that Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of America, with the aim of installing a police state.

In reality David doesn't know this "for sure". David is merely speculating.

Many people voted for Trump because they want to combat the rampant authoritarianism of the SJWs and feminists. They voted for Trump because they want freedom of speech.

Everything he has done since has only added weight to this conclusion.

I believe this is a case of confirmation bias.

Trump also promises to sweep away the evil feminists and social justice warriors. For it seems they are the ones who constitute the biggest threat to humanity.

As far as I know, Trump has never promised to sweep away the evil feminists and social justice warriors, but he and his supporters are definitely a formidable force against them. And that is a good thing.

In my view the authoritarian left, supported by the the fake mainstream media, is a serious threat to individual freedom and thus to civilization. I don't particularly care whether David and Dan agree with me or not. I have to follow my conscience.

P.S. I agree with Diebert's observation - if I'm not mistaken - that real-world political preferences are not an absolute philosophy, and in the world of pure logic, but, like science, rest on inherently uncertain perceptions of the physical world.

[Dan Rowden]

Kevin wrote:

I don't agree with his [Trump's] ideas on the environment

That's it? Mere disagreement? I suppose the strength of your reaction is your prerogative but I would have expected something stronger than this. This Administration is openly hostile to the EPA and is stripping its funding, has installed a man to oversee it who is dedicated to its destruction. They are also stripping the funding of NOAA, whose scientists hastily and desperately sought to archive climate change data to protect it from this incoming Administration. Seems they were entirely right to do so. There's a slew of climate change deniers in this Cabinet.

This White House represents a full on assault against the environment and against regulations enforcing Corporate transparency and responsibility. Nothing less. It is also emblematic of the broader agenda of this regime. It is not simply 'the environment'.

This isn't just something to disagree about; it is something to fear. At least, for Americans who'll suffer the effects more directly.

[Kevin Solway]

Without this topic hardly anyone might have known of the link between Kevin and alt-right!

What is the "alt-right"?

Also, what do you mean by "linked"?

If you can tell me what you mean by "alt-right" and "linked" then I can tell you whether I am "linked" to it.

David is using many logical fallacies. Firstly, it is not at all meaningful to suggest that things are "linked", since all things in the Universe are linked. And secondly, guilt by association is a fallacy.

For example, if you are linked to Pewdiepie, by your "liking" one of his videos, and the Wall Street Journal has linked Pewdiepie to Hitler (which they believe they have done), it doesn't logically follow that you are guilty of all the bad things that Hitler may have done.

If this topic explores the nature of logical fallacies it will be more interesting than exploring politics.

[Kevin Solway]

[environmental policies] . . . it is something to fear.

As a businessman, Trump is trying to be more competitive with China, which has relatively few environmental regulations. The reason I don't "fear" Trump's political policies is because if people don't like what he is doing then they can vote him out at the next election. That's how democracy works. Democracy is far from perfect, but I think it's the best system we currently have, is it not?

I don't believe that the way of the authoritarian left, which is to shame people, to insult them, to get people sacked from their jobs, to smear them, to silence them, to physically attack them, to wish them dead, etc, is the way forward. In a democracy you need to be able to put forward your argument and try to convince people - crazy though that might be. There are no short-cuts so long as we still have democracy.

[Dan Rowden]

Seems to me citing the guilt by association fallacy is to indulge in a strawman fallacy, as no-one I'm aware of is drawing a precise guilt by association conclusion. The problem, as I see it, if we're deconstructing it in a logical sense, is that of a type of composition fallacy, which runs along the lines of deciding someone isn't all that bad because they've said one thing you can agree with or that they appear to have one view of goal or agenda in common with you, even if everything else about them is bad.

As I've said before, it's a mistake, in my view, to adopt a positive mindset to a group of people on the basis of a, 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' approach. Trump, Bannon, Brietbart and the whole pack of Xian Fascist Kleptocrats that now control the White House and Congress are not the friends of reason or sanity and not any kind of remedy to the ills of contemporary Intersectional Feminism and hysterical aspects of the Social Justice movement.

You don't put out a fire by throwing petrol on it and this is what Trump represents. You don't get yourself a rabid pit bull terrier to guard yourself against the 'nasty' folk out there. You don't fix broken aspects of a Liberal Democracy by installing a Fascist Kleptocracy that appears, superficially, to share some small part of your personal agenda.

Personally, I'm relieved Clinton lost. She was a horrible Democrat candidate, but I can find nothing positive, no solace in the fact that her defeat meant Trump's victory. I would have much preferred the old Commie Sanders, but the DNC and certain media outlets decided that wasn't to be.

Yes, by all means let's engage in Bannon's 'deconstruction' of the establishment, the administration, the Government because, you know, there are parts of that that we're finding problematic. But then, when the Xian Fascist Libertarian Kleptocrats take away your American citizenship because you're an atheist, I guess you can find comfort in the knowledge that some dumbarse SJW somewhere is crying like a girl.

[Dan Rowden]

[environmental policies] . . . it is something to fear.

As a businessman, Trump is trying to be more competitive with China, which has relatively few environmental regulations.

Are you seriously making an argument for the sacrificing of the environment for the sake of the economy? But I guess you're right, Trump is trying to help his Nation be more competitive with China, as a businessman, ostensibly by having almost all the products across his multifarious business empire produced in China, Bangladesh, Honduras, Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico etc etc. About 4 items are made in the USA. America first, right.

The reason I don't "fear" Trump's political policies is because if people don't like what he is doing then they can vote him out at the next election. That's how democracy works. Democracy is far from perfect, but I think it's the best system we currently have, is it not?

What you say is technically true but grossly naive. You do realise, surely, how the Republican States are steadily introducing various voter suppression methods which will all be ignored by this Federal Administration? A lot of irreversible damage can be wrought in 4 years and a great deal of electoral chicanery and gerrymandering. In this current political paradigm I have to say I find invocations of 'democracy' to be a tad trite.

[Kevin Solway]

no-one I'm aware of is drawing a precise guilt by association conclusion.

If person A accuses person B of being "linked to the alt-right" then it certainly sounds like an accusation of guilt by association - if person A regards "alt-right" to be a bad thing - and David definitely regards the "alt-right" to be a bad thing - whatever it is.

deciding someone isn't all that bad because they've said one thing you can agree with or that they appear to have one view of goal or agenda in common with you

In my view Trump isn't all that bad, because I think he's just an ordinary person. There are both good and bad things about him. He's no philosopher, and he's no monster. He's a businessman. That's all.

Trump, Bannon, Brietbart and the whole pack of Xian Fascist. . .

To my eyes, there's nothing obviously Christian about the Breitbart website.

And I don't think it's accurate to describe the Trump administration as "Fascist" when they have been democratically elected, and can be democratically un-elected. In my view, the authoritarian left are the fascists.

not any kind of remedy to the ills of contemporary Intersectional Feminism and hysterical aspects of the Social Justice movement.

I agree that the election of Trump is not a "remedy", but it's certainly a shot in the arm (of an antiviral).

We can debate for ever about all the pros and cons, but it really comes down to personal opinion. There's no absolute, purely philosophical, unquestionable, answer to the issue. Different people have different priorities. If there was an absolute, purely logical answer for political problems, then there would be no need for democracy.

[Kevin Solway]

Are you seriously making an argument for the sacrificing of the environment for the sake of the economy?

No, I'm suggesting that that's why Trump is doing what he's doing. As a businessman he would reason that if it were cheaper to produce products in the U.S then more products would be produced in the U.S. I've already said that I don't agree with Trump's ideas on the environment.

A lot of irreversible damage can be wrought in 4 years and a great deal of electoral chicanery and gerrymandering.

So do you want to reduce the political term to, say, 2 years? A lot of experts believe that 4 years is too short a period for political office. One alternative is to get rid of democracy altogether, and that's the sentiment I see coming from the authoritarian left, and which I strongly oppose.

[Dan Rowden]

Kevin,

In my view Trump isn't all that bad, because I think he's just an ordinary person. There are both good and bad things about him. He's no philosopher, and he's no monster. He's a businessman. That's all.

He's the President of the United Sates of America. There's nothing 'that's all' about that fact.

[Kevin Solway]

He's the President of the United Sates of America.

Yes, and the people put him in that position through their democratic choice. Trump is not an alien from another planet who forced his way onto the earth in order to dominate it. America has a tradition of putting fairly ordinary people into the seat of president because they believe that the person represents them.

By contrast, the people do not feel that the mainstream media, and the hundreds of celebrities and social science professors who rail against Trump, to be representing them.

[Dan Rowden]

Most of those sentiments applied to Hitler also. What does it mean to invoke numbers, Kevin? How is this not an ad numerum fallacy? Saying that Trump was democratically elected [despite losing the popular vote 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%) if you want to care about numbers] says nothing about who he really is or his (and his cabinet's) agenda. Hitler was democratically elected by people who thought he was representing them. Such an observation is literally meaningless. That Trump was democratically elected in no way legitimises him.

'We'll drain the swamp!' he vaingloriously declared, to thunderous cheers, then went about creating a kleptocrat peat bog the likes of which we've never seen before. Trump no more represents the actual concerns of the Americans that voted for him (the rich excepted) than One Nation does here.