Then you are departing from the common meaning of “fascism”. Normally in a fascist state when an individual opposes the state-run narrative, he is incarcerated or even killed. In contrast, in this day and age of internet freedom, the only punishment dished out for rejecting the state-run narrative is the bother of having to some up with another narrative to follow. It is disingenuous to apply the term “fascism" here, as it implies an underlying menace which doesn’t really exist.David Quinn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:20 amWhat is not to get? When the mass-broadcasting of information, policy-making and interpretation of events are monopolised by a few people, there is fascism. That also applies to practical/technical fields like medicine to the extent people in general don't understand and cannot control how it affects their lives. Fascism as I define it isn't necessarily morbid or unpleasant.
This was never written as a political treatise. It was simply an examination of the psychology of the sexes, written for the purpose of helping men to free up their minds from the sexual and emotional power of women. It pushed forward no political claims.jupiviv wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:51 pmYou dun goofed.David Quinn in 'W-.-O-.-M-.-A-.-N - an exposition for the advanced mind' wrote:Observations on the Modern Situation
1.
The history of the sexes has always been one of mutual tyranny. The evolution of patriarchal institutions was the male response to the oppression he suffered under woman. An equilibrium was reached, with power being spread evenly between the sexes.
Now, woman has no intention of giving up her own power but is requiring man to shed his. The end result of this will be a tyranny so complete it would have Stalin turning in his grave, cursing that he had been born both a male and a century too soon.
4.
Modern Spiritual Wisdom [SJWs in the alt-right idiom, postmodernism in both your own and alt-right idiom--jupiviv] preaches: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go.
Modern Neo-Nazis [or "neomodern postmarxists" as the sage-professor Jordan Peterson would call them--jupiviv] preach: trust your emotions, allow them to be expressed spontaneously; free yourself from the rigidity of logic; listen to your deeper feelings and desires; reach out to somebody and make contact; let yourself go.
6.
What does the modern woman want? An egalitarian society? A society of individuals, each of unique worth, where gender is irrelevant? I, for one, would whole-heartedly welcome such a society. But - and this is no mere trifle - it would need individuals[the (selective) respect for which is the putative bedrock of alt-right philosophy--jupiviv] to comprise it.
7.
Women do not want to be individuals, they want to be - women! In fact, the role of woman has evolved precisely to minimize any genuine individuality. Conflict, a something fundamentally different from the norm, an intense and sustained suffering, a conquering and striving for lofty impersonal ideals - these are the qualities of an individual, qualities which woman regards as aberrations of character. She hates the individual, who necessarily undermines her world. She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a non-entity.
[Etc. --jupiviv]
In Wisdom of the Infinite I described the limitations of science with respect to philosophic understanding. This didn't mean that I was calling for the practice of science to be banned.
Your insertions of “explanation” into my words above are also misleading. In point 4, for example, I was highlighting the psychological overlap between feminine New Age folk and hardcore right-wing neo-Nazis. It had nothing to do with SJWs and cultural marxists.
And can I just say, Jordan Peterson is a joke. Driven by anger, very limited in his thinking, and very dishonest when it comes to identity politics. His following (of, mainly, gullible young men) is the perfect example of a mindless alt-right herd who like to preen themselves that they are “individuals”.
Again, you grossly misunderstand what the Woman essays were about.jupiviv wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:51 pmWhat really had (and has) to be done about Kevin's perceived betrayal of that world-renowned Genius philosophy is a thorough revision of said philosophy within yourself. At the very least, a clarification of those parts of it which seem to fit the alt-right/anti-SJW/anti-feminist paradigm so very well! For example, in no. 7 above, the contrast between an individuality of "lofty impersonal ideals" and an idyllic notion of femininity which is simultaneously attractive and dangerous/disquieting to the lone rebel thinker.
In principle, I have nothing against criticizing feminists and opposing their most outlandish demands. I just don't agree with the motivations and methods of the current alt-right movement. Its leaders are too mediocre and dishonest, and its followers are too passive and worshipful. The whole thing lacks intelligence and purity. It is indistinguishable from a cult.