Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Do you think Trump clings to the past glory of America like he says?

Yes. Because it would serve him best to return America to the 1950s, pre-hippie days, where racism, homophobia, and misogyny were acceptable. Where he could grab women by the pussy and they couldn't do anything about it.

Trump has no consistent ideological position other than what would best serve him.

Leftism doesn't serve Trump because it requires empathy, care, and fairness for others.

Trump is incapable of being seriously conservative simply because he cannot control his own behavior and he is driven too much by lust and greed. Being truly conservative requires disciplining your own behavior. Which many so-called conservatives are incapable of doing.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Perniciousness as a function is inversely related with spiral development. Especially the unhealthier versions of each spiral stage.

Again, you are asserting a false causality between stages of development and moral terms (which, if I were to be maximally polemic, I could describe as stage purple magical thinking).

You would agree that a very intelligent psychopath can cause more havoc than a very unintelligent one, wouldn't you? In the same sense, capitalism, operating through relativism, pluralism, etc., is much more insidious than the plain old industrial-era capitalism, where the factory worker has a clear image of this capitalism (e.g. factories, bourgeois capitalists).

Today's capitalism is so decentralized and nebulous that most people don't even realize they are enslaved by it and, at best, can concoct some conspiracy theories to imagine where the center of oppression lies (e.g. deep state/elites, silicon valley, etc.), which is nothing but a coping strategy for the radically fluid and faceless reality of capitalism and the market forces that dominate their lives today.

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Most of the things you were talking about in your previous post are great examples of toxic late-stage Orange capitalism. Green liberalism IS the solution to those problems. That's exactly why it's being selected for. Not because it's more "pernicious", but because it's less pernicious. 

I have made my point elsewhere. I'm not going to argue in circles with you.

On a slightly unrelated note: did you know that many of your so-called "green liberals" and most of the 1960s counterculture went on to become the loudest and proudest supporters of libertarianism (e.g. Steve Jobs) in the 1970s and 1980s? Quite the ironic, but predictable twist. Libertarianism, in many ways, is the ultimate conclusion of green liberalism in a world that still hasn't addressed the underlying economic and psychological realities of capitalism.

11 hours ago, aurum said:

The capitalism we will have in the future will look like rainbows and butterflies compared to today's capitalism.

This is textbook stage orange hubris. First of all, let's not confuse capitalism with the economy (more on that later). Secondly, and most importantly, there is no guarantee of some utopian future; the future is radically open, and unless humanity takes full responsibility for it, I can guarantee you that the future we will create (or rather, let happen) will be dystopic, and much worse than what we have now.

(See Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies," Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West," or Manuel De Landa's "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" to dispel yourself of any such naive readings of historical progress.)

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Pedantic side point: I would not refer to anything system prior to the Renaissance as "capitalism". Capitalism is really its own thing, as defined by modern inventions such as private property, property rights, markets, wages, etc. You could say there existed primitive forms of exchange in the form of gift economies, barter, feudalism etc but I would not say "capitalism". I think that just unnecessarily confuses the conversation.

Not a pedantic side point, but rather the central point of this discussion.

You can define capitalism the way you did, but here I insist on a more metaphysical definition of the term: capitalism, at its core, is the systematization of human desire. René Girard has put his finger right on the spot with his Theory of Mimetic Desire, which claims that our desire is by default insatiable since we precisely desire to possess for ourselves whatever object is desired by the other, and thus there is inherent conflict embedded in this desire. This dynamic runs like a continuous thread through the entire evolution of economic (or symbolic) exchange from our tribal past to our postmodern present; and this dynamic is precisely what drives capitalism.

This is also precisely the point of discussion in the famous conversations between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, in which they, I think correctly, conclude that there has to be a fundamental shift in perception (i.e. perceiving reality as a continuous whole, rather than individual parts, which necessarily must be in conflict with each other).

So yes, in some sense, there cannot be capitalism at the holistic stage of development, but there certainly can be much worse forms of it just before it.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump has no consistent ideological position other than what would best serve him.

Which is precisely what makes him the quintessential postmodern president.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Which is precisely what makes him the quintessential postmodern president.

No. He is not a post-modernist. He's just a selfish con-artist demagogue. Such people have existed since the dawn of civilization.

Trump is incapable of telling you what post-modernism is.

Trump is not post-truth. He's just a liar. In the same way that a child stealing from a cookie-jar is not post-modern, he's just a liar.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. He is not a post-modernist. He's just a selfish con-artist demogage. Such people have existed since the dawn of civilization.

I claim there was no real con-artistry before postmodernism. Con artists rely on certain psychological dispositions in the general population to exploit. If people did not believe in concrete appearances and objective truth (as is at the core of modernity), these could not be exploited by the con artist. 

The con artist also requires this psychological development in himself, just as the child using formal logic relies on having internalized concrete logic, so there is no way this could have existed from the dawn of time.

A figure like Donald Trump can only exist within the context of contemporary mass media, where everything is pure surface and spectacle, and a Machiavellian psychopath (also a key figure emerging from the postmodern condition) can exploit the general tendency of the masses to believe their eyes and ears.

A stage red ruler (at the dawn of civilization) would be incapable of such intellectual weaseling because his mythologized sense of morality (e.g. divine right of kings, blessing of the gods, etc.) is literally what makes up his identity. Anything that threatens this moral construct is brutally exterminated.

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump is incapable of telling you what post-modernism is.

What logic is that? So a dog is not a dog because it is incapable of telling you what a dog is?

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Bobby_2021]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes. Because it would serve him best to return America to the 1950s, pre-hippie days, where racism, homophobia, and misogyny were acceptable. Where he could grab women by the pussy and they couldn't do anything about it.

Cool. But none of these things make him a conservative.

 He is paying lip service to entice power from whatever group his is sucking upto. He talks and even spews conservative vision but his actions tell you something else.

Now forget everything Hitler said and look at what he did. Is that reflective of what a conservative would do?

Also they way I accuse liberalism in Hitler is not as if his conservatism bites itself in the ass and whole thing ended in a shit show that's doesn't look like anything. 

I am saying that he was born with a relatively complex mind that wouldn't refrain from doing radical things, sort of thing you are likely to expect from Liberals. Only such people can envision complex systems like which hitler deviced. 

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

@Bobby_2021 I disagree with you.Hitler was not so simple, his motivations were much deeper than that. There is a autobiography of his friend in his youth. There Hitler already had plans to how improve Germany. In. His youth he had no antisemitic thoughts but he already saw himsellf as the leader of germany one day. That was before the word war 1 was starting.

I recognize many people want to make Hitler look evil/primitive and put their projections on him. If you look closer that doesn't work. You can even say he had some yellow parts in him. He had systemic thinking for sure 

I was giving a simplication indeed. He definitely had a complex mind for sure. Even to write a book and having your thoughts organised is a skill in itself that you cannot expect from a typical conservative. 

I don't even question his intentions to be clear. Almost all parts of the world has some sort of sterilization policies going on, including India and China. Hitler definitely took it too far, but he got disproportionately more flak for something many more countries were guilty of doing which they managed to sweep under the rug. 

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Disgust is one aspect of it, sure. But all conservatives are also driven by fear. It's both.

Just look at JP himself. He is visibly driven by fear and also disgust.

There's also hate. Ultra conservatives tend to be hateful people.

Transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, hate speech, racism, violence... these are all hallmarks of the far right.

In the end it all boils down to selfish, biased, conformist, unconscious behavior. A lack of empathy and universal love.

Your view is incredibly biased.

I have constant proof to the contrary.

[Leo Gura]

@Nilsi Your view of politics is so nutty that I am not going to explain much more to you. You have a lot of wrong ideas that require rethinking.

Post-modernism is not a dog. Post-modernism is a philosophy. To be post-mordern requires having certain epistemic positions.

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi Your view of politics is so nutty that I am not going to explain much more to you. You have a lot of wrong ideas that require rethinking.

Post-modernism is not a dog. Post-modernism is a philosophy. To be post-mordern requires having certain epistemic positions.

You don't think like a postmodernist.

 

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Cool. But none of these things make him a conservative.

I never claimed that Trump is truly conservative. I said he is a demagogue. Look up what that means. Trump is conservative mainly in the sense that he has chosen conservatives as marks for his con, and if he gets power he will advance the conservative cause.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You don't think like a postmodernist.

I'm not a post-modernist. Post-modernism is dumb.

[Schizophonia]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I'm not a post-modernist. Post-modernism is dumb.

Mea culpa, i thought for some reason.

[TheAlchemist]

Nazis and fascists cling to the past, but not any real version of it. They cling to a specific fantasy of the past that comforts and in some ways deeply inspires them. This "past" of course needs to be constructed, maintained and polished through symbols and images that strike certain deep emotions in people at scale. 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Nazis and fascists cling to the past, but not any real version of it.

That's true of conservatives in general. They have a fantasy of the past.

Case in point: Last month Nikki Haley said that "America was never a racist country."

And she is far from a Fascist. But that's how stupidly conservatives tend to think.

Conservatives are in deep denial about the evils of their tradition and past. Because they see themselves as champions of it.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Conservatives are in deep denial about the evils of their tradition and past. Because they see themselves as champions of it.

That's evil only if you could change them. Labelling realities as evil is inherently soul crushing. It's a necessary evil at best. 

Liberals from a 100 years would probably call the capitalism of today as evil. But it is the best that we could come up with given the circumstances we were in. 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's evil only if you could change them. Labelling realities as evil is inherently soul crushing. It's a necessary evil at best. 

Liberals from a 100 years would probably call the capitalism of today as evil. But it is the best that we could come up with given the circumstances we were in. 

They are not honest enough to even admit the evil. Never mind changing it.

How hard is it to admit that America was a racist country in the past? That doesn't require any change of it.

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi Your view of politics is so nutty that I am not going to explain much more to you. You have a lot of wrong ideas that require rethinking.

 

So everything that you can't find on CNN is "nutty," or even better, just flat-out "wrong"?

For someone who claims to be the "most open-minded person on the planet," your mind is quite dense.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@NilsiPost-modernism is not a dog. Post-modernism is a philosophy. To be post-mordern requires having certain epistemic positions.

You still want to push this point?

An Amish person wouldn't necessarily be able to describe themselves as conservative, but could still intuitively hold the epistemic positions inherent to that "philosophy."

Also, I don't care what Trump thinks or how he views himself; his actions speak louder than a thousand words. 

Hasn't psychoanalysis taught us anything here? Your most fundamental philosophical positions are totally unconscious, and thus a true postmodernist wouldn't be able to describe themselves as such.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You still want to push this point?

An Amish person wouldn't necessarily be able to describe themselves as conservative, but could still intuitively hold the epistemic positions inherent to that "philosophy."

Also, I don't care what Trump thinks or how he views himself; his actions speak louder than a thousand words. 

Hasn't psychoanalysis taught us anything here? Your most fundamental philosophical positions are totally unconscious, and thus a true postmodernist wouldn't be able to describe themselves as such.

You make a good general point here. However, calling Trump post-modern is like calling a dog post-modern. That would be to give the dog too much intellectual sophistication.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Wow, what a load of crap.

Postmodernism is not merely an „aesthetic and philosophical movement;“ it is the state of the world we’ve been living in, I claim, for over 100 years. This would be like saying „classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting with the Renaissance,“ when actually it is a reference, a gesture to classical antiquity, which did ACTUALLY happen. People try to pretend like postmodernism isn’t an actual thing, which is insane to me.

Some of the core tenets of postmodernism are:

• Blurring of the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary; this already started with characters like Edward Bernays (early 20th century), the father of public relations.
• The death of the meta-narrative; this is Nietzsche's infamous proclamation about the death of God (in the late 19th century).
• Fragmentation and decentering of meaning; you can start seeing this happen in art with Pablo Picasso and cubism (early 20th century).
• Irony, parody, and pastiche; James Joyce’s 'Ulysses' (1922) creates an ironic conglomerate of various writing styles and historical periods that makes it obvious that we have arrived at the end of linear history already.

Besides that, I have already characterized postmodern capitalism in a previous post. We could also analyze this psychologically through things like mental illnesses and such, but that’s not my forte, and I don’t think it’s necessary to drive the point home.

Your move is the equivalent of quoting some random Christian YouTuber in a debate about God. If that’s your epistemic standard, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.

   You claim that post modernism is the state of the world for 100 years. Do you have proof that Post modernism ruled the world 100 years?

   How does the statement of post modernism being merely 'aesthetic and philosophical movements' have anything to do with you claiming that it's like me stating that 'classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting in the renaissance.'? Why did you red herring and straw man in this way?

   Also Trump isn't a post modernist, he's a con artist, scammer, fraudster, swindler, grifter, and hustler, lying to everyone including the conservatives to gain more power.

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

You claim that post modernism is the state of the world for 100 years. Do you have proof that Post modernism ruled the world 100 years?

My claim is that postmodernism began to become the dominant sociocultural reality in the West over 100 years ago, yes, and I've given you many examples that illustrate this.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi