Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:58 am Maybe they need a more broad view of the lives of American women, and a policy that reflects more real women's interests, one that appeals not merely to radical Feminists but to ordinary women and perhaps even to centrist and conservative ones. That would be a good strategy.

That is the most milquetoast statement I have recently hear from you!

Let me correct it a little bit. The Democrat Party has allowed itself to become colonized by people carrying an ideological and spiritual disease. It is like a cluster or a complex knot of deviant ideas that have been used in processes of perversion of children's minds. I focus on children because, inevitably, anything that adults do becomes the substance of what is taught to children. It has also infested the Republican Party's agenda but less intensely.

But here's the thing: They (the Dems) are not going to make any such changes! For the time being they are going to double-down on deviancy.

Here is a article title from today;'s NYTs:

Democrats Draw Up an Entirely New Anti-Trump Battle Plan

The party’s early preparations to oppose the next Trump administration are heavily focused on legal fights and consolidating state power, rather than marching in the streets.

Democrats envision flexing their power in these states to partly block the Trump administration’s policies — for example, by refusing to enforce immigration laws — and to push forward their vision of governance by passing state laws enshrining abortion rights, funding paid leave and putting in place a laundry list of other party priorities.

Some of the planning in blue states began in 2023 as a potential backstop if Mr. Trump won, according to multiple Democrats involved in different efforts. The preparations were largely kept quiet to avoid projecting public doubts about Democrats’ ability to win the election.

“States in our system have a lot of power — we’re entrusted with protecting people, and we’re going to do it,” said Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, who said his office had been preparing for Mr. Trump’s potential return to power for more than a year. “They can expect that we’re going to show up every single time when they try to run over the American people.”

The Democratic effort will rely on the work of hundreds of lawyers, who are being recruited to combat Trump administration policies on a range of Democratic priorities. Already, advocacy groups have begun workshopping cases and recruiting potential plaintiffs to challenge expected regulations, laws and administrative actions starting on Day 1.

Right now, and obviously, the Democrat narrative, the forward force it had and lost, is turning back into itself and, in the manner that ressentiment functions, seeking out its weapons. It will come roaring back soon enough.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 7:29 am It's as if we live in different worlds.

No, just different countries.

It's an American idea that everybody in the whole world has to have a "side" in their elections, and either be a Democrat or a Republican, even when they don't live in America. But it's not true. Nobody else feels they have to. And nobody else can vote.

So you really need to get your head out of the American way of thinking about that, and realize there's a larger world out there, one in which people can look on the American election with bemused detachment, rather than passionate partisanship. And that's the perspective from which we're looking at this question.

If you are more partisan than that, it's that you're American; it doesn't mean we have to be partisan.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2024 7:14 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2024 6:55 pm It's come to the point where the Democrat Party must rise from the ashes.

Yes, that's the topic: how should they do it?

By not doing as they have done.

That's not a very good answer. It amounts to "Just stop it."

Okay, but what should they START doing, instead? For surely they cannot offer a platform that reads no more than, "We're stopping it."

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:04 am The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!
Basically, we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.

I'm sorry...I'm missing how those two statements are connected, and what policy you're advocating the Democrat Party to take up.

You pretend, IC, that you have a genuine interest in how the American Democrat Party can restructure itself, but the fact of the matter is that it will not be able to.

Why should my interest in democracy not be genuine? A two-party (at least) structure is absolutely the sine qua non of democracy itself.

I have to say, you're too superficially dismissive of that. Clearly, you haven't thought it through...that is, unless you're intending to defend a one-party dictatorship of some sort.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:54 pm That is the most milquetoast statement I have recently hear from you!

I'm not bothering to react to petty shots of that kind. A wise man would have figured that out by now.

But here's the thing: They (the Dems) are not going to make any such changes! For the time being they are going to double-down on deviancy.

You might be right. Their history certainly lends some authority to that assumption. But there's no reason why people HAVE to keep making bad decisions. And at the very least, you can point out to them what decision they should be making instead.

Here is a article title from today;'s NYTs:

Democrats Draw Up an Entirely New Anti-Trump Battle Plan

Well, that's the mass media take on that. Maybe it's true, but as we know from the legacy media's recent history, maybe it bears little resemblance to reality. The NYT is not exactly a pure-hearted news source, as we can all now see.

Right now, and obviously, the Democrat narrative, the forward force it had and lost, is turning back into itself and, in the manner that ressentiment functions, seeking out its weapons. It will come roaring back soon enough.

Maybe. But even if they do, there's value in knowing what better thing they could be doing, even while they're doing that. For not every Democrat is evil, and not every one is addicted to Leftism. Gabbard and Kennedy have shown that the most principled of the Democrats are quite capable of persuasion toward more useful and intelligent alternatives. No doubt there are Democrat voters who are not some "basket of deplorables" themselves, but rather people of good intentions and thoughtful reasons, who simply have not yet been convinced to do other that the DP has been telling them to do.

We should speak to them, not to the hard-core indoctrinated of the DP. The hard-core may be unmoveable, but there are still good and principled people who are currently within their party. Why not speak to them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:04 am The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!
Basically, we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.

I'm sorry...I'm missing how those two statements are connected, and what policy you're advocating the Democrat Party to take up.

It's pretty clear what he's advocating for, IC.

Now that Trump is in office, Some of the more 'colorful' people Trump has surrounded himself with (Like anti-vaxer RFK jr. for one example) will be in positions of prominence. But I guess "colorful people" are people too. God help us all.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:04 am The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!
Basically, we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.

I'm sorry...I'm missing how those two statements are connected, and what policy you're advocating the Democrat Party to take up.

It's pretty clear what he's advocating for, IC.

What? A ban on homosexuality?

I think he's unlikely to find that successful, even if we grant him it captures moral correctness. There would be no policy capable of policing it, and I doubt the Democrat Party would get far with such a promise anyway, in terms of getting elected.

So what's "clear" about that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:13 pm
I'm sorry...I'm missing how those two statements are connected, and what policy you're advocating the Democrat Party to take up.

It's pretty clear what he's advocating for, IC.

What? A ban on homosexuality?

I think he's unlikely to find that successful, even if we grant him it captures moral correctness. There would be no policy capable of policing it, and I doubt the Democrat Party would get far with such a promise anyway, in terms of getting elected.

So what's "clear" about that?

As I said, it's clear (at least to some of us) what AJ is advocating for.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:04 am 1) The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!

2) Basically, we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.

I tend to see things through a neo-Elizabethan psychological lens. I am definitely advocating for a return to masculine intellectual power. But when I use these terms I do really mean to the faculty of intellectus. Intellectus was understood as the higher -- the highest -- faculty of the soul and as such can, and is, drowned out and dampened when the individual gives themselves over to the lower pleasures of the body function. My primary observation is that culture, generally, has become feminized -- that is given over to sensual pleasures; to seductive pleasures; to rhetorical appeals that play upon desire and appetite -- and this affects how the faculty of higher reason (ratio) functions in men.

You get it?

Presently, there is taking shape in American culture a form of revivalism which is based in the recovery of a set of principles that, to speak generally, are part-and-parcel of religious philosophy. So, I have mentioned that JD Vance converted to a traditional form of Catholicism. There is a widespread cultural return of this sort taking place and it has been associated with Trumpism and the MAGA Movement. There is a very curious thing that Catholics (and perhaps other Christian sects?) have noticed: Today, more men are returning to the religious fold than women! Now why is that?

I say that the answer is intellectual, and therefore again I refer to intellectus:

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

The vagina, the female orgasmic potential, the sensuality of the body and life lived and experienced through this level, is certain real and possible. In our culture -- in the Occident -- we have been through cultural, ideological and advertising (rhetorical) processes that have seduced us away from genuine intellect and down into the dampening and stifling realm of the sensual. These are, in the end, political tools.

Now, what is the connection between Gynocracy and Faggotry. OK, good question. Faggotry is, I think, the male version of giving oneself over to excessive sensual pleasure. It is a type of spiritual weakness. But please note that I do not know where to place, let's say, a genuine homosexual love (if agape were possible) and I do not wish to be too condemnatory of homosexual love or unions. But what I do think is that they must be relegated to their place. "The closet" is perhaps a bit extreme. But as I have often written I believe that all forms of deviant sexuality must be repressed. I.e. not brought out, as if they are equal to heterosexual productive unions, into the visible cultural sphere.

So, I suggest examining the general, operative Democrat ideology or to state it differently the intrusion of a colonizing ideology into the inner fold of the Democrat operative perspective. Again, and by reference to Augustine, once a man (o person) has become infected by vice and corrupted by it, they have to go through a process of recovery of (what I refer to as) those higher faculties.

This is not an easy process. It is like recovery from addiction. I might say that the Occidental imagination (again I refer to imagination on the Elizabethan metaphysical sense) has been infected by outrageous, over-the-top, sexual imagery and the desires associated with that.

Can women also turn against gynocracy? Well certainly! But it is a problematic notion. In the truest sense a man must really fulfill his patriarchal role. And this role is defined as involvement in and subservience to intellectus. And that really does men to be aligned with, to become incorporated into, allt hat is invisible and only perceived by the higher intellect. That is where *God* and *the Angels* have realness.

When a man allows himself to sink down into the mire of the lower levels he loses the CAPACITY to conceive of God or a higher metaphysical order.

And I am associating the Gynocracy with different forms of blind appetite and in a related sense also include faggotry (and a whole range of sexual deviancies) with the feminized, luxurious, sensual pull downward.

Has any of this been able to break through any of your hardened mental defenses?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 pm What? A ban on homosexuality?

No, since that is impossible. What I advocate for is an intellectual turning where a hierarchy of values is clearly established. The male-female productive relationship must be intellectually recognized as superior to any deviant union. It is a different way of seeing things. And when things are seen *properly* then a natural exclusion occurs.

Go back to your closets and fuck each other in the ass. But don't bring it out into the public sphere. And certainly do not teach it to children in the schools and through a national education curricula!

These are harsh processes involving a turn against perverse modes that have infected *the body politic*.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:58 am ...Maybe they need a more broad view of the lives of American women...

ask a dem (even Justice Jackson) what a woman is and they can't answer (or what a broad is for that matter)...

asking republicans who needs "better" democrats?

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:22 pm But there's no reason why people HAVE to keep making bad decisions. And at the very least, you can point out to them what decision they should be making instead.

I am looking at things differently, and I hope I have made it clear. The Democrat Party has become *infected* with bizarre strains of ideology. You and I share some experience with James Linsday so we can, at least, share some conceptual base here. The disease is essentially a spiritual one. That is perhaps my most troublesome and contentious assertion.

When a person is *infected* with the disease I refer to, they cannot actually make "good decisions". If I am to point out what *right decisions* are to be made, I have to define an entire platform that defines that the good actually is.

You are taking a very superficial view of things. You really must get down to the heart and the essence of the questions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 pm So what's "clear" about that?

Are you still seeking clarity concerning what AJ is advocating for? Or has AJ explained it enough to you?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 pm So what's "clear" about that?

Are you still seeking clarity concerning what AJ is advocating for? Or has AJ explained it enough to you?

Well, IC? Do you get it or must I still hammer away at it?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:41 pm

It's pretty clear what he's advocating for, IC.

What? A ban on homosexuality?

I think he's unlikely to find that successful, even if we grant him it captures moral correctness. There would be no policy capable of policing it, and I doubt the Democrat Party would get far with such a promise anyway, in terms of getting elected.

So what's "clear" about that?

As I said, it's clear (at least to some of us) what AJ is advocating for.

Good.

Since it's so clear, tell us what policy he's advocating the DP adopt?