What nonsense . His posting was nothing but shallow bigotry any brain dead young conservative might concoct.
Notice that this is a meaningless attack against a collective called “young conservatives.” My "shallow bigotry" supposedly appeals to this collective. As with most meaningless attacks she doesn’t specify what I am bigoted against. Perhaps I have a grudge against turtles. Who knows. The bottom line is that you are witnessing nothing but a mindless expression of negative emotion.
In Sydney we call this unfinished approach "getting off at Redfern". Philosophy interruptus - where one follows a track but cannot pursue it. Such people decide that they know all they need to know, and then start preaching on forums, while maintaining complete rigidity and a refusal to consider anyone else's ideas even for a moment. It's a type, and a regular one.
Further, what decent ideas he had (even if socially or economically impossible) are increasingly being swamped by his shallow alt right tribalism, and the best he can now offer is seemingly just misinterpreted right wing slants being attached to the very left wing views of Simone Weil. Any challenge to his regular mistakes is just dismissed as service to the Great Beast. If you think his childish guff is genius then good luck to you.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. For me it begins with the recognition that we live as Plato described, as if in a cave. I discuss from this premise. You are one of those who just likes to argue opinions without any recognition of the potential for knowledge which is the source of all opinions or that which reconciles them as ONE. The Great Beast reconciles them for you while for me they are reconciled at a higher level and the knowledge Plato wrote of.
If you think, like Nick, that revolution and total destruction of society will improve it, opening it up for his much hoped for world theocracy, you are also not thinking through. Destruction of your society will simply result in it being non competitive and bought out by more cohesive societies. The "luxury" of revolution is not feasible in this modern world, especially if it drags on for years. Are ideas so great if they are as impractical and ultimately pointlessly destructive and self-defeating as Nick's?
This is the best yet. How many times have I written that “since we are as we are, everything is as it is.” The world cannot change. It rejects the collective quality of consciousness necessary for beneficial change. The great cycles just continue to repeat. Since the world rejects this quality of consciousness, change is only possible for individuals.
Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Simone Weil countered with “revolution is the opiate of the masses.” Revolutions are just lawful repetitions of natural cycles. Minimizing the adverse effects of the downward path of a cycle is only possible with the influence of those individuals who have already acquired this quality of consciousness making change possible.
Is striving for consciousness impractical? No. What is impractical about conscious humanity? What is so practical about the belief in cave life for the individual as the source of human meaning and purpose? When secular humanism reveals its futility, it will invite the tyrant.
Greta is a classic collectivist as described in the previous link and openly declares her scapegoats. I am an individualist as described in the same link. Is it any wonder why the individualist must be hated by the collectivist? They disturb their dreams and feelings of superiority.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams
The secular progressive philosophy and its attack on scapegoats if successful assures the loss of the Constitution and the freedoms it protects. The secular progressives look forward to that day. I shudder at the thought.