Joker Here.

Hey guys Joker here, I just wanted to say hello and long time no see.

I’m currently posting on the wonderful websites Gab and 4chan.

Anywho, I’m still working and also attending college. I should be graduating college by 2021.

I still identity as a modern fascist and national socialist, I’m no longer the quaint anarchist I use to be.

Also note, I was right about economic collapse of the United States all along as the economy is currently crumbling and very soon the dollar [USD] will die. Have you guys missed me yet?

My only interest in the new Joker is the extent to which he construes a “modern fascist and national socialist” in the same manner in which he once construed being a “quaint anarchist”.

In other words, as an objectivist?

Think about it. He once figured that anarchy reflected the most reasonable assessment of the human condition. Then [presumably] through new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, he now figures that fascism and national socialism reflect the most reasonable assessment of the human condition.

So, before he was wrong…but now he is right?

But: What if through more new experiences, relationships and access to ideas still, he becomes liberal or a social democrat or a Communist down the road?

Instead, most moral and political objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that who they think they are now reflects the final synthesis.

And above all else they refuse to acknowledge that who they think they are now is merely one more psychological rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

From my frame of mind [no less an existential contraption], it’s not whether or not he is able to demonstrate that who he is now is what all rational men and women are obligated to be. On the contrary, it’s only the comfort and the consolation he sustains in being able to anchor “I” to an objective font.

And it can fall anywhere along the political spectrum. What you believe pales next to that you believe.

Welcome back old boy.

“I still identity as a modern fascist and national socialist, I’m no longer the quaint anarchist I use to be.”

Brings sadness to my heart.

You can still work and be an anarchist. I don’t know about college.

Hey Joker, hat’s off to you. What are you studying? Still hanging with your darling?

Yeah, me and Wendy still live together. Let’s just say I’m studying to be an electrical technician of sorts.

Becoming a national socialist has been a logical conclusion for me. I became an adult and therefore out-grew anarchism.

Also, understanding human nature the way as I do only a government with an iron fist can curb out of control humanity and get rid of the cancer known as neo-liberalism.

Neo-conservatism is just a different variation of neo-liberalism where I despise it equally.

Anarchism is a joke, took me almost a small decade to finally figure that out but I did eventually.

People’s life experiences and perspectives change overtime. For me finally rejecting anarchism was a way of shedding my naive youth once and for all.

Your curiosity is interesting for one who doesn’t believe in anything and who has taken a neutral or unknown position on just about everything because you’re a representation of an individual that takes extreme skepticism on virtually everything which leads your entire philosophy in life to permanent inaction.

I don’t know if I would call myself an objectivist entirely but I would define myself as a radical pragmatist and utilitarian perhaps.

She is a darling.

That’s an interesting description of sorts. So how are you at circuit design?

I’m finding that I’m learning new talents that before I originally never dreamed of acquiring. It’s a slow process that is bearing fruit.

That’s not an iron fist.

Heh.

What’s that?

Been there, done that. Quite a few times in fact. And, with each reconfiguration, I was able to think myself into believing that this time I got it right. Then it began to dawn on me that whole point of having new experiences, new relationships and contact with new ideas is to set up the next incarnation.

Then it began to dawn on me that each new fabrication was no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

You’ll either get there yourself or you won’t.

On the contrary, I try to make a distinction between the things I believe that I am able to demonstrate to others that, as rational men and women, they ought to believe in turn, and those things – value judgments, moral and political prejudices, aesthetic inclinations – which seem more the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

Okay, lets try this…

Generally, those who call themselves fascists, make particular assumptions about such things as race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and nationalism, and cultural values.

How as a radical pragmatist would you make a distinction between yourself and a more hardcore fascist in regard to particular contexts involving interactions around demographics of this sort. What makes for a modern fascist?

From my way of thinking here, an objectivist is someone who insist that their own thinking about these things is the only way that others are permitted to think about them if they wish to be construed as “one of us”.

I merely suggest this has far more to do with the psychological perks embedded in believing that “I” can be anchored to fonts like fascism, than in the capacity to demonstrate [philosophically or otherwise] that fascism reflects the most rational [virtuous] point of view.

Again, this thing: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

You overthink too much which is why I’ve always been bored with your mental masturbations and gymnastics. I’m all about practicality and simplification where whether or not something is perfect doesn’t mean anything to me at all. I’m all about what works and is efficient in appliance, not whether something is perfect. I suppose you’re still chasing that perfect logical system or perception that is supposedly out there somewhere [yet never to be found by anybody ever] and knowing you even if you find it you’ll probably raise both of your arms saying there is no way of knowing anything. [which would ultimately make your quest or mental articulations in of themselves pointless, why are you even here?]

Your articulations is basically that nobody can know anything therefore, how can you demonstrate anything? That’s quite the conundrum you have there.

As for my racial and fascist beliefs let’s just say I’m a little bit more mentally flexible than my comrades. I tend to think outside of the box.

So, you consider yourself fully qualified to decide when someone either does or does not “overthink” fascism? Given all that was at stake for literally millions when the old fascism was around.

Still, I don’t see why you can’t substantiate what the “modern” fascist construes to be rational behavior in regard to particular moral and political perspectives revolving around such things as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation. Again, if only to make the proper distinction between their fascism back then and your fascism now.

Of course my own reaction to fascism still revolves around the assumption that, in regard to value judgments and political prejudices, one becomes a fascist given the manner in which I construe human identity here as the embodiment of dasein. “I” as an existential contraption. I’m just curious as to why my argument here is not deemed applicable by you to you.

And the extent to which you may well be just one more run of the mill objectivist.

On the contrary, with regard to value judgments of this sort, I make the distinction between things that individuals believe to be true in their head and that which they are able to demonstrate all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. There are, after all, any number of facts that can be demonstrated regarding fascism then and fascism now.

But what is the argument able to demonstrate that – morally, politically – fascism reflects the most reasonable assessment of human interactions?

Again, cite specific examples of this in contexts we are all likely to be familiar with.

Iambig, you don’t just over think fascism, you over think everything. That’s your biggest problem right there.

Nobody has any time for that shit.

I swear, if we were talking about the philosophical valuation of the utility of salt shakers in cooking you would still find some kind of fault with it.

“I’m using salt on my country fried chicken steak, how does this relate to me and dasein?”

You say that now, but if you ever found yourself in a kitchen awash with conflicting culinary spices, you might ask yourself why you chose salt instead of something else… or if you even had the freewill to choose.

Tell him about it, Biggs.

You see, that’s what I’m talking about right there, over thinking shit.

Sometimes a salt shaker is just a salt shaker and sometimes I just prefer pepper over my scrambled eggs or toast.

Gasp! Yet another “I am not an objectivist!” avoiding the arguments I made above by making me the issue.

Instead, what he should be doing is taking up my suggestion to bring fascism out into the world of human interactions, noting a particular context involving conflicting value judgments and behaviors – fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, nihilism etc. – and exploring the choices that individuals make given his own fascist view and my own take on moral nihilism.

That way he could expose in great detail the manner in which I “overthink” everything.

Instead, he attempts to reconfigure that into his own rendition of…wit?

Look, I respect the man’s intelligence. He is far, far removed from some of the godawful Kids here. But my main interest [as everyone knows] is in testing the intelligence of others to determine what they think about the components of my own moral and political philosophy. How is being a “modern radical pragmatic fascist” applicable to a discussion of human identity, conflicting goods and political economy. Given a particular context, involving conflicting value judgments.

He can go there on the philosophy board or he can continue to huff and puff about me here.

The fact is, I don’t argue that I am more intelligent than he is. I don’t argue that my frame of mind here is more reasonable than his is. My main interest lies less in what other philosophers think they know about good and bad or rational and irrational moral narratives configured into political agendas. I’m far more intrigued with how they have come to think as they do. Existentially.

This part:

This either interest him in turn or he continues to just shrug it all off as “overthinking everything”.