re: #112 Dangerman

as with socialist, communist, leftist, ‘Democrat’ etc etc, it’s an ephemeral moving target of whatever we say it is.

and what we say it is can change at any moment

Yep.

The thing you see in common with all these reactionary nutters is that they don’t really believe in meaning as a thing unto itself that has value or constrains choice; they believe in authority that can transform meaning freely to justify itself. Words don’t mean anything outside of their utility, and thus concepts and ideals that should be solid are hollow.

The other thing that accompanies this a base assumption that they are, individually and collectively, in the top half of whatever pyramid-shaped hierarchy they’re dabbling in. They never think about the ramifications of any particular concept in terms of being the subordinate or how the system could invert…which is why all their plans either turn into a spectacular bonfire or a pump-and-dump scheme.

This is why it’s so hard to discern an authentic reactionary from a scammer: both are using a framework—words and concepts exist only to the extent they’re functional in the moment—to ends that easily dovetail.