you mention Platonic Ideas....for myself, he seems to be a bit confused about their ontological status at times — jancanc

Yes, I agree. The ontological status of the Ideas is murky in his philosophy. My current inclination is to regard them as truer representatives of the thing-in-itself than the will. Schopenhauer himself, in some early manuscripts, held this view before changing his mind and positing the will as thing-in-itself.

So, go ahead and demonstrate that what it says is false otherwise you have to accept the information on our source as reliable according to your own argument. — Baden

When did I say that? Now you're putting words in my mouth. Michael's site did not purport to document things people said or real world events that occurred. When I have spoken of my site's reliability, it has always been in the context of the quotes and events it compiled, not the reliability of the author's opinions, which are clearly biased and on the right. Because the page I linked to isn't anything like Michael's site, your attempt to trap me in hypocrisy won't work.

untrustworthy — Baden

Equivocation.

a) According to its front page It explicitly sets out to attack the left. — Baden

Doesn't mean what it says is false or *ahem* untrustworthy. It might mean that, but then you'd have to demonstrate that.

b) Horowitz is known for providing misinformation and is an alleged racist — Baden

Ad hominem.

c) It gets the following report from a site checker that deals with both left and right-wing sites: — Baden

That site doesn't infallibly determine the reliability of sources.

I haven't dropped the charge. You still haven't actually shown anything the website reports to be false. You assume what it reports to be false because you have deemed it illegitimate. And you deem it illegitimate on account of its being right wing or its sources being right wing. Unless you can prove that anything right wing is by definition wrong and untrustworthy, then you have committed said fallacy. I won't hold my breath, however, which is why I have tried (twice now) to end this futile conversation.

And I didn't see any legitimacy for the right-wing propaganda site — Baden

Because I agree in not seeing a basis for the legitimacy of the fact checking website, and notwithstanding your longer post, the comment I quote above demonstrates the futility of continuing this conversation.

Another way of getting at my point is to say that, for Schopenhauer, there are degrees of reality. There are individual objects of experience, which are less real than the Platonic Ideas of which they are instantiations, which are themselves less real than the will of which they are the adequate objectivity, which is itself less real than the thing-in-itself as it is in itself, apart from appearing as will. So Schopenhauer's ontological schema is as follows, with increasing degrees of reality:

Empirical phenomena > Platonic Ideas > will as thing-in-itself > the thing-in-itself as it is in itself.

So you think this understanding of "illusory" "saves" him from the inconsistency I outlined above?: — jancanc

Yes, but I think you've already answered it yourself: "the compassionate being recognizes he that all persons in the phenomenal world are expressions of the same UNITARY will qua thing-in-itself." The only caveat here is that this doesn't mean phenomena are unreal, only that, in comparison with the will, their reality is derivative.

Thus individuation- empirical distinction between persons- is recognized to be illusory. — jancanc

Illusory only in a metaphorical sense. Schopenhauer regards phenomena as empirically real, but not transcendentally real, a distinction borrowed from Kant. Their transcendental ideality doesn't make them any less empirically real.

the compassionate being recognizes that there is fundamentally NO empirical distinction — jancanc

No, he recognizes that there is no metaphysical distinction.

This is simply saying it would be a waste of time doing the work to discern which bits are wrong, because there is no reason to expect we would learn anything new. — andrewk

This is question begging. The reason you expect not to learn anything new is because of the biased nature of the compilers and sources of the information. Ergo, genetic fallacy. You and Baden have rejected the content provided on the basis of the political persuasion of the source.

What's fascinating to me is that Maw can post an op-ed from Vox and receive no derisive hand waving of the source. As much as it amuses me to see it cited with authority, you will not find me saying, "you cited Vox, therefore your position can be rejected." No, it would seem that only right wing sources, even if they relate demonstrable facts, are intrinsically unreliable and so are to be rejected.

I see you're intent on doubling and tripling down on your logically fallacious and absurd stance. I'm done here.

My source is, as I keep repeating, a compilation of quotes and events derived from news articles, relevant websites, video clips, interviews, etc. It lists stuff people have said, documents that have been written, and events that have occurred. It contains little to no analysis. It isn't an op-ed. It stands to gain nothing and lose everything by making shit up.

If, as the logical consequence of your position, you will literally deny that person X said Y or that event Z took place in the real world on account of the fact that the source reporting on such things has political opinions you don't like, that's nuts, but also extremely tribal (Horowitz didn't actually write the articles, by the way; he pays others to research and publish information on the website). It also assumes that you are in possession of all the trustworthy sources. But you shouldn't need a peer reviewed journal confirming that a riot took place in Baltimore, for goodness' sake, so your position is absurd, not to mention fallacious (it commits the genetic fallacy).

I'm not doing your own work for you. Among other things, that would condone your fallacious assumption that the source of the information discredits the veracity of that information.

Says the guy who literally just copy-pasted from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, Baden, but have you ever written a paper for a professor in your life?

My source just compiles quotes and events. You fallaciously dismiss it because you don't like the people who compiled it, dredging up irrelevant accusations against Horowitz and even comparing the man to antifa activists. So be it, but that shows you're not actually "happy to deal with this issue," so spare us such patronizing insincerity.

That you equate David Horowitz with antifa speaks volumes.

Cue condemnations because David Horowitz is on the right. — Thorongil

:lol:

If you say these instances are documented though, go find them from a reliable source and I'll deal with them. — Baden

Or you could actually read the articles and follow the links they provide.

I knew you would react in this way. Instead of addressing the information provided, you just trot out genetic fallacies to absolve yourself from having to consider it. Fine. In the future, I'll just state my opinions and disregard your pleas to substantiate them.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7876

Cue condemnations because David Horowitz is on the right. All the incidents are documented, though.

or I guess if a critical mass of its supporters were to engage in or condone violence — Michael

This is precisely the impression I get from the people who use this hashtag and support the organization.

4) BLM is not a terrorist organization. And if you want to make a case for that very serious accusation, you need strong evidence. Smears, fallacious reasoning and attempted rhetorical tricks aren't going to cut it. — Baden

Well, here is some (from one David Horowitz's websites):

- In February 2017, former BLM activist Trey Turner reported that his comrades had planned to burn down the Minnesota state capitol in Saint Paul and the governor’s mansion if Saint Paul-area police officer Jeronimo Yanez -- who fatally shot a black man named Philando Castile during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop -- was not prosecuted.

- During an anti-President Trump protest in Seattle in late January 2017, a female activist associated with BLM took a megaphone and, for four minutes, shouted obscenities, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and incitements to violence against white people and President Trump. Among her remarks were the following: "Fuck white supremacy, fuck the U.S. empire, fuck your imperialist ass lives. That shit gotta go. Fuck that shit. You know what America thrives off of? Capitalism. We use our mother fucking, fucking black and brown bodies to live and survive while white people own fucking properties after that.... White people, give your fucking money, your fucking house, your fucking property, we need it fucking all. You need to reparate [sic] black and indigenous people right now. Pay the fuck up, pay the fuck up. It ain’t just your fucking time, it's your fucking money, and now your fucking life is devoted to social change.... We're all operating under white supremacy.... And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your fucking White House, your fucking Presidents, they must go! Fuck the White House.... Capitalism is ... fucking racism...."

- Shortly after former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, BLM published an article titled "Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante." The piece began by stating: "We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel."

The article praised Castro for having taught people "that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity." "As a Black network committed to transformation," it added, "we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding [cop-killer/fugitive] Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for [cop killers/airplane hijackers] Brother Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill[;] asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton[;] and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era." Expressing gratitude to Castro for "attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters," BLM lauded the late dictator for having "provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish." The piece closed by saying: "As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!"

- In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) officially endorsed BLM by approving a resolution that condemned "the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police"; stated that the American Dream "is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy"; demanded the "demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities"; and asserted that "without systemic reform this state of [black] unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation."

- On August 13, 2016, BLM activists in Milwaukee engaged in violence after police in that city shot and killed an armed man with a lengthy criminal record who was carrying an illegal gun that had been used in a burglary. One video clip of the violence showed rioters chanting “black power!”, vowing to "beat up every white person," and trying to drag white drivers out of their cars and assault them. The rioters also targeted local reporters for violent assaults, including one Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter who was thrown to the ground and punched. In another video clip, rioters could be seen burning down a gas station while chanting “black power!” This was just one of numerous businesses that were set on fire. In a Facebook post the following day, the Black Lives Matter Coalition For Justice wrote: "What happened last night was not the result of greed or an ignorant display of anger as some have called it, but rather pain and frustration built up from over 400 years of oppression. The rioting and looting that occurred last night in the city of Milwaukee is a demand for justice on every level.... What happened last night was a revolt and an uproar, not just a disturbance.... The people are angry. The people are fed up, and the people are demanding their freedom."

- In September 2016, BLM activists rioted in Charlotte, North Carolina after a black police officer there had shot and killed a gun-wielding black criminal named Keith Lamont Scott. Prior to that killing, Scott had been: convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states, convicted of assault in three states, charged with “assault with intent to kill” in the 1990s, and spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.” In multiple requests for domestic violence protective orders, one of which had been filed in 2015, Scott's wife claimed that the man had stabbed her, hit one of his children, and threatened to kill his entire family. The woman also reported that Scott carried a 9mm handgun but had no permit for it. (According to Fox News: "The gun recovered at the scene of Scott's shooting had been stolen and later sold to Scott.") At least 20 police officers were injured in the Charlotte riots, and National Guard troops were called in to help restore order. During the mayhem, protesters threw things at police, sometimes shot one another, looted and destroyed local businesses, set vehicles on fire, attacked white people who happened to be in the vicinity, decorated the landscape with BLM graffiti, and chanted slogans like “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

- On July 7, 2016, BLM activists held anti-police-brutality rallies in numerous cities across the United States, to protest the recent shootings of two African American men by white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. At a rally in Dallas, Texas, demonstrators shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally (in Dallas). Four policemen and one transit officer were killed, and six additional police were wounded. The perpetrator, Micah Xavier Johnson, subsequently told a hostage negotiator that he had acted alone, was angry about the recent police shootings of two black men, and was determined to kill white people -- "especially white officers."

- In the wake of the carnage in Dallas, a number of BLM activists taunted uniformed police officers who were standing guard in front of a gas station. Some Twitter users posted footage of a local news report that showed approximately 300 to 400 protesters dancing, shouting at police, and raising their middle fingers to them. Moreover, BLM sympathizers posted numerous online tweets to express their approval of the mass shooting. Some examples:

“Y’all pigs got what was coming for y’all.”
"GIVE A FUCK ABOUT DALLAS AND THEM PIGS FUCK EM ALL"
"wtf! Is when whites think their superior than us! Dallas must burn,black lives matter now, got the message pigs!"
"These fucking pigs deserve Dallas, and every incident after Dallas until reform. Fucking disgusting animals."
“Next time a group wants to organize a police shoot, do like Dallas tonight, but have extra men/women to flank the Pigs!”
“dude hell yeah someone is shooting pigs in dallas. solidarity”
"Shout out to them Dallas shooters !! rapping pigs in blankets"
“DALLAS keep smoking dem pigs keep up the work.”

- On July 9, 2016, activists participating in a BLM protest in Phoenix threw rocks at police officers and threatened to kill them.

- On August 29, 2015—just hours after a lone black gunman had murdered a white sheriff’s deputy in Texas while the latter was pumping gasoline into his car—demonstrators affiliated with the St. Paul, Minnesota branch of BLM disrupted traffic as they marched—with police protection—to the gates of the Minnesota State Fair. Carrying signs bearing slogans like "End White Supremacy," they repeatedly chanted in unison: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” “Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and "blanket" was a reference to body bags. The slogan echoed what gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsleyan had posted on the Internet—"Pigs in a blanket smell like bacon"—in December 2014, just before he murdered NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.

- During the September 1, 2015 airing of a blog-talk-radio program associated with BLM, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of Texas Deputy Daron Goforth, a husband and father who was shot 15 times at point blank range from behind while he was gassing up his patrol car. One host, a self-described black supremacist known as King Noble, said the execution of that "cracker cop" was an indication that "it's open season on killing whites and police officers and probably killing cops, period." "It’s unavoidable, inescapable," he added. "It’s funny that now we are moving to a time where the predator will become the prey." After claiming that blacks were like lions who could win a “race war” against whites, Noble declared: “Today, we live in a time when the white man will be picked off, and there’s nothing he can do about it. His day is up, his time is up. We will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before. It’s about to go down. It’s open season on killing white people and crackas.”

- On September 14, 2015, BLM supporter/demonstrator Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks, a 25-year-old convicted felon, shot and killed a rookie Kentucky state trooper named Joseph Cameron Ponder after a high-speed chase. The perpetrator lived in Florissant, Missouri, near the town of Ferguson, and had participated in local demonstrations protesting the 2014 death of Michael Brown, a young black man killed by a white Ferguson police officer after he had tried to take the officer's handgun. (Click here for details of that case.) Johnson-Shanks was so preoccupied with the Brown case, that he even attended Brown's funeral and graveside service in August 2014.

- At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."

- On a BLM-affiliated radio program the following month, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; happily predicted that "we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before"; and declared that "It's open season on killing white people and crackas.”
In November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting "Black Lives Matter," stormed Dartmouth University's library, screaming, “Fu** you, you filthy white fu**s!," "Fu** you and your comfort!," and "Fu** you, you racist sh**!”

- In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: "The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill 'em all right now! Kill 'em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!"

- A co-founder of BLM's Toronto branch is a young woman named Yusra Khogali, who in late 2015 posted the following message on Facebook: “Whiteness is not humxness. infact, white skin is sub-humxn.... White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual. white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

- In the spring of 2016, Khogali issued a Facebook threat against a Toronto police officer: “The police officer who killed Andrew Loku. We. Are coming for you. U better believe it. You are going to spend the rest of your life without your family like how Andrew Loku’s 5 children will have to go on without their father. Justice will be served.” Around that same time, she tweeted: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz.”

- In February 2017, Khogali participated in a protest in front of the U.S. consulate where she shouted into a microphone that Canadian Prime Minister “Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist,” and she exhorted the crowd to “rise up and fight back.” “Look at us, we have the numbers,” she added.

- At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke the words that the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur once wrote in a letter titled “To My People”: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” (The fourth line was drawn from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.) In Shakur's original letter, she described herself as a “Black revolutionary” who had “declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heart-less robots [police] who protect them and their property.”

- Another figure greatly admired by BLM is Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, who in the 1960s was renowned for threatening that blacks would "burn America down," and for urging blacks to murder "honkies." In the spring of 2000, Al-Amin shot two black law-enforcement officers in downtown Atlanta, killing one of them.

- Born in 1981, Alicia Garza is a self-described “queer” social-justice activist who reveres the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, and convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur for her contributions to the “Black Liberation Movement.” Garza is likewise a great admirer of Angela Davis (another Marxist and former Black Panther), Ella Baker (an avowed socialist who had ties to the Communist Party USA and the Weather Underground), and Audre Lorde (a black Marxist lesbian feminist).

- In May 2015, Garza characterized the recent protests and riots in Baltimore—which erupted after a local black criminal named Freddie Gray had died under disputed circumstances while in police custody—as “Black Spring” demonstrations akin to the massive “Arab Spring” actions that had threatened and/or toppled a number of Middle Eastern regimes beginning in early 2011.

- In July 2015, Cullors spoke at the annual Netroots Nation convention in Phoenix. In the course of her remarks, she exhorted fellow blacks to “rise the fuck up” and “burn everything down!”

- Cullors herself was trained to be an activist by former Weather Underground leader Eric Mann.

The trouble with a twitter movement is that it has an amorphous identity and a varied collection of individuals supporting it. There are undoubtedly violent extremists who take themselves to be in support of the BLM movement. We saw that with the Dallas and Louisiana shooters. You can find scores of people using the hashtag to express violent, racist sentiments.

If we look at the "official" organization, then I would again point to the influence of Assata Shakur on the BLM founders. Shakur was a member of the BLA, which you note the FBI singles out. I don't know what else to call her except a domestic terrorist, which is not a controversial statement, so that if BLM's intellectual and spiritual founder was a terrorist, then I don't know what else to call BLM except a terrorist organization.

That you might react to "right wing lunatic" isn't evidence that others may regard you as a right wing lunatic. — Michael

But nor does it mean I'm not a right wing lunatic. Sometimes the shoe fits. I say it fits for other reasons provided above.

When you stop being using childish and hysterical rhetoric — Baden

Is it childish and hysterical rhetoric to call the white supremacist groups present in Charlottesville terrorist organizations, as I also did? I'm sure you could find spokesmen for the organizations claiming not to condone murder. Does that prove they aren't terrorist organizations?

You're the one playing the tribal game here, Baden.

And I was just pointing out that that part of your defence of your opinion is a non sequitur. — Michael

Several things here. Even if the FBI did explicitly consider BLM to be a terrorist organization, that wouldn't necessarily mean it was one. I was not making the claim that the FBI's designations settle the matter. However, I use the fact that 1) "violent extremism" can be viewed as synonymous with "terrorism" and 2) that BLM people have reacted to said designation as being about them, as evidence that one, not necessarily the FBI (but who knows), may regard them as a terrorist organization.

Lots of adjectives, but little substantive engagement with the points I provided in support of my opinion. So be it.

So that BLM leaders and defenders interpret "black identity extremists" as being directed at them, it doesn't then follow that they're actually black identity extremists. — Michael

Nor does appealing to what the organization considers itself to be entail that that is what it is, as @Baden has just done. I gave my own opinion, as I said.

It's not even close to being ambiguous. — Baden

You're right. Peterson is asking whether Trudeau has in mind a certain doctrine of equity. It's this specific doctrine that is murderous.

and no official body in the US considers them so — Baden

I never said such a thing. However, the category of "black identity extremists" would include, in my opinion, BLM. And the BLM leaders and defenders themselves have interpreted this designation as directed at them, so my interpretation clearly isn't crazy.

E.g. Alex Jones — Baden

A broken clock is right two times a day. But this is a cheap shot and you know it. It's just the guilt by association fallacy.

about women marching for equality as representing "murderousness" — Baden

You are deliberately misreading his tweet. He was talking about a certain doctrine of equity.

calling BLM far left "terrorists" — Baden

The FBI's counter-terrorism division has recently declared that "black identity extremists" pose a violent threat. The Dallas and Louisiana shooters were inspired by the BLM movement, certain tendons of which have called for the murder of police officers. The official BLM organization is directly influenced by and praises as a hero, Assata Shakur, a black extremist, cop killer, and armed bank robber on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list.

You wouldn't hesitate to call the white supremacist organizations in Charlottesville, some of whose members were inspired to committed murder, terrorist organizations. And neither would I. But if that's the case, then there's no reason not to paint BLM with the same brush.

Another great post, Erik. The anecdotal experiences you relate parallel those I recently experienced in grad school and which were a main ingredient in my pivot to the right politically.

I'm not a terribly huge fan of Peterson's. But I think the hysterical reaction to some frog-voiced middle-aged psych prof who occasionally criticizes the political left is symptomatic of a wider phenomenon. The guy yells at people to clean their rooms and grumbles about the excesses of the social justice movement, and people act as if he's the Antichrist. — Pneumenon

This. So much. :up:

I'm confused — Maw

I can't help you if you don't want to see the obvious.

Don't know what you're talking about.

Whereas you called the Dems "far left" — Baden

No, I said they were pretty far to the left, not that they were "far left." There is, in fact, a difference in meaning. I associate the latter with various strands of communism, which the Democratic party is clearly not the vanguard of, though it is moving in that direction. With respect to social issues, however, the party is definitely on the far left. It has embraced groups like BLM, for example, which is a far left terrorist organization.

Shocking, eh...? — Baden

No. Why do you think I would find it thus?

Expand on that — Maw

I have already. There is only one remaining actively pro-life Democrat politician. That's a massive shift. You could also take a look through here: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform . It boasts of being the party's "most progressive platform" in history, and I am wont to agree.

Well said, Erik. You have summarized many of the thoughts I had in mind. The Democrats have moved very far to the left socially, effectively adopting all the major tenets of the postmodernist New Left. Economically, Clinton, apart from her tax plan, was indistinguishable from the typical free market/trade position that candidates of both parties espouse. Sanders, however, was to the left of her, representing the older ideal of more state control of industry and big welfare programs, so I think he has pulled the party to the left economically.

It is murderous.

so is this newfound publicity shaping it to be more of a mainstream movement rather than a mere underground coterie that it once was? — Maw

No.

And I would argue that, given Trump's election (or at minimum, his nomination as the Republican candidate) certainly does not operate on the level of illusory power. — Maw

I'm saying Trump has power, not the alt-right. The latter has more publicity, that's all.

represent the new intellectual movement of right-wing philosophy? — Maw

No, it's always existed, it's just gotten more publicity and the illusion of power with Trump. The fact that the alt-right has glombed onto Trump is ironic to me, given that Trump is an unprincipled New York liberal, so I don't quite understand it. I suppose the fashionable answer is that the alt-right appreciates his positions with respect to immigration, foreign policy, and law and order, but Trump's views on these issues aren't any different from the positions of both parties just a few years ago, so it's really just a personality cult it seems to me. I suppose Trump also appears as one of Moldbug's corporate executives in his technocratic utopia.

I wouldn't know. The view you describe doesn't sound very conservative to me. Some sort of hyper-paleoconservatism, as far as I can tell. I mean, Burke supported the American Revolution, and he's usually labeled the godfather of conservatism, paleo and otherwise, at least in the Anglosphere. That's clearly not a "conservative" position to take, as per the definition you have given.

Hence as the Democratic Party in the US is a centrist right-wing party, it means that basically you will find conservatives also there, — ssu

The Democratic party is pretty far to the left these days, if you look at their most recent platform in particular. The last remaining pro-life Democrat barely got reelected recently as well, which is quite telling about how much it's changed.

But American "conservatives" have a long track record now of actively dismantling depression era regulations, lowering taxes in the name of economic intervention; in short, being something other than conservative or rightist. It was done in the name of capitalist principles. So what's the name for that? — frank

The idea is that such regulations, tax schemes, and economic interventions are broken, and so require fixing.