Christianity

[Lacewing]

I see at least 40-50 pages of conflict and strife in our immediate future.

Hopefully we can make it fun.

[Dubious]

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

Abortion. Fatherlessness. "Pride" month. Gender dysphoria / trans-ism, bisexuality, polyamory...pick something: chances are, they're permissive of it, or shortly will be.

Guilty until proven innocent; guilty even of the possibility of being guilty! One of the great tragedies of modern times is that we can't torture anybody into confessing - as once was so common among god worshiping Christians such as yourself - thus confirming their wickedness by their own words. It must seem perverse to you that saving souls by burning their bodies is no-longer allowed. The signs of more evil to come are now all around us ever since the Satanic democrats foiled Trump from a second term. Who can forget the time when he cleared the path to hold the bible up to show everyone what he stood for even if had no idea what was in it.

God could never be a Democrat!

[attofishpi]

Who can forget the time when he cleared the path to hold the bible up to show everyone what he stood for even if had no idea what was in it.

You got that right sister, woops, I mean bruva.

[Dubious]

...and neither can his chosen people, the Republicans (God's Own Party)

[Immanuel Can]

Who can forget the time when he cleared the path to hold the bible up to show everyone what he stood for even if had no idea what was in it.

Do you mean Trump, maybe?

I don't know what he believes. I can't say. There was probably a time when he believed in nothing...but in those days, if you recall, when he claimed to grab women, he was also a Democrat. He's not anymore. Maybe he's different.

Men change, I guess. He may have been irreligious then, and he may have been a pervert then, too. What he is now, I have no idea. You'd have to ask him. Either way, like all of us, he answers to God. If he was sincere, then good for him; if not, I would not wish to be in his position. God is famously serious about people who "take His name in vain." (It's commandment #3 of 10, if you recall.)

But really, why do you care what he held up? You don't think there's anything in the Bible anyway, do you? So why would it matter?

[attofishpi]

But really, why do you (Dubious) care what he (Trump) held up? You don't think there's anything in the Bible anyway, do you? So why would it matter?

It's not the point as to whether there is material within the Bible that is valid. IT DOES MATTER, because Trump was and will again, clearly use it to gain the votes (and trust..LMAO) of the simpleton """Christian""" voters, even though there is not a Christian bone in Donald the halfwit's body.

[Dubious]

Who can forget the time when he cleared the path to hold the bible up to show everyone what he stood for even if had no idea what was in it.

Do you mean Trump, maybe?

I don't know what he believes. I can't say. There was probably a time when he believed in nothing...but in those days, if you recall, when he claimed to grab women, he was also a Democrat. He's not anymore. Maybe he's different.

Men change, I guess. He may have been irreligious then, and he may have been a pervert then, too. What he is now, I have no idea. You'd have to ask him. Either way, like all of us, he answers to God. If he was sincere, then good for him; if not, I would not wish to be in his position. God is famously serious about people who "take His name in vain." (It's commandment #3 of 10, if you recall.)

But really, why do you care what he held up? You don't think there's anything in the Bible anyway, do you? So why would it matter?

You would be wrong about that but I do admit to having a higher respect for that which created Judaism than that which created Christianity.

[BigMike]

Democracy is in huge danger today, mostly from what the Left is deceptively terming, "Democratic Socialism," which is really nothing but elitist authoritarianism, a coming together of the radical Left with big business, the legacy media, and global power-brokers to undermine the interests of the ordinary citizen and to diminish his freedoms.

Wow, that is a mind-boggling interpretation of the actual state of affairs.

It really isn't, but the entire situation would have to be carefully examined and carefully and fairly explained. And no one has time for that.

Democracy is not so much the thing in danger as it is the cause of the social and *identity* problems. The real cause of the disunity in the US has to do with demography: the reengineering of the demography of the United Staes. This is an unpopular idea naturally. But I would assert it is one of the major causes of social division. It is numbers within a democracy that determines all things about that democracy. When a given culture loses its 'cultural identity' it is because demographic numbers (original population) has been supplanted. That, of course, is what 'replacement theory' is about: the realization of what, really, is happening and what is effects are and will be.

Demography is the study of groups of people and what they have in common based on numbers. I do not see how revealing societal changes is the cause of those changes and what you refer to as "disunity."

I can tell from what you say and don't say that when new ideas are introduced into a democratic society, which you call "reengineering," which is code for racist conspiracy theorists, laggards feel threatened, claim that these ideas are "not who we are," and dispute demographic facts on the grounds that they are "unpopular." Changes in population are not a threat to democracy. People who are not democratic, who are authoritarian, who view themselves as the only legitimate ruling class, and who will not accept a democratic system of government are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hoo boy, now things are going to heat up …

[Alexis Jacobi]

You would be wrong about that but I do admit to having a higher respect for that which created Judaism than that which created Christianity.

How would you describe what created Judaism?

And what, obviously in relation to Judaism, created Christianity?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The signs of more evil to come are now all around us ever since the Satanic democrats foiled Trump from a second term. Who can forget the time when he cleared the path to hold the bible up to show everyone what he stood for even if had no idea what was in it.

In order to make sense of what you are asserting, and also what those who *stand behind Trump* because of their belief that he has been sent by god, we will have to get down on their level and make the effort to see the world as they are seeing the world.

The same is true if one is interested in understanding the positions of those who have arrayed themselves on the 'progressive' and 'democratic' side of the cultural battles and who charge forth in war under those banners and blazons.

Even the term 'satanic' has to be carefully parsed-through. I cannot imagine that you, Dubious, would allow the term 'satanic' to have any validity in all in its original sense. So does it have validity (for you) in any sense that is not tightly bound up in metaphysics? A few pages back you made reference to the Bhagavad-Gita and there, clearly and directly expressed, what is 'demonic' is lucidly explained.

So there is a curious disjointing in how people conceive of these things and I think it is wise to, at least, to get it out on the table. One, is that some people (scientistic people and post-Christian people to state it very crudely) simply cannot entertain the idea of the demonic. It is a false-concept and therefore cannot be discussed seriously. Two, there are people who are practicing Christians (and other religious from other traditions) who do believe in fundamental metaphysical ideas and thus see the demonic as a real category though perhaps they would explain it outside of the limits that strict Christianity proposes.

Three, we must reference and put on the table a most important concept: the Machiavellian. Put in direct terms those who are students of Machiavellianism don't really care one way or the other about *ultimate transcendent truths* and what interests them is only in the use of power to achieve their ends. If they can. let's say, employ Christian religious piety as a tool of social manipulation (to achieve some end defined by power-seeking) they will -- and they do. So I suggest that we must all realize that to discuss the Culture Wars, power, politics, social manipulation, the media-systems, communication, rhetoric and really all things that pertain to the 'real world' we must take into account the methods of Machiavellianism.

I say this because, as we are all aware, the political and ideological battles of our day, and which we are directly and immediately involved in, and also which impinge directly on our particular situations, are couched in terms of right & wrong, good & bad, and also good & evil.

Obviously then, the Democrats are really & truly on the side of the Good, and just as obviously the Republicans are on the side of the Evil. These are established Truths that we can all agree one here, right? I mean that of course in relation to the Righteous Ones who are here in this thread fighting the Good Fight. We know what side we are on, don't we?

[attofishpi]

And what, obviously in relation to Judaism, created Christianity?

So glad this guy still exists..after all these years.
https://youtu.be/jHjFxJVeCQs

[Immanuel Can]

...why do you care what he held up? You don't think there's anything in the Bible anyway, do you? So why would it matter?

You would be wrong about that but I do admit to having a higher respect for that which created Judaism than that which created Christianity.

Oh? Interesting. What offends you, then, about a politician waving a Bible? Do you attribute some sacredness to that text?

Honest question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wow, that is a mind-boggling interpretation of the actual state of affairs.

It really isn't, but the entire situation would have to be carefully examined and carefully and fairly explained. And no one has time for that.

Democracy is not so much the thing in danger as it is the cause of the social and *identity* problems. The real cause of the disunity in the US has to do with demography: the reengineering of the demography of the United Staes. This is an unpopular idea naturally. But I would assert it is one of the major causes of social division. It is numbers within a democracy that determines all things about that democracy. When a given culture loses its 'cultural identity' it is because demographic numbers (original population) has been supplanted. That, of course, is what 'replacement theory' is about: the realization of what, really, is happening and what is effects are and will be.

Demography is the study of groups of people and what they have in common based on numbers. I do not see how revealing societal changes is the cause of those changes and what you refer to as "disunity."

Yes, you are right, I should have referred to demographics and not *demography*. Point taken.

Social engineering and reengineering are extremely important ideas about the way things actually work in democratic (and other) societies. So let's take for example Noam Chomsky's highly developed ideas about 'the manufacture of consent' which was influenced by Walter Lippmann's theories and predominantly by Eduard Bernays' idea of the 'crystallization of opinion'.

Now consider something that Bernays directly said in his Propaganda:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

BigMike writes:

Demography is the study of groups of people and what they have in common based on numbers. I do not see how revealing societal changes is the cause of those changes and what you refer to as "disunity."

As you know I say and I repeat: if we are interested in understanding, and not merely in bickering, we will have to work slowly and methodically through each of the elements that make up the discussion. So first, there certainly is such a thing as 'social manipulation' and the 'engineering of consent'. In fact, this is the base of all communication in a democratic society. And as well what we call 'advertising' and also 'public relations' are extremely important agencies in our society through which consent-manipulation takes place.

This is extremely basic material BigMike. It hardly needs to be proved.

I say that we must also -- as philosophers, as people interested in understanding -- we must also recognize that the principal reality, the core fact about our society, is that it operates according to Machiavellian principles. Put another way: if we do not understand this then we are seeing like naive children. We will constantly find ourselves making mistakes of perception and failing to see how raw and acute power actually works. And if we fail to understand how Machiavellian principles enter into and reveal themselves through rhetorical formulations (narratives and communication) then we are not carrying on as we should (again as philosophers).

What I say is that in demographic shift, and in the restructuring of demography, that social disunity arises. I refer to it as a 'major cause' but not as the sole cause (of which there are many).

I can tell from what you say and don't say that when new ideas are introduced into a democratic society, which you call "reengineering," which is code for racist conspiracy theorists, laggards feel threatened, claim that these ideas are "not who we are," and dispute demographic facts on the grounds that they are "unpopular." Changes in population are not a threat to democracy. People who are not democratic, who are authoritarian, who view themselves as the only legitimate ruling class, and who will not accept a democratic system of government are.

It would be more accurate to say that you think or imagine that you can conclude what I personally think, but that in fact you cannot conclude accurately until you actually understand my position. To do so you will have to avoid 'knee-jerk' reactions when you feel you have encountered *codes*.

First, I will assume that you recognize 'engineering' and also 'reengineering' as 'real things' in our society. If this is so then 'the introduction of new idea' can be broached and discussed. 'Racist conspiracy theories' is a 'hot term', highly charged and extremely rhetorical, which can be seen as a sort of 'lever' or bludgeon to be used in rhetorical battles. But it will not help us a great deal if we are (genuinely) seeking the causes of social disunity and to decipher 'the culture wars'. In fact I will state that the use of such hot terms, and those terms themselves, can be described as the tools by which 'social engineering' is often conducted. That is, the creation of polarizing terms and the broad assignment of them.

Similarly, to define those who do not or cannot accept what I gather are your personal notions of what is *right and correct* as a social attitude as 'laggards' is also an example of using rhetorical lingo as a bludgeon. So in a public relations campaign, let's say, the idea of 'backward hicks, 'uneducated hicks', 'deplorable people' and other such terms are indeed the terms that are used in narrative warfare.

Changes in population, especially extremely rapid changes in demographic make-up, are indeed the causes of social and cultural conflicts. This is not an assertion that requires any defense at all. It is established sociological fact.

What you are actually saying (if I have it right) is that you believe that it is wrong, morally wrong I assume, to be a 'laggard' or one who 'feels threatened' or who perceives that he is 'being engineered' without his consent. And it is these assertions that are used within public relations narratives to invalidate and to disempower the positions of those who resist the social engineering I refer to.

Changes in population are not a threat to democracy.

A change in population results, or can result, in a new and different 'democratic consensus'. So take an example of a community of 100 people who define themselves as 'social conservatives' with all their traditions, attitudes, etc. Introduce over a short period of time (say one generation) 350 people who are, let's say, ideological revolutionaries with extremely different ideas. Conflict will result.

Democracy is the expressed opinions and the will of a given population, right? So obviously in the example I cite there will arise democratic conflict. This points back to the entire issue of demography: who comprises a given culture. What their values and ideology is. It is obvious then that 1) culture and society can certainly be engineered by those who we never see, and 2) that demographic shifts can be a part of the reengineering if culture, culture norms, conventions, traditions, and all else.

If you are trying to argue about which stance is right & good and which is wrong & bad -- that is really another, separate issue. I am certainly not opposed to venturing into that area but we do have to get some basic facts straightened out beforehand.

Wow, that is a mind-boggling interpretation of the actual state of affairs.

Immanuel Can's positions are not at all 'mind-boggling'. They may be tendentious and biased, that I will grant you, but they are very much part of the social and cultural conversation. I could say that your position of adamancy against seeing that, and understanding that, is more *mind-boggling* -- except I try to avoid such manipulative, rhetorical terms (when I am being reasonable of course!)

If I may I'd like to introduce here what I consider a prime example of 'cultural engineering' through extremely sophisticated use of communication tools.Obviously, this stands outside of government agency or the agency of mass-education (in children's schools) and yet it is a very very real factor in the larger area of cultural and social engineering.

Who or what is 'influencing our opinions, and 'manipulating our ideas' and our perceptions through these messages, these enactments, these rehearsals, these spectacles and these productions? How can this be talked about cooly fairly?

[Alexis Jacobi]

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

Abortion. Fatherlessness. "Pride" month. Gender dysphoria / trans-ism, bisexuality, polyamory...pick something: chances are, they're permissive of it, or shortly will be.

This forum is, supposedly, a place where people of philosophical orientation discuss ideas. So then, the idea of the use of sexuality and sexual liberality, can be talked about calmly and rationally, am I right?

So if this is true let me introduce a blurb that can outline what one side of such a rational conversation could be:

Take Libido Dominandi as our theme: The will to power; the desire to dominate; the lust for government as a possible starting-point. The blurb is from a book by the same title:

"Libido Dominandi is the definitive history of a sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present." "Unlike the standard version of a sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. The logic is clear enough: Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido inevitably led to anarchy. Over the course of two hundred years, those techniques became more and more refined, eventuating in a world where people were controlled, not by military force, but by the skillful management of their passions. It was Aldous Huxley who wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that "as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of technologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control - including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and, when push came to shove, plain old blackmail - allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine's insight on its head and create masters out of men's vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened."