Christianity

[FlashDangerpants]

Full disclosure, the only reason I specified that exact group is because under one of his jews-rule-the-world interwibblies links, where all the nazies were writing about what a good idea it is to kill all the jews, the Thule Society was recruiting. So I figured that was probably his mob as he wold have got the link from somewhere after all.

He's never gonna confirm that for me though.

Why not just ask him the straightforward question: Do you support, or agree in whole or in part, with the views and aims of the Thule Society?

Asking him that makes you one of the cultural marxist race traitors.

But dont' forget, he is posing as a man of letters, the complete outsider analyst, the perfect uncontaminated observer. He supports nothing, he merely provides the conduit for knowledge and questions.

[Gary Childress]

Well, at least he doesn't appear to me to be a holocaust denier himself. If he denies that the holocaust ever happened, then he would be a holocaust denier, however, since he admits that European Jewry was decimated, then it sounds like he is not denying it.

The thing he was unable to refer to as a conspiracy theory was whether the jews caused the holocaust.

The craziest holocaust deniers are the ones who say that it was all arranged by the jews themselves, using Hitler as a pawn. You are out of your depth.

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy to believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust. It would probably be a bit like people who think the WTC attack was staged by the American government or that NASA is conspiring against the Flat Earth Society. I guess my question to AJ is, does he believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust? And if so, what is the evidence for such a belief?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, at least he doesn't appear to me to be a holocaust denier himself. If he denies that the holocaust ever happened, then he would be a holocaust denier, however, since he admits that European Jewry was decimated, then it sounds like he is not denying it.

The thing he was unable to refer to as a conspiracy theory was whether the jews caused the holocaust.

The craziest holocaust deniers are the ones who say that it was all arranged by the jews themselves, using Hitler as a pawn. You are out of your depth.

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy to believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust. It would probably be a bit like people who think the WTC attack was staged by the American government or that NASA is conspiring against the Flat Earth Society. I guess my question to AJ is, does he believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust? And if so, what is the evidence for such a belief?

Ask him if the Flat Earth NASA thing is a conspiracy theory.
Ask him if the jews caused the holocaust thing is a conspirtacy theory.
Then ask for a straight answer why he can't give the same answer to both.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why not just ask him the straightforward question: Do you support, or agree in whole or in part, with the views and aims of the Thule Society?

This is a philosophical forum not a forum of political activism. All political positions, and social propaganda, PR programs, and political coercion should be examined with philosophical tools.

Are we doing philosophy or operating as exponents of specific political stances?

I have no idea of what the Thule Society advocates. But if I did research them I’d find a world-interpreting platform with a set of assertions about many different things. And all people align themselves with these.

There are an entire range of cliques and movements which take issue with modern Liberal, progressive and egalitarian ideologies. You are much better off, as a philosophically oriented person, developing the skill to read and understand their position rather than doing that without any real knowledge.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy to believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust. It would probably be a bit like people who think the WTC attack was staged by the American government or that NASA is conspiring against the Flat Earth Society. I guess my question to AJ is, does he believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust? And if so, what is the evidence for such a belief?

Gary, you are not engaging here philosophically. You would have to have read widely of the positions of people who expound those views. I was recently reading a Ben-Gurion biography and was surprised by he strategic coldness to the dangerous plight of Jews in Central Europe. Why? Because establishing Israel was his sole objective. The Zionist Movement took advantage of political conflicts to achieve its goals. Were you to study this you’d know much more. You’d have information from which you could develop a genuine assessment.

The general catastrophes of the two world wars were shared creations by all the powers. There is no one single actor that can be blamed.

The conversation you seem to want to have is one you can’t have! You would have to choose to approach it with a determination to study. It would take a minimum of 2-3 months of reading to develop a basic platform.

Things are always more complex than historical reductions.

[Gary Childress]

In the political climate of today, and the intellectual and ideological climate, merely mentioning a non-standard idea gives license to certain factions to accuse you of being a Nazi. There are a range of terms they will use but it always resolves to that one. The Emblem of Ontological Malevolence.

I have critiques of the Republican Right of course, but presently these extreme tactics are a tool of the Progressive Left. They are powerful indeed to the degree that you, or one, is susceptible to their use.

Flash, Belinda, I think Lacewing (and numerous others), because of a general Progressive egalitarian ‘belief’ (which has a sort of religious note) are inclined to use ‘easy labels’ when they believe they have located one they can call an enemy. And enemies abound.

What interests me is less the topical political issues, but as a philosopher an examination of psychological, social and political coercion and how it works.

When Left-Progressives — god’s own true moral children in our world — find their Satan (and he rules the terrestrial realm and is working day and night in sheer malevolence), they give themselves Special Rights to violate ethics and morals to strike at their perceived enemy, their Satan.

Once they get hopped up in this there is no reasoning with them. It is an irrational state of mind. Any attempt to converse is like conversing with a religious fanatic. You are invalidated from the start and their suspicion rules them.

My ‘sin’ is largely that I am aware of these games. But also that I read extremely widely (in comparison to most here who read little if at all). To have ‘an open mind’ and to read primary sources is not understood to be a necessary or positive activity but one that ‘implicates’ you in the minds of people who are inclined to unreasonable positions and psychological hysteria.

I subjected myself to one local exemplar of unreason who latched on (according to him) because I am aware of the Great Replacement Theory and have studied its premises. They have their fair concerns. Whether it is true or not, and whether it is morally right or wrong to have protective attitudes, is actually beside the point for those who’ve made their decisions. They move immediately to a vilification position and work it with all the tools at their disposal.

Well, for whatever it's worth, the political climate today (like it or not) is here for what are probably substantial reasons. I mean, WWII was probably the last 'world war' that humanity can afford to have. We all know that and I think most of us are of the conviction that it ought never to happen again. How to stave something like that off, knowing too well that humanity has been capable of creating such cataclysms in the past, is a big question and we all probably want to do our parts (in our own ways) to ensure it doesn't happen. In effect, most of us have been fighting Nazis since 1945, regardless of political affiliation. We just think the other camp is the one that is closer to being "true" Nazis. But maybe all this infighting is a substantial part of the real problem. Perhaps we've become fanatics in our desire to prevent another cataclysm to the point where we are creating the grounds for one?

In any case, I assume you are not a holocaust denier. Probably you are someone who is just as concerned for the welfare of all humanity as any of the rest of us are (mistakenly or otherwise)?

[Harbal]

Why not just ask him the straightforward question: Do you support, or agree in whole or in part, with the views and aims of the Thule Society?

This is a philosophical forum not a forum of political activism. All political positions, and social propaganda, PR programs, and political coercion should be examined with philosophical tools.

Are we doing philosophy or operating an exponents of specific political stances?

I have no idea of what the Thule Society advocates. But if I did research them I’d find a world-interpreting platform with a set of assertions about many different things. And all people align themselves with these.

There are an entire range of cliques and movements which take issue with modern Liberal, progressive and egalitarian ideologies. You are much better off, as a philosophically oriented person, developing the skill to read and understand their position rather than doing that without any real knowledge.

My suggestion was solely an attempt to help clear up an issue that seems to be causing a problem. I actually hoped it would be of as much help to you as to anyone else, believe it or not.

[Gary Childress]

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy to believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust. It would probably be a bit like people who think the WTC attack was staged by the American government or that NASA is conspiring against the Flat Earth Society. I guess my question to AJ is, does he believe that the Jews arranged the holocaust? And if so, what is the evidence for such a belief?

Gary, you are not engaging here philosophically. You would have to have read widely of the positions of people who expound those views. I was recently reading a Ben-Gurion biography and was surprised by he strategic coldness to the dangerous plight of Jews in Central Europe. Why? Because establishing Israel was his sole objective. The Zionist Movement took advantage of political conflicts to achieve its goals. Were you to study this you’d know much more. You’d have information from which you could develop a genuine assessment.

The general catastrophes of the two world wars were shared creations by all the powers. There is no one single actor that can be blamed.

The conversation you seem to want to have is one you can’t have! You would have to choose to approach it with a determination to study. It would take a minimum of 2-3 months of reading to develop a basic platform.

Things are always more complex than historical reductions.

There are volumes of things I have not studied. I'm sure the same is true for you. Do you seriously advocate for everyone to drop all of our other concerns and delve deeply into the methodical study of social deviance and the history of Nazism? Isn't that a bit like delving deeply into whether or not the "Bell Curve" is accurate? As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, to even worry about things such as whether or not the "Bell Curve" is real among minorities is to engage in racism. Why is it even important? Not everything is worthy of study.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, for whatever it's worth, the political climate today (like it or not) is here for what are probably substantial reasons. I mean, WWII was probably the last 'world war' that humanity can afford to have. We all know that and I think most of us are of the conviction that it ought never to happen again. How to stave something like that off, knowing too well that humanity has been capable of creating such cataclysms in the past, is a big question and we all probably want to do our parts (in our own ways) to ensure it doesn't happen. In effect, most of us have been fighting Nazis since 1945, regardless of political affiliation. We just think the other camp is the one that is closer to being "true" Nazis. But maybe all this infighting is a substantial part of the real problem. Perhaps we've become fanatics in our desire to prevent another cataclysm to the point where we are creating the grounds for one?

First, you are here (permit me to say) offering emoted opinions. I can agree with you certainly. But just having those opinions does not contribute to grasping and understanding our world and why people think what they think, arrive at the ideas and views they have.

Understanding that requires a very different focus and approach.

Prevent another cataclysm? The Americans? They just stimulated and provoked another significant war because of long standing political aims to weaken and contain Russia.

To study and understand all of that will necessitate breaking through conventional narratives offered through the media-systems, no?

[popeye1945]

HOW ABOUT EQUAL TIME FOR ZEUS!

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh my. I assumed his target for a bit of private message radicalisation would be one of the other great replacement theorists like Henry. But he's targetting chomsky boy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just so we're clear, this is the comments section underneath one of the videos that AJ suggested I watch in order to better understand his situation.
sorted by most upvotes.

The title of the video was "RABBIS REVEAL JEWISH RELIGIOUS TAKEOVER AGENDA"

nazi_comments_section.PNG

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are volumes of things I have not studied. I'm sure the same is true for you. Do you seriously advocate for everyone to drop all of our other concerns and delve deeply into the methodical study of social deviance and the history of Nazism? Isn't that a bit like delving deeply into whether or not the "Bell Curve" is accurate? As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, to even worry about things such as whether or not the "Bell Curve" is real among minorities is to engage in racism. Why is it even important? Not everything is worthy of study.

When you write paragraphs like this, Gary, you reveal a great deal about where you stand. You've written many like this. They are interpretive/summarizing.

Do you seriously advocate for everyone to drop all of our other concerns and delve deeply into the methodical study of social deviance and the history of Nazism?

I would advocate for having at least some knowledge-base from which to develop opinions and views. Otherwise you'd have to rely on opinions formed by others and presented to you as capsules.

Social deviance, today, is a wide topic. What is social deviance? On what is this critique constructed? Who holds the idea? From what social and political perspective are they coming from?

You might have associated social deviance with the Nazis, your sentence could be taken that way. But National Socialism and Fascism were both rooted in assessments and perceptions of what was going wrong in society. Like all people who develop a perspective, they also developed a plan to confront what they defined as 'social deviancy'. The same is true today for all those who have political and social platforms. Be they Antifa, The Democrat Party, The Republicans, the Dissident Republicans, or those who come from different orientations. They describe 'the right way to go about things' and then locate those who 'are not doing things the right way'.

If you are asking me to make a recommendation it is that, yes, you should read a great deal more.

I am also of the opinion that the Nazi imago, the 'Nazi' as a semi-religious Satanic figure (the primary emblem of Ontological Malevolence) must be examined by anyone who is actually and genuinely interested in 'free thought'. Look over the way that Hot Pants conducted himself. Examine where he began, the distortions he employed, and then where he ended up. It does not matter what I say about myself, all that matters is what he thinks, projects and concludes.

So: examine psychological constructs, examine psychological and ideological coercion. And then examine how all of us, to one degree or another, have been manipulated through these narrative constructs. That would be the *philosophical* way to go about doing things.

Isn't that a bit like delving deeply into whether or not the "Bell Curve" is accurate? As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, to even worry about things such as whether or not the "Bell Curve" is real among minorities is to engage in racism. Why is it even important? Not everything is worthy of study.

I would say that you have missed the point. The issue is how an ideological opinion ("it is racist to have any concern over the findings of the Bell Curve study") is used to stifle thought. That is, to make it seem morally reprehensible to read the book, to 'believe in' the ideas, to talk about them, and god forbid to seek to modify political policy or educational programs to accord.

Why is it even important?

You are asking a question which, by your own definitions offered, you cannot answer and still remain moral. But if you seek an answer to your question, if it is a genuine question, you are going to have to read the material of those who, for example, oppose unrestricted illegal immigration. Or who value their *blood* and *soil*. The actual make-up of their communities. The country or the land they believe (or believed) is their own.

Don't ask me to be their intermediary. Go directly to them and ask your questions.

[Gary Childress]

There are volumes of things I have not studied. I'm sure the same is true for you. Do you seriously advocate for everyone to drop all of our other concerns and delve deeply into the methodical study of social deviance and the history of Nazism? Isn't that a bit like delving deeply into whether or not the "Bell Curve" is accurate? As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, to even worry about things such as whether or not the "Bell Curve" is real among minorities is to engage in racism. Why is it even important? Not everything is worthy of study.

When you write paragraphs like this, Gary, you reveal a great deal about where you stand. You've written many like this. They are interpretive/summarizing.

Do you seriously advocate for everyone to drop all of our other concerns and delve deeply into the methodical study of social deviance and the history of Nazism?

I would advocate for having at least some knowledge-base from which to develop opinions and views. Otherwise you'd have to rely on opinions formed by others and presented to you as capsules.

Social deviance, today, is a wide topic. What is social deviance? On what is this critique constructed? Who holds the idea? From what social and political perspective are they coming from?

You might have associated social deviance with the Nazis, your sentence could be taken that way. But National Socialism and Fascism were both rooted in assessments and perceptions of what was going wrong in society. Like all people who develop a perspective, they also developed a plan to confront what they defined as 'social deviancy'. The same is true today for all those who have political and social platforms. Be they Antifa, The Democrat Party, The Republicans, the Dissident Republicans, or those who come from different orientations. They describe 'the right way to go about things' and then locate those who 'are not doing things the right way'.

If you are asking me to make a recommendation it is that, yes, you should read a great deal more.

I am also of the opinion that the Nazi imago, the 'Nazi' as a semi-religious Satanic figure (the primary emblem of Ontological Malevolence) must be examined by anyone who is actually and genuinely interested in 'free thought'. Look over the way that Hot Pants conducted himself. Examine where he began, the distortions he employed, and then where he ended up. It does not matter what I say about myself, all that matters is what he thinks, projects and concludes.

So: examine psychological constructs, examine psychological and ideological coercion. And then examine how all of us, to one degree or another, have been manipulated through these narrative constructs. That would be the *philosophical* way to go about doing things.

Isn't that a bit like delving deeply into whether or not the "Bell Curve" is accurate? As Noam Chomsky once pointed out, to even worry about things such as whether or not the "Bell Curve" is real among minorities is to engage in racism. Why is it even important? Not everything is worthy of study.

I would say that you have missed the point. The issue is how an ideological opinion ("it is racist to have any concern over the findings of the Bell Curve study") is used to stifle thought. That is, to make it seem morally reprehensible to read the book, to 'believe in' the ideas, to talk about them, and god forbid to seek to modify political policy or educational programs to accord.

Why is it even important?

You are asking a question which, by your own definitions offered, you cannot answer and still remain moral. But if you seek an answer to your question, if it is a genuine question, you are going to have to read the material of those who, for example, oppose unrestricted illegal immigration. Or who value their *blood* and *soil*. The actual make-up of their communities. The country or the land they believe (or believed) is their own.

Don't ask me to be their intermediary. Go directly to them and ask your questions.

I"m not asking them these questions. I'm asking you. They're not here and I'm not going to go looking for a conversation with someone like Richard Spencer. Believe it or not, I was trying to be fair to you when FDP was leveling his accusations against you. Apparently, you've taken what was an attempt to vindicate you from some pretty harsh criticisms and are now proceeding to drag me down. I mean, do you honestly sleep at night? Serious question. I know I couldn't if I did that to people trying to be fair to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My suggestion was solely an attempt to help clear up an issue that seems to be causing a problem. I actually hoped it would be of as much help to you as to anyone else, believe it or not.

This issue -- you mean this little spat going on here -- is irrelevant to much larger and much more consequential ideological ways going on all around us.

"The problem" will have first to be seen fully and fairly. The problem is different, and much more complex, than recent contributors realize. The effort can only be to get every aspect of the problem out on the table and then to determine is, indeed, all of it can be talked about, or if some of it must be suppressed.

We do have at least one very apropos example we can refer to as an 'emblem': the issue of unrestricted immigration and, essentially, an open border. As a small anecdote I have Colombian friends here who have told me that many of their friends and family, when they saw on TV that the border is passible, and that no one will stop them, and that they will likely be able to gain residency, borrowed money or drained their savings to take a plane to Mexico and a bus to the border -- and crossed over. This is going on all over the world.

Here we have a 'topical' example that can be discussed. Where do *you* (I mean any particular person) stand? You will quickly find out that your position, whatever it is, is contended intensely.

So the issue of 'social and cultural replacement' is not an hallucination by those who dwell on it. Neither in respect to the US nor to Europe. But you can be certain that if you oppose unrestricted immigration you will be assigned by those in pro of it a range of terms: racist, Nazi, fascist, etc.

The point I am drawing out has to do with ideology and how it is wielded. That is the more interesting topic for conversation.

The issue some have with me will not be 'cleared up'! You must see this. Once 'they" believe they have an angle they will milk it for all it is worth. Their object: to establish moral reprehensibility. And then to attack it with the full force of righteousness. This righteousness shares a great deal in common with religious conviction. It is 'felt' and not thought. It is irrational and not reasoned.

These issues will not go away. In our surrounding culture they are getting worse and will continue to get worse.