Christianity

[promethean75]

^^^ fantastic scene. The whole movie is great but the Tarantino style extended dialogues between characters are always so good. That Nazi guy especially. Terrific acting. Listen to how his teeth drag the fork when he takes a bite of hees shhhtrudel and how loud he chews. I could listen to that guy eat for hours.

[Harbal]

May I offer you a delicious strudel ‘avec du crême’ as a token of mein appreciation?

You don't have the charisma or style of Landa, Alexis, but I can still see why you identify with him. Do you also check who is operating the projector when you visit the cinema?

[FlashDangerpants]

What I learn from this group is lessons in how it came about that a person, a people, an intellectual community, deliberately insulates themselves from seeing and understanding what is going on around them. And why.

So presumably you've sent your PMs inviting people to communicate via back channel to avoid the hostility that open conversation with you invites, and they've turned you down and now you are feeling sad?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

That was admirable Tillingborn. I am on a birdwatching trip and tapping this on my phone so excuse (or delight in) the brevity.

I would recommend not starting a post like yours with an appeal to authority. You lost points there. I have very little respect for the majority of the intellectual class of today. It amazes me that with so much training what yet comes out as a product is a being who can’t think freely. How do you explain that? Perhaps we’ll have time to come up with some answers.

I admired your ultra-pretentious tone as a rebuttal to my pretentious tone. However, I am an artist at it, you a mere dilettante!

But my greatest appreciation is for your post formatting skill. I am still weak in that skill so I hope to learn from you.

As to Plato — or Socrates — when I translated the part when Socrates looked down into Alcibiades’ toga and (as it is euphemistically translated “caught the flame”) and understood that his man-thing took the upward leap — then I knew what I was dealing with. You simply cannot trust these people Tillingborn. What they are after, and what I am after, these are distinct.

There is not really much to comment back to you on. Your post was theatre. You seem an argument looking for a context. (Where has Immanuel got off too anyway?)

Still, I promise to comment on a couple of your paragraphs later.

Keep your eyes focused on the upper regions in the meantime.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you also check who is operating the projector when you visit the cinema?

It is an age-old question, Harbal. If god operates the projector then we are in his cruel labyrinth and he is demonoid.

Oh wait, you are talking about something else!

Frankly I have not been to a real movie theatre in I do not know how long. I guess they still exist.

I have two screens though: one on a wall and the other in my mind.

[Harbal]

I am on a birdwatching trip

And telling them where they are going wrong, no doubt.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am on a birdwatching trip

And telling them where they are going wrong, no doubt.

They don’t listen no matter what I say. So I just watch, amazed & awestruck.

Do you ever go outside Harbal?

[phyllo]

Frenchness or any other in-ness is arbitrarily decided. Given and taken away by any whim.

And that's why they have to be resisted.

Glad that you examined the article.

Your statement about Frenchness as ‘arbitrary’ and an “is-ness” is an idea, an assertion, and a sort of lie (i mean only a strong non-truth) that I discern that the idea and view you hold is what must be resisted. Personally, I am involved in countermanding it. On numerous levels.

But you came to it, or it to you, through a causal chain. A generation or two ago *your own people* could never have seen themselves in that way. They would have needed to invalidate themselves.

Your view (I say this politely so don’t misconstrue) seems to me a symptom of a disease. A very modern one. A very European one.

Disassociation with ‘self’. Again, it has a causal history.

Le Pen draws the line at citizenship. That becomes the standard of the in-group.

Yet a minor examination of the question of peoplehood, ethnicity, historical trajectory, and so much else — in fact — transcends citizenship. The citizenship you seem to be speaking of is a radical’s concoction. A people defined solely as an agreement or a pact (a ‘propositional nation’). But that necessarily entails doing away with, devaluing, negating, myriad other self-identifications. And therefore that seems to become the liberal State’s sole endeavor: ridding the political body of former identifications; reducing people to mere cogs. And cogs that can be replaced. Who controls this? Only the liberal state.

But these extreme individuals and organizations don't follow that principle.

Your position, when examined, is in fact extreme. Hyper-extreme. Yet you assert that you make the definitions. What you label extreme is extreme. It is a game of controlling the power to assign designations. And under it is always a power-equation. A moral bludgeon. For what do you do about those who see differently, believe differently, organize themselves politically differently?

The State is sent after them.

Really, I am not exaggerating. These things are going on.

What's remarkable about this reply is that it doesn't address the issue that I raised. Surprising since you claim to want to discuss ideas.

You have :
1. Some vague statements on about how I came to hold the ideas that I do. Irrelevant to my point.
2. Some general statements about peoplehood ...
3. You take exception to my use of the word 'extreme'.

None of which addresses the suspension of the rights of citizenship, the definition of who would have their rights suspended and who would decide.

[Belinda]

Renaud Camus is a French writer, political theorist and intellectual. Born in 1946 in Chamalières, Auvergne, after being politically active as a Socialist in the ’60s and ’70s and establishing himself as an influential novelist especially in the gay community (mostly thanks to his 1979 autobiographical novel Tricks), Camus went on to publish several works of political philosophy. He holds a bachelor’s degree in French literature at the Sorbonne and a Master in philosophy at the Paris Institute of Political Studies, as well as two Masters in political science and history of law. He has also taught French literature in the US.

To most in the West however, Camus is known for coining the term “The Great Replacement” in his 2011 work Le Grand Remplacement. The book was never translated into English, but the term has since been the subject of intense controversy and frequent references in Western media. Most recently, it has resurfaced in public discourse thanks initially to a New York Times‘ special and subsequently a media campaign against mainstream Republicans (and the Right more in general), following the mass shooting at Buffalo, New York, on Saturday, May 14.

In an effort to reach a deeper understanding of Mr. Camus’ work beyond the Western media’s superficial depiction of it, we decided to reach out for an exclusive interview. What follows, is a written exchange between Renaud Camus and Benjamin Braddock.

Here

European high culture especially that which is post -Renaissance, post-enlightenment, and some aspects of European popular culture, is definitively not tribal but is a cradle of universal opportunity to engage in it.
Mass immigration is a practical problem of economics and education ; it's not an ethical problem.

[Harbal]

It is an age-old question, Harbal. If god operates the projector then we are in his cruel labyrinth and he is demonoid.

Except that's a conditional statement, rather than a question.

Oh wait, you are talking about something else!

Don't you just hate it when your thoughts spontaneously manifest themselves on the screen before you've even touched the keyboard, and then stubbonly resist any attempt to edit them.

Frankly I have not been to a real movie theatre in I do not know how long. I guess they still exist.

What on earth could have come over you to cause this display of frankness, Alexis.

I have two screens though: one on a wall and the other in my mind.

Oh.

[Harbal]

Do you ever go outside Harbal?

Of course I do, my dustbin doesn't take itself to the road, you know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

European high culture especially that which is post -Renaissance, post-enlightenment, and some aspects of European popular culture, is definitively not tribal but is a cradle of universal opportunity to engage in it. Mass immigration is a practical problem of economics and education ; it's not an ethical problem.

Wait. You are speaking of European intellectual achievements. Essentially the Greek traditions in every -ology category we can name. Those can certainly be universal.

If anyone wants any of that they are free to grab it.

But Camus is speaking about excessive numbers of colonizing foreigners. The replacement of people. His objection is valid and ethical.

That once you looked around and ‘you’ were there (those of your land, heritage, shared trajectory, values) and then suddenly you looked around and it was others, those not you. How could you coherently and ethically invalidate those with such concerns? What ideological trick do you employ? And what gives you that right? Who gave you the moral right to make such decisions?

The arrogance of progressive types is always a startling sight. God must have appeared epiphanally and communicated his will to you. You have a social zealousness with evangelizing fervor. Where does this come from? Where did it originate?

You do not have that right. And I submit that you cannot arrogate it to yourself. Not ethically.

Camus links remplacement with global capitalistic enterprise. When men are transformed into replaceable cogs. Modular humanity.

He also brings out a peculiar point: the anti-racists end up destroying race-difference through their zealous advocacy. The mixing of disparates is the beginning of the end of what is distinct and unique. Anti-whiteness (a real thing) is a breach to a justifiable and proper sense of identity. It is a White man’s disease. It requires internal advocates who turn against themselves.

You pitiable, diseased people! And to think I have been called to rearrange your twisted outlooks.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, after another racial seperatist rant from Jacobi, what do you guys reckon was really the thing he wants to say but can't about the holocaust?

It's pretty obvious he thinks it's almost time for the next one. Amiright?

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ! You're up!!

So when you say:

I believe...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that I am hopelessly drawn and quartered -- fractured and fragmented -- in regard to moral and political conflicts
3] that I am inching closer and closer to oblivion...death

So, of course I am eager to cement that frame of mind into place.

I realize that it will be impossible to build any sort of bridge between our operating and determining Weltanschauungen.

Well, if you do not believe that your own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, and do believe in objective morality and are able to imagine something beyond the grave for "I", then, given particular contexts where things like that might come up, we can at least attempt to communicate to each other the main components of our own philosophy of life. Unless it is required that "technically" we pin down the definition and the meaning of "operating" and "determining" here.

If that is important to you then how about you take your own definition and meaning down out of the technical clouds and note how they are applicable to a particular set of circumstances.

I just want the exchange to be more than words defining and defending yet more words still.

However, I can say -- I am obligated to say -- that the view that you have, seen from my angle and from my values and valuation, is the philosophy of a sick man. Oddly, I doubt that you could say "No! I assure you! It is healthy!"

Okay, again, given actual social, political and economic interactions, how is it "sick" to suppose that in a No God world the manner in which I construe human interactions above is, what, not rational?

Because you cannot make any statement that contradicts the operation of the perspective you have.

A classic "general description intellectual contraption", the truth of which revolves entirely around how you define the meaning of those words placed in that particular order. It does not pertain to any actual existential experiences at all.

You've made your choice but you could have chosen any other one. So you say...

I will certainly describe to you why I view you as a 'sick man' but I am not sure you'll like it. OTOH I cannot see on what basis you'd object. For a man in oblivion what could it matter?

Huh? I'm not in "oblivion" now. I'm still on this side of the grave. All I am noting here is the obvious...

1] that we are all thrown at birth adventitiously -- beyond our control -- out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially
2] that we are all indoctrinated -- for literally years -- as children to think about the world around us as others tell us to
3] that our individual lives -- experiences/relationships/access to information and knowledge -- as both children and adults can be vastly different, predisposing us to come to vastly different moral, political and spiritual value judgments
4] that though philosophers have been around now for thousands of years there is still no consensus regarding behaviors said deontologically to be the most rational and virtuous...not even close regarding any number of conflicting goods

I presented a view that encapsulated some of my musings as to *proper ways to act* in this nihilistic present:

AJ wrote: [In response to St Paul in 1 Corinthians]: I see this as mind-fuck. It is I think a very good example of Hebrew Idea-Imperialism. If you try to reduce it to what it really says, what it says is really disturbing and destructive. You are told that you must give yourself over to this 'god' and thus give over your own power to see, think, decide, choose. This statement invalidates at the most basic level. It is tantamount to neutering or castrating oneself. I absolutely do not believe this is the way to go.

Yes, but that is because you do not have faith in the Christian God. For those that do, neutering or castrating themselves given that their God is believed to be 1] both omniscient and omnipotent and 2] assures them that worshipping and adoring Him resulting in immortality and salvation, is merely to act out -- to embody -- their faith. A frame of mind alien to you perhaps but not to them.

That's why I focus instead on having them demonstrate [even to themselves] that a leap of faith here is enough. Especially given the fact that there are so many, many, many others on many, many, many other One True Paths insisting it is their souls too that are at stake. Maybe that will sink in, maybe it won't. After all, what do atheists like me have to offer them on either side of the grave...moral nihilism and oblivion?

So in my own view I think that culturally, intellectually, and also politically, it is crucial to see and to throw off this basic idea that everyone must submit to this god-figure defined as Jesus and, as a result, give up oneself and subscribe to a mass-current. Recovery of oneself, at a most fundamental level, must then mean turning against a whole array of false-constructs and false-admonitions that have been thrust on people generally.

I believe much the same. But from a very, very different perspective. All I have to offer is the assumption that if they do eschew the Christian God, their whole life doesn't have to revolve rigidly around "what would Jesus do?" In other words, they would immediately have access to so many more options in their life.

But not in a merely rebellious mode. But creative rebellion. Therefore the object is not spiritual disempowerment, neutering and castration, but rejecting a god-image of uniformity and sameness through which people are controlled. And beginning to reconstruct the self and the actions of the self in contrary ways. Recovering genuine but ordered will. Recovering self-determining power. And as part of that also turning against egalitarianism and also progressivism which are the modern expression of those Pauline ideologies.

Creative rebellion? Again, note some particular social, political and economic contexts in which you imagine this unfolding. And what of those all up and down the No God political spectrum who would insist that by rebelling creatively they mean as "one of us".

Instead, in my view, you sustain this line of reasoning way up in the intellectual contraption clouds...

So I can only continue in the projects and processes that I have defined for myself and declared to be my own. I see Immanuel as carrying forward a distorted and distorting Christian doctrine which I have come necessarily to oppose. His ultimate threat (I mean that of Christianity) is spiritual annihilation! But the opposite is true. Recovery is 'life'. Yet I do not think that everything that was channeled into Catholicism is philosophically wrong -- Platonic doctrines seem sound in most ways still -- but because Christianity is a movement of establishing uniformity through undermining freedom of thought and existential freedom. It disempowers at the most essential and crucial level as that excerpt from 1Corinthians demonstrates.

This is why I am more interested in paths of recovery of power; of concept-pathways that rediscover or redefine *god*; which bring out metaphysical truths that apply in the concrete and *real* world and which empower people to act in their world in an integral way. I am much more aligned with a dissident and Right-tending intellectual movement and more and more opposed to those currents of thought that seem communistic, egalitarian and 'progressive' for these reasons.

Prompting me as always to ask: Given what particular contexts? And then when none are forthcoming to note "thanks but no thanks".

Iambiguous wrote: If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Now, given a particular set of circumstances where moral and political conflagrations run rampant, let's compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies.

Thus there is nothing more to be revealed or discussed. Surely you see that as well, right?

How about this: Given what particular context? Provide us with particular sets of circumstances whereby when you were confronted by those who rejected your own value judgments, you did not react as I would above.

[Belinda]

European high culture especially that which is post -Renaissance, post-enlightenment, and some aspects of European popular culture, is definitively not tribal but is a cradle of universal opportunity to engage in it. Mass immigration is a practical problem of economics and education ; it's not an ethical problem.

Wait. You are speaking of European intellectual achievements. Essentially the Greek traditions in every -ology category we can name. Those can certainly be universal.

If anyone wants any of that they are free to grab it.

But Camus is speaking about excessive numbers of colonizing foreigners. The replacement of people. His objection is valid and ethical.

That once you looked around and ‘you’ were there (those of your land, heritage, shared trajectory, values) and then suddenly you looked around and it was others, those not you. How could you coherently and ethically invalidate those with such concerns? What ideological trick do you employ? And what gives you that right? Who gave you the moral right to make such decisions?

The arrogance of progressive types is always a startling sight. God must have appeared epiphanally and communicated his will to you. You have a social zealousness with evangelizing fervor. Where does this come from? Where did it originate?

You do not have that right. And I submit that you cannot arrogate it to yourself. Not ethically.

Camus links remplacement with global capitalistic enterprise. When men are transformed into replaceable cogs. Modular humanity.

He also brings out a peculiar point: the anti-racists end up destroying race-difference through their zealous advocacy. The mixing of disparates is the beginning of the end of what is distinct and unique. Anti-whiteness (a real thing) is a breach to a justifiable and proper sense of identity. It is a White man’s disease. It requires internal advocates who turn against themselves.

You pitiable, diseased people! And to think I have been called to rearrange your twisted outlooks.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Numbers of immigrants is an economic and educational problem. Immigration of undesirable cultures such as modern slavery and drug addiction is a problem of policing. The latest news I read of such people they were Albanians. I have to suppose some foreign nationals are more suspect than others. Your selection process , AJ, is too blunt a knife.

The people I remember from my childhood and youth in Scotland includes Polish soldiers under the command of General Sikorski , and four or five Jewish or Gibraltarian refugees and evacuees. My "zeal" such as it is originates in my childhood and my childhood chums and friends. You?