seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 10:05 pmAJ is simply employing some cheap psychological chicanery by trying to make us believe that the ideology that motivated this guy...
[
cue up the photo of Adolf Hitler]
...is somehow on a par with his fabricated "what if" scenario involving the Japanese people's right to maintain their racial purity.
I seem to recall that as being a standard defensive tactic used by many white nationalist apologists.
However, he keeps ignoring the fact that what he is promoting is precisely what leads to the xenophobic evils associated with the above images.
Imo, AJ is a shining example of how someone who puts on a pretentious and superficial air of intellectualism is not necessarily in possession of any deep wisdom.
You are entitled to any opinion that you wish to form. And I will not correct you. I look at the entire problem quite differently and I have tried to work my way through these difficult social and cultural problems in the way that seemed to me ethical and also moral.
Apparently however, any conversation that touches on any ideas that do not conform to those defined in our present as being *politically correct* arouse extreme reaction. And immediately the reaction turns to abuse. It is not that I am complaining about
abuse (I define this as rephrasing what one says in ways that twist it into immoral declarations that were never stated) but it is more in keeping with a larger point I find myself making often: that people have lost their capacity to think freely. Their thought has been determined by others and also by public relations. The reference is to 'social engineering'.
I am fascinated by the vehemence of reaction. I find that there is no clear or rational way to deal with it (you cannot have a clean conversation with someone gripped by it) and I also understand why the majority of people will refrain from voicing any idea, any topic, that has the potential to arouse the moral blame police. When excited they jump down on the focus of their fury with both feet. And -- as we see here -- the accusation moves quicker than quicksilver to references to Adolf Hitler. So in my view, then, one is forced to revisit the entire European phenomena of the early 20th century. The entire history is no longer a history that can be examined with a detached frame of mind, but is turned into an Emblem at the center of which is the the figure of sheer Ontological Malevolence, Adolf Hitler.
We are dealing then not with 'reality' but with
religious metaphysics that grew overheated. It becomes a psychological conflagration then and certainly not anything that can be discussed cooly and carefully. What I am constantly pointing out is that this *mood* or this *pathology* is well in evidence among us. What examples? I referred to The Screeching Girl as a point of reference. I also referred to the events at Evergreen which really were extraordinary. They made all the same accusations -- they screamed them in unison in fact. They literally shut down any conversation that does not seem to conform to their sense of rightness and goodness.
And as they do this they reveal a mass psychology not unlike what it is that they
say they oppose and which they label 'evil'.
So what interests me is the methods by which certain topic, ideas, themes are made impossible to talk through.
If someone -- say Renaud Camus since he came up -- is referred to and if something he says or thinks is remotely comparable to the chief figure of sheer Ontological Evil, in the blink of an eye he is given that label. At that point it no longer matters at all what Camus actually thinks or has said. He is enveloped in a miasma and he cannot ever escape from it.
Note that at no point did I define 'white nationalism' as my interest or my goal. Note that I do not define superior racial types nor compare one racial stock to another. All of this was done by those who twist words and twist meanings. And once they set out in this way they never turn back.
AJ: But actually, and as it plays out, your approach [Iambiguous'] is ultimately more didactic. What I do (theorize) is what I am inclined to do by nature and by my situation. You can label it didactic pedantry if you wish. Your terms will not, I do not think, have any effect on the sensible choices I have made.
Iambiguous: What sensible choices? In regard to your own interactions with men and women who are not of Northern European stock, what would you construe to be sensible behaviors? Can you cite examples of behaviors that you deemed not to be sensible? Behaviors more common to those of races other than your own?
In an incipiently hysterical frame of mind he cannot understand that the sensible choice is to remain within a type of non-commitment (to political programs and action for example). I did not ever speak of any interactions with anyone. But let's examine what I did do: I did say that I will regard it as a 'negative' if the European-derived stock of America is no longer a super-majority. That is, the larger slice of the population. The determining one therefore. This assertion is immediately associated with *evil*. Yet it is not. It has been
made to seem evil though. And this through a causal chain that involves social engineering, propaganda, education, and different mechanisms and tools. I.e. a causal chain of actions.
So I conclude what is obvious: Even to think of these things, to merely contemplate them, has been associated with evil. Why is it important to point this out? Because this type of 'argument' is used all the time, everywhere. Literally we are subsumed in it. So much so that to all appearances we canot distinguish it from real argument, and therefore free thought.
The questions Iambuguous asks are not to be answered. He asks *questions* that already contain the answers he seeks. And these he can rail against.
So for at least 10 years now, possibly longer, I have been experiencing
this sort of reaction in many different areas (mostly on forums I participate in but also in some personal and non-personal relations) and thinking about it. Through long processes of introspection and consideration I have concluded that the statements I make (for example here) are reasonable, careful, and also moral. I
do not say that they are not difficult areas though.
I have always said "I am here for my own purposes". I do not mind at all encountering this reaction. True it always results in stifling and conversations that go nowhere. But I am committed to getting all that I can out of it and so I *study* it.
One has to say all of this and get it all out there before the meat of the actual terms of conversation are even possible to address.
)
