Biden Crime Family

[promethean75]

What he means is strictly speaking disease and illness can only effect the body and that some abnormal behavior involves deviations from social norms rather than illness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have no idea who you imagine you're talking to. I don't think anything at all is "unthinkable." I would say that some things may be unreasonable, but that's quite a different case.

I realize you're at real pains to present yourself as if you're some kind of "dangerous thinker" or "daring truth-teller" who can "handle" what others simply cannot "handle," but it's an absurd posture for you to take, and I see nothing in all you say that justifies anybody getting that impression.

Really, it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with ideas that are very dangerous in our present. I do not mean by that that I regard them as dangerous necessarily, but that they are regarded that way.

It is not that I 'imagine' I am talking to anyone except you -- the man who I have been exchanging posts with for over a years now (and longer if the past is considered). You misunderstand *unthinkable*. It is an exaggeration, of course, when Chomsky used it for ideas, views and opinions about the US and its policies that many people, average people, could not allow themselves to think. That is, that certain ideas and views about America and *what it stands for* had been so instilled that countervailing ideas or contradicting ideas could not be received. They were "unthinkable".

There are many such ideas today, and you of all people should know, even as a Right-leaning centrist, that there are ideas that cannot be discussed in the public sphere. Imagine for example presidential debates where *support for Israel* and propositions to stop supporting Israel were topics.

Or -- and here I bring up what many many people all over the Internet are indeed talking about today and which is very alarming to Jews and Jewish groups like the ADL -- the opinion that American Jews, due to financial power or some control of the media seen as 'excessive', have made it impossible for the issue of *Jewish control* to be discussed openly.

You see? These are in fact topics which fit under the heading "unthinkable thought". And they are definitely, very definitely, ideas that you cannot discuss openly anywhere.

You see, you all the time refer to the nefarious Left-Socialists who have the power that you say and believe they do, and who do have the power to control what is talked about, what is debated and discussed, and who also have the power to punish those who breach the rules, to ban and demonetize them, yet you do not seem to take seriously those who, though indeed fringe, are part of a Dissident Right who yet have had, and still have, a pretty substantial influence. I think this is because you are very centrist, as I say, and the couner-liberal ideas of the Dissident Right are not merely unreasonable but that strike you as very wrong. Such for example as their anti-Christian positions and not to mention that which is Jewish-critical.

Naw, I don't buy that. If I were cynical, I'd have to say that your object is to self-present as a gnostic illuminatus of some kind, under the mistaken impression that people are actually taking you for one when you write a lot and ramble. It's not working, but you sure do keep trying.

I admire to a degree your rhetorical head thumps. I feel I can always count on you for some good ones.

I am a Gnostic Illuminatus not *of some sort* but genuinely so. My words are darts of supernal light that, whether you know it or not, penetrate deeply into those dark fibres you know as Immanuel Can. Those darts of light lodge there and, like a filament being strung together by a Cosmic Weaver, will eventually create for you a New Body of Light!

I know, I know, it sounds like a phantasy. But one day you'll see that I am right.

One day you will light up from within and you will SING the new awareness in irrepressible joyfulness! Mark my words! You are not even that difficult of a case. Indeed there have been others .... Well, that's another topic!

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea who you imagine you're talking to. I don't think anything at all is "unthinkable." I would say that some things may be unreasonable, but that's quite a different case.

I realize you're at real pains to present yourself as if you're some kind of "dangerous thinker" or "daring truth-teller" who can "handle" what others simply cannot "handle," but it's an absurd posture for you to take, and I see nothing in all you say that justifies anybody getting that impression.

It has to do with ideas that are very dangerous in our present. I do not mean by that that I regard them as dangerous necessarily, but that they are regarded that way.

That's a function of the absurdities of political correctness. Personally, I find nothing "dangerous" in those ideas. Shrinking violents from the "trigger warning" set may say they feel threatened, but I don't think any sane person even believes them. Nevertheless, it's an oddity of our ethos that the media seem to cater to them and take them seriously.

You see, you all the time refer to the nefarious Left-Socialists who have the power that you say and believe they do, and who do have the power to control what is talked about, what is debated and discussed, and who also have the power to punish those who breach the rules, to ban and demonetize them, yet you do not seem to take seriously those who, though indeed fringe, are part of a Dissident Right who yet have had, and still have, a pretty substantial influence.

Well, I concede that the Leftist-Socialists have an illegitimate hold on center stage right now, and I concede that you're right about what they do with it.

As for the "Dissident Right," I do not see any evidence of their "dangerous" influence. I never see them at all, in fact. And the Left, which has every reason to want to produce such evidence in abundance, cannot seem to do so, with all the resources from the media they have at their disposal. So that tells us a lot about how phony the whole posture is: the people who most want to find the Alt-Righters so as to demonize them and to justify the necessity of us all conceding to them yet more power can't really seem to find any of those dastardly Alt-Righters...or was it "Ultra-MAGAists"?

That says it all.

I am a Gnostic Illuminatus not *of some sort* but genuinely so.

Okay, chum. Now you've lost me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now you've lost me.

When you are most lost, my son, know that the Truth is that much closer to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's a function of the absurdities of political correctness. Personally, I find nothing "dangerous" in those ideas. Shrinking violents from the "trigger warning" set may say they feel threatened, but I don't think any sane person even believes them. Nevertheless, it's an oddity of our ethos that the media seem to cater to them and take them seriously.

Here, my response is that you actually do not know what you are talking about. You would have to have read a certain number of them to even form a genuine opinion. You have not. And what you -- personally -- find dangerous or merely pseudo-dangerous or milquetoast is not what concerns me.

It is not merely *shrinking violets* that are disturbed by people like Alain de Benoist and Pierre Krebs, and sane people do in fact read them, contribute to the platforms of their thinking and expand on them, and indeed become activists to spread their ideas and views.

Nevertheless, it's an oddity of our ethos that the media seem to cater to them and take them seriously.

That is a shallow opinion. Ronald Beiner wrote Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right because many of the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger are supremely radical and anti-Liberal. This is not a matter of Lefty imagination run wild. In fact he expounded on the most radical assertions of N and H in his book and made a pretty good case.

Nietzsche and Heidegger are indeed dangerous thinkers -- as you well know. It is in this sense that the intellectual Dissident Right also deals in ideas that are beyond question *dangerous*. I am not bothered that you dismiss them, but your view of them seems flatly wrong. You do not see fairly and you do not see clearly.

But I am talking with someone who has no background or interest in the Dissident Right. Your opinions are largely invalid.

As for the "Dissident Right," I do not see any evidence of their "dangerous" influence. I never see them at all, in fact.

Since you never see them at all, you have no basis from which to talk about them.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not merely *shrinking violets* that are disturbed by people like Alain de Benoist and Pierre Krebs,

Well, it's not me. And it's not anybody I know about. And it's not the media, apparently. And it's not the political system, the economic system, the medical system, the educational system...the problem they all have is Leftism, nothing to do with these people.

...many of the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger are supremely radical and anti-Liberal. ...

They were favourites of Hitler and the National Socialists. But that's ancient history now. Nobody today is much bothered with them.

As for the "Dissident Right," I do not see any evidence of their "dangerous" influence. I never see them at all, in fact.

Since you never see them at all, you have no basis from which to talk about them.

I can talk about what's obvious about them: that they're not very high-profile, and nowhere near as "dangerous" as their limited admirers might wish them to be. They're not dominant in any facet of public life. They're not even making the public discussion. What's clear is that they're firmly on the sidelines.

I'm looking to find this marvelously "dangerous" "Alt-Right." If this is all they've got -- Nietzsche's and Heidegger's leftovers -- then they haven't had a current idea for a very long time, and everybody already knows any "dangerous" ideas they've ever had, and they're not a serious concern.

[Lacewing]

Rather than framing this as some sort of unfair repression, I think it is better described as suppressed hatred that is given permission at some point to escape society's conduct safeguards for moderation and appropriateness, so that it can then run rampant in mindless destruction... as extremist groups (so convinced of their 'rightness') have done in humankind's embarrassing past.

It does not surprise me that you would concoct such a framing. But as I have said I think that you do not have enough self-circumspection to see into your own attitude-formation.

It does not surprise me that you would concoct the framing you use. Your self-circumspection is about as deep as a kiddie's wading pool because you're so busy bragging about other people's ideas that you've studied, and then trying to apply the skewed ones you prefer onto other people and systems.

You illustrate a very common *outlook*

No, I don't. That is the stupidest thing you've said among all the other stupid things in your post.

What alternative is there?

That is what you should be asking yourself, seeing as how mired you are in your preferred mental loops that keep feeding themselves.

the Alt-Right and the Dissident Right present contrarian but not overtly destructive ideas. They see their ideas as *protective* or *defensive* against a larger destructive excessive Liberalism (my tern is hyper-liberalism or liberalism gone amuck).

Extremism is across the board. You're not being honest. Each 'side' sees itself as being reasonable and right.

to make this clear would necessarily involve a careful discussion of their ideas. And you my dear are fully unqualified for that!

You, my pompous friend, are not balanced enough to have clarity beyond your own ego-investment. You've already shown how skewed your discussions are, even though you put on a great performance of pretending otherwise -- much as I.C. prances around pretending to be an exceptional Christian, despite all of the mangled madness he has been called on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...many of the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger are supremely radical and anti-Liberal. ...

They were favourites of Hitler and the National Socialists. But that's ancient history now. Nobody today is much bothered with them.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to offer opinions, but to say that "Nobody today is much bothered with them" [with the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger] seems almost ridiculous.

The only point I make, and have made, is that the Dissident Right is a real entity, that their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed (and one that contradicts Liberalism in certain senses), that they are harshly excluded from participation in any public spaces and forums, and that they yet have influence on the social discourse in our present. That is all that I have said and all that I mean to say.

I can talk about what's obvious about them: that they're not very high-profile, and nowhere near as "dangerous" as their limited admirers might wish them to be. They're not dominant in any facet of public life. They're not even making the public discussion. What's clear is that they're firmly on the sidelines.

You certain ly can, but only to a degree. You are right: they are not *high-profile*. Before the general round of banning and demonatization you'd have been able to access them more easily. But with the wave of bannings, and the controls set up by Google etc., access to them is limited. I am reciting facts not making a case for the validity of the ideas nor how *dangerous* they are (how serious a threat they present). The danger in the ideas they entertain, and in certain areas I support them, is nonetheless real even if you dismiss them or their ideas. You push me to make balanced and fair statements when your's are not so.

I'm looking to find this marvelously "dangerous" "Alt-Right." If this is all they've got -- Nietzsche's and Heidegger's leftovers -- then they haven't had a current idea for a very long time, and everybody already knows any "dangerous" ideas they've ever had, and they're not a serious concern.

The term *Alt-Right* has been superseded. I don't think it is used any longer. What is a better term? Dissident Right is good because it implies even dissidence against typical Right-leaning political platforms.

As to having, or not having, current ideas, again you have no qualification whatever to make any statement beyond that of saying "I know next to nothing about them".

I did not make any statement about them being 'a serious concern'. Whatever they are, or aren't, they (as a valid idea-movement) are suppressed and kept out of circulation. It is often said (by them) that when they do have platforms that the strength of their ideas tend to influence and convince. And that much seems true to me.

[Immanuel Can]

...their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed

There's absolutely nothing about them that grounds an actual "morality." They're both pretty amoral. That's what allowed the Third Reich to be so fond of them, really.

But they're yesterday's news, for sure.

I'm looking to find this marvelously "dangerous" "Alt-Right." If this is all they've got -- Nietzsche's and Heidegger's leftovers -- then they haven't had a current idea for a very long time, and everybody already knows any "dangerous" ideas they've ever had, and they're not a serious concern.

The term *Alt-Right* has been superseded. I don't think it is used any longer. What is a better term? Dissident Right is good because it implies even dissidence against typical Right-leaning political platforms.

Potato, potahto. Same vegetable.

The important point is that they may see themselves as "dangerous lads," but nobody else is much threatened with them. So again, they're no kind of force that explains the paranoia of the Left on that score.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The only point I make, and have made, is that the Dissident Right is a real entity, that their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed (and one that contradicts Liberalism in certain senses), that they are harshly excluded from participation in any public spaces and forums, and that they yet have influence on the social discourse in our present. That is all that I have said and all that I mean to say.

An argument could be made that Nietzsche and Heidegger are generally amoral.

However, in the paragraph above I referred to intellectuals of the Dissident Right — a wide and varied group (Alain de Benoist and Pierre Krebs being good examples). They generally oppose modern Liberal assertions about what is moral with challenging moral versions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The important point is that they may see themselves as "dangerous lads," but nobody else is much threatened with them. So again, they're no kind of force that explains the paranoia of the Left on that score.

I did not make quantitive claims. However, it is not accurate to say “but nobody else is much threatened with them”.

A recent article from The Economist.

Those they refer are among those I refer to as being influenced by contemporary Dissident Right thinkers.

But go ahead, talk a bit more out of your ass-end of what you know nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

The important point is that they may see themselves as "dangerous lads," but nobody else is much threatened with them. So again, they're no kind of force that explains the paranoia of the Left on that score.

I did not make quantitive claims. However, it is not accurate to say “but nobody else is much threatened with them”.

A recent article from The Economist.

So your contention is that these folks who are, say, protesting things like the loss of their language and culture are "hard right," and are "hard right" in the same way as the post-Nietzschean, post-Heideggerian "hard right" you were talking about? You're saying you think they're the same group, with the same values and ideology?

Those they refer are among those I refer to as being influenced by contemporary Dissident Right thinkers.

I don't see that. I see Dutch Belgians trying not to lose their culture, not ideologues bent on reconstructing the governnment in some ideological image in response to a manifesto from post-Nietzschean social theory. But hey, show me I'm missing something here...

Where's the linkage?

What I've noticed about the Left propaganda is that ANYBODY who opposes them is automatically "hard right" in their indictments. It could be a school mom trying to avoid her kid being trans-poisoned, or somebody concerned about the open borders, or an economic protectionist, or even just a reformed Democrat politician or a soft socialist who doesn't entirely dismiss the other side of debates...and somehow they all get called "hard left" or "Fascist," and treated as if they're the same folks, and all responding to a common ideology in the way the Left responds to Socialism. But I don't see any warrant for that at all. It seems an artificial attempt to herd unlike people into a common pen, so as to create a monolythic ideological "other" where no single entity exists, so as to have an excuse for Socialist conformism, and a false "threat" to justify further Socialist inroads on personal freedom.

But show me that's wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So your contention is that these folks who are, say, protesting things like the loss of their language and culture are "hard right," and are "hard right" in the same way as the post-Nietzschean, post-Heideggerian "hard right" you were talking about? You're saying you think they're the same group, with the same values and ideology?

Often, I make efforts to defend your perspectives and opinions when many -- most -- dismiss you broadly. Yet when you show yourself as being so prejudiced that you can't read what I write without infusing it with what I do not intend to say, I re-sympathize with those who tend to condemn you. You are an *idiot* in the Greek sense.

I want you to listen here. Are you ready? Are you sure? Take a deep breath, center yourself!

This is what I said:

The only point I make, and have made, is that the Dissident Right is a real entity, that their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed (and one that contradicts Liberalism in certain senses), that they are harshly excluded from participation in any public spaces and forums, and that they yet have influence on the social discourse in our present. That is all that I have said and all that I mean to say.

Those who become aware of the travesties of those we label as Left-Progressives and *socialists*, when they notice that the ground under their feet has shifted through policy-choices they did not advocate for; when they notice that their societies and cultures are shifting and changing into what they do not like nor want, they begin to look for defensive ideas and strategies.

Let us imagine an example, say for example in France. An *average person*, mostly centrist, used to the established order of things, is provoked to seek out information about what has happened in his country. He does research (searches on-line) and comes across the ideas and discourse of Renaud Camus, which is inevitable in France today. He reads or listens to the man and is influenced by what he hears. Now, Renaud Camus is relatively centrist, that is true, but his ideas about *replacement* are considered to be radical and racist, yet there is a circle or a community of intellectuals more or less around him, and that circle is composed, to one degree or another, by those of a dissident Right. And within that circle are people (as I have tried to illustrate using an example) like Alain de Benoist and Pierre Krebs who have enunciated an anti-Liberal or counter-Liberal position.

I did not use the term hard right -- The Economist used that term (as does the Legacy Media generally as you well know -- I use the term Dissident Right which seems a reasonable term given that they a) oppose Liberal tenets, but b) also turn their critique against their own right-tending party.

I do not say that the Dissident Right is, say, exclusively Nietzschean of Heideggarian, but what I do say is that there are many within the (American) Dissident Right (I am most familiar with these) that have very definitely been strongly influenced by Nietzsche and Heidegger. Take Greg Johnson as an example who has a very influential website and a radical anti-Liberal position. His website is read all over the world and many articles are translated into 5-6 different languages. His views and ideas, as I said, spread like mycelium spreads: underground yet with a certain pervasiveness.

I referred to Biener's book (i.e. I did not advocate for it) because he focuses on the influence of N and H when he refers to an emergence, in America, of people who have definitely been influenced by these two philosophers. I did not quantify their numbers though. Your claim is that they have no influence, and I do not share your view.

And I say that the Dissident Right is a rather broad field of intellects with a range of ideas, views and opinions. You have zero idea what I am talking about because you have zero knowledge of these people. You let your asshole get the better of you. My suggestion? Plug it up and think better. I'll do what I can to help you but you must cooperate.

In no way did I or do I say "they're the same group, with the same values and ideology", but I do say that N and H certainly have their influence, and I also agree with Biener that N and H can be, and should be, considered to be *dangerous thinkers*. Yet if I say this I do not mean to take some side against what is dangerous in their ideas (or propositions) nor one in favor. I was referring to Biener's view which is one largely informed by Liberal tenets and presuppositions, and naturally his own Jewish perspective on the *danger* both N and H represent.

I don't see that. I see Dutch Belgians trying not to lose their culture, not ideologues bent on reconstructing the governnment in some ideological image in response to a manifesto from post-Nietzschean social theory. But hey, show me I'm missing something here...

Yes, you are certainly missing something. The Economist is not a good source for a fair and rounded discussion of the Dissident Right in Europe. Were you actually interested in the topic -- you are not -- there are many other and better sources for a more fair and round perspective. The Economic however does make reference to a *rising tide* of oppositional stances as people become aware of the need for defensive, and opposing, positions.

In your paraphrasing -- as is your tendency -- you have skewed what I say and transformed it into what you seem to want to hear. And that is because of your own limitations and a profound prejudice.

What I've noticed about the Left propaganda is that ANYBODY who opposes them is automatically "hard right" in their indictments.

Boy, you really are an observational genius! To have noticed such a subtle thing! Hats off to you. You seem to be saying that anyone who opposes their established tenets gets the label of Hard Right and (gasp!) even fascist and Nazi. This is the first time I have seen it articulated...so clearly.

Wow. You have really connected some dots there, son! Keep up the amazing work ....

[Immanuel Can]

This is what I said:

The only point I make, and have made, is that the Dissident Right is a real entity, that their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed (and one that contradicts Liberalism in certain senses), that they are harshly excluded from participation in any public spaces and forums, and that they yet have influence on the social discourse in our present. That is all that I have said and all that I mean to say.

That's not at all relevant.

My question was, how do we know when the Left says there's a "danger" from the "Alt-Right" that they're talking sense? Your answer is only that there are some fringe loonies with essentially no public profile or power at all. In other words, that they're not really "dangerous," and they're not really influential in any way comparable to the Left, and they're not even very easy to find.

I did not use the term hard right -- The Economist used that term (as does the Legacy Media generally as you well know -- I use the term Dissident Right which seems a reasonable term given that they a) oppose Liberal tenets, but b) also turn their critique against their own right-tending party.

I didn't say you did. But the article to which you pointed as "proof" did. So what can I do but ask you what you meant by posting the link to that article, if it wasn't supposed to be proof for your ideological "Dissidents"?

Take Greg Johnson as an example who has a very influential website

As "influential" as "The View," or "The New York Times," or CNN, or MSNBC, or even as major Leftist sites on the internet?

Not comparable at all, obviously.

Your claim is that they have no influence,

No, my claim is that they have such limited range as to be nothing close to the "danger" that the Left would like us to believe they are. And you're pretty much making that obvious. You're having to work very, very hard at helping locate these "Dissidents," whereas I can rattle off dozens of major media outlets, government departments, academic departments, publishers, and so forth that are supporting the extreme Left.

The Economist is not a good source for a fair and rounded discussion of the Dissident Right in Europe.

Why on earth did you choose that article, then? I mean, I agree that The Economist is very "Lefty," but it seems to me that if you have no confidence in them you didn't need to refer to them at all. I certainly didn't bring them into this question: you did.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, my claim is that they have such limited range as to be nothing close to the "danger" that the Left would like us to believe they are. And you're pretty much making that obvious. You're having to work very, very hard at helping locate these "Dissidents," whereas I can rattle off dozens of major media outlets, government departments, academic departments, publishers, and so forth that are supporting the extreme Left.

I am not concerned in what I write, or think about, or read, with what The Left thinks or how it frames those it opposes. That is not a part of what I have recently been writing about. But I do get, and very much so, that you have a specific perspective that motivates you. Duly noted!

Here again is the essence of the claim I make:

The only point I make, and have made, is that the Dissident Right is a real entity, that their ideas are intellectually supported, that they have a strong sense of, say, an alternative morality which is also coherently based and rationally expressed (and one that contradicts Liberalism in certain senses), that they are harshly excluded from participation in any public spaces and forums, and that they yet have influence on the social discourse in our present. That is all that I have said and all that I mean to say.

whereas I can rattle off dozens of major media outlets, government departments, academic departments, publishers, and so forth that are supporting the extreme Left.

Sure, but that's more or less *your department*. What I have been writing about has nothing to do with that. Except that the ideas of the Dissident Right are broadly excluded from the domains that you have listed.

But when they have the platform to communicate their ideas -- let's say in debates with the left-oriented sorts -- in my view they tend to influence people because their ideas have a decided coherency. My view is that that is why they are excluded: their ideas influence.

Have you always had ass's ears? They are huge and flexible -- but why is it they hear so badly? Can you help me here?