Sex and the Religious-Left

[Wizard22]

Yeah, if I have to choose Medieval Catholicism... or this Satanic bullshit pushed by the Religious-Left, the decision is crystal-clear to me.

[Iwannaplato]

And you do...when you refuse to "allow" your child to "transition". There are cases of children being taken away in the US, already.

You think the only people who have problems with this are in the religious right???

If you're responding to me. I don't need to join that group and their kind of hatred of sex and bodies and emotions and freedom and often women (and in more subtle ways women and certainly children) to not want my child to transition.

Just like I don't need to be a fan of Hitler should I want to be vegetarian.

You are so far inside the idea that there are two groups to oppose one you think you have to join the other. One can be outside these groups.

I'm don't have the time to show the way the Religious right sees children as beasts and teaches shame and guilt as rules. It's peachy when they notice something I don't like and they don't like it, but that doesn't mean I have to join them. So much hatred there is couched as love and has been for a couple of thousand years. And if the left does this also, that doesn't mean I have to pick either damn team.

It's like if two gangs take over parts of a town and for some reason I have to think one of them is good and the other bad. Seriously, that's a joke, and worse it's part of PR that supports the powers that be.

I don't see history as right or left. I see history as both left and right, big religion and big secular have a great deal of hatred of life, often couched as good, or right or fair, or noble.

I don't have to choose either group, though I may feel aligned with them on certain issues.

I wouldn't want either the religious right or what you call the religious left around my children.

And there's something sick at the heart of civlization also, though it has certainly brought forward some excellent things alsö.

I don't have to join any abuser.

Do you really think you have to?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The US while European was founded on principles that went beyond ethnic identity, and in fact some of the ideas came out of Native forms of government, and they broke, clearly, consciously and expressly from European traditions forming a nation state, yes, that absorbed people from other nation states who had been enemies and distinct.

Honestly, the US was founded by men who had very strict views about who — what races and nations — should be allowed to immigrate. If one looks for a ‘principle’ that encompassed their belief it is found in their clear sense that the European man was a superior manifestation of humankind. These ideas were based in anthropological definitions.

Now, by making this clear I do not mean to say that I ally myself with this anthropological stance. And oddly enough, and in reference to the Dissident Right, they turn some of these notions around. For example some race theorists (who regard race as a genuine category) and who consider IQ as one significant determining factor within racial categories, came to understand •scientifically• that other racial groups have advantages over the average European.

Be that as it may, the issue for those who have issues with the reigning demographic ideology, refer to the fact — and it is a fact — that the US was conceived to be a nation composed of Europeans [“the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”] and, importantly, this was held to for hundreds of years and legislated in the 1920s with strict immigration quotas. Only in 1965 were these legislations repealed and replaced. And, naturally, this has redetermined how the US defines itself. Simply put, prior to that date it operated with a general agreement about race composition. And after that date an entire new definition — of the US and its •principles• — arose. Jia Lynn Yang delves into this as a proponent of the new definition in One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965.

A sweeping history of the twentieth-century battle to reform American immigration laws that set the stage for today’s roiling debates.

The idea of the United States as a nation of immigrants is at the core of the American narrative. But in 1924, Congress instituted a system of ethnic quotas so stringent that it choked off large-scale immigration for decades, sharply curtailing arrivals from southern and eastern Europe and outright banning those from nearly all of Asia.

The notion that •the US is a nation of immigrants• is undeniable, but as I say those immigrants were intended, by that defined anthropology, to be of European stock. And the fact is that up to 1965 the US was, and was perceived as, a European (“white” if you wish) nation.

So the interesting issue is to examine the •principles• that you mention but in light of the actual facts. The fundamental concept if the nation is under revision. And those who sense, paranoically or fairly and genuinely, that the very character of their nation is being transformed by policy-makers who determine such significant shifts in demography and who •have issues•, can only be condemned in the New Dispensation.

I’ve read Yang’s book (and numerous others in the same ultra-Progressive category) as well as many of the older titles that defined, generally, the American attitude in the first part of the 20the century such as the works of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (1920s) And then the work of Wilmot Robertson The Dispossessed Majority (1972). Robertson and those who think and perceive like him, register and document “the beginning of decline” and, from their perspective, the loss of the Republic (as defined demographically and in many other senses) to this enormous policy shift.

The Right, the Radical Right, the Fringe Right and the Dissident Right, all trace their positions back to •original definitions• that have now become, or been made to seem, retrograde and immoral.

Yet if •principles• are fairly considered one sees — this is my view — that their opposition does have a sound ethical and moral base.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, if I have to choose Medieval Catholicism... or this Satanic bullshit pushed by the Religious-Left, the decision is crystal-clear to me.

You keep arguing that you have to.
If they came to power they'd be 'satanic' also?
All I can tell you is that if you keep thinking you have to choose, the powers that be are very happy.
Then you'll keep focus where they want your focus to be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ok, you have important nazying to do. We can drop the matter so you can get on with that.

What must be understood, yet is not understood (definitely not by Flash), is that any turn away from, and any moral or ideological elucidation of a position that does not mirror and support the Left-Progressive ideological construct that reigns in our present, is defined as, and will be defined as, a manifestation of Nazism or Fascism. This broad accusation comes directly from a Marxian and Communist •playbook• where the Radical Left asserts that it defines and holds a position of moral rightness.

It then can define, and declare, who is good and who is evil. A form of religious categorization that dominates an ontological metaphysics.

It is an extremely powerful stance to take, and even when their policies destroy established hierarchies, they remain experts at handling moral rhetoric.

However, now and recently, their basic claim to this Higher Ground is being challenged.

Again, an entire Postwar Liberal (more properly) Hyper-Liberal construct is being questioned and challenged with differing views constructed upon moral positions which had been, and are, defined as bad/evil (which is what Flash means when employing the shorthand of •Nazi• in his “argumentation”).

[Iwannaplato]

Honestly, the US was founded by men who had very strict views about who — what races and nations — should be allowed to immigrate. If one looks for a ‘principle’ that encompassed their belief it is found in their clear sense that the European man was a superior manifestation of humankind. These ideas were based in anthropological definitions.

From our current perspective, sure. From their current perspective, not at all. They were mixing nations and ethnic groups that had been long term enemies. And they set in place polices, including those related to freed slaves, native americans, and future immigrants to be integrated into that society. The ended royalty in their shores. And while landowners were not the same as others, suddenly class was not longer fixed, since land was available to all. They shifted the focus (as Rome did) from tribal, ethnic historical myth to idealogically community, with assualts on hierarchy built into the fabric of the rules and also into the potential of the rules. Sure, they didn't change everything. None of the were ready to give women the vote, they would have lost support for getting out from under Kings and England. (I'm not implying that they really did want to. I'm saying that what looks now like something not for multiculturalism, say, was at the time RADICALLY accomodating to multiculturalism. Just because we think as Europeans, and hey, they're all white, that was not the thinking at the time, nor after. We had several enormous wars coming where the different so called Europeans did not see each other as really the same race and culture.

Be that as it may, the issue for those who have issues with the reigning demographic ideology, refer to the fact — and it is a fact — that the US was conceived to be a nation composed of Europeans [“the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”] and, importantly, this was held to for hundreds of years and legislated in the 1920s with strict immigration quotas.

Unlike other nations they conceived of themselves as something coming out of Europe. That was multiculturalism. It wasn't An English Country. It was something coming out of the European tradition. That's radical and multicultural in its time.

So the interesting issue is to examine the •principles• that you mention but in light of the actual facts. The fundamental concept if the nation is under revision.

Yes, that was built in. They could have put in the constitution that one race would remain dominant, though I'm not sure what they would remain dominant. But rather they set up a system that allowed for changes over time. Allowed for changes in values over time. And some of the founders noticed their own changes in values around race.

The Right, the Radical Right, the Fringe Right and the Dissident Right, all trace their positions back to •original definitions• that have now become, or been made to seem, retrograde and immoral.

If only their manage to go back to original definitions around the potential revoking of corporate charters, the ending of fractional reserve banking, the concerns the founders had about the power of enormous corporations and the need for independent government oversight.

If only they could evaluate the hatred within both the religious right and Abrahamic religions in general and traditional conservative values and what happens when these values are in power.

Of course there are people who are now complicated and outside the two team categories. Who can see how, for example, the neocons have done irreparable damage and can be critical of left policies and changes. There is a growing percentage, thought it is still marginal, who do not identify any more with Left or Right and recognize that both sides have culpabilities in supporting abusive power.

But, yeah, it's still pretty marginal.

Most of the Religious/traditional right in an earlier incarnation would have killed Jesus, Jefferson and many other current heroes. They just don't have the self-insight to understand how they react to current context always in the same ways.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Iwannaplato, I am trying to understand what your position is. You make points — submit observations— that certainly are considerable, however your general view is grounded or strongly influenced by Modern Progressivism. Yet you seek to link it with the potentialized principles of those Founders. As if they would have created and condoned what has been created (or installed) in the 20th century and in the Postwar.

This overarching idea though is the operative idea of those (like Yang) who work to restructure and redefine the nation in new ideological terms. It is selective and powered by certain ideological presuppositions.

And this New Americanism is pushed everywhere as the right and proper human attitude to have. And it is pushed forward by those powerful actors you mention: elite power concentrations, corporate power, and globalist engineers.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not a parody, she's a real candidate
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234977544/

Here's the official Massacheusetts GOP account condemning her and asking her to withdraw her candidacy
https://twitter.com/massgop/status/1762584137309835435

Can't anyone be a candidate? You really think I'm going to bother subscribing to Rolling Stone just read about some American nut-job?

Then just take my word for it. She's a real candidate who happens to be weird and alt-right and thinks that a covid jab gave her brain cancer and is really running for a political office.

You will never know just how apt your avatar really is

[Iwannaplato]

Iwannaplato, I am trying to understand what your position is. You make points — submit observations— that certainly are considerable, however your general view is grounded or strongly influenced by Modern Progressivism.

Is it?
What you did here is instead of responding to the points you call considerable, you put put my view into a category. This seems to be the most important thing for everyone. What team are this person on? OK, now I know the team, I can gauge and determine my reaction.

Yet you seek to link it with the potentialized principles of those Founders. As if they would have created and condoned what has been created (or installed) in the 20th century and in the Postwar.

We can't know what they would have condoned, we can only note the changes they went through in their lifetimes and what changes they went through with these. Had they reincarnated or lived unnaturally long lives we don't know how it would have gone. However they did usher in enormous changes, de-hierarching and identifying the nation in ways no nations had for a long time, though Rome did it in some ways.

And this New Americanism is pushed everywhere as the right and proper human attitude to have.

And it is pushed forward by those powerful actors you mention: elite power concentrations, corporate power, and globalist engineers.

If you read through my responses to both you and Wizard you'll see me saying that those powerful actors are definitely NOT pushing forward.
And there were traditional conservatives around the time of the founding. And they were royalists in the colonies. Compared to them the founders were very progressive.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And you do...when you refuse to "allow" your child to "transition". There are cases of children being taken away in the US, already.

The Religious-Left wants to claim your children, on behalf of their cult:

https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/californ ... 758741.htm

In California, parents may lose custody of the child if they resist gender transition

Democratic lawmakers, who championed the bill, contend that it is a necessary step to ensure the well-being of transgender and gender-diverse children.

The California State Assembly has approved a bill, AB 957, making gender affirmation a factor to be considered in child custody cases. The bill, passed on Friday by a vote of 57-16, was previously approved by the California Senate with a vote of 30-9.

This new legislation, titled the Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act, seeks to prioritise the “health, safety and welfare” of children, placing a spotlight on affirming a child's gender identity. The bill, initially introduced by Democratic Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson on February 24, underwent amendments in the Assembly on March 13 and further modifications in the Senate on June 5 before its final approval.

Under the proposed law, parents, who fail to acknowledge and support their child's gender transition, could face potential consequences, including the loss of custody rights to another parent or even the state itself. The bill's supporters argue that it is in the best interest of children, aiming to create a more inclusive and affirming environment for gender-diverse youth.

There are new horrors coming to light every day. It sounds like a whacko conspiracy theory or a storyline from a horror movie but it's actually happening. When children are given puberty blockers they stay looking like young children for a lot longer then they normally would. They often still look ten or eleven at sixteen/seventeen/eighteen. Make of that what you will...

Genderwoo/wonkerism is a cult-- not a political movement. It has infiltrated politics and govts at the highest levels, but it certainly isn't 'the left'. It has hijacked and poisoned 'the left' like an invasive cancer.
It has been the gift that keeps giving as far as so-called 'right wing' political parties go, enabling them to gain the kind of power they had previously only dreamed of. You should be very pleased with yourselves.
Paedophilia and depraved, revolting fetishism is hardly exclusive to any politicial persuasion. Does anyone seriously believe that only 'left leaning' people have a vested interest in 'normalising' every sexual perversion humans are capable of (and the list is endless)? In this country EVERY political party unanimously voted for 'gender self ID' which includes anyone being able to change the sex on their birth certificate no questions asked. Yet STILL it's being described as only a 'left' thing.
It's no coincidence that the biggest losers in all of this are women (and we all know how favourable 'the right' is towards women's rights ).
It's all such a convoluted mess now that there's no way to untie the huge, dense knot of tangled yarn we've made for ourselves.

The 'Satanic cult' hysteria of the 80s and 90s fizzled after a while, after destroying many lives, but this makes that look like the tiniest of tiny 'blips'.

[FlashDangerpants]

Can't anyone be a candidate? You really think I'm going to bother subscribing to Rolling Stone just read about some American nut-job?

Then just take my word for it. She's a real candidate who happens to be weird and alt-right and thinks that a covid jab gave her brain cancer and is really running for a political office.

You will never know just how apt your avatar really is

This is your prankster friend doing one of her classic pranks....

[Alexis Jacobi]

What you did here is instead of responding to the points you call considerable, you put put my view into a category. This seems to be the most important thing for everyone. What team are this person on? OK, now I know the team, I can gauge and determine my reaction.

That may be true to a degree — I define myself as in a battle with the Left and American progressivism to the degree it is infused with snd expressed Marxian principles — but I do not want to misinterpret your stance, whatever it is.

Factually, the so-called Right (in America) is claiming some positions traditionally held by the American Left (which I respect BTW when they were pro-labor, pro-family, and anti-unrestricted (and illegal) immigration — and when they held a critical position on Israeli Zionism.

(As an example Tucker Carlson did an astounding piece on Paul Singer on his Fix show — look it up, it is very pointed).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You're doing that thing again where you've made a realtively simple error and could easily just say oops and walk it back. But either through narcissism or some other extreme vanity issue, you just cannot ever do that.

It's a disability you have really.

Is this you admitting that you've never socialized with Jews before, and have no clue what they're actually like?

No of course not. I'm just noting this pattern that afflicts you. You got Locke and Berkeley confused, you got validity and soundness the wrong way round, you assumed VT had done some sort of homework to identify a satirist... all realitvely small errors that you could easily undo, and yet in each case you doubled down... to gain nothing but disrespect.

It's something you should raise with a therapist, it might be something that the right medical professional could help you with.

What is that supposed to mean? There's nothing online that shows that person isn't a joke candidate. Has anyone heard her speak or does she only exist on social media (assuming it's a 'she')?
You didn't answer if anyone can be a candidate. I read somewhere that the Republican party isn't happy about it but can't do anything about 'her' standing. Have to be careful. Wouldn't want to 'mispronoun' someone.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is this you admitting that you've never socialized with Jews before, and have no clue what they're actually like?

No of course not. I'm just noting this pattern that afflicts you. You got Locke and Berkeley confused, you got validity and soundness the wrong way round, you assumed VT had done some sort of homework to identify a satirist... all realitvely small errors that you could easily undo, and yet in each case you doubled down... to gain nothing but disrespect.

It's something you should raise with a therapist, it might be something that the right medical professional could help you with.

What is that supposed to mean? There's nothing online that shows that person isn't a joke candidate. Has anyone heard her speak or does she only exist on social media (assuming it's a 'she')?
You didn't answer if anyone can be a candidate. I read somewhere that the Republican party isn't happy about it but can't do anything about 'her' standing. Have to be careful. Wouldn't want to 'mispronoun' someone.

I already gave you a link to a Rolling Stone article in which they spoke to her, but you are too weird to click it for some reason. That's a you problem. It's entirely fair comment to point out that you not only did no homework before announcing that the account was a parody, but that even when I did the homework for you to show it isn't, you were too shit for even that.

Anyway, she isn't saying anything worse than what Wizard22 writes at this site, do you think he's a satirist?

[Iwannaplato]

What you did here is instead of responding to the points you call considerable, you put put my view into a category. This seems to be the most important thing for everyone. What team are this person on? OK, now I know the team, I can gauge and determine my reaction.

That may be true to a degree — I define myself as in a battle with the Left and American progressivism to the degree it is infused with snd expressed Marxian principles — but I do not want to misinterpret your stance, whatever it is.

Factually, the so-called Right (in America) is claiming some positions traditionally held by the American Left (which I respect BTW when they were pro-labor, pro-family, and anti-unrestricted (and illegal) immigration — and when they held a critical position on Israeli Zionism.

(As an example Tucker Carlson did an astounding piece on Paul Singer on his Fix show — look it up, it is very pointed).

Yes, I am disappointed in where the Left has taken itself/been led.