WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

I define fascism as a form of political extremism which rejects the values of the Enlightenment, rationalism, egalitarianism, individualism, liberalism (freedom rights), humanism (human rights), constitutionalism (separation of powers), parliamentarism, representational party democracy, and pluralism (multiculturalism).

It is not hard for me to understand that each of these elements operate together in ideological unity but as I said (in parody) it seems to me that in fact people -- I am unsure how to define them -- take issue with this totality and would have questions and comments (disagreements, amendments) that they would present as alternatives or at least as modifiers.

Instead, it seeks to revive and reestablish values such as ethnic community & identity, nation, race, religion, divine or natural order, elitism, leadership, and to establish an authoritarian or even totalitarian system embodying and enforcing those values.

In no sense is it possible (it seems to me and in my opinion) to discount any of these categories of concern even if one is strongly in pro of *Enlightenment values* in a more general sense. I do not think you can simply dismiss concerns about ethnicity, community and identity, if what is recommended is doing away with them in service to some, potentially questionable ideal. To those who see themselves as a race, to them race indeed matters. As Robinson said: "It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind's greatest binding forces". Despite how comfortable I may be with aspects of multiculturalism, the reality of how people broadly relate to their race remains real. To discount this is unrealistic. They say *Diversity is our strength* and, factually, I can only see this as largely false.

And one fact to take into consideration is that in America (to some degree) and in Europe (perhaps to a greater degree) there is arising a mood and a movement which seeks to strengthen ideals and values which in your definition to seem to present as immoral. Isn't that really what it comes down to? What could be more *immoral* than to turn against the goodness of Enlightenment values?

In any case, what we can say with certainty is that in our present there are people who are making efforts to see things in a different light. They challenge the morality in a great deal of what is asserted here.

[Immanuel Can]

So because of other people, which of us do you think is incapable of being rational?

Neither. But the minute people see the name "Trump," they go postal. And in this case, it's a mere distractor.

Well, by "they" I presume you mean not us. Why should "they" impose constrictions on what we talk about? What is the name Trump distracting from?

People want us to believe he's a despot. Nothing from his last time in office suggests he was then, or would be now. And to group him with Socialist dictators like Mussolini, Stalin or the Kim Jongs is really absurd. Whatever one thinks of DT, there's no data to warrant any such association. So it's a distraction: there's nothing to compare to what the Socialists have done.

...as you no doubt appreciate, extreme is relative to your own position.

Not at all. What is now regarded as "extreme right" by the Leftist press...

I'm not "the Leftist press".

Then why sing their song?

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: they are not babies until they are born... until then, they are a fetus...


IC: Do you know what "fetus" means? It means, "an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)." In other words, a human being...a baby. You are advocating the murder of babies.

Whoever ends this wicked practice will be the greatest human-rights advocate there's ever been, by sheer numbers of human lives saved.

K: you are basing your idea of abortion, this ''wicked practice'' on religious grounds....
there are solid medical reasons for women to have abortions... but that
is unimportant to the group you belong to, ''the radical religious right'''

Where ALL decisions are done in relations to religion... just as in
Iran, where all decisions are religious base... just a different religion,
but nevertheless, in any case, you want exactly what they have in Iran,
which is a theological based state... where the dominant religion, be
it, Islam or Christianity, makes all the choices, decisions.....

it doesn't matter to your group about such nonsense of ''free choice'''
that is irrelevant to your group..... to be able to tell women
what to do, the power to control lives... that is what you all are
about... you have no interest in actually saving lives....
how do I know this? you haven't advocated for the end of the death
penalty.... if you were actually about life and death, you would
be advocated just as hard to end the death penalty as you are for
ending abortions..... but you couldn't care less about the death
penalty..... thus, saving lives isn't your concern....

men telling women what do to with their bodies.... that is what this
is about.... nothing more, nothing less.....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Quoted from the SPLC site]: "Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke praised MacDonald's work on his website. MacDonald has appeared on Duke's radio program on multiple occasions, saying he agrees with the "vast majority" of Duke's statements.
When MacDonald won his award from The Occidental Quarterly, the ceremony was attended by David Duke; Don Black, the founder of white supremacist site Stormfront; Jamie Kelso, a senior moderator at Stormfront; and the head of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, Kevin Alfred Strom."

One of the first readings I did was of David Duke's autobiography. But let me back up. I first have to mention that I grew up with and internalized the entire range of Left-Progressive concerns (and in a non-practicing Jewish Reform environment). It was as natural to me as the off-the-cuff definition of fascism that you offered. Then roughly 10 years back, I began to investigate the thinking of those on *the other side of the fence*. I have mentioned this before: Richard Weaver and Robert Bork presented me with a different perspective. Once I had got somewhat of a handle on what they were on about, I then found advantage in reading (first-hand) people like Duke, Sunic, Pierre Krebs, Kevin MacDonald, Alain de Benoist and many others.

In regard to Duke I can only tell you my honest impression: If he is anything at all, and if I were to encapsulate his perspective, I would define it as something like *original American*. What he believes, what he believes about America and what America is, is simply what the majority of people thought and believed about it a couple of generations back. It is really that simple.

And what I came to understand, and what I do understand, has to do with the Postwar creation of a new sort of American civil religion with a very different set of predicates. That is to say that in the Postwar the definition of *what America is* and is supposed to be, was significantly remodeled, reimagined. One aspect of the social and cultural conflict in America today is that two versions, so to speak, clash up against one another.

One thing also is that when certain people and certain ideas are pushed out of the picture; when some people and their ideas are extremely vilified and they are *canceled*, it tends to drive them both underground and also into a shared community. I did spend a week or so reading at the Stormfront site to learn what it was about, and the overt racism is not to my liking, but I also did read some people who could be compared -- I mean intellectually -- to Alain de Benoist and some other theorists of his sort.

I also read Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant who wrote extensively in the teens and 20s of the 1900s. So when I say that Duke is more or less a later incarnation -- unreconstructed let's say -- of people like Grant and Stoddard I am stating a fact and not exaggerating.

I also have my own theory about the War Between the States, and I understand the core root of American *imperialism* (especially as it pertains to the hegemonic assertions in the Caribbean as well as in the Spanish American war (invasion and occupation of the Philippines) began with the North's invasion and conquest of the South. A defeated people -- their will, their pride, their sense of ownership of their destiny and their right to exist and carry on -- will also resort to underground and underhanded tactics of resistance. It was very hard for the South to bear the fact of subjugation in combination with the devastation of war (which set the South back for decades).

These things have to be seen and understood.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Bravo. I thought that was good. Note that I am translating it both into Esperanto and into the Leprechaun dialect. I will include proper attribution.

[Alexis Jacobi]

men telling women what do to with their bodies.... that is what this
is about.... nothing more, nothing less.....

This is largely false, I think, since there are many women who are strongly opposed (for moral reasons) to abortion.

[Gary Childress]

HAMAS has just rejected the latest US ceasefire offer.

It seems like it was a pretty fair and reasonable plan. Some of Israel's more hawkish ministers threated to withdraw their support from the Netanyahu government if Netanyahu approved of the plan but it sounds like Hamas rejected it anyway.

Mr Biden said the new proposal involved three phases.

The first would involve an initial six-week ceasefire, when Hamas would release some of the hostages - including women, the elderly and the sick or wounded - in exchange for Israel releasing an undefined number of Palestinian prisoners. There would also be a withdrawal of Israeli forces "from all populated areas of Gaza" and a "surge" in humanitarian assistance.

The second phase would see all remaining living hostages released and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza as part of a “permanent cessation of hostilities", but the latter would still be subject to further negotiations.

During the third phase, the remains of any dead hostages would be returned and a major reconstruction plan for Gaza would commence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0661dnmzezo

[Gary Childress]

[Quoted from the SPLC site]: "Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke praised MacDonald's work on his website. MacDonald has appeared on Duke's radio program on multiple occasions, saying he agrees with the "vast majority" of Duke's statements.
When MacDonald won his award from The Occidental Quarterly, the ceremony was attended by David Duke; Don Black, the founder of white supremacist site Stormfront; Jamie Kelso, a senior moderator at Stormfront; and the head of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, Kevin Alfred Strom."

One of the first readings I did was of David Duke's autobiography. But let me back up. I first have to mention that I grew up with and internalized the entire range of Left-Progressive concerns (and in a non-practicing Jewish Reform environment). It was as natural to me as the off-the-cuff definition of fascism that you offered. Then roughly 10 years back, I began to investigate the thinking of those on *the other side of the fence*. I have mentioned this before: Richard Weaver and Robert Bork presented me with a different perspective. Once I had got somewhat of a handle on what they were on about, I then found advantage in reading (first-hand) people like Duke, Sunic, Pierre Krebs, Kevin MacDonald, Alain de Benoist and many others.

In regard to Duke I can only tell you my honest impression: If he is anything at all, and if I were to encapsulate his perspective, I would define it as something like *original American*. What he believes, what he believes about America and what America is, is simply what the majority of people thought and believed about it a couple of generations back. It is really that simple.

And what I came to understand, and what I do understand, has to do with the Postwar creation of a new sort of American civil religion with a very different set of predicates. That is to say that in the Postwar the definition of *what America is* and is supposed to be, was significantly remodeled, reimagined. One aspect of the social and cultural conflict in America today is that two versions, so to speak, clash up against one another.

One thing also is that when certain people and certain ideas are pushed out of the picture; when some people and their ideas are extremely vilified and they are *canceled*, it tends to drive them both underground and also into a shared community. I did spend a week or so reading at the Stormfront site to learn what it was about, and the overt racism is not to my liking, but I also did read some people who could be compared -- I mean intellectually -- to Alain de Benoist and some other theorists of his sort.

I also read Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant who wrote extensively in the teens and 20s of the 1900s. So when I say that Duke is more or less a later incarnation -- unreconstructed let's say -- of people like Grant and Stoddard I am stating a fact and not exaggerating.

I also have my own theory about the War Between the States, and I understand the core root of American *imperialism* (especially as it pertains to the hegemonic assertions in the Caribbean as well as in the Spanish American war (invasion and occupation of the Philippines) began with the North's invasion and conquest of the South. A defeated people -- their will, their pride, their sense of ownership of their destiny and their right to exist and carry on -- will also resort to underground and underhanded tactics of resistance. It was very hard for the South to bear the fact of subjugation in combination with the devastation of war (which set the South back for decades).

These things have to be seen and understood.

Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to others? What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think it was mistaken? Does David Duke think the Civil Rights movement was erroneous?

[Peter Kropotkin]

men telling women what do to with their bodies.... that is what this
is about.... nothing more, nothing less.....

This is largely false, I think, since there are many women who are strongly opposed (for moral reasons) to abortion.

K: on religious grounds and yet, have no problem whatsoever with the
death penalty...or no problem with the killing of abortion providers,
or as proposed in Texas, the death penalty for those who help transport
minors across state lines for an abortion..... operative point, being
in favor of the death penalty for abortions.... supposedly to
be in favor of ''protecting'' life... but not all life, just certain
selected types of life... which I believe in the real world is
called hypocrisy.....to protect some, but not all life is hypocrisy....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

"Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke praised MacDonald's work on his website. MacDonald has appeared on Duke's radio program on multiple occasions, saying he agrees with the "vast majority" of Duke's statements.

When MacDonald won his award from The Occidental Quarterly, the ceremony was attended by David Duke; Don Black, the founder of white supremacist site Stormfront; Jamie Kelso, a senior moderator at Stormfront; and the head of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, Kevin Alfred Strom."

One of the first readings I did was of David Duke's autobiography. But let me back up. I first have to mention that I grew up with and internalized the entire range of Left-Progressive concerns (and in a non-practicing Jewish Reform environment). It was as natural to me as the off-the-cuff definition of fascism that you offered. Then roughly 10 years back, I began to investigate the thinking of those on *the other side of the fence*. I have mentioned this before: Richard Weaver and Robert Bork presented me with a different perspective. Once I had got somewhat of a handle on what they were on about, I then found advantage in reading (first-hand) people like Duke, Sunic, Pierre Krebs, Kevin MacDonald, Alain de Benoist and many others.

In regard to Duke I can only tell you my honest impression: If he is anything at all, and if I were to encapsulate his perspective, I would define it as something like *original American*. What he believes, what he believes about America and what America is, is simply what the majority of people thought and believed about it a couple of generations back. It is really that simple.

And what I came to understand, and what I do understand, has to do with the Postwar creation of a new sort of American civil religion with a very different set of predicates. That is to say that in the Postwar the definition of *what America is* and is supposed to be, was significantly remodeled, reimagined. One aspect of the social and cultural conflict in America today is that two versions, so to speak, clash up against one another.

One thing also is that when certain people and certain ideas are pushed out of the picture; when some people and their ideas are extremely vilified and they are *canceled*, it tends to drive them both underground and also into a shared community. I did spend a week or so reading at the Stormfront site to learn what it was about, and the overt racism is not to my liking, but I also did read some people who could be compared -- I mean intellectually -- to Alain de Benoist and some other theorists of his sort.

I also read Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant who wrote extensively in the teens and 20s of the 1900s. So when I say that Duke is more or less a later incarnation -- unreconstructed let's say -- of people like Grant and Stoddard I am stating a fact and not exaggerating.

I also have my own theory about the War Between the States, and I understand the core root of American *imperialism* (especially as it pertains to the hegemonic assertions in the Caribbean as well as in the Spanish American war (invasion and occupation of the Philippines) began with the North's invasion and conquest of the South. A defeated people -- their will, their pride, their sense of ownership of their destiny and their right to exist and carry on -- will also resort to underground and underhanded tactics of resistance. It was very hard for the South to bear the fact of subjugation in combination with the devastation of war (which set the South back for decades).

These things have to be seen and understood.


GC: Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to others? What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think it was mistaken? Does David Duke think the Civil Rights movement was erroneous?

K: it shows how far to the right the right wing has gone.... David Duke
is now considered to be mainstream Republican.... a few years ago,
it was considered to be toxic to even mentioned his name...
and now......

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

In regard to Duke I can only tell you my honest impression: If he is anything at all, and if I were to encapsulate his perspective, I would define it as something like *original American*. What he believes, what he believes about America and what America is, is simply what the majority of people thought and believed about it a couple of generations back. It is really that simple.

Do you agree with Duke on the following?

In 1998, Duke self-published the autobiographical My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding.[19] The book details Duke's social philosophies, including his advocacy of racial separation: "We [Whites] desire to live in our own neighborhoods, go to our own schools, work in our own cities and towns, and ultimately live as one extended family in our own nation. We shall end the racial genocide of integration. We shall work for the eventual establishment of a separate homeland for African Americans, so each race will be free to pursue its own destiny without racial conflicts and ill will."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

[Gary Childress]

GC: Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to others? What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think it was mistaken? Does David Duke think the Civil Rights movement was erroneous?

K: it shows how far to the right the right wing has gone.... David Duke
is now considered to be mainstream Republican.... a few years ago,
it was considered to be toxic to even mentioned his name...
and now......

Kropotkin

I guess a person becomes what they read. Garbage in...?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Gary Childress:
GC: Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to others? What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think it was mistaken? Does David Duke think the Civil Rights movement was erroneous?

K: it shows how far to the right the right wing has gone.... David Duke
is now considered to be mainstream Republican.... a few years ago,
it was considered to be toxic to even mentioned his name...
and now......

GC: I guess a person becomes what they read. Garbage in...?

K: you are aware that David Duke was the former head of the KKK.....
do you know what the KKK stands for? their base theories? maybe do
a bit of research about them....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

It shows how far to the right the right wing has gone. David Duke is now considered to be mainstream Republican. A few years ago
it was considered to be toxic to even mentioned his name. And now.

Actually David Duke is still totally *toxic* as you say and no Republican that I am aware of would refer to him except negatively.

However, I am certain that there has been a sort of seepage from the underground sectors of American opinion, those who write on shunned websites (like Counter-Currents, Occidental Quarterly, American Renaissance among numerous) and that they definitely are having influence.

[Gary Childress]

Gary Childress:
GC: Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to others? What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think it was mistaken? Does David Duke think the Civil Rights movement was erroneous?

K: it shows how far to the right the right wing has gone.... David Duke
is now considered to be mainstream Republican.... a few years ago,
it was considered to be toxic to even mentioned his name...
and now......

GC: I guess a person becomes what they read. Garbage in...?

K: you are aware that David Duke was the former head of the KKK.....
do you know what the KKK stands for? their base theories? maybe do
a bit of research about them....

Kropotkin

I know who David Duke is. And I just quoted from him above, so yes, I'm aware of some of his positions. I was curious what AJ thinks of him. Why are you asking?