WOKE and proud of it....

[Gary Childress]

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.

Do you believe it's a good or justifiable influence?

[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

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?

K: just wondering....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

David Duke and many others like him stand in reaction to what they believe to be (allow me to use Bowden’s phrase) a “grammar of self-intolerance that we have been taught”.

The Civil Rights Movement seems to me to have been inevitable. Personally, I have tremendous admiration for the bravery of many vocal activists (I’ve read their writings).

What confuses you, Gary, is that it seems morally outrageous that I attempt to see Duke (and others) not through my own perspectives, but through their perspectives, values, as well as their moral sense.

To do this is a form of crimethink, don’t you see?

It is incomprehensible to you but I am quite outside of the fray (without overt or concretized political and social commitments) and regard myself as a •researcher• and not an activist.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thst’s a great line BTW: “To have been kidnapped from the shores of Africa …”

… to serve in the Empire of the White man’s will.

But I got the Empire of the White man’s will somewhere else, can’t remember where.

[Immanuel Can]

K: you are basing your idea of abortion, this ''wicked practice'' on religious grounds....

Factual grounds. They're murdering. And we all know it.

...there are solid medical reasons for women to have abortions...

Not in 99% of the cases. 99% are for convenience, and 1% for criminal or medical reasons. So if you will admit that 99% of abortions are murder, I'll talk with you about the 1%. But if you won't, then you are just trying to use the 1% to justify killing 99% of the babies.

''free choice'''

Those 99% have free choice not to have irresponsible sex. And they fail at the role of moral decision-maker, and then want to make it worse by murdering the child they've created.

...to be able to tell women what to do, the power to control lives...

Not at all. Just to remind them that they are murdering children, and to tell them not to do that. They control their own lives: their reproductive irresponsibility is the real problem: they're not doing the right thing with their freedom and choice.

how do I know this? you haven't advocated for the end of the death penalty....

We don't have any. So you know nothing at all.

But dead babies, we have in abundance. That much, you do know.

But what's your stake in this, Peter? You're not a woman, presumably: so by your own standards, why are you telling women to murder their babies? What kind of scam are you trying to run on them?

And what do you have to say about the millions of babies, mostly female, that have been aborted by government demand in China? When Marxists murder babies, is that suddenly virtuous?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you believe it's a good or justifiable influence?

I regard it as being dual.

In Europe, for example, and in France , the traditional Right is gaining power. As you know I admire the discourse of Renaud Camus. However it is likely (?) that if this reactionary social movement to recover what is French progresses, that it will lead to conflict with the Arab minority. It may even signal a European will to rid Europe of Islam. Or curtail it.

Is that a “good” or is it a “bad”?

[Gary Childress]

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?

David Duke and many others like him stand in reaction to what they believe to be (allow me to use Bowden’s phrase) a “grammar of self-intolerance that we have been taught”.

The Civil Rights Movement seems to me to have been inevitable. Personally, I have tremendous admiration for the bravery of many vocal activists (I’ve read their writings).

What confuses you, Gary, is that it seems morally outrageous that I attempt to see Duke (and others) not through my own perspectives, but through their perspectives, values, as well as their moral sense.

To do this is a form of crimethink, don’t you see?

It is incomprehensible to you but I am quite outside of the fray (without overt or concretized political and social commitments) and regard myself as a •researcher• and not an activist.

Fair enough. If you're just researching the absurd and pathological for entertainment or something, then I guess you are free to do what you want with your life. It seems like a waste of time to me but different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Have you discovered anything enriching by reading the David Dukes et al. of the world?

Do you ever find yourself agreeing to their more pathological ideas? Or do you distance yourself enough to maintain immunity from them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You, as walking & talking pathology, may not be in the best position to distinguish and sort through the really knotty issues.

So there’s that …

[Gary Childress]

Do you believe it's a good or justifiable influence?

I regard it as being dual.

In Europe, for example, and in France , the traditional Right is gaining power. As you know I admire the discourse of Renaud Camus. However it is likely (?) that if this reactionary social movement to recover what is French progresses, that it will lead to conflict with the Arab minority. It may even signal a European will to rid Europe of Islam. Or curtail it.

Is that a “good” or is it a “bad”?

I'd say that if it is going to lead to conflict with the Arab minority and the goal is to rid Europe of Islam, then there is danger in it. Just as there was for Jews in Hitler's "final solution". We all seem to know what happened with that. And in that case it would be a "bad".

It'll probably also spark a more fundamentalist shift in Muslims or else solidify radical Islam even more where it already does exist. Like it or not, some of our new citizens are Muslim (more prevalent than before). It's new. It's different and we may as well try to get along where at all possible. There's little other reasonable choice than to be tolerant toward them. And if we do so to them, then we may ask of them to be the same toward us.

[Gary Childress]

You, as walking & talking pathology, may not be in the best position to distinguish and sort through the really knotty issues.

So there’s that …

I didn't choose to have mental illness. Do you choose to read what you read?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You, as walking & talking pathology, may not be in the best position to distinguish and sort through the really knotty issues.

So there’s that …

I didn't choose to have mental illness. Do you choose to read what you read?

No, the pathology I refer to is more related to the structure of your ideas. When confronted with ideas that are contrary to those you *cherish* and feel so bloody righteous about, you lose your shit. You cannot see around yourself. And I am defining that as *pathology*.

Hope you don't mind!

[Gary Childress]

You, as walking & talking pathology, may not be in the best position to distinguish and sort through the really knotty issues.

So there’s that …

I didn't choose to have mental illness. Do you choose to read what you read?

No, the pathology I refer to is more related to the structure of your ideas. When confronted with ideas that are contrary to those you *cherish* and feel so bloody righteous about, you lose your shit. You cannot see around yourself. And I am defining that as *pathology*.

Hope you don't mind!

I see. I suppose I do tend to have that reaction to xenophobic ideology. Sorry about that.

[Gary Childress]

You, as walking & talking pathology, may not be in the best position to distinguish and sort through the really knotty issues.

So there’s that …

So, is my "pathology" better or worse than David Duke's? Color me curious now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I haven't yet checked that "hate-list" myself (which I didn't know until you mentioned it); but when I read something like the following about MacDonald, prejudice is justified:

I had not visited that page for years now but I went through it las night. It has been expanded a great deal.

In my view, the thing to pay attention to is the question about Who frames the viewpoints about who and what is •hateful• and who will appear on these Lists of the Deplorable. There is a correspondence that can be made between the Chinese Communist Social Credit system and an agency or enterprise like the SPLC which assumes the role of moral arbiter.

It is likely of little interest to the denizens of this forum but the issue of the •framing• of social enemies is part of that redefinition of what America is that I referred to earlier. And the restructuring of America’s civil religion is an indoctrination process handled by vanguard agencies, intelligence agencies, PR agencies, powerful corporate business interests, government agencies, etc. The “project” is grounded in the slinging of moral shame.

There is an historical connection to the propaganda war that took shape in the American Civil War where the northern section, having won, having conquered, gains control of social and political narrative and •works• it for all it is worth. These are fashioned into the politically-correct “patriotic view” and reinforced within moral fencework so that deviation is understood to be morally outrageous. The •tropes• that were established then are resurrected constantly and this primary conflict is played and replayed continually.

So, if one only focuses on the surface presentation — Kevin MacDonald is bad, morally corrupt, contaminated, in league with an immoral cabal — it is the surface insinuation that does all the work of condemnation needed. Indeed when he appears on the Hater List those who see him there — like seeing a fellow citizen in the stocks in the town center — need do no other work and certainly won’t read his work or consider his ideas as having any possible validity. He is then associated with *unthinkable thought• (a Chomsky phrase BTW) and is thereby excluded, and driven underground.

So, let us consider the problematic term wokeness within the context of social engineering. The woke are employed in this sense as tools. And they are manipulating by those who frame the terms of moral view. The SPLC can be, and I think should be, understood through the lens I provided.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You cannot be relied on to offer any reasonable perspective in this conversation.

If that's your feeling, fine; it really doesn't bother me. Refer to James Lindsay, instead. He's got it right.

It seems to me that you make a mistake not so much by believing, or understanding, that Lindsay makes many pertinent observations, but rather in the way you express your partisan association with his views in the context of your own, larger commitments. You are yourself deeply involved in The Culture Wars but specifically as an Evangelical Christian partisan or operative.

The view I take is one of choosing distance from the narrative wars, as if a position above the fray and looking down on it all.

In the particular context of my critique of your position about Israel my core assessment is that you cannot actually see the issue. You are totally invested in a hardened perspective. And that is why I say that “you cannot be relied on to offer any reasonable perspective in this conversation“.

Why should I not understand, when it is likely so, that Lindsay is also ensconced within the cherished interpretive framing that is his main product and the product bought by those who use his views to strengthen their ideological positions and commitments?