WOKE and proud of it....

[Harbal]

Are you Kathy Newman? "...so you're saying..."

No, I said no such thing. You'll have to go back and read more carefully.

My reading between the lines is very careful.

Not as good as you hope, evidently.

But better than you would like, presumably.

[Immanuel Can]

My reading between the lines is very careful.

Not as good as you hope, evidently.

But better than you would like, presumably.

No, actually. I'd like to be understood. That's why I try to explain things.

That's why I don't agree with your little paraphrasing: I neither said it nor implied it. You looked into the spaces between the lines, and all you've found is...spaces...which you filled with your own imaginings, and nothing else.

[Harbal]

Not as good as you hope, evidently.

But better than you would like, presumably.

No, actually. I'd like to be understood. That's why I try to explain things.

That's why I don't agree with your little paraphrasing: I neither said it nor implied it. You looked into the spaces between the lines, and all you've found is...spaces...which you filled with your own imaginings, and nothing else.

I hope that's true, because it might make you realise what it's like to have that done to you.

[Immanuel Can]

But better than you would like, presumably.

No, actually. I'd like to be understood. That's why I try to explain things.

That's why I don't agree with your little paraphrasing: I neither said it nor implied it. You looked into the spaces between the lines, and all you've found is...spaces...which you filled with your own imaginings, and nothing else.

I hope that's true, because it might make you realise what it's like to have that done to you.

Smoke another one, dude.

[Will Bouwman]

Well again, what you call "the Leftist press" is relative to your own political view.

No. Only "relative" to what they used to be, what they themselves professed to be the reasonable center, until they abandoned it a few years ago.

Alternatively there has been a proliferation of overtly right wing media, Newsmax and OAN in America being examples, whose business model is based on criticising rivals less right wing than they for being "Leftist".

My primary sources of news are the BBC, the Times and the Guardian.

You have selected the major media, which used to be regarded as impartial...

That's maybe true of the BBC, but frankly it is criticised from both left and right for bias; but nobody in Britain has ever been in any doubt about the leanings of our print media. If you believe the Rupert Murdoch owned Times is "Leftist" it can only be from a position to the right of it.

...but have been exposed as ideologically coded with the dominant narratives of the ruling elite lately.

Do you not think that perhaps rival news outlets might have a motive for persuading people that the market leaders are unreliable? Clearly there is a market for news that has been processed by religious, nationalist and racist filters. As I keep saying, exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways, whether that is scientific data, or human events.

Examples abound, including practically all their coverage of things like the elections, the demonstrations, the COVID 'crisis,' and the Ukraine and Gaza wars. They're shilling for their masters.

Who is telling you that, and why?

[promethean75]

"Smoke another one, dude."

man ain't nuthin wrong with smokin weed. Weed is from the erf. God put this here for me.. and you. Take advantage, man. Take advantage

Check this space chronic out, Mannie. This weed is so good u can get high just by lookin at it, haus.

1000002278.jpg

[attofishpi]

Do you not think that perhaps rival news outlets might have a motive for persuading people that the market leaders are unreliable? Clearly there is a market for news that has been processed by religious, nationalist and racist filters.

..subtle, but the "right" ..oui?

"religious, nationalist, racist"

What catphrases fit the left?

"subtle, liberal, accepting, tolerant, intelligent, educated, etc etc etc.."

As I keep saying, exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways, whether that is scientific data, or human events.

There was some sort of a pyschologial analytical survey\assesment done quite recently - and darn it if I didn't take note of it. However, the stats revealed those of the "left" leaning persuasions were far more willing to bias their reporting of information - NEWS TO ME!!

[attofishpi]

..just to be clear about what is unlikely to be reported on the BBC and other UK mainstream media.

39% of "British" Muslims want their OTHER HALF to VOTE akin to their vote.
23% of "British" Muslims want Sharia Law above any British Law.

Harris Sultan - ex Muslim - a bloke that lives here in the Land of Oz - and knows about the ideological aspirations of his former IDEOLOGY.




From his vid on MARINE LE PEN's VICTORY SPEECH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQzJWy_Jstg


PS> If anyone wants to verify the source of the stats - easily done.
PPS> Just trying to AWAKE the ""WOKE""

[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.

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

Well, allow me to outline where my thinking on this issue has tended.

But I have to contextualize my response in a somewhat personal way since I have sheer contempt for what I understand of your political and social platforms. It is true that I generally maintain that we are better off discussing ideas *abstractly*, and I do think it best, but the topic of conversation on this thread is about *the Woke*, and we are, to a degree, edging toward a workable definition. So I think I must begin by saying that I do not have any of the faith or confidence that what I term hyper-liberalism or the present trends manifest in (American) Progressivism are conducing us to *good outcomes*. In this sense I have (more or less recently) begun to see Liberalism itself as a problem that needs to be resolved. I.e. my own sense of things now tends toward anti-Liberal views. Yet I maintain that I do not have political affiliations to which I contribute and, as I say, my position is *contemplative*.

So, as a sort of initial response, based to a degree in sentiment, I say that I relish the illiberal thought, the contradictory thought, among those people I have recently listed (Duke, De Benoist, Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, etc.) because of this *contempt* I have developed for (please excuse my directness) impotent sell-outs like yourself.

It is your weakness as a man that disgusts me -- but please understand that I do not blame you for your self-revealed mental issues and too I speak about you-singular as a way to comment on a far larger and more consequential you-plural. Though I have said that your psycho-somatic illness could well correspond to the destruction of virility and that manliness as the culture becomes perverted and faggotized (for want of a more studied term). I regard the present trends, and I have said this many times, as operating like infections and contagions. Social sicknesses and pathologies that assume righteous powers.

My reference -- it is a sort of idea-fulcrum -- is the discourse of Jonathan Bowden that I have presented a dozen times over the years. You embody that European grammar of self-intolerance that comes to life with perverse energy when a man can no longer define and defend himself. You have been severed-off from yourself -- in the sense that I define self and self-realization. You are men without self! My view of you (-plural) is of people who have abandoned even the possibility of defining and defending their own interests. It is a crime for you to present ideas that are self-strengthening. This has taken form on every level. From the material and the national all the way up to the spiritual and the supernatural. You transform yourselves into enemies of the sort of Identity that is crucial to a man, to manliness, and you present this as if it is moral strength and decency.

I feel at this point like Michael Corleane when he confronts Carlo Rizzi

"Don't tell me you're innocent because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry."

The reason you-plural can do this is because, over historical time, you have assumed moral highground within all the categories -- the social, the political, the spiritual, the religious. It's that *long march through the institutions*. It is something really quite extraordinary this self-righteousness that has been so concretized in you that it has become *metaphysical normality*. Your assertions are always grounded in the wielding of your belief in your moral superiority. All your arguments are based in shame-slinging.

You make me vomit.

Now, to move in the direction of a more abstract analysis...

I welcome back into the larger social and political conversation all those who have been shunned from it; driven underground; vilified; condemned; de-platformed; demonitized. Not because I (necessarily) support their causes, though in some instances I have some coinciding sympathies, but because they have as much as anyone has a right to form and express their ideas.

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

Gary, you dope, you know perfectly well that the purpose of your question is to set up a means by which I implicate myself through the moral categories you believe you wield with righteousness. I cannot tell you how contemptible I find this tactic.

And since you do not have any backgrounding in any reading of those who I refer to and are thoroughly unprepared for any careful, fair conversation of the ideas they deal in, you do not have any idea what *the influence* is or could be.

So I refer you to a didactic video, relatively short and to the point, which outlines what I think has been suppressed in our universities and in our intellectual worlds.

You cannot understand what is being talked about until you take the time to read, listen and consider what *they* are on about.

[Gary Childress]

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?

Well, allow me to outline where my thinking on this issue has tended.

But I have to contextualize my response in a somewhat personal way since I have sheer contempt for what I understand of your political and social platforms. It is true that I generally maintain that we are better off discussing ideas *abstractly*, and I do think it best, but the topic of conversation on this thread is about *the Woke*, and we are, to a degree, edging toward a workable definition. So I think I must begin by saying that I do not have any of the faith or confidence that what I term hyper-liberalism or the present trends manifest in (American) Progressivism are conducing us to *good outcomes*. In this sense I have (more or less recently) begun to see Liberalism itself as a problem that needs to be resolved. I.e. my own sense of things now tends toward anti-Liberal views. Yet I maintain that I do not have political affiliations to which I contribute and, as I say, my position is *contemplative*.

So, as a sort of initial response, based to a degree in sentiment, I say that I relish the illiberal thought, the contradictory thought, among those people I have recently listed (Duke, De Benoist, Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, etc.) because of this *contempt* I have developed for (please excuse my directness) impotent sell-outs like yourself.

It is your weakness as a man that disgusts me -- but please understand that I do not blame you for your self-revealed mental issues and too I speak about you-singular as a way to comment on a far larger and more consequential you-plural. Though I have said that your psycho-somatic illness could well correspond to the destruction of virility and that manliness as the culture becomes perverted and faggotized (for want of a more studied term). I regard the present trends, and I have said this many times, as operating like infections and contagions. Social sicknesses and pathologies that assume righteous powers.

My reference -- it is a sort of idea-fulcrum -- is the discourse of Jonathan Bowden that I have presented a dozen times over the years. You embody that European grammar of self-intolerance that comes to life with perverse energy when a man can no longer define and defend himself. You have been severed-off from yourself -- in the sense that I define self and self-realization. You are men without self! My view of you (-plural) is of people who have abandoned even the possibility of defining and defending their own interests. It is a crime for you to present ideas that are self-strengthening. This has taken form on every level. From the material and the national all the way up to the spiritual and the supernatural. You transform yourselves into enemies of the sort of Identity that is crucial to a man, to manliness, and you present this as if it is moral strength and decency.

I feel at this point like Michael Corleane when he confronts Carlo Rizzi

"Don't tell me you're innocent because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry."

The reason you-plural can do this is because, over historical time, you have assumed moral highground within all the categories -- the social, the political, the spiritual, the religious. It's that *long march through the institutions*. It is something really quite extraordinary this self-righteousness that has been so concretized in you that it has become *metaphysical normality*. Your assertions are always grounded in the wielding of your belief in your moral superiority. All your arguments are based in shame-slinging.

You make me vomit.

Now, to move in the direction of a more abstract analysis...

I welcome back into the larger social and political conversation all those who have been shunned from it; driven underground; vilified; condemned; de-platformed; demonitized. Not because I (necessarily) support their causes, though in some instances I have some coinciding sympathies, but because they have as much as anyone has a right to form and express their ideas.

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

Gary, you dope, you know perfectly well that the purpose of your question is to set up a means by which I implicate myself through the moral categories you believe you wield with righteousness. I cannot tell you how contemptible I find this tactic.

And since you do not have any backgrounding in any reading of those who I refer to and are thoroughly unprepared for any careful, fair conversation of the ideas they deal in, you do not have any idea what *the influence* is or could be.

So I refer you to a didactic video, relatively short and to the point, which outlines what I think has been suppressed in our universities and in our intellectual worlds.

You cannot understand what is being talked about until you take the time to read, listen and consider what *they* are on about.

Perhaps you have a fair point. If universities today aren't teaching counterpoints to liberalism as part of the curriculum, then shame on them. Even the Catholic church used to have a "devil's advocate" just to weigh the soundness of what were ostensibly pious ideas. When I was going to school, Heidegger and others were taught in the philosophy curriculum and they were taught charitably, not villainized. Is that not the case anymore? Perhaps education has drifted into the realm of a new theology?

[Will Bouwman]

..just to be clear about what is unlikely to be reported on the BBC and other UK mainstream media.

39% of "British" Muslims want their OTHER HALF to VOTE akin to their vote.

How weird is that? Can't say I've seen UK media report on how non muslims want their other half to vote. How stable a relationship do you think you could maintain with someone whose politics you disagree with?

23% of "British" Muslims want Sharia Law above any British Law.

What percentage of Christians do you suppose think their God's commandments are subordinate to secular law?

[Will Bouwman]

You make me vomit.

Poor Gus. On behalf of we who didn't appreciate what a delicate thing you are, I apologise.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thanks, Wilbur. I accept your •universal apologies•.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What percentage of Christians do you suppose think their God's commandments are subordinate to secular law?

If Catholic doctrine might answer here. It is really far more interesting, and also liberal, than most imagine. The Church is responsible for souls, their education in spiritual matters, their spiritual edification, and their salvation as people pass from this world to the next. Obviously, morality and moral teachings are central and that is part of education.

But the State is separate and the Church believes its influence should be indirect; i.e. like with recommendations; as in a moral posture (for example when a Church authority condemns war and unjust war, or unjust treatment of workers, or disrespect for marriage, etc.)

No Christian should or could believe that the State has anything like absolute freedom from the Authority understood to extend from a divine source. Ideally the State would consult with the Church but really in a proper Christian state this would be natural since government would be comprised by individuals with Christian education and affiliation.

Christian-influenced law and certainly Christian ethics is what defines our own Occidental outlook. The values we have and believe in come out of Christian culture.

Are these comparable to Sharia law? In some senses, yes. But we have a very different civilization that has evolved its laws and ethics along quite different lines.

The real Islamic Threat is less from a solitary practitioner of Islamic religious ethics, and more in the issue of so-called reverse-colonization resulting in cultural clashes and discord.

[Will Bouwman]

What percentage of Christians do you suppose think their God's commandments are subordinate to secular law?

If Catholic doctrine might answer here. It is really far more interesting, and also liberal, than most imagine.

The stage is yours: imagine for us how liberal Catholic doctrine might be.