WOKE and proud of it....

[Age]

There's only two here I don't take seriously -- age & ... --

Now, that 'this one' has chosen to 'not take me seriously', (whatever that really actually means), has no bearing on the fact that I have already shown just how hypocritical the views of "henry quirk" really are, and how exactly contradictory its views are to its claims about 'natural rights' for every one.

That this one might not want to 'take this seriously' and no bearing that I have already shown this to be the case, and True.

And, "henry quirk" might want to 'not take me seriously', because then it could use this 'excuse' not 'take up my challenges' of it.

[Age]

Do you believe there was some nefarious purpose behind the Covid response?

Absolutely.

And if so, what was the nefarious intent?

One: to test the gullibility of populations.

To test the gullibility of populations for 'what' reason, exactly?

And, what are they, (whoever 'they' are), testing the 'guilibility of human populations' relative to 'what', exactly?

Human population/s?

Or, something else?

Two: to kill as many as possible (thru intubations, isolations, and vaccines that aren't vaccines).

Why not just make a 'virus' that kills human beings, like for example a 'corona virus', if 'they', (again whoever 'they' are), just wanted to kill as many of you human beings?

Three: to secure deeper control over economies.

What for?

If to put 'more money' into 'the coffers' of some, then how much money do this 'few people', (again whoever 'these people' are), want?

Might it have been worse had there been no social distancing and vaccinations?

If -- to combat a strong cold -- we had done nuthin' but urge the old and the weak to hunker down (leaving everyone else to simply exercise the normal cautions of a flu season) beer virus woulda been a blip we'd have forgotten about.

In other words, OF COURSE 'it' would have been 'worse' had there been no social distancing and/or no vaccinations.

and, no, I'm not gonna back up my assertions...

But, you expect, and even demand others do, and if they do not, then you threaten them.

did that already...the threads still exist in-forum...hunt them down (or not...i'm well past the point of tryin' to convince anyone of anything...I leave the sales game to AJ & Mannie)

So, you do not 'have to' so-call 'pony any thing up', but you expect and demand others do not.

The hypocrisy from 'this one' continues.

[Age]

Is that not what the Covid Vaccine was?

It's not the topic I want to talk about, Gary...it's just one illustration of the multitudinous lies of the mass media and our government. That point established, I have no further interest in hashing that out. But I could.

Once again, "immanuel can" comes here, claims some thing, but is absolutely completely dismissive of 'its claim' when it is challenged and questioned over that claim.

"immanuel can" claimed that it was 'not a genuine vaccine'

So, "gary childress" just asked, (and very Rightly so), the very simple and very easy question to "immanuel can", 'In what way is it not a "genuine vaccine"?'

However, and once more, "immanuel can" completely ignores this very simple and easy clarifying question, and says and claims, 'It is not the topic that I want to talk about "gary".

How utterly common this, 'make a claim or an assertion, but then just 'run away'completely', when just questioned or challenged over the claim/assertion', is becoming and has actually become, in this forum, is ruining the whole idea of 'philosophical discussions', and of 'philosophy forums'.

Look "immanuel can" if you want to make claims and assertions like; 'it is not a genuine vaccine', then I suggest that you have at least 'some thing', which, at least, might back up your claim and assertion before you share and express your assertion/claim, especially in public, and even more so especially in a 'philosophy forum'.

Again, If you keep wanting to continue asserting and claiming that God is a "he", then either back up and support this belief and claim of yours with, again, at least 'some thing', or refrain from making the assertion or claim ever again.

Or, if you do not refrain from doing so, when you have no actual proof, then do not get overly when 'I', and/or others, keep pointing out, and proving, that 'you', "Immanuel can", do not know what you are talking about and claiming here.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is that not what the Covid Vaccine was?

It's not the topic I want to talk about, Gary...it's just one illustration of the multitudinous lies of the mass media and our government. That point established, I have no further interest in hashing that out. But I could.

Once again, "immanuel can" comes here, claims some thing, but is absolutely completely dismissive of 'its claim' when it is challenged and questioned over that claim.

"immanuel can" claimed that it was 'not a genuine vaccine'

So, "gary childress" just asked, (and very Rightly so), the very simple and very easy question to "immanuel can", 'In what way is it not a "genuine vaccine"?'

However, and once more, "immanuel can" completely ignores this very simple and easy clarifying question, and says and claims, 'It is not the topic that I want to talk about "gary".

How utterly common this, 'make a claim or an assertion, but then just 'run away'completely', when just questioned or challenged over the claim/assertion', is becoming and has actually become, in this forum, is ruining the whole idea of 'philosophical discussions', and of 'philosophy forums'.

Humorous how people would describe what happened in threads, in the days when this was written.

[Dubious]

I leave the sales game to AJ & Mannie)

If either of these exceptional gentlemen depended on their sales ability for their commissions, they'd both be sharing the same apartment on cockroach avenue.

[Will Bouwman]

I didn't read the Guardian or watch the Beebs much. But if you saw what I saw, you know I'm telling the truth...

If it matters to you whether I think you are telling the truth, you could direct me to what you saw.

It's not about what I saw. It's about what you will believe...which appears to be...nothing.

It really depends on what you mean by believe. I believe all sorts of things for pragmatic reasons, but I don't have any belief that I couldn't drop in the light of new information. So I have never committed to any belief so much that it defines me in the way that some people define themselves by their religious belief, for example.

So you must go on your own search. That's my final word on that.

We are all on our own search; the difference is some of us haven't decided what we will find in advance.

...you can recognize you were wrong, if you are willing to.

Which I would be willing to do, were you able to provide compelling evidence. My point remains that the same data is interpreted differently. You have interpreted the same information as me, but while I acknowledge that mistakes were made, you have decided that there was mendacity and complicity. Usually you attribute those qualities to "Leftists". In 2020, the governments that advised masks, social distancing and closures in both the UK and US were conservative. Sweden, which you cite as an example of a country

that had the FEWEST and SHORTEST COVID measures [and] did better in the end than the many countries that panicked and locked down harder.

was at the time governed by "The second cabinet of Stefan Löfven...a coalition, consisting of two parties: the Social Democrats and the Green Party."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6fv ... uly%202021.
Which I imagine would qualify as "Leftist" by your criteria.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why are you "illiberal"? What is wrong with liberalism? Do you oppose liberal ideals, or are you "illiberal" in the sense that you are not as liberal as some?

By "ethno-nationalism", do you believe that ethnic groups should all have their own ethnically homogenous states?

It is an involved topic. Krebs and numerous others from this larger “school” have influenced my views.

From Fighting for the Essence by Pierre Krebs:

Dr. Krebs offers a devastating critique of multiculturalism, showing that although it claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times. These are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture.

Dr. Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term ‘West’ to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories. This will lead to their replacement by a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share them. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe.

Dr. Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr. Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity.

Dr. Pierre Krebs (b. 1948) is a major figure in Neue Kultur, the German branch of the European New Right, and is also the leader of the Thule-Seminar. He holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science. This is his first work to be translated into English

[Immanuel Can]

If it matters to you whether I think you are telling the truth, you could direct me to what you saw.

It's not about what I saw. It's about what you will believe...which appears to be...nothing.

It really depends on what you mean by believe.

Let's just say, "accept as true," for present purposes.

So you must go on your own search. That's my final word on that.

We are all on our own search; the difference is some of us haven't decided what we will find in advance.

We might have suspected the mendacity of the media...it was a commonplace that media was at least somewhat slanted. But I think nobody, "in advance" was prepared for the level of mendacity and slantedness the major mass media has exhibited. And it doesn't even require us to refer to the multitudinous alternate websites with contrary information on them, to know that: it is enough if we look at their own statements, which contradict themselves. So there's really no disputing the choice: either they were grossly incompetent to the point of no longer deserving the title "journalists," or else they were serving a political agenda.

And you can see it yourself. My point is that you don't need me in order to see it. But as you say, some of us have decided "decided what we will [not] find in advance," too. That is your case, it would seem. So I have no more to say on the subject, since you refuse the evidence of what you can find yourself.

...you can recognize you were wrong, if you are willing to.

Which I would be willing to do, were you able to provide compelling evidence.

You'll have to look at your own sources. If you think you find nothing, I have no more to tell you. That's the evidence.

Are their statements about COVID, or any of the other things, consistent? Just check. Or don't. It's up to you.

[Gary Childress]

Why are you "illiberal"? What is wrong with liberalism? Do you oppose liberal ideals, or are you "illiberal" in the sense that you are not as liberal as some?

By "ethno-nationalism", do you believe that ethnic groups should all have their own ethnically homogenous states?

It is an involved topic. Krebs and numerous others from this larger “school” have influenced my views.

From Fighting for the Essence by Pierre Krebs:

Dr. Krebs offers a devastating critique of multiculturalism, showing that although it claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times. These are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture.

Dr. Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term ‘West’ to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories. This will lead to their replacement by a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share them. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe.

Dr. Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr. Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity.

Dr. Pierre Krebs (b. 1948) is a major figure in Neue Kultur, the German branch of the European New Right, and is also the leader of the Thule-Seminar. He holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science. This is his first work to be translated into English

I suppose not all people are comfortable living in racially and ethnically diverse societies. I generally get along pretty well with different peoples, at least as their diaspora manifest themselves in my own country. And of course, there are members of ethnic or racial minorities that feel the same toward their own as you do. The Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan come to mind.

Overall, diversity is fine with me. Different strokes for different folks, I guess?

[henry quirk]

I leave the sales game to AJ & Mannie)

If either of these exceptional gentlemen depended on their sales ability for their commissions, they'd both be sharing the same apartment on cockroach avenue.

Based on the number of declared in-forum converts to either man's view: you're right.

[henry quirk]

I apologize, Henry. You are right. There is no good reason for me to be snarky about it.

It's not the snark, it's the dismissal that informs the snark.

By "dismissal" do you mean my not agreeing with your views on us currently being "slaves"?

Stuff like this...

Henry, you are a lackey. If some rich guy was hiring people to beat up on union organizers, you'd be at the head of the line.

[Immanuel Can]

I leave the sales game to AJ & Mannie)

If either of these exceptional gentlemen depended on their sales ability for their commissions, they'd both be sharing the same apartment on cockroach avenue.

Based on the number of declared in-forum converts to either man's view: you're right.

Sales? Converts? Well, I suppose I would be happy to harmonize belief with anybody reasonable, and their belief with mine. But it wasn't my reason for coming here, or for staying here as long as I have.

I came to find out what "the other side," the skeptics (particularly the intransigent agnostics and the convinced Atheists) had to say for themselves. A philosophy forum seemed potentially the most challenging place in which to do that, and would seem to imply that that is where one finds the most rational, intelligent, cautious and logical opponents to one's position. However, in judging by its advocates here, the answer to what they have to offer has proved to be, "Only the ordinary stuff."

I have rarely been able to discover from them some original, penetrating and interesting argument that has not been recycled a thousand times in their superficial literature, something I, and other apologists, have not heard often before. Every now and then, some new modicum of information, or some slightly new angle peeps into the conversation; but for the most part, it's the same old thing, just recycled. I can't count the number of times I've had to run through the debunking of things like the Euthyphro Dilemma, or the claim that if an Atheist doesn't know about a thing it cannot exist, or other such lame-duck arguments. However, hope springs eternal...

But time wears on. And after my lengthy stay here, it may run out.

[henry quirk]

Hey, it's okay, I'm a lousy salesman too...

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suppose not all people are comfortable living in racially and ethnically diverse societies. I generally get along pretty well with different peoples, at least as their diaspora manifest themselves in my own country.

From a krebsian perspective — a European and not an American — his object is the preservation of what is diverse and distinct. The Americanization ideology — which has certainly informed your views — he defines, coherently, as destructive of what is unique and culturally genuine. So he articulates an opposing stance to “rabid Americanism” certainly but, and this is important, a rediscovery of, a realignment with, what is authentically Indo-European.

Identity is a hot topic. To be identitarian (in America) is regarded as suspect at best and deeply immoral at worst. However, in those nations and regions that respect their own identity — links with their unique culture and somatic self (that could be defined as “race”) — redefinition of identitarian postures becomes for those people a protective position.

The radical American misfits — those who hold to ethnic or racial identity — are in a losing position. Once a region or city or state or nation has been “diversified”, that is the end of whatever former sort of organic culture did exist. It is I think impossible to de-diversify. And it then becomes necessary to reconstruct the National Identity along the lines of diversity and multiculturalism. This is therefore what is occurring in America (and I think also in Canada). To employ a metaphor: the Old Monuments of former identity-structures must be toppled, melted down, and remolded into new statuary.

This I think explains the “attack on White identity”. The vilification of whiteness. There is no protection allowable against those vilifications since, as is evident, to construct an identitarian posture involves resurrecting and legitimizing identity-concepts associated with moral evil.

This is why, I think, some positions I take (present) feel to you to be imbued with evil.

In this sense you are an outcome of this ideological Americanism. But this involves a tremendous and consequential self-abasement.

You are identityless.

Because you (I really mean a plurality) have no solidity in Identity, you are then a moldeable commodity. Social plasticine.

Krebs deplores and fears this “New Man” in the American mold. And I think his project applies to self-conscious Europeans when Americanism-as-multiculturalism is seen as a destructive but extremely aggressive force.

[Immanuel Can]

If it matters to you whether I think you are telling the truth, you could direct me to what you saw.

It's not about what I saw. It's about what you will believe...which appears to be...nothing.

It really depends on what you mean by believe.

No, no...it actually doesn't. The truth doesn't depend on that at all.

They tell us that Joe Biden's healthy, stable and sane...but we can see him every day. They tell us the COVID measures were for our good...but that we don't have to do any of them now. They tell us that the protests were "mainly peaceful"...but the shops behind the reporter are a wall of fire...They tell us that Saint Floyd died of police brutality...but the coroner's report shows conclusively that he died of an overdose.

Do this sort of thing enough times, and people start to suspect you aren't telling them all you know...