The Globalist Agenda - -

[Gary Childress]

I understand your dilemma. It is based in the fact that you feel you have right and justice on your side. Therefore, anything that is contrary seems metaphysically wrong. Evil in fact.

I'm just not seeing how undermining liberalism is helping anyone including you.

Unfettered immigration is not ‘liberal’, Gary. Please stop mixing categories.

I think you are mixed up because you do not understand how the world really works. Here I mean the power that runs it, effectively.

I believe the import of this man’s revelations has relevancy.

It is too long but super interesting.

People seem to be fleeing their nations because of upheaval going on in them. How can they be humanitarianly stopped? Some risk their lives to get to safety. How do we stop them from doing that?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure, and it's easy at that level of abstraction. But, yes, I think it should be possible to express any political view on any political topic in a university setting. And I am using the term political in the broad sense of anything that arouses strong opinions.

The way I background the issue we seem to be talking about, or approaching, leads me to think about the issue differently. One of my primary beliefs or understandings has to do with the degree to which we -- our societies, the culture -- have *gone off the rails*. The reason I have this view is personal: I am a cultural product of radical Californian culture. And through a process of review, which is both intellectual and spiritual -- I do not separate these -- I have come back to those platforms in ideas that are described as 'conservative'. For this reason I refer to the philosophical ideas of Richard Weaver. If it is true that *ideas have consequences* then the topic will become What ideas induce to the good and which to the bad? In my view the health and well-being of a person, a child if you will, depends on education.

I admit to adherence to a core Platonic principle. If we have *gone off the rails*, and there are a wide array of reasons why this is so, and a way to explain how it came about, my view is that it is essentially intellectual and spiritual. But right at the core of the issue there is a failure in the discipline of education. And the *ideal* education is one that turns around that of our own traditions -- i.e. the classical liberal arts. I would also include religious philosophy as part of education. The issue, in my view, is how is it possible to rediscover and reconnect with what is essential in the classical arts, and in religious philosophy, without merely retreating back into the old structures as if back into an old fort or building structure.

My point was somewhat different from the way you have put it. If you refer to the view of the man in a video I submitted who critiques what he was introduced to at University, it is not only about all the strange stuff that he was exposed to, and more about all that he was not exposed to and what is excluded. And this is not *abstraction*.

In the sense that I am understanding the discourse of people who employ the general term "globalist agenda", one aspect of this is their sense, like mine, that *things have gone off the rails*. And when this perception arises, and quite naturally, people turn to structures of ideas, and metaphysical platforms, where *solidities* are located. This comes up especially strongly when the education and well-being of their children is at issue.

I have a feeling that, if you could spare the time, you would find this man's description of what *powers* operate in our present to be very worthwhile. (It is the same that I presented to Gary a post or two back).

[Alexis Jacobi]

People seem to be fleeing their nations because of upheaval going on in them. How can they be humanitarianly stopped? Some risk their lives to get to safety. How do we stop them from doing that?

You are changing the subject. You have been saying that these processes -- migration, immigration -- are inevitable and you picture it as something that has always gone on and therefore you justify massive unrestrained immigration on that basis. It is a weak and fallacious argument.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So all these people feel they carried out their part of the contract, and then somehow got robbed, so they look for who robbed them, which is when a slaesman like you comes to tell them about globalism. But there was no contract, the universe doesn't issue them, there's no heavenly agent that countersigns these deals. No commitment was ever made that as it has been for the last 60 years, so will it be for the next 60 years.

Your statement "if you had anything to do with actual philosophy you would recognise the problem of induction has crept in" is absurd. My view is that you have tricked yourself, and deceive yourself, into believing that whatever philosophical background you have has brought you to wisdom or understanding.

My next comment is that I think you continually project onto me what you seem to most fear and a set of projections of 'ultimate evil' (Hitlerism, etc.) However this renders you incapable of actually understanding what I do think or what values I hold. Obviously, I am not telling anyone about what *globalism* is or isn't and I am not a salesman for that or *it*. You are inventing things.

The part about feeling left out, or actually being left out, and robbed (as you put it) -- now those things can be considered if a rising tide of discontent is to be examined fairly.

At this point, if you had anything to do with actual philosophy you would recognise the problem of induction has crept in. The chicken that saw the sun rise every morning, and then the farmers wife came to feed him formulated an expectation that every time the sun rises, it must surely be followed by the delivery of food. One day the sun rises and the farmers wife comes not to feed the chicken but to wring his neck, as the lights go out, the chicken realises that a more sophisticated understanding of inductive reasoning would have been beneficial.

This connects to my great love of soups and the necessity of preparing your own stocks at home. With that I can help!

It has next to no connection to my understanding of the positions of the Dissident Right and the philosophical bases of either conservative social philosophy or traditionalist philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

So all these people feel they carried out their part of the contract, and then somehow got robbed, so they look for who robbed them, which is when a slaesman like you comes to tell them about globalism. But there was no contract, the universe doesn't issue them, there's no heavenly agent that countersigns these deals. No commitment was ever made that as it has been for the last 60 years, so will it be for the next 60 years.

<irrelevant segue>

Your predictably banal screed didn't actually respond to the text you quoted for some reason.

[henry quirk]

...a solution

"Hold up!" said an elderly rabbit at the gap. "Six pence for the privilege of passing by the private road!" He was bowled over in an instant by the impatient and contemptuous Mole, who trotted along the side of the hedge chaffing the other rabbits as they peeped hur­riedly from their holes to see what the row was about. "Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!" he remarked jeeringly, and was gone before they could think of a thoroughly satisfactory reply. Then they all started grumbling at each other, "How stupid you are! Whey didn’t you tell him —" "Well, why didn’t you say —" "You might have reminded him —" and so on, in the usual way; but, of course, it was then much too late, as is always the case.

-Kenneth Grahame

*

Be resolved to serve no more, and there you are, free. I do not want you to push him or topple him, but merely no longer hold him up, and you will see him, like a huge colossus with the base taken away, collapse under his own weight and break up.

-Etienne de la Boëtie

*

Nobody rules, If nobody obeys.

-Anon

[Iwannaplato]

The way I background the issue we seem to be talking about, or approaching, leads me to think about the issue differently. One of my primary beliefs or understandings has to do with the degree to which we -- our societies, the culture -- have *gone off the rails*. The reason I have this view is personal: I am a cultural product of radical Californian culture. And through a process of review, which is both intellectual and spiritual -- I do not separate these -- I have come back to those platforms in ideas that are described as 'conservative'. For this reason I refer to the philosophical ideas of Richard Weaver. If it is true that *ideas have consequences* then the topic will become What ideas induce to the good and which to the bad?

So what wouId this mean in a university environment? WouId professors disaIIow the expression of the ideas which Iead to the bad? WouId there be wider poIicies aimed to curb these things? Or wouId 'discourage' be a better verb? And what ideas wouId be discourage or removed or......? And then with chiIdren. However much those who go to coIIege haven't quite reached aduIthood, they are in many ways aduIts.

In my view the health and well-being of a person, a child if you will, depends on education.

CertainIy in part.

I admit to adherence to a core Platonic principle. If we have *gone off the rails*, and there are a wide array of reasons why this is so, and a way to explain how it came about, my view is that it is essentially intellectual and spiritual. But right at the core of the issue there is a failure in the discipline of education. And the *ideal* education is one that turns around that of our own traditions -- i.e. the classical liberal arts. I would also include religious philosophy as part of education. The issue, in my view, is how is it possible to rediscover and reconnect with what is essential in the classical arts, and in religious philosophy, without merely retreating back into the old structures as if back into an old fort or building structure.

How does this pIay out in practice.

My point was somewhat different from the way you have put it. If you refer to the view of the man in a video I submitted who critiques what he was introduced to at University, it is not only about all the strange stuff that he was exposed to, and more about all that he was not exposed to and what is excluded. And this is not *abstraction*.

It wasn't the video, it was what I quoted that you wrote. And it wasn't meant as criticaI, just that we hadn't gotten to where I couId understand yet what you meant.

[Gary Childress]

People seem to be fleeing their nations because of upheaval going on in them. How can they be humanitarianly stopped? Some risk their lives to get to safety. How do we stop them from doing that?

You are changing the subject. You have been saying that these processes -- migration, immigration -- are inevitable and you picture it as something that has always gone on and therefore you justify massive unrestrained immigration on that basis. It is a weak and fallacious argument.

I realize you're very passionate about the illegal immigration issue. It seems to be the premier topic you are most concerned about with regard to "globalists" permitting such mass immigration. Not sure I understand how talking about it is "changing the subject". You have brought it up repeatedly and most of these ideas are intertwined, not isolated ideas on their own.

If you were running the State Department, how would you handle the global migrations?

That dovetails into my question above. How do you humanely handle migrants who will literally risk life and death to escape from war torn countries or countries full of waring drug lords (in the case of Latin America) and try to make it to the relative safety and stability of Europe and America? Do you build a wall? Then they'll be coming in by boat, sailing around the wall. Do you intern them at the border and ports and turn them around and send them back to what they were running from? They're just going to try the same thing next time at a different place. They're not taking "no" for an answer. Or should we just treat them like cattle and pen them up in cages until they get angry over it and have a revolt?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I realize you're very passionate about the illegal immigration issue.

Again, once again, you initial premise is wrong so that what follow is also wrong.

The issue of excessive immigration, and the powers that allow it, is part of a range of concerns.

I focus on challenging or correcting your assertions about immigration (those comments you made about the state of Miami) because you demonstrate flaws in your thinking. Then, you interpret the focus as some obsession.

Because I am interested in topical cultural and social, I am aware of what people generally think about it. That is, those morally in favor of it with little or no concern for the consequences, and those who have serious concerns about the issue.

As I have said: your position is nearly a no-position. One bolstered by some feelings you have.

[Gary Childress]

I realize you're very passionate about the illegal immigration issue.

Again, once again, you initial premise is wrong so that what follow is also wrong.

The issue of excessive immigration, and the powers that allow it, is part of a range of concerns.

I focus on challenging or correcting your assertions about immigration (those comments you made about the state of Miami) because you demonstrate flaws in your thinking. Then, you interpret the focus as some obsession.

Because I am interested in topical cultural and social, I am aware of what people generally think about it. That is, those morally in favor of it with little or no concern for the consequences, and those who have serious concerns about the issue.

As I have said: your position is nearly a no-position. One bolstered by some feelings you have.

So you're not passionate about the illegal immigration issue. Is that correct?

[henry quirk]

Are Mass Deportations Possible? The Case Of The Dominican Republic
i.e. a solution for a symptom

https://littoria.substack.com/p/are-mas ... ssible-the

[Gary Childress]

Are Mass Deportations Possible? The Case Of The Dominican Republic
i.e. a solution for a symptom

https://littoria.substack.com/p/are-mas ... ssible-the

Apparently, we're deporting Haitians now as it is. They're still coming and the ones we're sending back are probably going back to extremely dangerous circumstances.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/4 ... %20Tuesday.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So you're not passionate about the illegal immigration issue. Is that correct?

In no sense is passion involved. I have concerns however, and these concerns are connected to general political considerations.

In a sense I would say that dispassion is the mood I live in generally speaking.

On another level — the level of pessimism and in some sense hopelessness — I have an afflicted faith in the prospect of things improving in my own country. And that pessimistic stance leaves me with philosophical ruminations. I.e. What went wrong? What wrong turns were taken? These are concerns that the Dissident Right mulls over.

Those are issues of causation, you see. The advantage, for those in Europe, is to see what has taken place in America and to resist tooth and claw that americanization which is afflicting those nations. And this is why, months back, I explained that the situation in France interests me. I lived there at one time and perhaps that links me to it.

[attofishpi]

People seem to be fleeing their nations because of upheaval going on in them.

This is actually rarely the case (at the moment). In Europe and UK there are 100s of thousands of economic migrants moving north from Africa and Middle Eastern countries. > 95% of them are MEN. If they were fleeing for true asylum reasons then why are they leaving the women behind. (or maybe it's their women that they are seeking asylum from )

They are > 95% just ILLEGAL immigrants (no valid case for refuge) and should be deported back to where they come from - unfortunately as is the case with the ones that cross the English channel *ya know, after going through many safe countries for them of Europe* -- they throw their passports and phones into the water so they cannot be identified.

How can they be humanitarianly stopped?

Australian border force just did a nice job with 100s of mostly Bangladeshi men that paid huge amounts of money to traffickers heading from Indonesia - apparently they were put into other boats which were fuelled up and took them back to Indonsian waters - word soon gets out that its not worth the effort for others to try.

Some risk their lives to get to safety. How do we stop them from doing that?

That's their problem.. Stop them? Get rid of the Labour government which is doing nothing about the problem. Stop incentivising them to attempt to get to UK with free hotels\housing and money from the hard working tax payer.

UK border control should do similar to what Aussies do and drag them back to French territorial water. The French are paid over 500 million pounds a year to help them stop this - but apparently they have been spotted assisting the dinghies make it to within UK waters.

The West is a joke. Could you imagine the Chinese goverment putting up with this - they'd just sink the dinghies - nobody would bother trying after that. (wait 4 it)

[henry quirk]

They're still coming

Yes, symptoms usually do.