Christianity

[Belinda]

For Belinda:

Overcoming the Feminization of Culture

I almost never pay attention to videos. The ways ideas are packaged matter to me.

It is a talk. Sixteen minutes. You seem interested in understanding the conflicts and struggles of today, and this talk outlines a significant issue. There is no transcript available and no article that I can find.

Her argument is that the infiltration of women into important culture and ethics determining professions has had some effects that are not good or desirable. Her position clarifies what I attempted to communicate to you and what you adamantly resist realizing or, at least, entertaining.

You keep pushing this idea that masculinity is the root of strength, order, and permanence. But Taoism — one of the world’s oldest, most respected traditions — says the opposite.

The Tao is feminine. Laozi calls it the Mysterious Female and the Mother of all things. That’s the eternal ground.

The masculine is secondary. Yang only arises after yin. It’s a superstructure, not a foundation. Without yin, yang has nothing to stand on.

Masculinity alone is brittle. Fire burns bright but burns out. Water — the feminine — endures, carves valleys, nourishes life.

Your cult of hyper-masculinity pretends it’s eternal, but Taoism exposes it as a temporary posture, destined to collapse without the feminine root.

Even Rene Guenon ,the Traditionalist philosopher you admire , held Taoism in the highest regard as a keeper of primordial wisdom.

So if you’re serious about Tradition, you can’t just dismiss the eternal feminine. According to Taoism, ignoring the eternal feminine is not strength — it’s weakness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Astounding.

My argument, supported by the assertions in a talk given, is that the effects of the infiltration of women into major professional and civic positions in the last 20-30 years, has not been as positive as had been assumed.

Consider it or don’t.

So if you’re serious about Tradition, you can’t just dismiss the eternal feminine. According to Taoism, ignoring the eternal feminine is not strength — it’s weakness.

Modern women are not, I do not think, channeling the philosophically understood Eternal Feminine!

You are confusing categories.

[Belinda]

Astounding.

My argument, supported by the assertions in a talk given, is that the effects of the infiltration of women into major professional and civic positions in the last 20-30 years, has not been as positive as had been assumed.

Consider it or don’t.

So if you’re serious about Tradition, you can’t just dismiss the eternal feminine. According to Taoism, ignoring the eternal feminine is not strength — it’s weakness.

Modern women are not, I do not think, channeling the philosophically understood Eternal Feminine!

You are confusing categories.

Ah, so you are not interested in philosophical categories, but particular cases where a woman is weaker than a man.
Anyway thanks for reading my piece on Taoism. Discussion with you has made me review my initial respect for the Taoist eternal feminine, and my stance remains unchanged.

I await evidence from you which particular modern women do not channel the eternal feminine, which is an empirical matter.

Please bear in mind that a biological male can channel the eternal feminine, e.g. when he performs traditional Taoist martial arts, a very efficient way to fight which conserves energy and balance while protecting against aggression. The latter are Yin qualities which are useful in commerce, diplomacy, politics, farming, industrial methods, and national defence, to mention a few fields that both men and women work in.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, so you are not interested in philosophical categories, but particular cases where a woman is weaker than a man.

If you would take a few minutes to review the talk I presented, you would then understand better what I am critiquing.

To have introduced what seem to be an interpretation of a Taoist eternal feminine (I doubt they use the term and it is definitely Occidental), pulls things in a direction that will not help us. Would your argument then be that with the quite recent rise of female influence in our culture over the last 20-30 years, that this represents an influx of the 'eternal feminine'? How are you defining that term?

The eternal feminine, a concept first introduced by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe at the end of his play Faust (1832), is a transcendental ideality of the feminine or womanly abstracted from the attributes, traits and behaviors of a large number of women and female figures. In Faust, these include historical, fictional, and mythological women, goddesses, and even female personifications of abstract qualities such as wisdom. As an ideal, the eternal feminine has an ethical component, which means that not all women contribute to it. Those who, for example, spread malicious gossip about other women or even just conform slavishly to their society's conventions are by definition non-contributors. Since the eternal feminine appears without explanation (though not without preparation) only in the last two lines of the 12,111-line play, it is left to the reader to work out which traits and behaviors it involves and which of the various women and female figures in the play contribute them. On these matters Goethe scholars have achieved a fair degree of consensus. The eternal feminine also has societal, cosmic and metaphysical dimensions.

Since Goethe's time the concept of the eternal feminine has been used by a number of philosophers, psychologists, psychoanalysts, theologians, feminists, poets and novelists. By some it has been employed or developed in ways congruent with Goethe's original conception, but by others in ways that depart from it considerably in one or more respects, not always felicitously. A complicating factor is that when the expression "eternal feminine" passed into popular usage, it tended (except among the knowledgeable) to lose any connection with Goethe's original idea and to be taken as referring to the prevailing cultural stereotypes of what constitutes the feminine.

Did I tell you that I am a 7th Degree Taoist Master?

[Belinda]

Ah, so you are not interested in philosophical categories, but particular cases where a woman is weaker than a man.

If you would take a few minutes to review the talk I presented, you would then understand better what I am critiquing.

To have introduced what seem to be an interpretation of a Taoist eternal feminine (I doubt they use the term and it is definitely Occidental), pulls things in a direction that will not help us. Would your argument then be that with the quite recent rise of female influence in our culture over the last 20-30 years, that this represents an influx of the 'eternal feminine'? How are you defining that term?

The eternal feminine, a concept first introduced by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe at the end of his play Faust (1832), is a transcendental ideality of the feminine or womanly abstracted from the attributes, traits and behaviors of a large number of women and female figures. In Faust, these include historical, fictional, and mythological women, goddesses, and even female personifications of abstract qualities such as wisdom. As an ideal, the eternal feminine has an ethical component, which means that not all women contribute to it. Those who, for example, spread malicious gossip about other women or even just conform slavishly to their society's conventions are by definition non-contributors. Since the eternal feminine appears without explanation (though not without preparation) only in the last two lines of the 12,111-line play, it is left to the reader to work out which traits and behaviors it involves and which of the various women and female figures in the play contribute them. On these matters Goethe scholars have achieved a fair degree of consensus. The eternal feminine also has societal, cosmic and metaphysical dimensions.

Since Goethe's time the concept of the eternal feminine has been used by a number of philosophers, psychologists, psychoanalysts, theologians, feminists, poets and novelists. By some it has been employed or developed in ways congruent with Goethe's original conception, but by others in ways that depart from it considerably in one or more respects, not always felicitously. A complicating factor is that when the expression "eternal feminine" passed into popular usage, it tended (except among the knowledgeable) to lose any connection with Goethe's original idea and to be taken as referring to the prevailing cultural stereotypes of what constitutes the feminine.

Did I tell you that I am a 7th Degree Taoist Master?

ChatGPT wrote:
In essence, while traditional Taoist priesthoods do not use a "7th degree" ranking system, certain modern Taoist-influenced organizations and martial arts schools have adopted such structures to denote advanced proficiency and teaching authority. These ranks are typically specific to the organization and may not be universally recognized across all Taoist traditions.

Which martial art do you perform?

I would have thought proficiency in any martial art would show you that martial art conserves energy by keeping the centre of gravity in the tan tien throughout the movements. (belly) .

Machismo is noisy and wasteful.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You make series of misleading interpretations. I am not advocating machismo, but definitely masculinity. A renewal of masculinity. A recovery. And I assert (this is just one example) that Tommy Robinson and the phenomenon of social empowerment now manifest, is a form of resurgent masculinity. Men who actbin their present against destructive trends. Machismo is an irresponsible, emoted phenomenon of an indulged, spoiled male-child (I live in Latin America, I have delved into the topic).

(Ask ChatGPT to fill you in on Alexis Jacobi’s Taoist Mastery. You’ll get lots of distorted info but yes, I do unapologetically maintain sizable harem…)

[seeds]

The point is that, like the wife and children of a brutal mob boss, if you share in the ill-gotten booty that the "elites" acquire, then you also share in the responsibility (blame) for how our disproportionate appropriation of global resources are procured.

Trust me, I understand your point. Your analysis leads to an essentially Marxian praxis and this appears to be a view that defines your perspectives.

Nah, my perspectives are defined by my belief in the fact that all human souls are equal family members of the highest species of being in all of reality (the same species of being as God).

And that anyone (such as yourself) who tries to divide us based on the ephemeral circumstances* of this temporary (dream-like) illusion we are presently experiencing,...

*(random circumstances such as culture, race, ideology, ethnicity, gender, skin color, religion, nationality, etc., etc.)

...demonstrates how much they (you) are under the thrall of the illusion.

It's time to wake up, Alexis, at least to the realization that the degree and level of wakefulness of which you are presently functioning at in this momentary dream, may be affecting your ability to properly assess our situation.

Make no mistake about it, all of humanity is functioning at varying levels and degrees of somnambulism in this fantastic, again, "dream-like" dimension of reality,...

...it's just that some of us (make that most of us) aren't awake enough (duh) to realize it.
_______

[seeds]

I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle.

Halleluiah, brother Alexis!

I could be hallucinating, but there seems to be a supernatural glow emanating from the words of your post, for it's as if Jesus himself was here, in person, writing that response to Belinda.

Encourage THEM to do the same — back in their own lands of course. Let THEM channel their empathy to the construction of grounded and empowering structures.

Yes, yes, Alexis,...

...encourage "THEM"...

(those uninvited, unwelcome refugees from war torn areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza, for example)

...to go back to their own homelands that we, in the west, have made uninhabitable from our missiles and bombs in our imperialistic (resource-seeking) encroachments into their territories, and let "THEM" then channel their own empathy towards the construction of grounded and empowering structures (out of the rubble and chaos that we helped to create), and leave us alone.

Again, Alexis, halleluiah to that!!!

A person such as yourself, who so clearly embodies and mimics Jesus's sentiments, must surely be sporting a couple of those "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do) bracelets, one on each wrist. Yes?

Hmm, on second thought, I am now finding myself a bit conflicted in regard to my somewhat sarcastic criticism of your comments to Belinda.

And that's because I suppose it's possible that you may have somehow tapped into and are now channeling Jesus's dark side.

You know, the side of his psyche that will have no moral problem with condemning billions of defenseless souls to an eternity of unimaginable torture in the fires of Hell,...

(a Hell that he [and his dad] personally created and maintain)

...simply to teach those defenseless souls an ever-lasting lesson of the dire consequences of not accepting Jesus's generous (and loving) offer to save them from his decision to torture them.

All because of what two boneheaded (and mythological) humans allegedly did - thousands of years ago - in a mythological garden called "Eden."

I guess my point is, go ahead, Alexis, keep promoting separation and divisiveness between humans, for as evil and wrong-headed as that may be, it is literally nothing compared to the unthinkable evil that Jesus himself is going to perform on the so-called "day of judgment."

And yes, I know that I am being a tad melodramatic in my rant,...

...but people need to stop ignoring what "Christianity" (the title of this thread) actually proposes and thus realize that we need a better (more modern/more logical) creation story.
_______

I think Seeds need more historical perspective on what Jesus of Nazareth actually said. Sorry if I misunderstood you Seeds---were you being ironic?

Clearly, I was being ironic (more at "sarcastic") about seeing a "supernatural glow" emanating from Alexis's words while insinuating he was emulating Jesus, when, in fact, Alexis's divisive proposals seem antithetical to what Jesus would propose.

However, the part about the hideous consequences of not accepting Jesus as one's personal savior to save you from Jesus's promise to torture you if you don't,...

...not so much.

I asked Google's AI Overview the following question...

Me:
"...Can the alleged fact that Jesus is going to torture you for not accepting his offer to save you from his decision to torture you if you don't accept his offer to save you from his decision to torture you, be considered "irony"? Or is there a better name for that?..."

To which AI Overview responded with...

AI Overview:
"...While the situation described could seem ironic in a casual, emotional sense, it does not fit the specific definition of irony. The dynamic is better described by other terms, such as coercion, blackmail, or a paradox, depending on the theological framework being used..."

So then, Belinda, what is it that Jesus "actually said" that isn't infinitely overshadowed by what he is allegedly going to do to you if you don't accept him as your personal savior?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nah, my perspectives are defined by my belief in the fact that all human souls are equal family members of the highest species of being in all of reality (the same species of being as God).

And that anyone (such as yourself) who tries to divide us based on the ephemeral circumstances* of this temporary (dream-like) illusion we are presently experiencing,...

And you, like Belinda, because of sets of prejudices and established predicates, assume (project) that I divide humans, or make distinctions between the value of souls. And why not see human being as an echo of God?

Like Belinda, you have problems distinguishing what has happened in European cultures (Europe and the former English colonies). Multiculturalism can be thought of (to force the term you seem wedded to) as bad for the soul. Souls manifest in specific circumstances. For example: many complain that London (among numerous cities) is now unrecognizable as an English locality. This is bad for the European soul. But I don’t feel inclined to use your categories.

Your idealism is admirable. However it requires some corrections. It’s all very hippy-dippy. And I could also say that because it is ungrounded it is not very useful in our present.

Try to distinguish what I am actually talking about, not what you “hear”.

I understand your “dream philosophy” and on its own level I cannot disagree, but such philosophy has downsides. Corrections are needed. Corrections are occurring. And this is what this present diversion in the conversation is about: what is occurring today, and why.

It's time to wake up, Alexis, at least to the realization that the degree and level of wakefulness of which you are presently functioning at in this momentary dream, may be affecting your ability to properly assess our situation.

What a Saint you are! Shall I bow before your magnificence?

It is quite possible that you would benefit from 1) applying your preachments to yourself or 2) modifying the content of your ideological impositions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Clearly, I was being ironic (more at "sarcastic") about seeing a "supernatural glow" emanating from Alexis's words while insinuating he was emulating Jesus, when, in fact, Alexis's divisive proposals seem antithetical to what Jesus would propose.

It is better described as “glowing coals of terraqueous wisdom”. In any case such terms have been used …

It is absurd to try and base much of anything on the activities of Jesus in the Gospels. Sane social doctrines (this is my view) were devised by responding to ideals presented through situations portrayed in the Gospels. Or perhaps one could speak of a sort of “spirit”.

I admire Catholic social doctrines. And I wish to assure you that philosophically / spiritually what I have recommended as necessary processes in England and in Europe, are far more in accord with those principles than the dreamy misguided idealisms both you and Belinda seem invested in.

[seeds]

Clearly, I was being ironic (more at "sarcastic") about seeing a "supernatural glow" emanating from Alexis's words while insinuating he was emulating Jesus, when, in fact, Alexis's divisive proposals seem antithetical to what Jesus would propose.

I admire Catholic social doctrines. And I wish to assure you that philosophically / spiritually what I have recommended as necessary processes in England and in Europe, are far more in accord with those principles than the dreamy misguided idealisms both you and Belinda seem invested in.

Let me first assure you that I am - and have always been - a big fan of your writing style and sense of humor.

However, with that being said, the line that instigated this current little spat between us is this...

I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle.

Well, just for funzies, I asked the lovely and fairly trustworthy oracle "Copilot" what she thought of that, and here is what she had to say (emphasis mine)...

Me:
Do Catholic social doctrines agree with the following statement (more specifically, the "reducing empathy" part) made by one of my interlocutors on a philosophy forum:
"...I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle..." ?

Copilot:
That statement—advocating for reduced empathy toward those outside one's immediate circle—runs counter to the core principles of Catholic social doctrine.

Catholic Social Teaching on Empathy and Solidarity

Catholic social teaching emphasizes universal human dignity and solidarity, which call for empathy and concern for all people, not just one's kin:

• Life and Dignity of the Human Person: Every person is sacred and deserves respect and compassion, regardless of proximity or relationship.
  
  Call to Family, Community, and Participation: While family is central, the Church teaches that we are all part of a broader human family. We're called to participate in society and seek the common good.
  
  Solidarity: This principle urges us to stand with others—especially the poor, marginalized, and suffering—as brothers and sisters. Pope John Paul II described solidarity as “not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people... but a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, §38).

Why "Reducing Empathy" Conflicts with Catholic Teaching

• The idea of withholding empathy from outsiders contradicts the Church’s call to love one’s neighbor—where “neighbor” is understood in the broadest sense, echoing the parable of the Good Samaritan.
  
  Catholic doctrine does not support tribalism or exclusionary ethics. Instead, it promotes integral human development and global solidarity, especially in a world marked by inequality and division.

So while Catholic teaching certainly values familial bonds, it does not endorse reducing empathy toward those outside that circle. In fact, it calls for expanding empathy to embrace the entire human family.

When are you going to realize that you have become a minion of the "Dark Side"?

You are like a "Sith Lord," Alexis, powerful, yes, but simply unable to recognize and accept the fact that you are on the wrong side of the battle for what is good and righteous,...

...though I'm not ruling out the possibility that you may, in fact, enjoy the role you are playing.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle.

The comment I made was contextual. Islam must be disempowered in Europe, and in England, and millions of immigrants are best encouraged to return to their homelands. That is an ideal I hold, but what I do not know is how it should be carried out. The ideal is beginning to manifest more widely in England.

Have you been following what the “righteous ilk” did in Sweden? The imposed multiculturalism has become a disaster. I’ve not been to see but this is what I am told.

These are situations that require “manly resolve” not ridiculous misplaced idealism.

Why don’t we step aside and let our AI Agents continue the discussion?

Your AI is simply wrong. Catholic social doctrine has determined it is morally and ethically proper for people to resist mass incursion by foreign populations. The doctrine is similar to doctrines of the sovereignty of the body extended to the body-politic.

Empathy or sympathy is demonstrated by caring for those closest. Then care and sympathy can be shown to those others when they return to their regions and (re-)build their lives in accord with their values.

You are like a "Sith Lord," Alexis, powerful, yes, but simply unable to recognize and accept the fact that you are on the wrong side of the battle for what is good and righteous…

Cada uno tiene derecho a su opinion, mi pana.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is Andrew Torba (Evangelical Christian, rather radical in his views):

There are moments in history when the veil is lifted, and the true nature of an ideology is laid bare for all to see. The aftermath of the cowardly assassination of Charlie Kirk was one of those moments. While patriots across America mourned the loss of a bold voice for freedom, truth, and the future of our nation, the Left erupted in celebration.

They laughed. They cheered. They shared memes. They hailed the murderer as a hero. They desecrated the memory of a man gunned down for the simple act of speaking truth.

This is not an anomaly. This is not the work of a few bad apples. This is the logical endpoint of liberalism: a death cult that worships at the altar of destruction.

At its core, this ideology venerates death. It champions the right to end innocent life in the womb, rebranding the slaughter of the unborn as “healthcare” and a sacred right. It encourages the chemical and surgical mutilation of healthy young bodies, a grotesque parody of medicine that severs the individual from their own biological reality. It pushes policies that dissolve the fundamental bonds of family and community, leaving isolated, atomized individuals adrift in a meaningless sea of consumer choices and state dependency.

Now, they celebrate political assassinations.

This is who they are. This is what they believe in. There is no life in their ideology only decay, degradation, and death. They cannot create, so they destroy. They cannot build, so they tear down. They cannot defend truth, so they silence those who speak it.

Charlie Kirk was a threat to them not because he was violent, not because he preached hatred, but because he represented something they despise: life, vitality, courage, and a future for our people. He stood for the America they are trying to erase. In their twisted world, the murder of a young man with a family, friends, and a mission is cause for joy. In their moral vacuum, the blood of the innocent is just another tool in their war against God, nature, and order.

We see you. We see your hatred. We see your emptiness. We see the hollow, lifeless eyes of a movement that has nothing left to offer but destruction, and we will not be silenced. We will mourn Charlie. We will honor his legacy. We will continue his work. And we will remember this moment, the moment the death cult showed its true face to the world.

I find I agree with him on most points.

What do you think Sr Semillas?

[Belinda]

Halleluiah, brother Alexis!

I could be hallucinating, but there seems to be a supernatural glow emanating from the words of your post, for it's as if Jesus himself was here, in person, writing that response to Belinda.



Yes, yes, Alexis,...

...encourage "THEM"...

(those uninvited, unwelcome refugees from war torn areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza, for example)

...to go back to their own homelands that we, in the west, have made uninhabitable from our missiles and bombs in our imperialistic (resource-seeking) encroachments into their territories, and let "THEM" then channel their own empathy towards the construction of grounded and empowering structures (out of the rubble and chaos that we helped to create), and leave us alone.

Again, Alexis, halleluiah to that!!!

A person such as yourself, who so clearly embodies and mimics Jesus's sentiments, must surely be sporting a couple of those "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do) bracelets, one on each wrist. Yes?

Hmm, on second thought, I am now finding myself a bit conflicted in regard to my somewhat sarcastic criticism of your comments to Belinda.

And that's because I suppose it's possible that you may have somehow tapped into and are now channeling Jesus's dark side.

You know, the side of his psyche that will have no moral problem with condemning billions of defenseless souls to an eternity of unimaginable torture in the fires of Hell,...

(a Hell that he [and his dad] personally created and maintain)

...simply to teach those defenseless souls an ever-lasting lesson of the dire consequences of not accepting Jesus's generous (and loving) offer to save them from his decision to torture them.

All because of what two boneheaded (and mythological) humans allegedly did - thousands of years ago - in a mythological garden called "Eden."

I guess my point is, go ahead, Alexis, keep promoting separation and divisiveness between humans, for as evil and wrong-headed as that may be, it is literally nothing compared to the unthinkable evil that Jesus himself is going to perform on the so-called "day of judgment."

And yes, I know that I am being a tad melodramatic in my rant,...

...but people need to stop ignoring what "Christianity" (the title of this thread) actually proposes and thus realize that we need a better (more modern/more logical) creation story.
_______

I think Seeds need more historical perspective on what Jesus of Nazareth actually said. Sorry if I misunderstood you Seeds---were you being ironic?

Clearly, I was being ironic (more at "sarcastic") about seeing a "supernatural glow" emanating from Alexis's words while insinuating he was emulating Jesus, when, in fact, Alexis's divisive proposals seem antithetical to what Jesus would propose.

However, the part about the hideous consequences of not accepting Jesus as one's personal savior to save you from Jesus's promise to torture you if you don't,...

...not so much.

I asked Google's AI Overview the following question...

Me:
"...Can the alleged fact that Jesus is going to torture you for not accepting his offer to save you from his decision to torture you if you don't accept his offer to save you from his decision to torture you, be considered "irony"? Or is there a better name for that?..."

To which AI Overview responded with...

AI Overview:
"...While the situation described could seem ironic in a casual, emotional sense, it does not fit the specific definition of irony. The dynamic is better described by other terms, such as coercion, blackmail, or a paradox, depending on the theological framework being used..."

So then, Belinda, what is it that Jesus "actually said" that isn't infinitely overshadowed by what he is allegedly going to do to you if you don't accept him as your personal savior?
_______

Seeds, thank you for clearing that up.

I am not a Biblical scholar or even a clever historian so I don't know what Jesus actually said. I have been told the opinions of certain real scholars, but have forgotten what they said.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 150 scholars, active mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, who came together to evaluate the historical reliability of the sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus in the New Testament and other early Christian writings. It was founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk under the umbrella of the Westar Institute.

ChatGPT

I favour the narrative that places Jesus as a pious Jew, possibly a rabbi , who like other Jews was oppressed by the Roman imperialist invaders and colonisers. I also like the parables attributed to Jesus as literary devices that explain ethics that I have trusted all my life.

I don't believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth remains an active agent two thousand years after he died. However the Biblical Jesus as transferable icon does adapt to many cultures .

To get back to Alexis' concerns, ChatGPT says : Summary:

Women in Palestine at Jesus’ time were legally and socially subordinate, tied largely to household roles, and had restricted public and religious authority. But within Jesus’ circle, women had greater visibility, agency, and dignity than the broader culture usually allowed.

Seeds, you wrote:

----- in fact, Alexis's divisive proposals seem antithetical to what Jesus would propose.

I agree.

[Belinda]

I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle.

The comment I made was contextual. Islam must be disempowered in Europe, and in England, and millions of immigrants are best encouraged to return to their homelands. That is an ideal I hold, but what I do not know is how it should be carried out. The ideal is beginning to manifest more widely in England.

Have you been following what the “righteous ilk” did in Sweden? The imposed multiculturalism has become a disaster. I’ve not been to see but this is what I am told.

These are situations that require “manly resolve” not ridiculous misplaced idealism.

Why don’t we step aside and let our AI Agents continue the discussion?

Your AI is simply wrong. Catholic social doctrine has determined it is morally and ethically proper for people to resist mass incursion by foreign populations. The doctrine is similar to doctrines of the sovereignty of the body extended to the body-politic.

Empathy or sympathy is demonstrated by caring for those closest. Then care and sympathy can be shown to those others when they return to their regions and (re-)build their lives in accord with their values.

You are like a "Sith Lord," Alexis, powerful, yes, but simply unable to recognize and accept the fact that you are on the wrong side of the battle for what is good and righteous…

Cada uno tiene derecho a su opinion, mi pana.

Some opinions are better than other opinions. You opinion in Spanish does not add authority.