Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see it like this: You and Seeds work with opinion. My ideas, those I present, are tied to sound principles understood through common-sense but also with rational foundations. Your opinions flow out of sentimental postures and like in our present among ‘certain groups’ you resort to language and associations of evilness — you lumping political figures in our present with Nazism, Seeds going off with his Dark Lord nonsense (though partially in jest).

[Belinda]

I see it like this: You and Seeds work with opinion. My ideas, those I present, are tied to sound principles understood through common-sense but also with rational foundations. Your opinions flow out of sentimental postures and like in our present among ‘certain groups’ you resort to language and associations of evilness — you lumping political figures in our present with Nazism, Seeds going off with his Dark Lord nonsense (though partially in jest).

I do understand and sympathise with your fears that the world is not perfect far from perfect the world is ugly , untruthful, and unkind. Your idea is that unkindness be addressed by us empowering men over women. I do understand that many women were and still are pretty stupid.

Your reactionary stance won't salt the potatoes. You don't even provide statistics to support your claim let alone a cogent argument.

Taliban for example are actively maintaining Afghan women in a state of stupidity. Until recently rich capitalists or landowners required the servant class both sexes to be illiterate.

You support Martha but you disdain Mary. This because you fear Mary's power while you want and need the services of Martha.

Have you ever read In-group out-group theory?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The weird thing is this: I try to point out what is going on culturally and socially today — tremendous changes are in the works — and you two take it all as a challenge to fight your noble fights and to tilt against your “dire enemies”. It is so tiresome.

You say I present no argument, but you will not even consider the argument that I have presented, and in the form of a talk. The thesis: not all that has occurred as women have entered decisive positions has turned out well. The feminization of our cultures and institutions has many dimensions, and according to the woman lecturer, it is associated with what is recognized as negative in "wokeness". This trend of wokeness is being challenged across the board. I regard the word as insufficient, but it is the common one.

Instead of examining the idea rationally and dispassionately, you’ve set off on those epic fights which (I gather) have defined your adult existence.

You will NOT be able to understand what is happening and why with this prejudiced attitude.

And now, for Heaven’s sake, it is about Martha and Mary, Taoist concepts with little relevance to Occidental cultural issues, and labeling your opponents as associated with political demonism.

There is now occurring a significant turn against hyper-liberalism’s forms and core ideology. This DOES NOT presage a regression to oppressive social norms. But in your mind this is what you “hear”.

You support Martha but you disdain Mary. This because you fear Mary's power while you want and need the services of Martha.

Mary, in traditional Catholicism, could only be associated with extreme conservative principles.

Use your AI teacher to look up Gertrude von le Fort’s Eternal Woman to better understand a Catholic vision of Mary …

[Gary Childress]

The weird thing is this: I try to point out what is going on culturally and socially today — tremendous changes are in the works — and you two take it all as a challenge to fight your noble fights and to tilt against your “dire enemies”. It is so tiresome.

You say I present no argument, but you will not even consider the argument that I have presented, and in the form of a talk. The thesis: not all that has occurred as women have entered decisive positions has turned out well. The feminization of our cultures and institutions has many dimensions, and according to the woman lecturer, it is associated with what is recognized as negative in "wokeness". This trend of wokeness is being challenged across the board. I regard the word as insufficient, but it is the common one.

Instead of examining the idea rationally and dispassionately, you’ve set off on those epic fights which (I gather) have defined your adult existence.

You will NOT be able to understand what is happening and why with this prejudiced attitude.

And now, for Heaven’s sake, it is about Martha and Mary, Taoist concepts with little relevance to Occidental cultural issues, and labeling your opponents as associated with political demonism.

There is now occurring a significant turn against hyper-liberalism’s forms and core ideology. This DOES NOT presage a regression to oppressive social norms. But in your mind this is what you “hear”.

You support Martha but you disdain Mary. This because you fear Mary's power while you want and need the services of Martha.

Mary, in traditional Catholicism, could only be associated with extreme conservative principles.

Use your AI teacher to look up Gertrude von le Fort’s Eternal Woman to better understand a Catholic vision of Mary …

What is your understanding of the Jewish Holocaust that occurred in Germany. What happened? How did it happen?

[Belinda]

The weird thing is this: I try to point out what is going on culturally and socially today — tremendous changes are in the works — and you two take it all as a challenge to fight your noble fights and to tilt against your “dire enemies”. It is so tiresome.

You say I present no argument, but you will not even consider the argument that I have presented, and in the form of a talk. The thesis: not all that has occurred as women have entered decisive positions has turned out well. The feminization of our cultures and institutions has many dimensions, and according to the woman lecturer, it is associated with what is recognized as negative in "wokeness". This trend of wokeness is being challenged across the board. I regard the word as insufficient, but it is the common one.

Instead of examining the idea rationally and dispassionately, you’ve set off on those epic fights which (I gather) have defined your adult existence.

You will NOT be able to understand what is happening and why with this prejudiced attitude.

And now, for Heaven’s sake, it is about Martha and Mary, Taoist concepts with little relevance to Occidental cultural issues, and labeling your opponents as associated with political demonism.

There is now occurring a significant turn against hyper-liberalism’s forms and core ideology. This DOES NOT presage a regression to oppressive social norms. But in your mind this is what you “hear”.

You support Martha but you disdain Mary. This because you fear Mary's power while you want and need the services of Martha.

Mary, in traditional Catholicism, could only be associated with extreme conservative principles.

Use your AI teacher to look up Gertrude von le Fort’s Eternal Woman to better understand a Catholic vision of Mary …

Both the right and left rely on “in-groups” and “out-groups,” just in different ways.

On the right, the in-group is often the nation, tradition, or “ordinary people,” while outsiders—immigrants, cultural liberals, global elites—are cast as threats. On the left, the in-group is those standing with marginalized groups, while the out-group is those seen as holding power or privilege.

Both approaches create solidarity, but both can also harden divisions. The challenge is telling when “us vs. them” builds community and when it just blocks cooperation.

In any case sexism is a waste of national resources .

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is your understanding of the Jewish Holocaust that occurred in Germany. What happened? How did it happen?

I just can’t understand it, try as I might. How about you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Both the right and left rely on “in-groups” and “out-groups,” just in different ways.

On the right, the in-group is often the nation, tradition, or “ordinary people,” while outsiders—immigrants, cultural liberals, global elites—are cast as threats. On the left, the in-group is those standing with marginalized groups, while the out-group is those seen as holding power or privilege.

Both approaches create solidarity, but both can also harden divisions. The challenge is telling when “us vs. them” builds community and when it just blocks cooperation.

Empty sociological musing. The fact is that people of the nations in question (in increasing numbers) are non-satisfied with the results of post-war hyper-liberal progressivism. And they seek to establish foundations on specifically defined ideas.

Whether you like it or not and whether you approve.

That salts the potatoes my dear.

[Belinda]

Both the right and left rely on “in-groups” and “out-groups,” just in different ways.

On the right, the in-group is often the nation, tradition, or “ordinary people,” while outsiders—immigrants, cultural liberals, global elites—are cast as threats. On the left, the in-group is those standing with marginalized groups, while the out-group is those seen as holding power or privilege.

Both approaches create solidarity, but both can also harden divisions. The challenge is telling when “us vs. them” builds community and when it just blocks cooperation.

Empty sociological musing. The fact is that people of the nations in question (in increasing numbers) are non-satisfied with the results of post-war hyper-liberal progressivism. And they seek to establish foundations on specifically defined ideas.

Whether you like it or not and whether you approve.

That salts the potatoes my dear.

"Empty sociological musing." illustrates fear of academia . This fear has historical roots in the US for one example.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Empty sociological musing" illustrates fear of academia. This fear has historical roots in the US for one example.

You’ll try anything apparently!

This exchange (I am aware you won’t bother with it but my readership here is legion …) illustrates a range of issues that are now being confronted with resolution.

Sociologically relevant.

I do not think you have any interest at all in contemporary social and cultural events.

Meh, to each his own.

[Gary Childress]

What is your understanding of the Jewish Holocaust that occurred in Germany. What happened? How did it happen?

I just can’t understand it, try as I might. How about you?

Can't say that I do either. However, Germany had a long history of antisemitism going back to Fichte, Wagner and others. Unlike minorities in the US, however, Jews became a very educated and accomplished group of people in Germany, as opposed to minorities being exploited for slave labor in the US.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can't say that I do either. However, Germany had a long history of antisemitism going back to Fichte, Wagner and others. Unlike minorities in the US, however, Jews became a very educated and accomplished group of people in Germany, as opposed to minorities being exploited for slave labor in the US.

I have a copy of Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century in Esperanto. Thing is my Esperanto is rudimentary.

[MikeNovack]

Can't say that I do either. However, Germany had a long history of antisemitism going back to Fichte, Wagner and others. Unlike minorities in the US, however, Jews became a very educated and accomplished group of people in Germany, as opposed to minorities being exploited for slave labor in the US.

Uh, while antisemitism common throughout Europe and it is easy to give examples of German antisemitism going back, Germany was far less antisemitic than most placers. THAT is what made what happened surprising. The German Jews were well integrated into German society, loyal (fought in WWI in numbers slightly higher than their percent of the population and significantly higher in medals won). I have seen an argument that "dispossessing the German Jews was how rearmament was financed".

[Alexis Jacobi]

I make matzo ball soup from time to time. It keeps me grounded and mostly sane.

[Belinda]

"Empty sociological musing" illustrates fear of academia. This fear has historical roots in the US for one example.

You’ll try anything apparently!

This exchange (I am aware you won’t bother with it but my readership here is legion …) illustrates a range of issues that are now being confronted with resolution.

Sociologically relevant.

I do not think you have any interest at all in contemporary social and cultural events.

Meh, to each his own.

Ad Hominem. I would have thought you could do better than that.
I really wanted you to make a good case perhaps something along the lines of Ayn Rand.

[Belinda]

Can't say that I do either. However, Germany had a long history of antisemitism going back to Fichte, Wagner and others. Unlike minorities in the US, however, Jews became a very educated and accomplished group of people in Germany, as opposed to minorities being exploited for slave labor in the US.

Uh, while antisemitism common throughout Europe and it is easy to give examples of German antisemitism going back, Germany was far less antisemitic than most placers. THAT is what made what happened surprising. The German Jews were well integrated into German society, loyal (fought in WWI in numbers slightly higher than their percent of the population and significantly higher in medals won). I have seen an argument that "dispossessing the German Jews was how rearmament was financed".

Yes. I was reading about the odd case of Franz Kafka , who was a German speaking Czechoslovak Jew. During his lifetime Germans physically protected the Prague synagogue against Czechs.