Christianity

[FlashDangerpants]

So the real issue: Is Alexis Jacobi the new king of non-answers or does Immanuel Can somehow retain his title?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I"m not asking them these questions. I'm asking you. They're not here and I'm not going to go looking for a conversation with someone like Richard Spencer. Believe it or not, I was trying to be fair to you when FDP was leveling his accusations against you. Apparently, you've taken what was an attempt to vindicate you from some pretty harsh criticisms and are now proceeding to drag me down. I mean, do you honestly sleep at night? Serious question. I know I couldn't if I did that to people trying to be fair to me.

You are 'trying to be fair' but you already operate from a fixed position, right? So I would suggest that 1) you see and express your fixed position, and 2) if that is sort of opaque for you, to be open to examining your own tenets.

You wish to turn this into an interrogation-session that you conduct, like a judge, to determine if my views are 'decent' 'dubious' or 'reprehensible' and I refuse to play this game with you.

To play with me in the ideological realm you will have to do some work. I cannot make this more plain.

You say that Chomsky says it is 'wrong' to even thinking about the Bell Curve thesis. Explain to me why you share Chomsky's view?

And what is possible wrong with Richard Spenser? What do you know of Richard Spenser? Have you read anything he wrote or have you listened to his talks?

If Spencer is an 'emblem' (as he seems to be) of 'bad people' -- how do you know this?

To say "I am trying to be fair" is not an honest statement. You have established biases and prejudices so I am uncertain that you can be fair. That is why I suggest you examine your own self, the structure that you have and work out of.

And that is the suggestion I make to EVERYONE today.

Apparently, you've taken what was an attempt to vindicate you from some pretty harsh criticisms and are now proceeding to drag me down.

This is a paranoid perception. Drag you down? To what? What am I 'dragging you down' to?

Gary, I am not asking for your 'vindication'. Condemn me! Make me a Sheer Villain. Hate me! Open the gates to a rigorous and righteous anger! Let it all flow out! I will not stop you. These things have to go to their final points.

I am asking that you show that you can think freely. Try to understand that and don't take anything I say personally.

[Sculptor]

So the real issue: Is Alexis Jacobi the new king of non-answers or does Immanuel Can somehow retain his title?

Tricky.
Emanuel meets the Jacky.

Manny has a longer track record, so has to retain the title of Circumvention Queen, but as the year comes to a close this year's title might have to go to Jacky.

[Belinda]

My suggestion was solely an attempt to help clear up an issue that seems to be causing a problem. I actually hoped it would be of as much help to you as to anyone else, believe it or not.

This issue -- you mean this little spat going on here -- is irrelevant to much larger and much more consequential ideological ways going on all around us.

"The problem" will have first to be seen fully and fairly. The problem is different, and much more complex, than recent contributors realize. The effort can only be to get every aspect of the problem out on the table and then to determine is, indeed, all of it can be talked about, or if some of it must be suppressed.

We do have at least one very apropos example we can refer to as an 'emblem': the issue of unrestricted immigration and, essentially, an open border. As a small anecdote I have Colombian friends here who have told me that many of their friends and family, when they saw on TV that the border is passible, and that no one will stop them, and that they will likely be able to gain residency, borrowed money or drained their savings to take a plane to Mexico and a bus to the border -- and crossed over. This is going on all over the world.

Here we have a 'topical' example that can be discussed. Where do *you* (I mean any particular person) stand? You will quickly find out that your position, whatever it is, is contended intensely.

So the issue of 'social and cultural replacement' is not an hallucination by those who dwell on it. Neither in respect to the US nor to Europe. But you can be certain that if you oppose unrestricted immigration you will be assigned by those in pro of it a range of terms: racist, Nazi, fascist, etc.

The point I am drawing out has to do with ideology and how it is wielded. That is the more interesting topic for conversation.

The issue some have with me will not be 'cleared up'! You must see this. Once 'they" believe they have an angle they will milk it for all it is worth. Their object: to establish moral reprehensibility. And then to attack it with the full force of righteousness. This righteousness shares a great deal in common with religious conviction. It is 'felt' and not thought. It is irrational and not reasoned.

These issues will not go away. In our surrounding culture they are getting worse and will continue to get worse.

It's cards on the table time, Alexis Jacobi.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Apparently, you've taken what was an attempt to vindicate you from some pretty harsh criticisms and are now proceeding to drag me down. I mean, do you honestly sleep at night? Serious question. I know I couldn't if I did that to people trying to be fair to me.

My ultimate interest is ideas themselves. To be involved at that level requires dispassion. If you are genuinely trying to be fair that can only bee a good, right? So keep being fair. But if you decide that you don't wish to any longer then become unfair. It is your choice to make. Not one that depends on me.

This is philosophy or in any case a place for philosophical approach to examining ourselves, our milieu, our contemporary situation, and the ideological battles going on around us. It requires fortitude.

Now, with that said, me and my neighbors are putting together the funds to by the bronze for our Hitler altar in the center of our closed community. Frau Hilda just sent me $1,000 and a solid gold Krugerrand! I asked her to review this thread and she said:

"Wissen sie nicht, dass der Führer seine Welpen liebte???" "Verlasse sie! Sie sind total verrückt!"

But how could I leave you all!? How?! NO! I will stay.

If you do not find at least a bit of humor here you will quickly get lost . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's cards on the table time, Alexis Jacobi.

That is all that I do and all I have been doing.

What precisely are your cards Belinda? Have you put them down? What do you have?

I am not here to be interrogated by any one of you. But I am definitely here for mutual examination of the perceptual and ideological positions we all have; how we came to them; and how we justify and defend them.

If you want cooperation from me (noting that a group-dynamic has been established and this angle will now be worked) you will have to make the same sorts of efforts to examine yourselves.

Lay the cards on the table implies knowing what they are.

[Belinda]

It's cards on the table time, Alexis Jacobi.

That is all that I do and all I have been doing.

What precisely are your cards Belinda? Have you put them down? What do you have?

I do indeed have an ontological and ethical stance which I have often explained as well as I can, and will do so again to anyone who wants to listen. But right now, I won't be sidetracked from challenging you to express your ontological/ethical stance.

You mention the problem of shifting populations. You have not expressed your morals regarding this. Either you are a wraithe that can drift above subjectivity, or you evade and mystify your stance on matters ontological/ethical.

As an example of a man who does express his morals regarding shifting populations there is Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is, literally, no substitute for subjectivity. Subjectivity is how we learn from others. If you feel cognitive and/or affectual dissonance then that too is a stance albeit a wobbly one.

[Belinda]

It's cards on the table time, Alexis Jacobi.

That is all that I do and all I have been doing.

What precisely are your cards Belinda? Have you put them down? What do you have?

I am not here to be interrogated by any one of you. But I am definitely here for mutual examination of the perceptual and ideological positions we all have; how we came to them; and how we justify and defend them.

If you want cooperation from me (noting that a group-dynamic has been established and this angle will now be worked) you will have to make the same sorts of efforts to examine yourselves.

Lay the cards on the table implies knowing what they are.

No. You can tolerate not knowing and that too is a position. However to have discussions with others we need as subjects to affirm, at least from time to time even if we do so tentatively, or without due attention to reason.

If you were a senseless thing and only if you were a senseless thing would you be unable to affirm.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do indeed have an ontological and ethical stance which I have often explained as well as I can, and will do so again to anyone who wants to listen. But right now, I won't be sidetracked from challenging you to express your ontological/ethical stance.

I am listening. I am ready.

In the long run you will have to express more of this -- if you wish constructive interchange with me. You have indicated that right now you want something specific from me. What is that?

You mention the problem of shifting populations. You have not expressed your morals regarding this. Either you are a wraithe that can drift above subjectivity, or you evade and mystify your stance on matters ontological/ethical.

We need a specific example to be able to examine the question. I regard the position articulated by Renaud Camus to be thoughtful, decent and also moral. And here I am speaking about the French cultural situation (not necessarily any other one). I am aware of his views and discourse, and I am aware of the political Right and their views on the topic of 'preserving' France and French culture. Establishing that or re-establishing that as a priority and opposing those who have other plans (expanding multiculturalism, expanding immigration, and not putting emphasis on 'reclaiming France' and also frenchness).

I am very much in pro of the communication of ideas on the issue that I outlined above. And believe me that conversation is going on extremely widely in France today. It is an intellectual and a cultural conversation.

I don't know how well you get along with French but here is a good one.

Here is one of a rather eloquent discourse but with subtitles.

These are perspectives and ideas that I have encountered and, in so many ways, have worked to better understand. By and large I definitely agree with them and I definitely regard them as moral and morally defensible.

So I offered you what I think you asked for. Now I ask for an equal amount of discourse explaining your views. And if you wish some explanation as to why you see Camus' of my views as wrong or reprehensible.

No. You can tolerate not knowing and that too is a position. However to have discussions with others we need as subjects to affirm, at least from time to time even if we do so tentatively, or without due attention to reason.

If you were a senseless thing and only if you were a senseless thing would you be unable to affirm.

I sort of get what you are saying. Please develop these thoughts further.

[Alexis Jacobi]

double

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, you've taken what was an attempt to vindicate you from some pretty harsh criticisms and are now proceeding to drag me down. I mean, do you honestly sleep at night? Serious question. I know I couldn't if I did that to people trying to be fair to me.

My ultimate interest is ideas themselves. To be involved at that level requires dispassion. If you are genuinely trying to be fair that can only bee a good, right? So keep being fair. But if you decide that you don't wish to any longer then become unfair. It is your choice to make. Not one that depends on me.

This is philosophy or in any case a place for philosophical approach to examining ourselves, our milieu, our contemporary situation, and the ideological battles going on around us. It requires fortitude.

Now, with that said, me and my neighbors are putting together the funds to by the bronze for our Hitler altar in the center of our closed community. Frau Hilda just sent me $1,000 and a solid gold Krugerrand! I asked her to review this thread and she said:

"Wissen sie nicht, dass der Führer seine Welpen liebte???" "Verlasse sie! Sie sind total verrückt!"

But how could I leave you all!? How?! NO! I will stay.

If you do not find at least a bit of humor here you will quickly get lost . . .

Wouldn't it be just as hilarious to errect a bronze statue of someone like Maxine Waters or Hillary Clinton? How about Karl Marx? Or a statue symbolizing a doctor at an abortion clinic holding a coat hanger? Pretty funny, no?

[Belinda]

I do indeed have an ontological and ethical stance which I have often explained as well as I can, and will do so again to anyone who wants to listen. But right now, I won't be sidetracked from challenging you to express your ontological/ethical stance.

I am listening. I am ready.

In the long run you will have to express more of this -- if you wish constructive interchange with me. You have indicated that right now you want something specific from me. What is that?

You mention the problem of shifting populations. You have not expressed your morals regarding this. Either you are a wraithe that can drift above subjectivity, or you evade and mystify your stance on matters ontological/ethical.

We need a specific example to be able to examine the question. I regard the position articulated by Renaud Camus to be thoughtful, decent and also moral. And here I am speaking about the French cultural situation (not necessarily any other one). I am aware of his views and discourse, and I am aware of the political Right and their views on the topic of 'preserving' France and French culture. Establishing that or re-establishing that as a priority and opposing those who have other plans (expanding multiculturalism, expanding immigration, and not putting emphasis on 'reclaiming France' and also frenchness).

I am very much in pro of the communication of ideas on the issue that I outlined above. And believe me that conversation is going on extremely widely in France today. It is an intellectual and a cultural conversation.

I don't know how well you get along with French but here is a good one.

Here is one of a rather eloquent discourse but with subtitles.

These are perspectives and ideas that I have encountered and, in so many ways, have worked to better understand. By and large I definitely agree with them and I definitely regard them as moral and morally defensible.

So I offered you what I think you asked for. Now I ask for an equal amount of discourse explaining your views. And if you wish some explanation as to why you see Camus' of my views as wrong or reprehensible.

No. You can tolerate not knowing and that too is a position. However to have discussions with others we need as subjects to affirm, at least from time to time even if we do so tentatively, or without due attention to reason.

If you were a senseless thing and only if you were a senseless thing would you be unable to affirm.

I sort of get what you are saying. Please develop these thoughts further.

Hermeneutics. To interpret what someone means you need to have a base from which to compare.

I feel uncomfortable reading your posts because I don't like videos, preferring texts. Also because you substitute what other people such as e.g. Camus, or French intellectuals, are saying, not what you yourself believe.One wonders what you are afraid of.

Do you confuse a heuristic device with a claim? This a common error. But it's easily put right during further discussion.

[henry quirk]

This is the point, henry. What you call rights are only rights when they are the subject of an agreement or pact between two or more people. Otherwise, they are merely personal principles.

Your natural right to your life, your liberty, your property exists in the same way fire exists. No agreement or pact is required.

[Harbal]

This is the point, henry. What you call rights are only rights when they are the subject of an agreement or pact between two or more people. Otherwise, they are merely personal principles.

Your natural right to your life, your liberty, your property exists in the same way fire exists.

That's not a bad analogy, henry. Fire only exists under certain circumstances.

[Walker]

The right way to think about rights
https://www.heritage.org/political-proc ... out-rights

"The Constitution* doesn’t grant us freedoms; it prohibits government from taking them.

"Nearly all of us, at one time or another, refer to our “constitutional right to free speech.” While this common phrase may seem harmless, it points to a larger misunderstanding of where our rights come from — a misunderstanding that undermines many of our most fundamental policy debates.

"The fact is, the U.S. Constitution protects our God-given rights from government. The government does not (as the phrase above implies) grant those rights to us as citizens. This is perhaps the most widely misunderstood aspect of our system of government."


* The U.S. Constitution