WOKE and proud of it....

[Gary Childress]

I mean, liberalism is fundamentally about personal liberty.

I am certain that if you were to define *liberty* and I were to define it, our definitions would not be commensurate.

What is your definition of liberty?

[attofishpi]

The issue that I am examining, that is being examined in this thread, will not suffer from being more precisely and more clearly defined. Is Heiddeger in a specific sense so very much related to it? Will something Heidegger did or said illuminate any part of what we are dealing with here? I do not think so.

It is possible however to make some cultural and social references to the *problems* of Nietzsche and Heidegger especially among those who shit bricks these days that there is a movement that is gaining adherents and influence who are (like myself) moving toward an *anti-liberal* posture and who articulate their ideas in clear and coherent terms.

So, and for example, we have right in front of us a fine example: the manipulation of our children by state entities where what is loosely referred to as *wokensess* but which is actually a derivative from and an activist's branch of Marxian activism, has gained an extraordinary ground within pedagogy. When one reads and understands what is going on there, and when it is laid out in clear terms, it is highly alarming. Except that people (I will use Kropotkin as an example) cannot clearly see the *problem*.

The radicals that operate in our present, and who have significantly fucked things up, must be stopped. But we live in a liberal society! I have to tolerate people who, in my view and one I can rationally defend, are destroying the very foundations on which it is built. What do we do *in a liberal political system* when things come to this pass? Is this an issue to be decided *by democracy*?

Can Heidegger help here? Can Nietzsche? Or is there any Postmodernist that can bring light to this problem?

Pff. We of the council estates of Britain scoff at whatever Nitsy or Heidy has to say. It's really rather simple. People of WOKE are about to have the foundations of their ill conceived, ill-thought out, ridiculous notion of REALITY shaken to the core.

..yet they are, and clearly the administrators of the site are sooo liberal - that free speech is permitted for the extreme LEFT. ..to the point that lies are permitted from those of the extreme LEFT - where I am called a "racist"..simple for pointing out that Islamic illegal immigration is a very very very bad idea, that ISLAM is a very very very bad IDEOLOGY.

Yet this is the level of deceit that is permitted on a "PHILOSOPHY FORUM" from a bloke called CHAZ WYMAN (Sculptor) - thinks he's a London academic of philosophy ... apparently this is acceptable upon this website of "PHILOSOPHY" = LIES ...WISDOM out the window me ol' squire. I studied at "X" you know...far more intelligent than the riff-raff of Britain. Everyman is welcome here - open the borders for fear I too get labelled a 'racist' oooo nooo, such scorn.

I have the eyes to see black and brown people as evil.
THey are subhumans and follow Islam the Devil's religion.
I eat Arabs for breakfast, Negroes for Lunch and Asians for Dinner.
What I cannot consume I feed to my human pet, whoc I keep in the cellar.

I mean, the level of scum that the "LEFT" are.. such intellectuals -- that they have to stoop to that.

Well. Like I said, a change is coming. The British Lion is back and it's about to roar - the children that still value what their grandparents went through for our freedoms arn't going to settle for being classified as fucking racists whenever they fly their St George Cross or the Union Flag.

THE PATHETIC LEFT WOKE KUNTS ARE FINISHED IN BRITAIN.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I mean, liberalism is fundamentally about personal liberty.

I am certain that if you were to define *liberty* and I were to define it, our definitions would not be commensurate.

What is your definition of liberty?

If I were to design or to paint a picture of a really *Liberal* person or society, I would have to start from the structure and platform or the background wherewith the person, the individual, had been formed. And in *our case* -- the case of those who are members and products of our civilization -- that means to have been informed by the rigorousness of all that comprises our intellectual and moral civilization. I refer to paideia. It is not a simple topic but it is not that complex, either. Obviously I refer to education.

When one has absorbed and integrated that paideia -- the fundamentals -- one is not, as we might imagine the operative word "free" to function, simply *free agents* or agents relieved of responsibilities. In my way of seeing and explaining things the assimilation of paideia -- those foundations I refer to -- actually do far more to constrain one and channel on to those duties that cannot be avoided by, say, a responsible individual. You have freedom, but you have freedom because there are sturdy laws and regulatory principles that operate in you which do not require a restraining force to hold you back (if that makes sense).

I think that we can all understand that in our cultures, when youth thought to throw off all restraints, they took *freedom* to mean something very very different from what I mean by responsibility or duty. I cannot say (in respect to the Sixties) that all aspects of 'seeking to be free' and to get out from under 'restraint' or 'obligation', was thoroughly bad. But I can definitely say that I do not think there is in any sense a sound, responsible, coherent and culturally operative definition of what *freedom* actually means today.

But turning to the matter close at hand. There are hundreds and thousands of *agents* operating in our culture right now who are activists for a Maoist-style reeducation of our children along the lines I have recently presented both in text and by link to video presentations. They do this because in our Liberalism they are not restrained. Who could restrain them? On what basis?

What is going on is that larger groups of people, to use that tired metaphor, are *waking up* not to any need or compunction to be *woke* but to see and confront wokeness as a form of radical Critical praxis. How can this be achieved within the existing liberal structures?

[Gary Childress]

But I can definitely say that I do not think there is in any sense a sound, responsible, coherent and culturally operative definition of what *freedom* actually means today.

I agree with that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I downloaded The Queering of the American Child (Logan Lancing with James Lindsay) and have been reading it.

There is a point for me — I think for all parents — when you recognize that someone is trying to get inside your child’s head (into their being at a fundamental level) and to inject poison into them. I won’t elaborate about what the referential word poison connotes right now but it should be done.

Those who •inject these poisons• do so because they have liberty in our liberal societies.

What is to be done?

The question is rhetorical of course. The point? There does come a moment when one’s belief in tolerance (a pillar of Liberalism) is overtaken with a decision that •this cannot go on• and the pretenses of liberalism are ready to be abandoned.

I am not describing my own case you must understand. My position (outside of the country) is removed from the fray.

But I sympathize with those who have no other choice but to be in the fray. To have to deal with it.

What is the right course?

[Alexiev]

What is the right course?

The right course us to refuse to consider any variation in traditional, normative thinking about gender identity and sexual preference as "poison".

[Gary Childress]

I downloaded The Queering of the American Child (Logan Lancing with James Lindsay) and have been reading it.

There is a point for me — I think for all parents — when you recognize that someone is trying to get inside your child’s head (into their being at a fundamental level) and to inject poison into them. I won’t elaborate about what the referential word poison connotes right now but it should be done.

Those who •inject these poisons• do so because they have liberty in our liberal societies.

What is to be done?

The question is rhetorical of course. The point? There does come a moment when one’s belief in tolerance (a pillar of Liberalism) is overtaken with a decision that •this cannot go on• and the pretenses of liberalism are ready to be abandoned.

I am not describing my own case you must understand. My position (outside of the country) is removed from the fray.

But I sympathize with those who have no other choice but to be in the fray. To have to deal with it.

What is the right course?

The right course is the one you will take.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is the right course?

The right course us to refuse to consider any variation in traditional, normative thinking about gender identity and sexual preference as "poison".

And Alexiev here is my first response: you are not aware in a full (and responsible) sense about what is really going on and why.

That statement gives you away. You locate •the problem• in those who have a problem. However, I feel certain that were you to become more thoroughly aware of what the real problem is, you would share the concern.

And here is the kicker: You will not become informed. Therefore you cannot in truth understand the defensible concern of those who have informed themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The right course is the one you will take.

That is a non-answer. An (strategic) avoidance …

[Gary Childress]

The right course is the one you will take.

That is a non-answer. An (strategic) avoidance …

I thought it sounded profound. Not going to stick, eh?

[Gary Childress]

Those who •inject these poisons• do so because they have liberty in our liberal societies.

Do you not have the liberty to tell your kid(s) that the whole gender fluid movement is a bunch of crap? Or better yet, let them grow up and decide for themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The question I ask — a series of questions — is asked in good faith. But I am also (obviously) making statements.

In our nation the devisions between people are growing to a point where the Liberal Agreement (a la Isaiah Berlin who I admire and respect) is now falling apart. When people do not agree at fundamental levels the structure of Liberalism will give way.

But here is the thing: those who get to that point where they say •I will no longer participate with you in the Liberal Agreement• are those that Michael Millerman references in his short discourse (above).

You see? We get to a point where we say “No”. We then seek to reground in value-structures of the sort that you-plural seem to have abandoned. Take this one: that children should not be exposed to psycho-sexual indoctrination in state-run schools. That is a moral imperative.

I hope you see what I am getting at. Social war, interpersonal war, ideological war has now come to the forefront.

What is the right course?

[Gary Childress]

What is the right course?

The right course for you is the one not on the left.

Do you like that one? I give it a 90 on my all-time profundity scale.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you not have the liberty to tell your kid(s) that the whole gender fluid movement is a bunch of crap? Or better yet, let them grow up and decide for themselves.

This statement indicates that you are not aware of the depth if the problem. And that you have a superficial sense of what it is.

That is your commitment. It is a sort of refusal to see, to understand.

And completely allowed — even encouraged — in those classical liberalisms.

Now, these agreements are falling away.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The right course for you is the one not on the left.

This has nothing to do with Right or Left. These are orders of concern outside of those categories. They transcend both.