The Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2026 11:25 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 10:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 10:21 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 9:54 pm I know you said that. I read it. I was asking about the part of your comment I highlighted in red.
Selfishness is the opposite of the interests of others. Yes. That's true. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
My question was to determine if YOU knew that.

Gary, that's just about the dumbest question I've ever been asked. Congratulations. You get a No-Prize.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:12 am**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 1:47 pm
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 5:02 am That is why, presently, in the States, they are changing the laws so that a politician in government cannot hold dual citizenship. So, yes, they can conflict. Muslims establishing places in government is the formation of a fifth column in the midst of the America they hate.
HOWEVER -- that can be complicated in cases where the person is UNABLE to not have dual-citizenship. In other words, they can declare giving up a citizenship but the country in question might refuse to recognize that.

Consider the role this played in US history during the led-up to the War of "1812" << Britain refused to recognize born in Britain not British subjects >> Back when I was in university, a classmate a classmate could not risk entering Greece because would have been drafted (he was born in the US but his PARENTS had come from Greece)

The laws should be framed accordingly, requiring only that the person renounce any other citizenship they might hold) and that "dual-citizenship" not apply to situations were only {POTENTIAL (some other country would grant citizenship "by right" to this person if/when asked for)

And stop this Islamophobia! You are NOT properly describing all Muslims.

Most, not pertinent to my point. I am properly describing Islam; have you read the Quran and/or the Hadith? Don't preach to me out of ignorance.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:30 am**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:12 am
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 1:47 pm And stop this Islamophobia! You are NOT properly describing all Muslims.
Most, not pertinent to my point. I am properly describing Islam; have you read the Quran and/or the Hadith? Don't preach to me out of ignorance.

"Islamophobia" is a made-up word, designed by Islamist propagandists to garner the same "protected" status for Islamism as for the other things that get the -phobia designation. There's nothing at all wrong with being concerned about terrorism, racism, sexism and foolish dogma that destroys whole countries, producing misery and oppression in every case.

Nobody says "all Muslims" anything. But Islam, and Sharia, that's quite a different thing. Those are definite creeds with definite teachings and definite implications, regardless of which people are associated with them. Islam and Sharia are completely legitimate targets for critique, and those who complain about that are just being gullible, and falling into the propaganda trap the Islamists have prepared for them.

Ironically, how do they think this is going to end, if Islam wins?

We all know. How they don't know is a mystery.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:17 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:30 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:12 am
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 1:47 pm And stop this Islamophobia! You are NOT properly describing all Muslims.
Most, not pertinent to my point. I am properly describing Islam; have you read the Quran and/or the Hadith? Don't preach to me out of ignorance.
"Islamophobia" is a made-up word, designed by Islamist propagandists to garner the same "protected" status for Islamism as for the other things that get the -phobia designation. There's nothing at all wrong with being concerned about terrorism, racism, sexism, and foolish dogma that destroys whole countries, producing misery and oppression in every case.

Islam is a seventh-century mentality with a war ideology that they have brought intact into the modern world. It is civilization as it was known in the seventh century; adopting it would mean a regression of civilization back to the seventh century, which could hardly be called civilization by Western standards. Think of it: even if you are Muslim, if you choose to leave the faith, they will kill you. How many Muslims would be Muslims if there were no death penalty for not being a Muslim to hold them in place? The whole f****** thing is sick, and it must be met with force, not political correctness. Much of our population, however, is intellectually asleep. They think religion and think good intentions; this is not true of Islam. Islam is militant and must be met with a like militant force; it is a culture that only knows destruction. They do not create anything in the modern world and are parasitic on the Western nations, because they are a source of decay and anti-intellectual degradation. They need the Western nations as hosts to their parasitic natures.

Nobody says "all Muslims" anything. But Islam and Sharia, that's quite a different thing. Those are definite creeds with definite teachings and definite implications, regardless of which people are associated with them. Islam and Sharia are completely legitimate targets for critique, and those who complain about that are just being gullible and falling into the propaganda trap the Islamists have prepared for them.
Ironically, how do they think this is going to end if Islam wins?

We all know. How they don't know is a mystery.
[/quote]

Islam is a striking example of a system that was perhaps meant to serve people at one time, but now the people are forced to serve the system, and it is an evil system. Muslims are the carriers of the plague; you cannot separate them from their evil doctrines. They have been brainwashed as babies to know nothing else, and that is why they are unproductive and mostly on welfare. If Islam wins, civilization takes a deep dive into a dark world. It is a very dark ideology, seemingly created to produce psychopaths; there is a striking similarity between Muslims and psychopaths.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 1:22 pm**

Not fair! You can't be tolerant of other religions while being tough on Islam, bruh. That's like saying yes you can believe as long as you don't get nasty. Problem is, a particular religion might command its peoples to get nasty. Like, what if you were a Roman pagan that liked to sacrifice chickens to your god, and then the Roman magistrate was like naw you can't do that.

We must be supportive to the metaphysical needs and rights of the world's religious communities. Islam must be allowed to exist, and we must make sure we always have a steady supply of infidels around to give them direction and purpose.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 1:29 pm**

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:12 am
Most, not pertinent to my point. I am properly describing Islam; have you read the Quran and/or the Hadith? Don't preach to me out of ignorance.

A) Yes I have read al Quran, but only in translation.
B) You don't mean THE Hadith (depends on tradition -- for example Shia and Sunni not the same)
C) Also some major Muslim theologians, but especially Rumi

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:36 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 10:33 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 7:37 pm Of course, you may not care about what Jesus taught. You may only interested in the RCC as a "successful corporation" which delivered growth and profit to Europe. Some of what you write, sounds like that. So it then becomes a discussion of management rather than theology.
I have a few thoughts on that topic. You are right in a sense that I am interested in a “successful corporation” though I would put it differently. I find that I am most essentially interested in Europe, European culture & history, the people of Europe (and yes as a diverse “race” which indeed it is), and in all of that there are a few different strains: practical, spiritual, and religious.

You must take into account that along the intellectual path I traveled I exposed myself to what are now ‘forbidden texts” such as Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color. These were accepted texts and ideas in the early 20th century but, in processes of transvaluation of values, what was esteemed and valued at one moment, is reviled, critiqued and excluded in another.

By disposition I have “racialist” tendencies, but this is very different from “being a racist”. So I define myself as chauvinistic in respect to Europe. (Better put: a modified chauvinism). And I feel no shame in this. I see no reason why any people should be forced to deny their own self-unity or to accept doctrines of views that cause them to turn against themselves. And my view is that European man has undergone a process of “turning against himself”. This is a catastrophe and a crisis. So this must be considered if we are to think about “charity in the Christian sense”.

I already explained that by way of contact with Bork and Weaver (and Nietzsche) that I began a process of quite radical examination and self-examination. I forced myself to read what are the essential forbidden texts. I read Houston Chamberlain and though I tried to read Mein Kampf I just couldn’t get through it. But more interesting was Hans FK Gunther’s The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans. I read early Huxley and I can assure you that Proper Studies would be condemned as ‘fascistic’ today. It is radical (Interwar) material. I guess people should feel relief he took mescaline and tripped-out on his trousers …

What I can report to you now is that in the most essentialist way, and also a hair romantically, I seem to be most concerned about the processes of both unity and of disunity in Europe. (America’s relationship to ‘that’ is complex naturally, but I am not at all a fan of Americanism. In its present state it represents derangement and is also dangerous).

When we think of “Europe” and “Christian culture” we have to consider at least 1,000 years of complex history. It begins with Roman conquest and the establishment of civic traditions. It is all extremely gritty, tooth and nail, violent in so many ways (like all human history) but there is a process and a trajectory and the influence of Christian philosophy (how else to put it?) permeates it.

Ultimately, I would submit to an overarching and undergirding civilized and yes Christian structure rather than any tendentious alternative as are sprouting up in our present.

I am merely a particle spun out of a degenerate culture and civilization and long ‘causal chains’ of events that one lives through and one embodies most often unconsciously until there is a point where one can become “self-conscious” and then choose to modify oneself, recondition oneself and deliberately choose the higher and the better routes.

What are those higher and better routes?

My closest contact with Christian ethics has come by way of Catholic moral teachings and as I say Catholic ‘social doctrines’. These are all elaborated expositions whose base is the Gospel Jesus as well as the Jewish Prophets and expressed through Greek intellectual concepts.

Are you sure that your library isn't an echo chamber?

I found this to be the most interesting:

Ultimately, I would submit to an overarching and undergirding civilized and yes Christian structure rather than any tendentious alternative as are sprouting up in our present.

Which "civilized structure" and which "Christian structure"?

Because, as an example, both support for slavery and rejection of slavery were "civilized" and "Christian".

Other examples might be faissez faire capitalism, trade unionism, social welfare, changing ideas about colonialism.

Some European structures ought to be preserved and others cast aside. I could name rule-of-law, equality and women's rights but I can see that my ideas of what those involve are not necessarily the same as another person's ideas.

I'm not sure what the correct civilized and Christian approach to race might be. I think it's fluid, changing, nuanced and there is not ONE TRUE assessment. But I suspect that you have gone too far in a particular direction. And you have ended up with something more destructive than constructive.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:46 pm**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 1:22 pm Not fair! You can't be tolerant of other religions while being tough on Islam, bruh.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

That's like saying, "You can't be tolerant of democracy and republicanism, while still being tough on Fascism." Of course you can. In fact, the best reason for being tough on Fascism is that unlike the other two, it's an evil, destructive, horrible creed that has done nothing but bring misery on the human race.

So not only CAN you be tough on Islam, it doesn't make even a lick of sense to be anything BUT tough on Islam.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:47 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 1:37 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 7:37 pm I desire to shine a light onto some things which you apparently cannot see or are willfully ignoring.

You are defending some aspects of Catholicism. If you answered some "knotty questions", then it would show that you have thought about the questions and answers. In terms of "mass migration", the church is arguing that it's not socially and economically harmful to the host country and that the needs of migrants outweigh any small harm to the hosts.

One can say that Francis' position on was in line with the teachings of Jesus. It's not radical from the Christian perspective. You can start with Matthew 5:43-48
First it is clear that many pronouncements have been made by Church authorities in respect to immigration. And it is indeed true that Francis held to radical notions about this issue innour immediate present. You might even say that he favored the massive illegal migration into the US that has become a hot topic, as well as that of Europe.

But again I point out that Catholic opinion is not monolithic. And Francis’s ideas, interpretations and actions aroused much opposition. The politics here are quite complex and I assume of zero interest to you.

But in my view, based on my limited reading of the material, it would not be possible to argue coherently for the recent immigration flux either in the US or in Europe, nor to claim that encouraging it and allowing it is defensible in a strict Christian sense. I already outlined enough of the common sense reasoning in other posts. In Europe certainly and beyond any doubt (France and England are examples) the allowed and encouraged influx has done tangible harm to the native culture. Full stop. That does not reflect or encourage “charity”. It is provoking civil conflict.

I think that you are arguing that despite consequences as these that it is Christian to allow it or encourage it, but I think that argument cannot stand.

You ought to read some of the things Jesus said.

Talk about radical.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 3:37 pm**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 1:22 pm Not fair! You can't be tolerant of other religions while being tough on Islam, bruh.

A new official government statistic came out today: there have been 358 child marriages, since 2012, involving kids as young as 11, in Germany.

Do you think it's Germans who are doing that?

Tolerant? How about some sympathy for 11-year-old r*pe victims? Can we spare a thought for them, in the midst of all our "tolerating"?

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 7:34 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:47 pm You ought to read some of the things Jesus said.

Talk about radical.

This is the moment when Phyllo, who knows what’s up, who truly understands what is important and needed and what a moral retrograde like Alexis Jacobi must be instructed to think, must realize, so that what he thinks and realizes will concord with the plan and will of Jesus.

Can we refer to a specific case? On this thread the topic of Islam has come up, and here I suggest you tell me about the conditions on London and other English cities and the civil crisis developing there. And please, provide a clear path (a Christian path, according to Phyllo) for handling and resolving this crisis.

With your elevated moral understanding I imagine you will not have any difficulty.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 7:39 pm**

wait, this tape recording is in ancient Aramaic...

-Imp

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 7:46 pm**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 1:29 pm
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 12:12 am
Most, not pertinent to my point. I am properly describing Islam; have you read the Quran and/or the Hadith? Don't preach to me out of ignorance.
A) Yes I have read al Quran, but only in translation.
B) You don't mean THE Hadith (depends on tradition -- for example Shia and Sunni not the same)
C) Also some major Muslim theologians, but especially Rumi

OK! What is it exactly that you have a problem with in my criticism of Islam and Muslims? As I see it, Muslims are carriers of a plague, one that says believe or die. Not too familiar with Rumi, but he is a poet-philosopher; this is getting into different territory.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 7:50 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:36 pm Are you sure that your library isn't an echo chamber?

What you mean is: Have I been over-influenced by texts or trends of thought that are now considered backwards or that now comprise wrongthink? Can you please create a list of appropriate titles for sound, moral influence?

I interpret your reaction (to a few titles I mentioned only to indicate how the currents of acceptability have shifted) as an indication on your part of your own limitations. But I have already indicated that I specifically sought out ‘forbidden texts’ in order to counter-balance my previous reading choices.

I have deliberately read some of the titles that were circulating in the Interwar period and that has enabled me to better understand the reactionary trends of that period.

Posted: **Sat Oct 17, 2026 8:08 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2026 2:36 pm Some European structures ought to be preserved and others cast aside. I could name rule-of-law, equality and women's rights but I can see that my ideas of what those involve are not necessarily the same as another person's ideas.

Each of those topics would need to be examined and thought through. Do you keep up on topical cultural themes? Presently, and it is quite wide-spread, there is an on-going examination and critique of what late American Liberalism has produced. I am somewhat startled and amazed by it. Two currents are notable: one is a critical examination of “feminism” and the other is a sudden reexamination of American Christian Zionism.

Are you interested in these controversies?

I'm not sure what the correct civilized and Christian approach to race might be. I think it's fluid, changing, nuanced and there is not ONE TRUE assessment. But I suspect that you have gone too far in a particular direction. And you have ended up with something more destructive than constructive.

Me neither. But what I can report is that some people resent very strongly (here I speak of America) what the Postwar generation(s) allowed to develop in the nation. I read and pay attention to them as I similarly pay attention and follow those on the other side of the political chasm.

What direction is that which I have gone too far in? You’re giving me anxiety …

The Philosophy Now Forum

God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality