Philosophy Now Forum

"Yo mama's house is so dirty, she has to wipe her feet before she goes outside."

Dayam that's some dirty ass feet, playa. On my momma they is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 2:43 pm Sure, I wasn't ruling it out as a possible choice for some. Remember I am responding to someone who presented it as the only choice. I am just pointing out that it has its source elsewhere, and the key figure, the one one is supposed to focus on, saw himself as a non-European. I mean, he didn't think about Europe, not really a concept then, but he was coming from a specific culture and a specific religion. Of course Europeans, who weren't Europeans yet all absorbed and modified that religion and created many versions, including the big three versions C, P and O. But it's unclear what the tradition is. Is it what we had before the intrusion?

You bugged out of the conversation for your own (I think petty) reasons and so this should not be interpreted as an invitation to re-participate. It is simply that the topic, obviously, is interesting, important and topically relevant and I am not at all done with it.

Overall, and beyond doubt, you did make substantial efforts to engage — and this is appreciated.
_________________

First, Dawson’s title is The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life.

That he said “a way” is important because — and to correct you — he did not say the way or the only way in a general (European) way. His view is more circumspect, I think.

Though he does, certainly, understand Christian culture and all associated with it as “reality”. Meaning existent, part-and-parcel, and I think inseparable from.

and the key figure, the one one is supposed to focus on, saw himself as a non-European

You could refer to St Paul though I take it you meant Jesus himself. As you also point out “Europe” did not exist except as those northern tribes. So the world focused on by Paul was Hellens and Rome. And if there was a “world” then it was Judea, Rome, Hellens and importantly “Alexandria”: the melding point.

My own emphasis was and is on Catholicism, but in Dawson’s sense the term “Christian culture” is much wider than a strict and specific Catholicism.

The real issue — the largest part of the question — is what is renewal and what really, for Europe (in the wider sense) is renewing.

Therefore if, and this certainly is Dawson’s post-WWll perspective — recovering as it was from a horrifically ordeal — the issue of degeneracy, destruction, and all the questions about “how” and “why” it all came about, were topics of the day.

As they are for us now as we seem to face the prelude to another epoch of war.

I would here submit the thought of Julius Evola in A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism, here outlined & discussed by Michael Millerman.

In my own case I have been dealing with the tension, conflict and also interplay between, let's say, traditional Catholicism and those opposing racialist and nationalistic notions that were emphasized by the National Socialists and in Europe in the Interwar Period among many. Note that whenever anyone mentions any sort or restraining ethics, a reining in of sexual license, a critique of homosexuality, or really anything that challenges or opposes the standard hyper-liberal outlook and agenda of our day, one is called a Nazi.

There is a certain logic in this. The reason is because 'traditional values' (in the sense of Traditionalism) is far more demanding than mere Conservatism. In fact Traditionalism can be, in its own ways, more demanding that a simplistic Christian position. Millerman explains this nicely, I think, in his exposition.

And Traditionalism can, and in some instances does indeed, negate Christianity and this revelation as being essential. Some regard Christianity as a dire enemy. Note that this is what the National Socialists attempted to do: eliminate the *Jewish* aspect from the cultural Christianity of the time. It was an unbearable thought that they were, that they had been, worshipping a Jew. And this because they believed the Jewish element was debilitating to Nordic, Teutonic man and culture -- which in many ways it actually is when the Northern European version of Christianity is compared to its Mediterranean parent. (This is a complex topic).

There is another title in circulation: The Sword of Christ which definitely positions itself squarely against what it defines as a weak, undermining pseudo-Christianity and what the author of it feels should it should be contrasted with (more in line with an Evolaean commitment and intensity).

The idea of *sword* is related, I think, to the recently resurgent idea of Christ is King. Clearly the metaphysical referent has implications in how force, power and will are used.

For those here who have more in their heads than the numerical equivalent of a community of very very intelligent cockroaches (there are a few here of course), and who have their eyes at least a bit open, they will understand that over the last 10-15 years there has been a resurgence of ideas -- Alt-Right, Dissident-Right, Far-Right, Radical Right -- that have gained purchase in our present. This must be seen and understood.

Some of these ideas -- including certainly the present crossing of a barrier where it is now becoming permissible, thought still controversial, to bring up the so-called Jewish Question (JQ) -- have filtered out into the general idea-pool of the present. So that, and for example, the idea of European Renovation or movements of nationalist and also of movements defined as racialist (for example in France, Germany, Denmark) and focused on White wellbeing and on White-Europeans as a valid and moral area of focus -- these ideas have been circulating and having effect.

That is, the countervailing idea that diversity is not our strength, but rather of something very much else.

See Lauren Southern's latest. She has, at the very least, become a bit more perky. (She has been through some very demanding personal trials over the last 4-5 years).

The first few pages of 'The Sword of Christ':

Translation

As Steven Anderson has conclusively demonstrated1,
the 1611 Authorized King James Version is the only Bible
translation which we can trust. Aside from its infinite beauty,
the King James Version is the only English translation that ap-
proaches parity with the Greek and Hebrew. When one begins
to tinker with the Scripture, Satan easily inserts himself into the
text and subverts the Word of God from within. As just one ex-
ample of many, the execrable New International Version is
owned and published by Zondervan, the largest Bible publisher
on earth. Zondervan is a subsidiary of the Big Five publisher,
HarperCollins, which is itself owned by News Corp, owned by
the rampant philo-Semite and fanatical Zionist Rupert Murdoch,
whose vast media empire propagates Zionism across the globe.
As such, all Scripture in this work is cited from the King James
Version. I have deliberately chosen not to specifically cite to
verses quoted from either Talmudic or other rabbinical sources
or the Qur’an. First, these verses are cited in each of the sources
that I have cited from, each of which is copiously and authorita-
tively sourced; as such, I encourage the reader to acquire and
scrutinize these sources. The second reason is cosmetic; as the
reader is in all likelihood wholly unfamiliar with the Talmud,
other Jewish texts, or the Qur’an, citations to them would large-
ly be irrelevant, as well as likely to engender confusion. Addi-
tionally, the foreign religious texts have several different trans-
lations, and the sources I have drawn verses from are not uni-
form in the translations employed.
1 I point the reader to Paul Wittenberger’s excellent film, New World Order
Bible Versions, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

Mission

The hatred for Christianity on the Right truly pains me;
this is the reason that I wrote this book. I fully understand the
hatred, for, as I argue in my introductory essay, there is very
little to praise about organized Christianity today, if anything.
Organized Christianity, including the Catholic Church and each
of the Protestant denominations, has indeed become yet another
instrument of White genocide. Organized Christianity has ca-
pitulated and bent the knee to Satan’s coalition of the damned,
thereby turning its back on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I
despise organized Christianity too, for this same reason. But,
usurped though the mantle of the Church may be, that is no rea-
son to simply abandon the Faith.
So many of us who observe the collapse of the Church
into anti-White Leftism have been led to the facile conclusion
that Christianity itself is irredeemable. It isn’t. Christianity does
not even need redemption, for our Faith remains what it has al-
ways been; the pharisaical teachers of false doctrine whom we
witness on parade today simply are not Christians, no matter
what they may say. Remember Paul’s warning, “for such are
false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into
the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing
if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of right-
eousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” (2 Co-
rinthians 11:13-15)
They have accomplished Satan’s work well, driving
good men from the Church in droves to seek a fruitless solace in
a pagan history that we are thousands of years removed from.
Again, I understand the attraction; there is much to admire in
the Indo-European Germanic tradition, and, as I discuss in my
introductory essay, the inculturation of this Germanic tradition
into early Christianity ushered the Faith into its rightful mar-
riage with Europe as Christendom. This is the very process
which the German Völkisch movement hoped to recreate in its
program of national renaissance. However, to extrapolate a
Christophobic paganism from our admiration of that rich tradi-
tion is fundamentally wrongheaded, premised upon Biblical and
historical illiteracy.
This same sense of illiteracy lies behind the more absurd
contention that Christianity is some sort of life-denying suicidal
Jewish psyop. First, if this is true, why, after nearly two thou-
sand years, did organized Christianity only betray its race and
civilization in the twentieth century, after the Jewish coup that
was accomplished in no small part by the creation and promo-
tion of the heresy of Christian Zionism? Indeed, the Bible is
quite anti-Semitic, and, as I explore in my essay on Christian
Zionism, historical Christianity was diametrically opposed to
Judaism. Christians have always known, until just this past cen-
tury, that Jews are our greatest enemy. Second, the Jews of the
Old Testament are not the Jews of the New Testament, or of
today. As I explain, what we now know as Judaism is rabbini-
cal, Talmudic Judaism, a belief system that is wholly discon-
nected from the faith practiced by the pre-Christian Israelites of
the Old Testament. The precursor to the Judaism of today is the
Sanhedrin of the New Testament Pharisees, which Christ essen-
tially explicitly tells us are the spawn, whether literal or figura-
tive, of Satan. The key here is that Christianity predates Tal-
mudic Judaism, which arose as a response to Christianity, with
the sole organizing principle of annihilating Christianity.
It is my greatest desire that this work will equip real
Christians with the tools that they need to understand that our
Faith is in total alignment with White racial identity, and with
the arguments that they need to refute those egalitarian “Chris-
tian” Leftists who wave the bloody shirt and pervert the Word
of God to argue for ethnomasochism and racial suicide. For
atheist or pagan Whites, I hope to at least take the sting out of
their Christophobia by demonstrating that those who work for
our dispossession under the ensign of the cross are not Chris-
tians.

Holy shit

First, if this is true, why, after nearly two thousand years, did organized Christianity only betray its race and civilization in the twentieth century, after the Jewish coup that was accomplished in no small part by the creation and promotion of the heresy of Christian Zionism?

It is my greatest desire that this work will equip real Christians with the tools that they need to understand that our Faith is in total alignment with White racial identity, and with the arguments that they need to refute those egalitarian “Christian” Leftists who wave the bloody shirt and pervert the Word of God to argue for ethnomasochism and racial suicide.

In a way I am sorry to be the one to point out (since most who write on this forum have seemed to me supremely uniformed about topical cultural issues) that the so-called JQ has nearly broken out into the mainstream. The (more than a transparent) dust up between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro (and a large Neo-Conservative contingent) has exposed the form and scope of the developing social and political conflict in the US (also extending to Europe I assume).

The present governing régime of the US is widely understood to be ZOG : a Zion occupied government. One that through various mechanisms has gained control and serves Zionist (Israeli) interests. It is a hard accusation to side-step given what we all see.

Anti-Zionism thus takes on a more complex and momentous coloring.

Kevin MacDonald (who wrote the introduction to TSOC)(TSOC was written anonymously)is, at the least, highly Jewish-critical and, in his case and through his website and publishing, gives a voice to Jewish-critical Christians and Catholics (I think MacDonald is Catholic but I am unsure how ‘practicing’ he is).

This trend has a “lite” pole and one more intense.

Oddly, the anti-Zionism stance is one shared by some Jews — like Ron Unz. And there is a interview/conversation between Unz and E. Michael Jones who is anything but philo-Judaic. He states that “Jews became revolutionaries at the foot of the cross” and, as such, are mankind’s enemies.

But here Unz and Jones amicably share a platform. Strange times!

In my own view — raised on the fringes of Reform Judaism — I can understand anti-Zionism pretty easily and see it as problematic at best and •evil in result• at worst. I am uncertain to what degree the present J-critical position is merely anti-Zionist or is one of simple, virulent Judenhass.

Remember, I brought up the conflict between Christian nationalism and the more known and visible Christianity-lite that we are most exposed to. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and others I could name are moving toward a form of Christian nationalism. At the least in outline.

If one does believe that Christ is King on those metaphysical levels, and one perceives that one’s Christian position is challenged or even cancelled by a “Zionist” contingent (i.e. Jewish), and that one’s nation is therefore in the hands of adversaries who call the shots, one will then proceed to fill out one’s interpretation with all sorts of defining statements.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 1:17 am….

Sorry to have neglected you! I have time to mercilessly beat on you should your masochism kick in again. I am here to serve.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:43 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 1:17 am….

Sorry to have neglected you! I have time to mercilessly beat on you should your masochism kick in again. I am here to serve.

...which you typically have been a dismal failure at.

No tips for you!

On page 30 of this thread Iwannaplato, before his ignoble defection, wrote:

If they are arguing that we shouldn't have non-European influences and should return to the core of European tradition...and for them this means a religion that came out of the Middle East and an at that time non-European ethnic group, it seems good to go back in time and talk about it. If you're talking to Wizard and his complaint is that protestants are Zionists, it seems relevant.

I don't think the core thesis of the thread is a silly topic. I'm still a little unclear what AJ wants, but the idea that certain metaphysical beliefs might make things better is a worthwhile topic. And if the Catholic Church is being called in to take on the central role it once had, that's also a worthwhile topic. Why it wouldn't simply unravel again, I don't know? I know one metaphysical position AJ does think many/most should have, but I don't know what others from the CC he thinks need to be reintroduced or held by many/most.

Note that I submitted this video by Michael Millerman who discussed Evola's position or advice, if you will, for youth who intend to hold to a set of values and ideals that Evola categorizes under the tern *traditionalism*.

It is thoroughly silly to attempt to undermine our *European traditions* by pointing out that the religious movement -- Jesusonianism perhaps it should be called -- began in Judea. As if you imply that what developed in Hellens, in Rome, and then in Europe is contaminated with a foreign influence.

However, it must be pointed out that the National Socialists (influenced by many but notable by Houston Chamberlain) made a serious effort to squeeze out of the Judaean revelation all that was *Jewish* and to attempt to redefine the Christian revelation as Indo-European. The argument used by Chamberlain was that Jesus's parent were Galilean and many foreigners resided there (and that Greek influence was strong) (Hence the question: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?") The argument presented was that Jesus may not have been biologically Jewish. And that would explain his intense opposition to the Hebrews pictured in the Gospels).

These sorts of arguments, or interpretations, are not irrelevant to our present. I am trying to speak to and to answer those who have issues with the possibility of a militant Christianity or European Nationalism. There is no doubt that the issue of Christian Nationalism in America has been linked with White Identity and White supremacism.

I wanted to include Evola's thought since Evola has been influential in America and in Europe by those people and groups who take issue with the *present dispensation* in our (as they might say) hyper-liberal present. So Evola asks the core question: What does it mean to be a man when, according to his view, we are all *standing among the ruins*. And that -- Men Among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist -- is one of Evola's book titles.

So here is what I am getting at: If we are to seriously consider the idea of *renovation* (of Europe or America or the Occident) that the first order of business is one of assessment of what is actually going on. Or what has happened to the Occident and in the Occident. This requires an involved historical, intellectual, spiritual and political analysis. But you have to have both the tools of analysis and the will to analyze and decide.

and for them this means a religion that came out of the Middle East

This is true, on one level, and misleading on another. The entire corpus that we label Christian is really Greco-Christian. It is so infused with Greek categories of thought that, some say, it is best to think of it as Greco-Christian.

If you're talking to Wizard and his complaint is that protestants are Zionists, it seems relevant.

American Evangelicalism has been totally taken over by Christian Zionism. There is absolutely no doubt about this. The real issue here is how to examine this, and how to critique the Jewish Neoconservatives who are acute Jewish Zionists in a direct but fair way.

Now why is any of this relevant? Let me try to explain. To the degree that one takes the Christian revelation seriously, is the degree to which one cannot but take the internal metaphysics seriously. That is, a heavenly or angelical pole and its opposite. As Phyllo noticed, the book The Sword of Christ expresses not a metaphorical interpretation but a literalist interpretation. But, and in our Modernity (as I tried to explain to Iwannaplato) we cannot see our world in such literalist terms.

I'm still a little unclear what AJ wants, but the idea that certain metaphysical beliefs might make things better is a worthwhile topic

It is not so much that I must *want something* for the conversation on these topics to be interesting, instructive and relevant. That is why taking Dawson's thesis as a starting point was attempted. My position has been one as a *researcher* into the cultural phenomena of our present.

So if I *want* something it is really to establish that, here in this thread, or on any forum among people equipped to examine contemporary issues, that we examine what is going on in our culture. There are certainly momentous things going on.

What I can say is that, and here I speak personally and for myself, when I existed, as indeed I did and for many years, within a flexible or nebulous metaphysics, that I could not have risen to the focused point that Evola recommends. That is to say that in some sense I could not have really *been a man*. Now the implications of this extend well beyond my own self. Men who do not have encompassing, directing ideas, aspirations, sets of values they live (and die) in accord with because they are staking their lives on those things they VALUE -- that is what Evola means when he talks of being *among the ruins*. We are in the ruins of our own selves.

Now, what re-animates true, real and genuine connection with this idea of man that Evola attempts to get at?

What I try to point out is that this idea -- of a metaphysical structure, of connection with universal principles, and all that is believed to empower man -- is really what the impetus is among those, in Europe and America, who are turning, in different degrees and ways, against what is understood to be liberal rot.

And if the Catholic Church is being called in to take on the central role it once had

No, the Catholic Church is a repository of sets of ideas that are traditionalist in the truer sense of the word. That is, they are grounded within Greco-Christian principles and those definitions which *empower man*. The Church is this sense is European religiosity.

I know one metaphysical position AJ does think many/most should have

What I think is difficult for many to understand -- take our own Harvey Bard as a good example -- is that sorting through these issues, problems and questions is an extremely difficult and demanding undertaking. Because in the final analysis it really has to do with power and the use of power within the political, social and cultural spheres.

In my view the entire conversation is worthy in and of itself. Yet it does amaze me that others do not find it to be so.

But as always -- I am here for my own purposes -- and really because no one else writing her, except a couple, have any purposes at all!

As purposeless people you are not really men. And if you are not men how then shall you be defined?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 3:50 pm
But as always -- I am here for my own purposes --

Aren't we all?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 11:19 pm Whose seeing brings the better clarification?

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:33 pm Well, my Trump Derangement Syndrome causes me to imagine that the central character in AJ's picture,...

(the locus of focus; the veritable Antichrist in the flesh)

...at the very moment that picture was taken, was thinking to himself how much he would love to reach down and grab the blond chick by the "you know what."

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 11:19 pm Which (in different terms of course) are thoughts that run through my mind every day when I am out and about. Living next to a university places multitudes of very nice looking Latinas in one’s daily gaze.

Obviously, I was half joking (but half serious) in my response, but here you are, once again, trying to defend Trump.

And the question is ----- Why???

Btw, are you implying that if you were the president of the U.S.A. and had a group of religious men and women laying their hands on you and praying that God gives you the guidance and wisdom you will need to govern the country,...

...that, like Trump, you too would be oblivious of the solemness and piety of the moment and instead be imagining grabbing the nearest female by her vagina?

Should the campus police of the university you live next to, be keeping an eye on you?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 11:19 pm Basically I think you fail to see Trump’s function in our present as an unwholesome man,...

Which begs the question of why you think an "unwholesome man" should be "rewarded" (and not scorned) for his "unwholesomeness"???

I keep bringing that up because, even though I think the answer to that question has something to do with levels of consciousness issues, it nevertheless is still fascinating to observe it playing out in real life,...

...you know, kind of like Jane Goodall hiding behind the jungle foliage as she observes the behavior of her beloved chimpanzees.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 11:19 pm ...quintessentially American, forced into a complex historico-cultural rehearsal.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

A "historico-cultural rehearsal" for what?

I mean, when's the "real show" scheduled to air?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 11:19 pm I don’t have the energy to counter or combat your hardened perspective.

Perhaps that would be more accurately stated as...

"I don't have the energy "or logical footing" to combat your hardened perspective."

My perspective in regard to Trump is hardened only because my two (maybe three) working brain cells are firing in a wild frenzy as they attempt to deal with the absurdity and spectacle of someone as "seemingly" as intelligent as you...

(at least in terms of your writing skills and eloquence)

...constantly defending a petulant "child in a man's body" who is utterly infected with Mussolini-ish tendencies.

I'm talking about malignant tendencies that generally lead to (and deserve) the following fate...



(And unfortunately for the young woman hanging next to him in that image, like Trump, good ol' Benito also cheated on his wives with mistresses.)

And I say all of these things while fully acknowledging the fact that "something drastic" needs to happen to set the world (and especially America) onto a new (and higher) course.

However, I was hoping that the corrective measure would at least come in the form of something a little less embarrassing than the complete degradation of the American society headed up by an immoral ignoramus like Donald J. Trump.

If you aren't appalled and embarrassed at the notion of Trump as president of the United States of America, then your official membership in the...

"International ̶S̶o̶c̶i̶e̶t̶y̶ Mental Asylum of Armchair Philosophers"

...is hereby revoked.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 9:32 pm Obviously, I was half joking (but half serious) in my response, but here you are, once again, trying to defend Trump.

And the question is ----- Why???

One, I despise the Democrat régime.

Two, I opt to cast my vote not so much for the man, but what I hope is a more general grass-roots type of political movement.

Three, many people whose ideas I admire seem to lean toward Trump and support him. I side with them.

I do not have however a great deal of faith in the immediate present. I do not see things — socially — getting sorted out and politically things may only worsen.

A "historico-cultural rehearsal" for what?

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

My way of seeing is Jungian. Trump represents a wide, wounded class of Americans. He represents their woundedness, their many lacks (intellectual, spiritual, in comprehension). Fate or destiny pulled Trump onto the scene and he •rehearses• his part. It has elements of farce but also of tragedy.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:57 pm
Three, many people whose ideas I admire seem to lean toward Trump and support him. I side with them.

Yes, I'm sure Trump shares all the "values" you've been spouting on about.

What an idiot.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:15 pm In my own case I have been dealing with the tension, conflict and also interplay between, let's say, traditional Catholicism and those opposing racialist and nationalistic notions that were emphasized by the National Socialists and in Europe in the Interwar Period among many. Note that whenever anyone mentions any sort or restraining ethics, a reining in of sexual license, a critique of homosexuality, or really anything that challenges or opposes the standard hyper-liberal outlook and agenda of our day, one is called a Nazi.

Traditional Catholicism and National Socialism, so wonderful to hear that you're "dealing" with a couple of the most bigoted, intolerant groups of assholes known to Western history. Good luck!

Regarding Trump, it seems the qualifications required for dictatorship are immeasurably less in the U.S. than they ever were in Germany or any of the Axis powers, for that matter. The greatest victory Putin can hope for in his war with Ukraine is to have Trump on his side.