WOKE and proud of it....

[Gary Childress]

I live in a quiet lil town in S. Louisiana. Quite nice.

That's great, henry; I'm so relieved you made it to safety.

I haven't run to or away from anything.

Why must you mock me? You disagree with me (on everything): okay.

But why be pissy and disrespectful?

I try to be civil and then you (or Gary, or veg, or dub, or...) get ugly (which prompts me to be ugly [and I don't wanna do that anymore]).

Nuthin' productive happens. I walk away with a bad feeling toward you and you, well, what do you get out of grinding away at me or Mannie or AJ or Walker or...?

I apologize, Henry. You are right. There is no good reason for me to be snarky about it.

[henry quirk]

I didn't think you took me seriously enough to let it bother you, but if it does, I apologise and will try to behave myself.

There's only two here I don't take seriously -- age & iambiguous -- everyone else, to the extent I can, I listen to and try to understand. (even when I disagree with them and dislike them [hi pro!]).

Those three are different; they don't seem to think the rest of the world has any right to not conform to what they would like it to be, and that they are entitled to use whatever dishonest manipulation they like to influence the opinions of others. I can't help it; it just works me up.

I think you misunderstand them. They're clever -- perhaps too clever -- in their strategies. If they can be faulted, it's for that. I don't believe any are dishonest: it seems to me each is trying to convey his thoughts and impressions about the world and man-in-the-world. I certainly don't agree with any of them on a great many points, but they often hit the mark squarely. They're as worth listening to as you are, in my book.

[henry quirk]

I apologize, Henry. You are right. There is no good reason for me to be snarky about it.

It's not the snark, it's the dismissal that informs the snark.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…..

Here is sort of a way to attempt an answer to your interrogations regarding my (ironic) ise of the word mayhem.

Bowden on vanguardism

As Bowden talks about here I am interested in vanguard positions. Not as an activist necessarily but as a theorist of what is right and good.

I am no longer a fan of Liberalism. I have many reasons.

Often you express dismay that I make references to people like Bowden and it seems to confuse you as to why.

Frankly, I am interested in rigorous metaphysical positions (such as traditional Catholicism) but I’d prefer to excise out of it the Left-Liberal tendencies that crept in and dominate it.

One other thing. Though recently I support certain things shared by IC my positions are in many ways more radical to his. For example I am not morally opposed to ethno-nationalist positions (as is developing in Europe). And I allow for more looseness in how I understand and appreciate Christianity.

[Harbal]

Those three are different; they don't seem to think the rest of the world has any right to not conform to what they would like it to be, and that they are entitled to use whatever dishonest manipulation they like to influence the opinions of others. I can't help it; it just works me up.

I think you misunderstand them. They're clever -- perhaps too clever -- in their strategies. If they can be faulted, it's for that. I don't believe any are dishonest: it seems to me each is trying to convey his thoughts and impressions about the world and man-in-the-world. I certainly don't agree with any of them on a great many points, but they often hit the mark squarely.

They seem more transparent than clever to me, but I don't think I'm infallible, so I might be wrong about them; I just don't think I am.

They're as worth listening to as you are, in my book.

That's not much of an endorsement.

[Alexiev]

If the only reason to journey is to arrive somewhere, you will be disappointed.

You'll set out to get somewhere, and when you find you've arrived, you'll be disappointed? That's preposterous. The only reason you set out was in hope of arriving...and when you did, you were sad? Well, you planned the wrong trip, then.

The journey is its own destination.

Ugh. What a cliche...and an empty one, at that. Let's at least not lapse into commonplaces and outright absurdities. The most we can say is that sometimes a person enjoys the trip...but if they never arrive, the trip was a failure, ultimately...and they're dead.

The climber climbs to explore the route, not to reach the peak.

I have yet to meet a single climber who did that. But maybe you know another kind of oddball.

But again, the "peak" analogy you chose is just plain misleading. There is no "peak" of knowing everything -- at least, not for human beings. So the metaphor is poor. I reject it as a description of any "journey of knowing." It's inapt. It doesn't work.

...claiming my tactics are "feminine" is obnoxiously sexist,

Well, if it offends you, I'll say "thoroughly gamma," instead. That's more precise. Either way, it's weak, and you'd be more impressive if you didn't resort to that sort of lame ruse.

And you'd be more impressive if you would refrain from writing anything, since your posts are inevitably silly and incorrect.
According to your silly reasoning, if you read a book only to find out what the ending will be, you might as well skip reading the rest of the book. If you attempt to hike to the South Pole, you might as well take an airplane. The flag on the peak is an accolade; the climb is an achievement.

Every real climber (of whom I am one) climbs to explore the route, not to reach the peak (perhaps I am wrong about those who pay guides to haul them up Everest). That's why real climbers climb the Nose or the Diamond, instead of hiking up the trail on the back side. This is so obvious that it is unarguable (although you seem eager to display your ignorance by trying).

Nothing you write "offends me", except in as much as it's offensive to discover bigotry and stupidity inhabiting human form. Your posts cast a sorry light on both my species and my gender.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay. Have a nice day, I guess.

I sense you don't really mean that.

No, I mean it. I just don't have more to say.

[Immanuel Can]

Your posts cast a sorry light on both my species and my gender.

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not a representative of anything, so you don't have to worry.

[iambiguous]

There's only two here I don't take seriously -- age & iambiguous -- everyone else, to the extent I can, I listen to and try to understand. (even when I disagree with them and dislike them [hi pro!]).

The irony here of course is that according to some, both he and I will one day burn in Hell for all of eternity. And what are the 70 odd years we ponder these things on this side of the grave compared with the infinite number of years in Paradise.

Of course, religion is surely the mother of all the woke mentalities. Why? Because not only are we saddled with all manner of moral obligations here and now but the consequences of not fulfilling them can't possibly be more dire.

Only with henry's God, who knows what our fate might be, right? God Himself is long gone.

Now, according to henry, He instilled in all of us the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in doing so, Deists can't even agree on whether there is an afterlife. Let alone salvation. As though they weren't by far the two most important aspects of religious belief. That and objective morality.

So, for Deists, woke apparently revolves around following the dictates of Reason and Nature. And yet if that were the case would not all Deists more or less share the same value judgments about things like abortion and guns and sexuality? Or, because there appears to be no Judgment Day involved, are Deists free to believe anything up and down the political spectrum?

[henry quirk]

There's only two here I don't take seriously -- age & iambiguous -- everyone else, to the extent I can, I listen to and try to understand. (even when I disagree with them and dislike them [hi pro!]).

The irony...

There's no irony. You've gone off, as usual, on your own mad lil way, posting stuff that has nuthin' at all to do with my post or my conversation with Harbal.

I don't take you seriously.

That has nuthin' to do with God, Deism, Heaven or Hell. It's all, and only, about you (and, yes, I'm makin' it all about you, just as you like).

Now declare me shameless (you ) and go away from me.

[henry quirk]

They seem more transparent than clever to me, but I don't think I'm infallible, so I might be wrong about them; I just don't think I am.

And yet you continue to engage with them. Why?

That's not much of an endorsement.

Not sure what you mean, but either way I can take it: you're not giving somebody enough credit.

[iambiguous]

There's only two here I don't take seriously -- age & iambiguous -- everyone else, to the extent I can, I listen to and try to understand. (even when I disagree with them and dislike them [hi pro!]).

The irony...

There's no irony. You've gone off, as usual, on your own mad lil way, posting stuff that has nuthin' at all to do with my post or my conversation with Harbal.

I don't take you seriously.

That has nuthin' to do with God, Deism, Heaven or Hell. It's all, and only, about you (and, yes, I'm makin' it all about you, just as you like).

Now declare me shameless (you ) and go away from me.

Okay, a "condition" it is then.

[henry quirk]

a "condition"

Ah, there's one I haven't seen in a while.

[Gary Childress]

I apologize, Henry. You are right. There is no good reason for me to be snarky about it.

It's not the snark, it's the dismissal that informs the snark.

By "dismissal" do you mean my not agreeing with your views on us currently being "slaves"?

[Gary Childress]

…..

Here is sort of a way to attempt an answer to your interrogations regarding my (ironic) ise of the word mayhem.

Bowden on vanguardism

As Bowden talks about here I am interested in vanguard positions. Not as an activist necessarily but as a theorist of what is right and good.

I am no longer a fan of Liberalism. I have many reasons.

Often you express dismay that I make references to people like Bowden and it seems to confuse you as to why.

Frankly, I am interested in rigorous metaphysical positions (such as traditional Catholicism) but I’d prefer to excise out of it the Left-Liberal tendencies that crept in and dominate it.

One other thing. Though recently I support certain things shared by IC my positions are in many ways more radical to his. For example I am not morally opposed to ethno-nationalist positions (as is developing in Europe). And I allow for more looseness in how I understand and appreciate Christianity.

Interesting. Why are you "illiberal"? What is wrong with liberalism? Do you oppose liberal ideals, or are you "illiberal" in the sense that you are not as liberal as some?

By "ethno-nationalism", do you believe that ethnic groups should all have their own ethnically homogenous states?