Sex and the Religious-Left

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because the "right" has a somewhat lower average intelligence and is therefore easier manipulated, deceived.

The Religious-Right have a 'guidebook' to compensate for low intelligence, The Bible, which are instructions in morality for those without common sense, or who need to be forced into 'good' action under threat of force/violence.

The Religious-Left are not much better, though, Atla. And because they do not have a Morality or Framework to draw from, they then herald their sexual perversions as examples and 'proof' of their "moral superiority". Thus they invert morality, turning it upside-down: aka Satanism.

Isn't this satanic inverted anti-morality merely a reaction, a mockery though, in addition to being a trick of the Jews in power? In the 21st century and onward, the belief in God and objective morality is no longer tenable, so it's mocked, some people do the opposite of it. But of course that doesn't make this anti-morality good. On the 'left' people know just as well that a morality such as of the Bible, is roughly the right morality, and this deviant anti-morality of the "religious left" is abnormal.

But where the 'guidebook' completely fails to compensate for low intelligence (and arguably it's impossible to compensate), is again, in teaching the low-IQ right to be able to spot and prevent the machinations of the Jews in power, who operate say 30-40 IQ above them, use abstract structures and are hidden behind abstract structures, and follow another religion or no religion.

(Also, if the world doesn't unite under one monotheistic religion, or unite without any monotheistic religion, then imo the two or more monotheistic religions will probably end the world in nuclear war, which is imo the broader problem of religion.)

WTF is that convoluted mess supposed to mean?

[Atla]

WTF is that convoluted mess supposed to mean?

Ugh lemme try to translate it..

It means that sometimes, you guys from NZ were/are/will be kindly asked to do some weird things, that the West started doing. Funny weird things. Maybe a new weird trend every few years, maybe a new weird thing to do together every few years, or something. You guys don't need to understand any of it, but it's super good that you guys are joining in, everyone loves you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

WTF is that convoluted mess supposed to mean?

Ugh lemme try to translate it..

It means that sometimes, you guys from NZ were/are/will be kindly asked to do some weird things, that the West started doing. Funny weird things. Maybe a new weird trend every few years, maybe a new weird thing to do together every few years, or something. You guys don't need to understand any of it, but it's super good that you guys are joining in, everyone loves you.

It means that you can't write for s*it. It means nothing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

My girlfriend is trans but I'm not gay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-yuUSu ... akenWithJP

[Atla]

WTF is that convoluted mess supposed to mean?

Ugh lemme try to translate it..

It means that sometimes, you guys from NZ were/are/will be kindly asked to do some weird things, that the West started doing. Funny weird things. Maybe a new weird trend every few years, maybe a new weird thing to do together every few years, or something. You guys don't need to understand any of it, but it's super good that you guys are joining in, everyone loves you.

It means that you can't write for s*it. It means nothing.

That's the spirit!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm sure someone will validate you by responding to it and pretending they 'understand' its deep and powerful meaning.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is largely irrelevant who this woman is, but I became interested in the book title she is holding (Life in the Reich) so I looked it up. Mike Walsh is actually Michael McLaughlin and, as you will likely guess, is an historical revisionist and in this book (a series of books) he presents a view of Hitlerian Germany which attempts to correct what he believes is a negative view of (I guess) the entire Hitlerian movement.

It seems on brand, although I would equally have believed you had you told me it was a normal history book and she was just holding it because there's swastikas on the cover. Personally I am comfortable taking a generally negative negative view of the whole Hitlerian movement.

McLaughlin was associated with the British Movement (the following is from Wiki):

For a time McLaughlin worked as a milkman, and as a result he was known as "The Milkman" in right wing circles, where he was seen as a largely unassuming figure. His first involvement with politics came when he joined the British Movement in 1968. He became leader of the British Movement in 1975 when Colin Jordan abruptly resigned. Although initially seen as not being leadership material he soon gained publicity for the BM by leading the campaign to free Robert Relf, who, at the time, had considerable sympathy in sections of the press.

Moving the BM headquarters away from Jordan's base in Coventry to Shotton, Flintshire, he repositioned the BM as a party geared towards the young working classes and by 1979 had raised membership to around 3,000. McLaughlin was sentenced by judge David Wyn Morgan in 1979 to six four-month prison sentences for publishing leaflets dealing with the British government's foreign policy and immigration policies. The jail term did not affect his position as leader.

The publisher's blurb about the book Life in the Reich:

The standard of living and quality of life in Hitler’s Third Reich was far superior to elsewhere in the developed world. Ordinary German workers enjoyed a lifestyle previously reserved for the upper classes of the West. Hitler’s Germany led the world in fashion, medicine, cinema, lifestyle, manufacturing, transport infrastructure, public facilities, cutting-edge science, healthcare and education. For good reason, the Germans were the cheeriest people on earth. The claim that this was achieved through investment in militarism is absurd. Despite being war economies, the debt-ridden U.S. and European Union suffer the collapse of their infrastructure whilst their indebted populations live a hand-to-mouth existence. Prosperity in the Reich set an example that damns the hideous failures of the mutually supportive capitalist and communist systems. A taboo topic for media and palace publishers, Life in the Reich by Mike Walsh was removed by Amazon because it dared to show Hitler’s Germany as it was and not as the propagandists would have us believe it was. Mainstream media and court publishers consider this a taboo topic because they don’t want you to know in case you draw the right conclusions.

Ok ... I mean saying he ran the economy well, even if that were especially true, would be a little bit like saying Jeffrey Dahmer had an excellent nose for a good bottle of wine. But what the economic reforms that Hitler made?

The roots of modern capitalist propsperity lie in such mundane inventions as the joint stock company and the limited liability company. In reforms to tax, intellectual property and bankruptcy laws in the 17th and 18th Centuries. To the overhaul of the civil services, birth of the modern central bank and rejection of trade wars and mercantilism of the Victorian era, and onward to universal unemployment insurance. All these things improved the system of wealth generation that allowed the world to industrialise and generate even greater wealth than previously dreamt of.

Hitler didn't introduce any such reform. All he did was run a deficit economy and prime consumer demand with all the extra jobs he funded off of basically a New Deal. Under those terms, it's an absurd extravagance to describe what he did as setting an "example that damns the hideous failures of the mutually supportive capitalist and communist systems". He built a system that could provide mass employment for so long as debt rollover funding was easily available and none of the coupons needed to be redeemed. But then would either need to invade a neighbour to find new revenues to pay the debt with, or else would just go bankrupt.

The book is available on-line at Archive.

The importance, and the relevance, of becoming cognizant of historical revisionism seems to me self-evident. However it is not an easy territory to navigate because of the extreme contentiousness of the issues. Yet it is important to gain a perspective on how to examine historical revisionism since, and this is a fact, we are right in the midst of a period of time where the *narratives of the old order* are being challenged. In so many different ways the emerging Right-leaning movements such as MAGA, such as the presentations of Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens (among so many), define their struggles as anti-Marxist and describe their enemies as *taking over* the sphere of ideas and as *controlling the discourse*.

It should not go unnoticed that these reactionary movements that are developing can be compared to many different movements that arose in Europe to oppose, counter and propose alternatives to what was then also described as *Marxist undermining* of social and political norms. Therefore to describe our present as an *octave* of this former time is a helpful comparison.

You can talk populist reactionaries into "reacting" against anything you instruct them to. They form irritable hordes waiting to be led around by whoever provides the torches, the pitchforks and the chant. You are describing there a collective who all join each other in blaming everything on wokeness but then all go blank if you ask them what woke means. They are just sheep for men like you to fleece.

The reason I want to point this out is because here, in these pages, Flash continually associated these reactionary stances with Nazism and Fascism. What I try to point out is that the comparison is a necessary one to make. Radical Left-Progressive Marxism is extremely aggressive in its activism. It operates like an *acid* against established orders. And those who notice this, who discern the effects of this cultural acid, necessarily must react with equal vigor. So in this way the Radical Left calls forth the reactions of the Radical Right. It seems to me that this dynamic needs to be much better understood.

And persuading them that all their anxieties are tied to something deeper and more insidious than 'woke'... some international plot you call 'Radical Left-Progressive Marxism' is how you fleece them.

In regard to various figures who now appear on the social scene with strange, oppositional, contrarian messages I would ask: Why is this happening? It is the most interesting question really.

Why, to take one example is this woman, who says she was born Jewish, why is she upending narratives with such zealousness? What is the social situation that is producing people who are willing to throw themselves into the fray of contention and make a public display out of an over-the-top rejection of proper, conventional perspectives and interpretations?

Oh this poor mad woman is very much one of the fleeced sheep. Sombody has taken advantage of her good and proper. Just like you reckon all the BLM people are secretly being manipulated I guess. In her case though, the way she's gone so deep and apparently so fast suggests it's likely she was radicalised probably via the internet, most likely she was an easy target because of something like Aspergers (the ones who go most insane do tend to be aspies, that's just how it goes with conspiracy theories).

Going on: McLaughlin was associated with the British Movement -- definitely way on the fringes and Neo-Nazi tolerant. Later, when the BM collapsed, the British National Movement arose:

Ideologically positioned on the extreme-right or far-right of British politics, the BNP has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists. Under Tyndall's leadership, it was more specifically regarded as neo-Nazi. The party is ethnic nationalist, and it once espoused the view that only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom. It calls for an end to non-white migration into the UK. It called initially for the compulsory expulsion of non-whites but, since 1999, it has advocated voluntary removals with financial incentives. It promotes biological racism and the white genocide conspiracy theory, calling for global racial separatism and condemning interracial relationships. Under Tyndall, the BNP emphasised anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, promoting the conspiracy theory that Jews seek to dominate the world through both communism and international capitalism. Under Griffin, the party's focus switched from anti-semitism towards Islamophobia. It promotes economic protectionism, Euroscepticism, and a transformation away from liberal democracy, while its social policies oppose feminism, LGBT rights, and societal permissiveness.

My suggestion? In order to get a handle on what is going on in our present, one has to fearlessly examine the structure of the ideas that people in all the different camps, from the extreme fringes of both the Radical Left and the Radical Right, and then back toward the center where, as it certainly plays out on this forum, people play out their positions in a sort of Live Action Role Playing.

What is the *right* perspective to take? I mean when one views and analyzes?

My suggestion is that you stop assuming that everyone knows you are rigth but is too araid to think it. Those old ideas aren't trerrifying, they just lack any particular virtue. They are a religion of conformism being missold as "dissident ideas" by people who yearn for tedious homogeneity reinforced by systems of abuse which are suddenly rendered morally desirable by the idea that you have your sweaty little fists on all the levers of opression.

Except of course you are only the messenger spoken of in the first book in the trilogy. You are only delivering the questions that topple the ancient regime. Your hands are clean of the reigns of terror in the second book, and the final solution in the third.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

It seems on brand, although I would equally have believed you had you told me it was a normal history book and she was just holding it because there's swastikas on the cover. Personally I am comfortable taking a generally negative negative view of the whole Hitlerian movement.

In my case I would start at the point of examining how "generally negative views of the whole Hitlerian movement" began and were framed. I think that for you it is simply that I say this, that I do not immediately chime in and declaim agreement, that you necessarily see me as implicated as a proponent of Hitlerian fascism. You are paranoid in that odd Lefty-Progressive way.

You could, if you were inclined, and so could I if I were inclined, research this woman's trajectory and try to get to the bottom of her strongly anti-Jewish (or antisemitic if you wish) stance. Jews who convert to Christianity often become critical of Judaism and Jewish attitudes or stances.

And it is possible that if you determined that all of it was a result of mental unbalance or, as you say, succumbing to those who manipulate the "irritable hordes waiting to be led around by whoever provides the torches, the pitchforks and the chant", and that all contemporary examination of every pillar in the Postwar ideological construct is evidence of mental, social and ideological derangement, then naturally you will begin from that point when any opposition of any sort is broached. It is a circular position though.

That is my impression of your stance and I see it as driven by rhetorical declarations which are bolstered, to some degree, with some useful and conversable points. For one example your opinions on what I assume you see as a 'false economic miracle' brought about by the Hitlerian "New Deal". I have no means at my disposal to argue against your position nor to agree with it -- I have devoted no time to an examination of National Socialist economics. But always with you I notice those rhetorical and embellished opinions which are attacks against the integrity of those who have different views. I do not think you are willing to allow that those who have issues with the present dispensation, or the structure of the civil religious narratives, have any leg to stand on. And here I emphatically disagree with you. Not as a partisan of some retrograde reactionary movement, but because I have read a good deal of the material of those dissidents and I accept elements of their argument.

My view -- and this in regard to the entire event of Europe's two *civil wars* (as they have been termed by some) -- is that the entire event is susceptible to a revisionist examination. Simply put, the way that the victory over Nazism or fascism has been portrayed is clearly a narrative written by the victors. What this means is that the narrative structure is presented as unassailable and, to differ with it in almost any area or degree, is presented as being an exposition of evil ideology. In my view the war was a co-created event and not the fault of one actor. (I am deeply suspicious of the way that *ontological malevolence* is assigned exclusively to the dark angel Adolf Hitler. Far too convenient in my view).

And what this means is that a sensible person, and a rational person with genuine concerns about history and historiography, will take and must take a critical approach. Similarly, and as a point of comparison, I could rely exclusively on US state descriptions of its reasons for invading Vietnam or Iraq, however I know, and I assume we all know, that we will likely never get a true picture of *reasons* and *motives* by referring to the woven narratives of those whose interests are best served through various levels of obfuscation.

I am pretty sure that you would agree with this, but I am am also doubtful that you would extend the agreement to a need to examine, from a revisionist perspective, the proclamations of righteousness by those who defined and presented the Postwar narrative.

However, if you take me to be saying that I think the Hitlerian movement should be seen as something positive -- that is, to counter the view that it was exclusively *negative* -- you will repeat the mistake you often make, due I think to your rhetorical zealousness. All states, and certainly all empires and neo-imperialisms, are fundamentally involved in power-determined machinations. The use of power is the principle thing, and then comes the propaganda narrative to defend it and to present the usage to the masses.

The use of power is raw and brutal in all instances. This is a fundamental tenet of my understanding of power. And I should add that my views on power were shaped by a close reading of On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures by Chomsky. I came to understand Chomsky as a Machiavellian political scientist insofar as he employs a reversed application of the power dynamics he analyzes in The Prince and The Discourses.

You can talk populist reactionaries into "reacting" against anything you instruct them to. They form irritable hordes waiting to be led around by whoever provides the torches, the pitchforks and the chant. You are describing there a collective who all join each other in blaming everything on wokeness but then all go blank if you ask them what woke means. They are just sheep for men like you to fleece.

I use the term "reaction" and "reactionary" is a more or less neutral sense. That is, not as a purely negative descriptor. As you know I regard European reaction to the infiltration of Marxist-Leninist activism as a necessary counter-activity. And you also know that I am aware that one radicalism will tend to call forth it opposing and countering radicalism. But in my view, and in the most important sense, to define a *reactionary position* involves a discovery of and an enunciation of what core values one is defining and defending. So the first order of business is an examination of one's own core values.

What I have found is that as our cultures, having been let's say knocked off their established foundations in those areas of defined values previously accepted as normal, sane and good, become susceptible to currents of control established by factions that seek power and control irrespective of ethical or moral questions. Power, as I say, tends to amoral action. And what I seek to point out is that people, average people and non-specialists, who sense impending chaos and notice it operating around them, attempt to recur to structures that had been established and which to them seem to encompass *value* and if you will an anchor to which to moor themselves.

Now I may take this choice to *seek an anchor* in a Platonic sense of seeking to locate and accentuate ideas that are metaphysical and in that sense *eternal*, and to try to make statements about what these should be and are, and to live in accord with them, but someone else will sense the danger and stress caused by the encroachment of chaos and mutability and resolve simply to attend church services with their family, but in each case there is a *reaction* against something that requires resistance. Not *going with the flow* of events but countering that flow.

And persuading them that all their anxieties are tied to something deeper and more insidious than 'woke'... some international plot you call 'Radical Left-Progressive Marxism' is how you fleece them.

My sense is that you do not have enough historical perspective to understand the effect of Radical Marxism. It is a highly caustic acid and it is designed to eat away at established structures, values, hierarchies of value, and hierarchies of attainment. It can be (and often is) extremely mindless in this: a destructive mechanism.

Because you do not see it, or cannot see it, as a bona fide danger and something requiring an opposing stance, you could therefore never understand the view that does regard it as dangerous and consequential in many negative senses. Your natural tendency to rhetorical-emotional constructs kicks in and, as a result, you cannot see but that any reference to this is an attempt to *fleece* a victim.

My suggestion is that you stop assuming that everyone knows you are right but is too afraid to think it. Those old ideas aren't terrifying, they just lack any particular virtue. They are a religion of conformism being mis-sold as "dissident ideas" by people who yearn for tedious homogeneity reinforced by systems of abuse which are suddenly rendered morally desirable by the idea that you have your sweaty little fists on all the levers of oppression.

Here you explain the ideology which animates your opinions and views. This statement is highly reductive but driven by sets of predicates that you will not or cannot examine. You reduce what you superficially categorize as ideas lacking virtue to *a religion of conformism* and you fail to take into consideration -- I assume because you do not understand -- that those definitions of the right and the good, and choices about value (and meaning) are hard-won through intellectual work.

It is doubtful that you know much at all about the ideas of those theorists understood to be *genuinely conservative* (not popularly and erroneously classed as Conservatives al la Americana) so you seem here to engage with a glossary smear and, rhetorically, for your own purposes.

This is the core, operative concept that you work with and that (in my view) has power over you. It is filled with falseness and is neither fair, realistic nor accurate, but it is what you choose to work with:

They are a religion of conformism being mis-sold as "dissident ideas" by people who yearn for tedious homogeneity reinforced by systems of abuse which are suddenly rendered morally desirable by the idea that you have your sweaty little fists on all the levers of oppression.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

It seems on brand, although I would equally have believed you had you told me it was a normal history book and she was just holding it because there's swastikas on the cover. Personally I am comfortable taking a generally negative negative view of the whole Hitlerian movement.

In my case I would start at the point of examining how "generally negative views of the whole Hitlerian movement" began and were framed. I think that for you it is simply that I say this, that I do not immediately chime in and declaim agreement, that you necessarily see me as implicated as a proponent of Hitlerian fascism. You are paranoid in that odd Lefty-Progressive way.

You could, if you were inclined, and so could I if I were inclined, research this woman's trajectory and try to get to the bottom of her strongly anti-Jewish (or antisemitic if you wish) stance. Jews who convert to Christianity often become critical of Judaism and Jewish attitudes or stances.

And it is possible that if you determined that all of it was a result of mental unbalance or, as you say, succumbing to those who manipulate the "irritable hordes waiting to be led around by whoever provides the torches, the pitchforks and the chant", and that all contemporary examination of every pillar in the Postwar ideological construct is evidence of mental, social and ideological derangement, then naturally you will begin from that point when any opposition of any sort is broached. It is a circular position though.

You lazily conflate two different things I discussed. On the one hand how that poor woman got so radicalised and mad (clearly she has significant mental issues) and the generic dumbasses who get led around being angry at things they aren't able to describe (attributable to stupidity).

That is my impression of your stance and I see it as driven by rhetorical declarations which are bolstered, to some degree, with some useful and conversable points. For one example your opinions on what I assume you see as a 'false economic miracle' brought about by the Hitlerian "New Deal". I have no means at my disposal to argue against your position nor to agree with it -- I have devoted no time to an examination of National Socialist economics. But always with you I notice those rhetorical and embellished opinions which are attacks against the integrity of those who have different views. I do not think you are willing to allow that those who have issues with the present dispensation, or the structure of the civil religious narratives, have any leg to stand on. And here I emphatically disagree with you. Not as a partisan of some retrograde reactionary movement, but because I have read a good deal of the material of those dissidents and I accept elements of their argument.

I am right, if I was wrong Hitler's reputation for economic management would be based around some tangible economic reform, but instead it is wholly bound to a debt fueled demand driven boom. I don't care that you lack the know-how to tell me I am mistaken, if you had the know-how you would still lack the facts to do so.

People who have "issues with the present dispensation, or the structure of the civil religious narratives" are by definition complaining about story telling. I am under no obligation to care about that. And all your complaints in this matter are reducible to mere propagandistic sophistry.

My view -- and this in regard to the entire event of Europe's two *civil wars* (as they have been termed by some) -- is that the entire event is susceptible to a revisionist examination. Simply put, the way that the victory over Nazism or fascism has been portrayed is clearly a narrative written by the victors. What this means is that the narrative structure is presented as unassailable and, to differ with it in almost any area or degree, is presented as being an exposition of evil ideology. In my view the war was a co-created event and not the fault of one actor. (I am deeply suspicious of the way that *ontological malevolence* is assigned exclusively to the dark angel Adolf Hitler. Far too convenient in my view).

Well yes, in the interests of encouraging a lively debate and nothing more, certainly not the taking of sides, you like to promote the downplaying of the Holocaust, and the death camps, and the politicalprisoners, and the murdering of the disabled peoploe and all that so that we can consider Hitler in his true form.... as the very bad man who did all those things.

You are unable to provide evidence to go with the things you insinuate for some reason. You won't say what youreally mean about the co-created events, becauseobvously for that to be meaningful you would have to try and pin some blame for the Holocaust on somebody or other that isn't Hitler, Goebbels and so on.... But instead of taking action, you are now going to say something along the lines of "My sense is that you do not .... " about me, and try to reverse the tables by making me a bad man for challenging you to flesh out that statement.

And what this means is that a sensible person, and a rational person with genuine concerns about history and historiography, will take and must take a critical approach. Similarly, and as a point of comparison, I could rely exclusively on US state descriptions of its reasons for invading Vietnam or Iraq, however I know, and I assume we all know, that we will likely never get a true picture of *reasons* and *motives* by referring to the woven narratives of those whose interests are best served through various levels of obfuscation.

I am pretty sure that you would agree with this, but I am am also doubtful that you would extend the agreement to a need to examine, from a revisionist perspective, the proclamations of righteousness by those who defined and presented the Postwar narrative.

However, if you take me to be saying that I think the Hitlerian movement should be seen as something positive -- that is, to counter the view that it was exclusively *negative* -- you will repeat the mistake you often make, due I think to your rhetorical zealousness. All states, and certainly all empires and neo-imperialisms, are fundamentally involved in power-determined machinations. The use of power is the principle thing, and then comes the propaganda narrative to defend it and to present the usage to the masses.

The use of power is raw and brutal in all instances. This is a fundamental tenet of my understanding of power. And I should add that my views on power were shaped by a close reading of On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures by Chomsky. I came to understand Chomsky as a Machiavellian political scientist insofar as he employs a reversed application of the power dynamics he analyzes in The Prince and The Discourses.

All that is mere propagandistic sophistry. I am not extolling any virtues of Churchill when I condemn the truly spectacularly evil crimes of Hitler. I have read competing accounts of the motives of various historical figures surrounding many wars, nothing of the sort is going to rescue Hitler from his awfulness, unless you have a really amazing theory about how he was secretly a puppet of some international crime syndicate or something like that....

You can talk populist reactionaries into "reacting" against anything you instruct them to. They form irritable hordes waiting to be led around by whoever provides the torches, the pitchforks and the chant. You are describing there a collective who all join each other in blaming everything on wokeness but then all go blank if you ask them what woke means. They are just sheep for men like you to fleece.

I use the term "reaction" and "reactionary" is a more or less neutral sense. That is, not as a purely negative descriptor. As you know I regard European reaction to the infiltration of Marxist-Leninist activism as a necessary counter-activity. And you also know that I am aware that one radicalism will tend to call forth it opposing and countering radicalism. But in my view, and in the most important sense, to define a *reactionary position* involves a discovery of and an enunciation of what core values one is defining and defending. So the first order of business is an examination of one's own core values.

What I have found is that as our cultures, having been let's say knocked off their established foundations in those areas of defined values previously accepted as normal, sane and good, become susceptible to currents of control established by factions that seek power and control irrespective of ethical or moral questions. Power, as I say, tends to amoral action. And what I seek to point out is that people, average people and non-specialists, who sense impending chaos and notice it operating around them, attempt to recur to structures that had been established and which to them seem to encompass *value* and if you will an anchor to which to moor themselves.

That's more propagandistic sophistry.

Now I may take this choice to *seek an anchor* in a Platonic sense of seeking to locate and accentuate ideas that are metaphysical and in that sense *eternal*, and to try to make statements about what these should be and are, and to live in accord with them, but someone else will sense the danger and stress caused by the encroachment of chaos and mutability and resolve simply to attend church services with their family, but in each case there is a *reaction* against something that requires resistance. Not *going with the flow* of events but countering that flow.

I just want to highlight that passage there as the most exceptionally pretentious thing you've ever written. By rights it should be bundled up with the previous couple and dismissed as mere propaganda with them. But the truly ridiculous appeal to Plato deserves it's own individual scorning.

And persuading them that all their anxieties are tied to something deeper and more insidious than 'woke'... some international plot you call 'Radical Left-Progressive Marxism' is how you fleece them.

My sense is that you do not have enough historical perspective to understand the effect of Radical Marxism. It is a highly caustic acid and it is designed to eat away at established structures, values, hierarchies of value, and hierarchies of attainment. It can be (and often is) extremely mindless in this: a destructive mechanism.

You didn't have enough historical perspective to see through a milkman's transparently mad ascription to Hitler of the ability to put both capitalism and communism to shame with his economic genius, so isn't that a pot and kettle situation?

Also, you aren't providing evidence still, your point here is yet more propaganda.

Because you do not see it, or cannot see it, as a bona fide danger and something requiring an opposing stance, you could therefore never understand the view that does regard it as dangerous and consequential in many negative senses. Your natural tendency to rhetorical-emotional constructs kicks in and, as a result, you cannot see but that any reference to this is an attempt to *fleece* a victim.

My suggestion is that you stop assuming that everyone knows you are right but is too afraid to think it. Those old ideas aren't terrifying, they just lack any particular virtue. They are a religion of conformism being mis-sold as "dissident ideas" by people who yearn for tedious homogeneity reinforced by systems of abuse which are suddenly rendered morally desirable by the idea that you have your sweaty little fists on all the levers of oppression.

Here you explain the ideology which animates your opinions and views. This statement is highly reductive but driven by sets of predicates that you will not or cannot examine. You reduce what you superficially categorize as ideas lacking virtue to *a religion of conformism* and you fail to take into consideration -- I assume because you do not understand -- that those definitions of the right and the good, and choices about value (and meaning) are hard-won through intellectual work.

It is doubtful that you know much at all about the ideas of those theorists understood to be *genuinely conservative* (not popularly and erroneously classed as Conservatives al la Americana) so you seem here to engage with a glossary smear and, rhetorically, for your own purposes.

This is the core, operative concept that you work with and that (in my view) has power over you. It is filled with falseness and is neither fair, realistic nor accurate, but it is what you choose to work with:

They are a religion of conformism being mis-sold as "dissident ideas" by people who yearn for tedious homogeneity reinforced by systems of abuse which are suddenly rendered morally desirable by the idea that you have your sweaty little fists on all the levers of oppression.

Given that you have nothing but polemics to offer, and when challenged to support any partifcular claim with evidence you will instead accuse me of being too biased to see how right you are, I have no need to counter you with more than a trivial peppercorn of supportable statements and then I can easily complete the job with any old counter propoaganda I feel like running off at the time.

You are only doing this conversation to pose for Wizzy anyway. You aren't trying to recruit me, you just want to have a villain of the piece to point at while you fleece the morons.

[Atla]

I'm sure someone will validate you by responding to it and pretending they 'understand' its deep and powerful meaning.

Fine fine, I'll try to be even more concise.

"Insignificant little island at the end of the world, you belong to us, you do as we require, don't ask stupid questions about it, it's above your heads anyway."

Hmm no wait still too complicated for you probably, lemme try one more time.

"VT, we will shove all this woke and LGBTQetc. thing down your throat, and you are required to like it, deal with it."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You still can't write.

[Atla]

You still can't write.

And you're not a judge on anything.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You still can't write.

And you're not a judge on anything.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

You lazily conflate two different things I discussed. On the one hand how that poor woman got so radicalised and mad (clearly she has significant mental issues) and the generic dumbasses who get led around being angry at things they aren't able to describe (attributable to stupidity).

Another emoted rhetorical declaration. It is really your style.

I do not know anything about that woman, nor about the status of her mental health, and you don't either. But here's the key: you honestly believe that you do. And that is actually one of the mainstays of your cranky, tendentious orientation, and one you share with the Left-Progressive clique.

Similarly, you bust out with another rhetorically driven statement: "generic dumbasses who get led around being angry at things they aren't able to describe (attributable to stupidity)".

Here you continue in the same vein:

People who have "issues with the present dispensation, or the structure of the civil religious narratives" are by definition complaining about story telling. I am under no obligation to care about that. And all your complaints in this matter are reducible to mere propagandistic sophistry.

I should have written *civic religious narrative*. This is what I refer to (and here in reference to America):

American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian religious faith exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the American civil religion.

The concept goes back to the 19th century, but the current form of this theory was developed by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967 in the article, "Civil Religion in America". According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common civil religion with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals in parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.

If histories and historiography are *story-telling*, and in a very real sense they are insofar as they organize perceptions and interpretations of historical events, and if these narratives influence how people see and interpret their world, the fact that you say "I am under no obligation to care about that", if this is so I can only respond and say you are making a great error.

There are definitely Right-tending theorists who have issues with *the present dispensation* and they offer critical reasons as to why. Similarly there are Left-tending theorists who do the same. And each of them rely on histories and historiography in organizing their own views and activism.

Well yes, in the interests of encouraging a lively debate and nothing more, certainly not the taking of sides, you like to promote the downplaying of the Holocaust, and the death camps, and the political prisoners, and the murdering of the disabled people and all that so that we can consider Hitler in his true form.... as the very bad man who did all those things.

Here, and again, you go off the rhetorical rails.

Taking of sides is a genuine, important, and relevant activity. I mean this in a general sense and not as you reductively take it: how and what one decides about Hitlerism and what the National Socialist regime did.

You mistake as promotion that I mention that there are people -- to all appearances serious people with notable academic antecedents (like Ron Unz) -- who say that there are many parts of the entire war narrative, and specifically parts of the Holocaust narrative, that he questions. What you do, and constantly, is attempt to use tools of moral blaming to establish that any conversation on any part of this, is off-limits. This is intellectually indefensible. Yet it is such a part of *who you are* (apparently) that I can't imagine you changing your tack.

I just want you to know that I notice it.

If however your object is to locate *bad players* when an analysis of the causes of the two world wars is carefully undertaken, I'd have no issue participating, But as I say it has to be done carefully, cooly and fairly.

I do not get the impression that you are qualified for such an undertaking. You prefer crude reductions.

You won't say what you really mean about the co-created events

Again more paranoid projection on your part. Both world wars were co-created events and were mutually created by all the protagonists we could name. It is such a non-controversial statement that it really needs no extensive explanation.

But instead of taking action, you are now going to say something along the lines of "My sense is that you do not .... " about me, and try to reverse the tables by making me a bad man for challenging you to flesh out that statement.

No, it is rather that because you are excitable and driven by emoted rhetorics that you cannot read what I write but as you read it twist it to mean the only thing you suppose it could mean.

Now, what I say about that is that you are one among millions who, in our present dispensation, have been trained to do this. Through your education. Through social and intellectual osmosis. Once again I remind you: you shout *Nazi* when any idea that seems *not quite right* is mentioned. You resort to that emblem of ontological malevolence exactly as a religious fanatic would.

But you refuse to examine this. Are you *immoral* because of this? Not necessarily. You could act immorally as a result of your fixations though. I suppose that your tendency to facile condemnation is linked to your belief in your own morally superior stance and I am pretty sure that represents a danger.

All that is mere propagandistic sophistry.

You always seem to end where you began. I do not defend or condemn Hitler, National Socialism or anything and anyone necessarily. What I do say is that all the events, and all the players, need to be seen in judicious light. If Hitler, for you, is your pet historical emblem of *ontological evil*, and if this works for you in your wider analysis of humen and historical events, by all means stay with it.

What I did say was this and I'll stick with it for now:

AJ: However, if you take me to be saying that I think the Hitlerian movement should be seen as something positive -- that is, to counter the view that it was exclusively *negative* -- you will repeat the mistake you often make, due I think to your rhetorical zealousness. All states, and certainly all empires and neo-imperialisms, are fundamentally involved in power-determined machinations. The use of power is the principle thing, and then comes the propaganda narrative to defend it and to present the usage to the masses.

Turning back to your post:

Flash: I just want to highlight that passage there as the most exceptionally pretentious thing you've ever written. By rights it should be bundled up with the previous couple and dismissed as mere propaganda with them. But the truly ridiculous appeal to Plato deserves it's own individual scorning.

Thank you!

Here it is:

AJ: Now I may take this choice to *seek an anchor* in a Platonic sense of seeking to locate and accentuate ideas that are metaphysical and in that sense *eternal*, and to try to make statements about what these should be and are, and to live in accord with them, but someone else will sense the danger and stress caused by the encroachment of chaos and mutability and resolve simply to attend church services with their family, but in each case there is a *reaction* against something that requires resistance. Not *going with the flow* of events but countering that flow.

The main problem I notice about you is your emotionalism and tendency to condemn what (I presume) you do not understand. And that is what you mean by *pretension*: an idea that went over your head.

Whether you understand it or not, when an average person gets involved, say, with Christianity, they are *seeking anchors* within metaphysical categories. Christianity is based in the belief that one can anchor oneself within the *really real* and save oneself from being *lost* in the endless processes of mutability. It is an idea totally consistent with Platonism.

Given that you have nothing but polemics to offer

You are only doing this conversation to pose for Wizzy anyway. You aren't trying to recruit me, you just want to have a villain of the piece to point at while you fleece the morons.

You will frame things as you choose to. Have at it. What you say is not necessarily what is actual nor truthful.

I cannot see you as a *villain*. I am impressed that you can, when pressured, write relatively coherent sentences and paragraphs. But your emotionalism undermines your attempt at sound argument every time. And that becomes your most notable feature.

Personally, I am always cautions whenever I feel a stimulus to label someone as a villain or as *evil*.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

You lazily conflate two different things I discussed. On the one hand how that poor woman got so radicalised and mad (clearly she has significant mental issues) and the generic dumbasses who get led around being angry at things they aren't able to describe (attributable to stupidity).

Another emoted rhetorical declaration. It is really your style.

I do not know anything about that woman, nor about the status of her mental health, and you don't either. But here's the key: you honestly believe that you do. And that is actually one of the mainstays of your cranky, tendentious orientation, and one you share with the Left-Progressive clique.

Similarly, you bust out with another rhetorically driven statement: "generic dumbasses who get led around being angry at things they aren't able to describe (attributable to stupidity)".

The woman is mad, that much is obvious. Everything I wrote is fair comment, your whining is boring.

Here you continue in the same vein:

People who have "issues with the present dispensation, or the structure of the civil religious narratives" are by definition complaining about story telling. I am under no obligation to care about that. And all your complaints in this matter are reducible to mere propagandistic sophistry.

I should have written *civic religious narrative*. This is what I refer to (and here in reference to America):

American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian religious faith exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the American civil religion.

The concept goes back to the 19th century, but the current form of this theory was developed by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967 in the article, "Civil Religion in America". According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common civil religion with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals in parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.

If histories and historiography are *story-telling*, and in a very real sense they are insofar as they organize perceptions and interpretations of historical events, and if these narratives influence how people see and interpret their world, the fact that you say "I am under no obligation to care about that", if this is so I can only respond and say you are making a great error.

There are definitely Right-tending theorists who have issues with *the present dispensation* and they offer critical reasons as to why. Similarly there are Left-tending theorists who do the same. And each of them rely on histories and historiography in organizing their own views and activism.

Well yes, in the interests of encouraging a lively debate and nothing more, certainly not the taking of sides, you like to promote the downplaying of the Holocaust, and the death camps, and the political prisoners, and the murdering of the disabled people and all that so that we can consider Hitler in his true form.... as the very bad man who did all those things.

Here, and again, you go off the rhetorical rails.

Taking of sides is a genuine, important, and relevant activity. I mean this in a general sense and not as you reductively take it: how and what one decides about Hitlerism and what the National Socialist regime did.

You mistake as promotion that I mention that there are people -- to all appearances serious people with notable academic antecedents (like Ron Unz) -- who say that there are many parts of the entire war narrative, and specifically parts of the Holocaust narrative, that he questions. What you do, and constantly, is attempt to use tools of moral blaming to establish that any conversation on any part of this, is off-limits. This is intellectually indefensible. Yet it is such a part of *who you are* (apparently) that I can't imagine you changing your tack.

I just want you to know that I notice it.

If however your object is to locate *bad players* when an analysis of the causes of the two world wars is carefully undertaken, I'd have no issue participating, But as I say it has to be done carefully, cooly and fairly.

I do not get the impression that you are qualified for such an undertaking. You prefer crude reductions.

That was all boring and pointless.

You won't say what you really mean about the co-created events

Again more paranoid projection on your part. Both world wars were co-created events and were mutually created by all the protagonists we could name. It is such a non-controversial statement that it really needs no extensive explanation.

But instead of taking action, you are now going to say something along the lines of "My sense is that you do not .... " about me, and try to reverse the tables by making me a bad man for challenging you to flesh out that statement.

No, it is rather that because you are excitable and driven by emoted rhetorics that you cannot read what I write but as you read it twist it to mean the only thing you suppose it could mean.

Like I said, you will never clarify, but you will blame me for you not answering any questions of substance.

Now, what I say about that is that you are one among millions who, in our present dispensation, have been trained to do this. Through your education. Through social and intellectual osmosis. Once again I remind you: you shout *Nazi* when any idea that seems *not quite right* is mentioned. You resort to that emblem of ontological malevolence exactly as a religious fanatic would.

But you refuse to examine this. Are you *immoral* because of this? Not necessarily. You could act immorally as a result of your fixations though. I suppose that your tendency to facile condemnation is linked to your belief in your own morally superior stance and I am pretty sure that represents a danger.

All that is mere propagandistic sophistry.

You always seem to end where you began. I do not defend or condemn Hitler, National Socialism or anything and anyone necessarily. What I do say is that all the events, and all the players, need to be seen in judicious light. If Hitler, for you, is your pet historical emblem of *ontological evil*, and if this works for you in your wider analysis of humen and historical events, by all means stay with it.

What I did say was this and I'll stick with it for now:

AJ: However, if you take me to be saying that I think the Hitlerian movement should be seen as something positive -- that is, to counter the view that it was exclusively *negative* -- you will repeat the mistake you often make, due I think to your rhetorical zealousness. All states, and certainly all empires and neo-imperialisms, are fundamentally involved in power-determined machinations. The use of power is the principle thing, and then comes the propaganda narrative to defend it and to present the usage to the masses.

Turning back to your post:

Flash: I just want to highlight that passage there as the most exceptionally pretentious thing you've ever written. By rights it should be bundled up with the previous couple and dismissed as mere propaganda with them. But the truly ridiculous appeal to Plato deserves it's own individual scorning.

Thank you!

Here it is:

AJ: Now I may take this choice to *seek an anchor* in a Platonic sense of seeking to locate and accentuate ideas that are metaphysical and in that sense *eternal*, and to try to make statements about what these should be and are, and to live in accord with them, but someone else will sense the danger and stress caused by the encroachment of chaos and mutability and resolve simply to attend church services with their family, but in each case there is a *reaction* against something that requires resistance. Not *going with the flow* of events but countering that flow.

The main problem I notice about you is your emotionalism and tendency to condemn what (I presume) you do not understand. And that is what you mean by *pretension*: an idea that went over your head.

No, I am saying that you mostly write preposterous, pretentious, bullshit but that appeal to Plato is just *chef's kiss* perfectly preposterous.

Whether you understand it or not, when an average person gets involved, say, with Christianity, they are *seeking anchors* within metaphysical categories. Christianity is based in the belief that one can anchor oneself within the *really real* and save oneself from being *lost* in the endless processes of mutability. It is an idea totally consistent with Platonism.

Erm, sure, fine. But so what? Why is your conformist impulse to wish the whole world would relive the moral certainties of your grandfather's great aunt Mildred important to anyone else? I sure as fuck don't care about the imaginary anchor that you chose to pray to.

Given that you have nothing but polemics to offer

You are only doing this conversation to pose for Wizzy anyway. You aren't trying to recruit me, you just want to have a villain of the piece to point at while you fleece the morons.

You will frame things as you choose to. Have at it. What you say is not necessarily what is actual nor truthful.

I cannot see you as a *villain*. I am impressed that you can, when pressured, write relatively coherent sentences and paragraphs. But your emotionalism undermines your attempt at sound argument every time. And that becomes your most notable feature.

Personally, I am always cautions whenever I feel a stimulus to label someone as a villain or as *evil*.

ok