Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Oh, while I've got you here, VT, a quick question:

Now that I'm a psychopath too, what do you think my first psychopathic act should be? You seem to have cornered the market on derisively scornful and vitriolic posts insulting other PN members, and, although I've made a few forays into that market myself, I thought I should perhaps develop my own "signature act". I was sort of thinking along the lines of maybe dry and somewhat biting, passive-aggressive posts targeted at other PN members, but I'm not sure that that's quite psychopathic - or unique - enough. Since you have more experience at this all than I do, your advice would be most appreciated.

Amorally yours,
Harry "New 'Path on the Block" Baird

[iambiguous]

You seem to have cornered the market on derisively scornful and vitriolic posts insulting other PN members, and, although I've made a few forays into that market myself, I thought I should perhaps develop my own "signature act".

Not far removed from my own reaction to vegetariantaxidermy on another thread:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

All I can do is to wait and see if she is willing to go there.

On the other hand, being a hardcore polemicist myself, I often provoke others as well. But that's often because I respect their intelligence and provocative exchanges can actually bring that out all the more.

Not at all sure what her own "huffing and puffing" is about.

[Harry Baird]

You seem to have cornered the market on derisively scornful and vitriolic posts insulting other PN members, and, although I've made a few forays into that market myself, I thought I should perhaps develop my own "signature act".

Not far removed from my own reaction to vegetariantaxidermy on another thread:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

All I can do is to wait and see if she is willing to go there.

On the other hand, being a hardcore polemicist myself, I often provoke others as well. But that's often because I respect their intelligence and provocative exchanges can actually bring that out all the more.

Not at all sure what her own "huffing and puffing" is about.

That all seems fair. You know what, though? I feel a strange kind of affection for VT given her consistency. She's never afraid to GO THERE and mercilessly diss some poor soul, and nor does she ever forego an opportunity to DO *exactly that*. You sort of know what you're getting with her. It's kind of endearing, 'cos she's just doin' what she does - and it's nothing personal, even when it is. She chews us all up and spits us all out, despising the taste of all of us equally. Does that make any sort of sense? And are ya hearin' me, VT? Have a bloody go at me. Tell me how disgustingly condescending I'm being by talking about you in front of yourself like this! Snap your fearsome talons upon my scalp and carry me off to your fiery chambers of torture!

[attofishpi]

I hope you told your neighbour off soundly for stealing aboriginal resources

What if I told you... he IS Aboriginal?

Shit, where did he get the hose from?

[Harry Baird]

I hope you told your neighbour off soundly for stealing aboriginal resources

What if I told you... he IS Aboriginal?

Shit, where did he get the hose from?

Waaaidaminnit. I very much hope you're not accusing folk of stealing white man's resources.

[attofishpi]

What if I told you... he IS Aboriginal?

Shit, where did he get the hose from?

Waaaidaminnit. I very much hope you're not accusing folk of stealing white man's resources.

So Harry, are you going to watch Aussies v Denmark tonight?

[Harry Baird]

So Harry, are you going to watch Aussies v Denmark tonight?

Oh, that might be a little politically incorrect. I have a Danish friend. We psychopathic wokies like to keep things chill with our international partners. You know, because, win or lose, it's always a loss for somebody.

[attofishpi]

So Harry, are you going to watch Aussies v Denmark tonight?

Oh, that might be a little politically incorrect. I have a Danish friend. We psychopathic wokies like to keep things chill with our international partners. You know, because, win or lose, it's always a loss for somebody.

Fair enough. I too am a psychopath as you know. I killed all my friends...now I no longer have that problem.

[attofishpi]

..f**k I am hallucinating again, I could have swore I saw a black fella in a log.

**The wookie shagger is definitely messing with us.

[Harry Baird]

Fair enough. I too am a psychopath as you know.

Hey, that's neat. Now there are three of us. We should, like, murder each other and stuff.

[Harry Baird]

..f**k I am hallucinating again, I could have swore I saw a black fella in a log.

What you saw was in fact a hot dog (but, yes, it had the visual illusion of a black fella in a log).

I mean, seriously. Fast food from the USA finding its way into this forum. I don't know where our standards have gone.

[attofishpi]

..f**k I am hallucinating again, I could have swore I saw a black fella in a log.

What you saw was in fact a hot dog (but, yes, it had the visual illusion of a black fella in a log).

I mean, seriously. Fast food from the USA finding its way into this forum. I don't know where our standards have gone.

I thought it was a giant sized Bondi cigar..

I often wonder what is going thru the other psychopath's head (Veg) - when she deletes her posts.

[Harry Baird]

I thought it was a giant sized Bondi cigar..

Smokin'.

I often wonder what is going thru the other psychopath's head (Veg) - when she deletes her posts.

Stuffing, I presume. As a taxidermist, she must have plenty of it.

[tillingborn]

It's clear you wish to misrepresent, to exaggerate, to distort, and to posture toward the alleged moral high ground.

None of that is true...

Well, that's my conclusion from the evidence I see.

No it isn't. It is what your monstrous but fragile vanity created to protect itself from a tiny scratch.

You will repeatedly allege that which is not true...

Everyone but you calls someone who repeatedly says things which are untrue, you for instance, a liar.

...and I will not concede it to you.

You will not even concede that you are the same Immanuel Can who responded to this:

The outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.

with this:

Yes, they are.

That is the trivial misreading you cannot admit, instead calling me 'someone who repeatedly alleges that which is not true'. You are an appalling advert for Christianity. The authors knew the likes of you:
15Again he said to them: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in wool clothing like sheep, but inside are tearing wolves”
16“By their deeds you will know them. Does a man gather grapes from thorns or figs from briars?”
17“Every good tree makes good fruit and every bad tree makes bad fruit”
18“The good tree cannot make bad fruit nor can the bad tree make good fruit”
19“Every tree which does not make good fruit is cut down and burned in the fire”
20“Therefore it is according to fruits, that is, by their deeds, you will know them”

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is revisionist about my position that South Africa was colonised and exploited, and what is the non-revisionist history?

Your view requires a perspective that developed in the Marxian and post-Marxian world.

Absolutely not. My father is a conservative businessman and one of the most unabashed capitalists you'll meet, who has no truck at all with Marxism or socialism in general, yet he was also a vehement opponent of Apartheid.

I am not conversing with or arguing against your father. I am not recommending apartheid nor that it be reestablished. And I talk about the revolution in South Africa as a 'success' and as a 'gain' for the liberal world order that so strongly (globally) came out against the SA regime and in favor of the negotiated settlement in the early 1990's. What interests me, and what I always write about, is the issue of degeneration that, in my view, arises simultaneously with these *successes*. Philosophically then, and I stated this, I dedicated myself to exploring the other side of the ideological coinage, and I am considering the ideas and arguments of those (like Evola, like Guénon) who oppose the world that has taken form as a result of the revolutions of 1789 and 1848. Guénon wrote The Crisis of the Modern World and Evola wrote Revolt Against the Modern World, both of which I've read, both of which have influenced my thought. Additionally, and topically, I draw to your attention that these ideas, and the ideas of many intellectuals who have issues with the modern Liberal Order, have made their influence known and felt in global politics. And I also talk about the fact that we are now in *ideological war* that has now and will have tremendous ramifications.

I am not here as an activist or as an ideological salesman for specific political and social movements or orientations. Yet I notice that you, Harry, and also Seeds, seem to represent quite specific social and political movements that are extremely common today. The tendency on forums like this is that people take up a position behind the barricade of a given position and then engage in the endless bicker-wars. But I find it much more interesting to try to see into our specific 'formations' (what has informed our opinions and ideas and why).

Obviously, and I am sure that you know this, if we are to talk about 'conservative political and social orientations' we would have to trace back the ideas that are held by those who subscribe to those ideas and discover, and uncover, the intellectuals who explain those views. So I might refer to Edmund Burke or to Richard Weaver as sources. Similarly, the Left-Progressives have been informed by other intellectuals with other political and social ideas. Since this is true, and since endless bickering and bitchy back-and-forth never gets anyone anywhere, I recommend the terribly fun pastime of exploring and understanding why we think the things we do, and how we have come to accept the ideas and values that we do accept.

So, I cited three different situations: Israel, South Africa and the United States -- each of which is now and has been a rich vein of hot opinion and extreme disagreement -- as areas that we could explore in a calm manner. But no one of these topics is amenable to a quick analysis. Each is rich with complexity. And to discuss anyone of them requires time, patience and a slow unraveling.

It is true, and I do not conceal it, that at this present moment I do entertain ideas that are condemned and vilified in the present dispensation. In regard to that *dispensation* I will start by saying that I believe that it is a sort-of régime of thinking. It does not ask you to consider the possibility that certain things are true and right, it insists that you believe them or else. Here then, the entire question of *free thought* and *intellectual freedom* comes to the fore. Do you-plural notice the degree to which ideas are the subject of authoritarian mechanisms of control? I certainly hope so.

So with that said I more or less put the majority of my cards on the table and say that the freedom to explore ideas that are contradictory to those of the present dispensation is my *project*. There is no area that I have not devoted some time and energy to. Not by reading what others say about those who have contrary ideas but by reading primary sources. One primary area, after reading Richard Weaver, was an independent analysis of the War Between the States (American Civil War) and I do go along with the better term The War of Northern Aggression. I do not accept the Party Line. I do not accept then the very foundation of the American (federally mediated) Civil Religion. I do say that this war, and everything that ramified from it, cannot else but be considered as one examines the present political and social situation in the US today. So, as you can well imagine I am immediately placed by my own views in a controversial position. "What does this mean?" someone will ask (and must ask). It has to be explained of course, but note the following: in today's climate it is more common to shut down conversations than to open them up. Do I have to cite references? Shutting down conferences, stopping certain speakers from speaking, banning and censorship, and the vilification of ideas that are not liked and described as *bad* or *evil* is the order of the day.

When I said that the Left-Progressive ideology has its origins in Marxian ideas and tenets, and that when I read your ideas about history and politics I discern those *notes*, I am not criticizing you -- at least not directly. I am noting however how deeply these ideas have penetrated generally. I do not *believe in* rejecting, outright, Marxian analysis. I believe in try to to trace out its influence. Very different. And simultaneously I believe in taking a critical position in regard to 1789 and 1848. I admit that the ramifications are huge indeed. It is like turning against the entire direction of the world. It requires a clear, solid enunciation of a counter-current that could countervail against the *outcomes* of our present which, with one example, has been defined as an age of liberal rot. Does liberalism then eventually result in rot? What does 'rot' mean? If there is such a thing as 'rot' what then countervails against it?

As you well know -- having read Weaver -- people have dedicated their lives to coming up with substantial answers to that, and those, questions.

Now in regard to the kerfuffle as you have charmingly termed it, my suggestion is that you and Seeds should help the Vegetable Taxidemist to properly sing Kumbaya. Yes, you heard me right! You and Seeds never really sung it right and properly, and I have strong doubts that the Taxidermist ever did even try to sing it. You must hit all those notes! Since it refer to *my Lord* I am assuming Immanuel can get on board with this. So a peyote session where you man the didgeridoo (if you are not adept enough bring your Aboriginal neighbor!) and Seeds handles the psychedelic post-Christian chanting is where things need to go now. I'd say it is ordained by the Time itself or, to put it somewhat better, by Dasein itself. Let Dasein therefore enter into the very fibres of your body in a fiery Pentecostal spirit-possession of sheer conviction! Clear your throats now! Sing!