Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ,

In response to your most recent message to me:

Your definition of historical "revisionism" assumes that the "unrevised" history is the perspective held at the time by those who invaded the lands of others. This self-servingly leaves out the perspective of those whose lands were invaded. Can you explain why you preference the one over the other in what you seem to intend as some sort of objectively correct ("unrevised") history?

People who have invaded and occupied the lands of others always complain loudly when it happens to them. Just noticing. At what point does the newest occupant get to say “This is truly mine!”

I know, it’s a conundrum…

I do not so much preference one view over the other. In your case, and that of a prevalent school of thinking today, I only want to point out that it is a strange form of revisionism and reverse-engineering.

Also in your case (if you will permit a bolder statement without offense) you undermine your own right to be in the land you say was got through injustice. It is not just you though. It is millions of people who tske up that view. The anti-white movement turns virulently against itself. Psychologically I can think of nothing more strange. Myself, I do not want to live in such a state. So I entertain the sort of ideas Bowden talks about and therefore other sorts of perspectives.

You have embodied a self-consuming existential philosophy that you seem to totalize. I seek an antidote for it. And it is a big ‘it’. It is an immense psychological edifice.

You further go on to imply that tribal conquests of the lands of other tribes is somehow problematic to my view, suggesting as a resolution to this supposed problem that those like myself could 'say something like "Well, that is internecine struggle"' - but, for me, this is not even a problem in the first place: land theft is simply wrong whoever commits the offense, whether tribe from tribe or European from African.

To me this is proof of its unrealness. It is therefore a genuine or an absolute idealism. The Cat Bird’s seat of sheer idealism. I am not unsusceptible to this way of seeing though. So I acknowledge that that is the case.

I'm not especially interested in Marx's supposed influence in this area, because right is right whoever affirms it: in general, it is simply wrong to steal from others that which they legitimately possess (right, hq?).

Since that is so you will by choice be always on the outside of understanding something crucial to and about our present.

I had a bit of a read (though incomplete) of the speech by Jonathan Bowden the YT video of which you linked to. I think it's pretty misguided, although there are aspects that seem sane, such as his objection to US warmongering in the Middle East.

He reveals his true colours in his objection to Barack Obama as POTUS on the basis of his race. That's a great segue into this:

I agree: misguided as in running against the common current.

It was truly a just and proper act that Obama was elected. His presidency, oddly enough, began the shattering in evidence today. Again: just noticing. Who can say where it will all lead. So simultaneously it heralded the beginning of the opening of cracks in the social fabric. This is part of my point (and note I voted for him the first round): the righteous act, the thing that seems ‘right & good’ does not lead to that outcome. It leads to other outcomes, not those desired. That is the point where I, personally, begin to consider the arguments of those of more conservative ideological orientation: Weaver, Guénon, Evola. I have to turn against that internal structures established in me.

To entertain their ideas is, it seems, to turn against entire ‘edifices’ in ourselves. But don’t ask me what the right ordering (of culture, of the world) is: I am uncertain and undecided.

You quote me asking you: "Are you brave enough to come out and express [the motivating views of yours to which you only vaguely allude] explicitly?"

You respond: "I believe so."

Only to the extent of referencing the speech of another man, it seems.

Cheap shot! I only have so much energy and time available.

In fact my life (that is my intellectual and spiritual life) is dedicated to trying to understand things better. I feel — no I am certain — that I’ve been in deprogramming processes and I have observed that they take so much time.

[Harry Baird]

AJ,

In response to your most recent message to me:

Your definition of historical "revisionism" assumes that the "unrevised" history is the perspective held at the time by those who invaded the lands of others. This self-servingly leaves out the perspective of those whose lands were invaded. Can you explain why you preference the one over the other in what you seem to intend as some sort of objectively correct ("unrevised") history?

People who have invaded and occupied the lands of others always complain loudly when it happens to them. Just noticing.

That doesn't answer my question, and, moreover it assumes not only that land theft after land theft after land theft - into the indeterminate past - on all lands is the reality, but also that land theft is thereby justified. It isn't.

So, I ask you again: why do you preference the view of the thief over that of the thieved-from in determining the "unrevised" history of land theft?

There's also a deep irony that your observation applies so deliciously to yourself: although you endorse the European invasion and occupation of the lands of native Americans, you complain loudly when you perceive that, demographically, the same thing is now happening to "your" people on those lands.

Also in your case (if you will permit a bolder statement without offense) you undermine your own right to be in the land you say was got through injustice.

I've already addressed that statement (and very recently).

You have embodied a self-consuming existential philosophy that you seem to totalize. I seek an antidote for it.

Huh. Surely that's not the statement of judgement that it appears to be, because one such as yourself who is beyond all political perspectives and merely interested in looking at them all objectively would never make such a judgemental statement.

Just sayin'.

I agree: misguided as in running against the common current.

No, misguided as in "wrongly directed; mistaken".

It was truly a just and proper act that Obama was elected.

So, do you disagree with Jonathan Bowden that Obama's race in and of itself disqualifies him from occupying the post of President of the USA?

You quote me asking you: "Are you brave enough to come out and express [the motivating views of yours to which you only vaguely allude] explicitly?"

You respond: "I believe so."

Only to the extent of referencing the speech of another man, it seems.

Cheap shot!

Not at all. I gave you the opportunity earlier to explicitly affirm or deny your "motivating views". You dodged (ignored) it. It's not "cheap" then to point out your lack of bravery. Here's what I'm referring to:

And this pushes me back into the ideas I have entertained about more strict hierarchies as being necessary. And I do mean exactly what you think I am merely alluding to.

What I think you're alluding to is that, in your view, Africans are a primitive people, and that they are thus on a lower rung of the "strict hierarchy", and, thus, that Africans need or at least ought to be governed (to use the sort of euphemistic term I imagine you preferring) by Europeans.

How close am I to understanding your allusion?

Feel free to bravely - but belatedly - answer that question.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

AJ,

In response to your most recent message to me:

Your definition of historical "revisionism" assumes that the "unrevised" history is the perspective held at the time by those who invaded the lands of others. This self-servingly leaves out the perspective of those whose lands were invaded. Can you explain why you preference the one over the other in what you seem to intend as some sort of objectively correct ("unrevised") history?

People who have invaded and occupied the lands of others always complain loudly when it happens to them. Just noticing.

That doesn't answer my question, and, moreover it assumes not only that land theft after land theft after land theft - into the indeterminate past - on all lands is the reality, but also that land theft is thereby justified. It isn't.

So, I ask you again: why do you preference the view of the thief over that of the thieved-from in determining the "unrevised" history of land theft?

There's also a deep irony that your observation applies so deliciously to yourself: although you endorse the European invasion and occupation of the lands of native Americans, you complain loudly when you perceive that, demographically, the same thing is now happening to "your" people on those lands.

Also in your case (if you will permit a bolder statement without offense) you undermine your own right to be in the land you say was got through injustice.

I've already addressed that statement (and very recently).

You have embodied a self-consuming existential philosophy that you seem to totalize. I seek an antidote for it.

Huh. Surely that's not the statement of judgement that it appears to be, because one such as yourself who is beyond all political perspectives and merely interested in looking at them all objectively would never make such a judgemental statement.

Just sayin'.

I agree: misguided as in running against the common current.

No, misguided as in "wrongly directed; mistaken".

It was truly a just and proper act that Obama was elected.

So, do you disagree with Jonathan Bowden that Obama's race in and of itself disqualifies him from occupying the post of President of the USA?

You quote me asking you: "Are you brave enough to come out and express [the motivating views of yours to which you only vaguely allude] explicitly?"

You respond: "I believe so."

Only to the extent of referencing the speech of another man, it seems.

Cheap shot!

Not at all. I gave you the opportunity earlier to explicitly affirm or deny your "motivating views". You dodged (ignored) it. It's not "cheap" then to point out your lack of bravery. Here's what I'm referring to:

And this pushes me back into the ideas I have entertained about more strict hierarchies as being necessary. And I do mean exactly what you think I am merely alluding to.

What I think you're alluding to is that, in your view, Africans are a primitive people, and that they are thus on a lower rung of the "strict hierarchy", and, thus, that Africans need or at least ought to be governed (to use the sort of euphemistic term I imagine you preferring) by Europeans.

How close am I to understanding your allusion?

Feel free to bravely - but belatedly - answer that question.

White South Africans are the most genuinely and rabidly racist people I have ever encountered. I was talking to one old white South African immigrant from a neighbouring property who kept referring to 'bleck' people as 'gorillas'. And yes, South Africans are fanatically religious. Apparently they believe that they are bringing their 'endearing' form of kristianity here to 'educate us heathens'.

[attofishpi]

I guess my point is, don't be so fast to exclude the white race's involvement in the Rwandan tragedy.

Well, of course..and don't tack.

"White race" whatever that is you fucking racist kunt were responsible for a Hutu that was married to a Tutsi, killing his wife.

Hey, "white" people are responsible for men chopping heads off of people in front of children, and then massacaring children.


..does it take a list? or can you lefty racist kunt just accept THE fact that U R A FUCKING RACIST.


(ITS OK, BLAME THE WHITE PEOPLE...when in doubt...COS THAT IS NOT RACIST)

..if u want to simply admit to being stupid, I guess I could accept that. (most racists are stupid)

[Harry Baird]

ITS OK, BLAME THE WHITE PEOPLE...when in doubt...

Quite right, atto! The white people have been absolutely negligent, and are totally to blame.

They should have handed out far, far harder and more punishing whippings than they did.

A TRULY good whippin' of the black folk would sure have instilled sufficient discipline as for the Rwandan tragedy not to have ever occurred, nor even to have been possible.

White people, take a good hard look in the mirror. And I sure hope you're holding your whip when you do so.

[Harry Baird]

White South Africans are the most genuinely and rabidly racist people I have ever encountered. I was talking to one old white South African immigrant from a neighbouring property who kept referring to 'bleck' people as 'gorillas'.

I tried to find for you a YouTube video I once saw years back in which a South African farmer affirmed, alongside one of his black workers, who obviously didn't understand English, that that black worker and blacks like him were just monkeys on the basis of various anatomical features which he got that worker to demonstrate for the camera. The worker was smiling throughout, and obviously didn't at all understand how demeaningly he was being described as. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a monkey either, but clearly the intent was to disparage and demean).

Sadly (?) I couldn't find that video for you. It seems to have disappeared into the ether.

[attofishpi]

ITS OK, BLAME THE WHITE PEOPLE...when in doubt...

Quite right, atto! The white people have been absolutely negligent, and are totally to blame.

They should have handed out far, far harder and more punishing whippings than they did.

A TRULY good whippin' of the black folk would sure have instilled sufficient discipline as for the Rwandan tragedy not to have ever occurred, nor even to have been possible.

White people, take a good hard look in the mirror. And I sure hope you're holding your whip when you do so.

Well Harry I'm not sure what to do since I am of Indian descent.

Am I to still consider you are not being racist against "white" people?

Indeed, as a 'black' person. should I agree with you and seeds blatant racism against "white" people?

[Harry Baird]

Well Harry I'm not sure what to do since I am of Indian descent.

I dig it.

Am I to still consider you are not being racist against "white" people?

I can't tell you what to consider, but is there any reason to think I'm being racist in any way, against anybody at all? If so, what is it?

[attofishpi]

u fucked up - look above at your disgusting racist post. (do u think racism works one way - the darker the skin the more innocent?)

I'm pretty certain u r above that.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

ITS OK, BLAME THE WHITE PEOPLE...when in doubt...

Quite right, atto! The white people have been absolutely negligent, and are totally to blame.

They should have handed out far, far harder and more punishing whippings than they did.

A TRULY good whippin' of the black folk would sure have instilled sufficient discipline as for the Rwandan tragedy not to have ever occurred, nor even to have been possible.

White people, take a good hard look in the mirror. And I sure hope you're holding your whip when you do so.

Well Harry I'm not sure what to do since I am of Indian descent.

Am I to still consider you are not being racist against "white" people?

Indeed, as a 'black' person. should I agree with you and seeds blatant racism against "white" people?

Indian?

[attofishpi]

Quite right, atto! The white people have been absolutely negligent, and are totally to blame.

They should have handed out far, far harder and more punishing whippings than they did.

A TRULY good whippin' of the black folk would sure have instilled sufficient discipline as for the Rwandan tragedy not to have ever occurred, nor even to have been possible.

White people, take a good hard look in the mirror. And I sure hope you're holding your whip when you do so.

Well Harry I'm not sure what to do since I am of Indian descent.

Am I to still consider you are not being racist against "white" people?

Indeed, as a 'black' person. should I agree with you and seeds blatant racism against "white" people?

Indian?

Wot?

[Harry Baird]

u fucked up - look above at your disgusting racist post. (do u think racism works one way - the darker the skin the more innocent?)

I'm pretty certain u r above that.

In that post I was ironically riffing off certain facts. It is a fact that white people have enslaved black people whom they whipped for misbehaviour. In all honesty, I don't know whether or not this occurred in Rwanda specifically, but that's not really the point.

Have black people committed horrors upon white people as systemically as white people have upon them? I don't see any evidence for this. Would they have done so given the same opportunity whites have had in the reverse? I really don't know. Maybe, but I doubt it. What do you think?

[Harry Baird]

Have black people committed horrors upon white people as systemically as white people have upon them? I don't see any evidence for this. Would they have done so given the same opportunity whites have had in the reverse? I really don't know. Maybe, but I doubt it. What do you think?

Go on, atto. Here's your opportunity to say, "Yes, as an Indian, I certainly would have been just as cruel to whites as they have been to my people given the chance. Colonisation? That would have been just the bloody start!"

That would certainly help your case a great deal: whites have got nothing on Indians when it comes to imperialistic tendencies! So stop picking on the white folk!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well Harry I'm not sure what to do since I am of Indian descent.

Am I to still consider you are not being racist against "white" people?

Indeed, as a 'black' person. should I agree with you and seeds blatant racism against "white" people?

Indian?

Wot?

I wouldn't have picked that from your photo, that's all

[attofishpi]

Indian?

Wot?

I wouldn't have picked that from your photo, that's all

Yah. Apparantly the skin colour matters ...and that is the point I am making to Harry and seeds.

That THEY are being racist, that racism works in both directions and lefty fucking twats like these are only amplifying an issue that the rest of us no longer subscribe to...SO FUCK OFF U LEFTY RACISTS ......it's really that simple.