Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

Indeed, I suspect that what people of color and women and homosexuals and Jews are most interested in, in regard to your own "serious philosophy" here, is what their actual fate might be if you and those like Satyr do acquire the political power to enforce their own pie in the sky dogmas.

It is not what I deign for *them* but what they are choosing for themselves.

Right, and what the Jews chose for themselves in Nazi Germany was merely incidental to Hitler in his pursuit of The Final Solution.

People of color -- do you not follow current events? -- are agreeing more and more that relatively homogeneous nations (*white, European* for example) should be allowed to manage the demographics of their own countries.

Right, and they are all champions of The Great Replacement Theory, of course.

So, again, you are in a position of power in a community. What, morally and politically, would this fabled white culture of yours embrace in terms of legal prescriptions and proscriptions? And [of course] white European culture itself has changed dramatically in any number of ways down through the ages.

Also, what policies would you pursue in regard to those other than the white folks? Would the races be forcably separated? Would there be a separate economy, a separate government? Back to "white" and "colored" signs being strewn throughout the community? Back to miscegenation laws? Back to eugenics?

Again do you not follow current events?

Translation: "If you did follow current events, you would think about all of this exactly as I do."

I would agree completely with this:

There are a great number, a growing number, of homosexuals who have come to realize their essential *disordered* state of "perverted orientation" and though they may not be capable of reversing their homosexual tendencies have made many many statements saying that a heterosexual stance and a heterosexual cultural ethic is better and that they have opted to support heterosexuality and heterosexual unions especially those that produce children. Many who were obsessed sodomites are coming to the conclusion that fucking the ass of another man (excuse my unvarnished way of putting it) is actually pretty disgusting. I read one article where one such man quoted Allen Ginsberg" who write somewhere "Who really wants to get fucked int he ass anyway?" I don't know what exactly they do as an alternative but their choice seems at least wholesome from my perspective.

Not that this isn't but another example of your own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. On the contrary, true philosophers and true scientists have long established beyond all doubt that homosexuality is solely about being fucked up the ass and "grooming" children to champion pedophilia?

There is a huge movement -- where the heck do you read Iambiguous? -- of anti-feminist women who are rejecting in absolute terms the primary tenets of feminist ideology. Their motto is "Different and not the same". Many of them write persuasively about their desire and need to recover traditional (biological they say) grounding of femininity and motherhood. I don't agree with their choices but again -- what can I do?

Sure, there are women up and down the ideological spectrum with conflicitng views of feminism. But if they truly grasped the nature of biological imperatives as you do, they too would all think exactly as you do.

Then there is the movement within the Jewish community to renounce the fundamentals of classical Jewish belief: chosenness, perennial victimhood, the view that *the world* is out to get them and that *Haman* is always out there lurking and hunting. Many have written articles in which they describe their own process of rejecting these arcane, paranoid beliefs. I can link you with DOZENS who say that it is no longer possible to hold the (false) belief that Israel is a unique possession, granted by a supernatural authority, to the Jewish people. And since they do not believe it *right* that a people define themselves through absurd definitions they renounce both Jewishness and Judaism.

Same thing. Even though there are many, many conflicting assessments of what Jewish culture is or ought to be and any number of Jews who do not believe in God at all, they all get reduced down to your own dogmatic "intellectual assessment" here.



Note to Satyr:

How about it? Assuming that he is not you [and you are not him] invite him over to the clique/claque. Then, in regard to people of color and women and homosexuals and Jews, etc., you both spell out in greater detail what policies you would pursue if were in power in a particular community.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Assuming that he is not you [and you are not him]

Wait, what if “he is you” but — now stay with me here! — “you are not him”?

Have you run through that one? Really, it holds interesting potentials.

Or let’s assume “he is not you” but “you are him”.

Hmmmmm?

Doppelgänger territory! I’m getting Die Gänsehaut!

[For pure, unadulterated amusement, Iambiguous, you are a close second to the forum’s genuine Meister, Immanuel!]

[iambiguous]

Assuming that he is not you [and you are not him]

Wait, what if “he is you” but — now stay with me here! — “you are not him”?

Have you run through that one? Really, it holds interesting potentials.

Or let’s assume “he is not you” but “you are him”.

Hmmmmm?

Doppelgänger territory! I’m getting Die Gänsehaut!

[For pure, unadulterated amusement, Iambiguous, you are a close second to the forum’s genuine Meister, Immanuel!]

Absolutely shameless!!

In other words, let's get back to this:

So, again, you are in a position of power in a community. What, morally and politically, would this fabled white culture of yours embrace in terms of legal prescriptions and proscriptions? And [of course] white European culture itself has changed dramatically in any number of ways down through the ages.

Also, what policies would you pursue in regard to those other than the white folks? Would the races be forcibly separated? Would there be a separate economy, a separate government? Back to "white" and "colored" signs being strewn throughout the community? Back to miscegenation laws? Back to eugenics?

And...

But, in my view, what they won't tell you [there or here] is what actual policies they would pursue if they were in a position of power in a particular community. Would they go as far as, say, the Nazis? Or perhaps something a bit less draconian?

[Immanuel Can]

God's love is conditional.
Bw what I say and you get the reward; disobey and be punished.

If you use the word "conditional" that way, then all love is "conditional."

One thing it's "conditional" upon is consent. "Love" without consent is imposition, enslavement or rape, not love. Another is on being substantial, rather than just a personal feeling -- love that will do nothing for its object may be accompanied by a feeling, a sentiment, a jolt in the personal nervous system, but it's not actual love. Another is sacrifice: a "love" that simply will not give of self or commit is also not genuine love. In such senses, yes, of course love is "conditional": not all objects are worthy of being loved, and not all so-called "love" is more than smoke-and-mirrors.

But I have to say that your idea that it's a simplistic reward-punishment equation, while common enough among the critics, is simply naive. Christians are not motivated by those considerations, but rather by the sorts of considerations I've listed above: by the genuineness of God's love, by His sacrifice for us, by His actual commitment to us and our reciprocating and grateful commitment to him. Rewards and punishments are simply insufficient inducements to produce salvation: human beings are notoriously only lightly concerned with long-term consequences, especially in the presence of immediate counter-inducements (which we all have) and even more especially when even believing in those consequences requires faith rather than first-hand experience.

God's love is indeed not without conditions. So is your own. So is everybody's. All love is subject to conditions that make it right and genuine. The question is only whether they are the right conditions or the wrong ones.

[Sculptor]

God's love is conditional.
Bw what I say and you get the reward; disobey and be punished.

If you use the word "conditional" that way, then all love is "conditional."

You sad fucker.

[Immanuel Can]

They are just three places of thousands of places you can visit and see examples of what are claimed to be the remains of ancestral species that evolved into modern humans.

These are the same sources that once backed the monkey-to-man model that is now defunct. And yes, there are multitudes of them backing the various "common ancestor" theories. But as with the monkey-to-man thesis, they just keep being revised and persisting, every time they fail or conflict.

And you can understand that two ways: one is that it's just science revising and progressing; the other is that science is a human enterprise, one that in theory should be devoid of things like egos, pre-existing agendas, financial considerations, reputational concerns, politics, prestige, and so on...but which in reality is subject to agendas, because it's being done by fallible humans, and this persistent refusal to retract, admit being wrong or to drop a seriously troubled thesis bespeaks a deep dishonesty that should be concerning to any genuine scientist or person interested in the truth.

[Will Bouwman]

They are just three places of thousands of places you can visit and see examples of what are claimed to be the remains of ancestral species that evolved into modern humans.

These are the same sources that once backed the monkey-to-man model that is now defunct. And yes, there are multitudes of them backing the various "common ancestor" theories. But as with the monkey-to-man thesis, they just keep being revised and persisting, every time they fail or conflict.

And you can understand that two ways: one is that it's just science revising and progressing...

Which is what people who do not have a religious agenda generally do. People with a religious agenda used to claim that the human eye was an example of irreducible complexity. Some knuckle draggers still do, but since it has been pointed out that there is considerable evidence that eyes did evolve, some proponents of intelligent design have turned their attention to the flagella of certain bacteria and the structure of DNA. No sensible person is waiting for creationists to apologise for being wrong about eyes.

...the other is that science is a human enterprise, one that in theory should be devoid of things like egos, pre-existing agendas, financial considerations, reputational concerns, politics, prestige, and so on...but which in reality is subject to agendas, because it's being done by fallible humans...

There's no contradiction in holding both those positions, in fact I have been at pains to point out that demonstrably both are true.

...and this persistent refusal to retract, admit being wrong or to drop a seriously troubled thesis bespeaks a deep dishonesty that should be concerning to any genuine scientist or person interested in the truth.

Your one example of fraud, Piltdown Man, has been retracted. Mistakes have been, and will continue to be made and corrected; that is just how science works.

[Immanuel Can]

They are just three places of thousands of places you can visit and see examples of what are claimed to be the remains of ancestral species that evolved into modern humans.

These are the same sources that once backed the monkey-to-man model that is now defunct. And yes, there are multitudes of them backing the various "common ancestor" theories. But as with the monkey-to-man thesis, they just keep being revised and persisting, every time they fail or conflict.

And you can understand that two ways: one is that it's just science revising and progressing...

Which is what people who do not have a religious agenda generally do.

Yes, that can happen. So can it be the case that the person in question has an Atheist agenda, so refuses to entertain any possibility but that Evolutionism is true. That seems to be exactly what happened in the Thomas Nagel case, wherein Atheists flayed an Atheist for casting doubt on the Evolutionist narrative.

...it has been pointed out that there is considerable evidence that eyes did evolve,

Oh, you mean the "light-sensitive spot" excuse? That's not "considerable evidence," I have to say. In fact, it begs the whole question and ignores what the ID people are saying...that it's the lack of transitional forms that's the real problem. For it has to be the case that every mutation has to contain a definite survival advantage, or it cannot be selected-for. (Darwin himself insisted that was the case.) So the attempts by the anti-ID set to describe how that procession of events would go have actually been wildly implausible, given Evolutionism's own requirements.

So ID folks shouldn't "apologize" at all about eyes, or bacterial flagella, or triadic symbiosis, or any of the other irreducibly complex evidence in the universe. They should politely refuse to be badgered, bullied, insulted or threatened into silence, instead.

...the other is that science is a human enterprise, one that in theory should be devoid of things like egos, pre-existing agendas, financial considerations, reputational concerns, politics, prestige, and so on...but which in reality is subject to agendas, because it's being done by fallible humans...

There's no contradiction in holding both those positions, in fact I have been at pains to point out that demonstrably both are true.

Right. Well, then, the only question to be settled is the question of which is the case in the "common ancestor" argument. And since, by their own admission, none of the theorizers have any access to a putative "common ancestor," we can hardly fail to realize that their postulate is not a scientifically-tested one, but a mere speculation, a case of the telling of a good myth for which they actually lack the scientific evidence they would need to substantiate their own theory.

Let's just support that claim, because many people would find it very surprising. Here's Ernst Mayr, who is one of the leading secular Biological Evolutionists. Here is what he says is how his discipline works:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (quoted from Scientific American).

In other words, we don't do normal science on Evolutionary questions. We do what he admits is the making of "historical narrative," which is both "tentative" and a mere "try" at explaining. It's not the product of experimentation and testing, but of storytelling.

Mistakes have been, and will continue to be made and corrected; that is just how science works.

It's how science is supposed to work, in theory. How it works in practice is often quite different, as many cases can be adduced to show. As Kuhn and others have argued, science often lurches about in a series of "paradigm shifts," rather than in making smooth, ideal progress from less to greater wisdom. And science, like all human knowledge, gets sidetracked by ideology...sometimes for centuries, as geocentric cosmology, alchemy, Aristotelianism, and so forth certainly show us.

We could suppose that modern science is miraculously too wise and honest to be like that at all now. But if we suppose that, I think we do not understand human nature. When the stakes are big enough, all people are susceptible to ideological bribery. And it certainly explains how the monkey-to-man theory got its original traction, and now retains so much in the public imagination, in the face of the contrary evidence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In other words, let's get back to this:

Numerous times I make it plain, and will do so here again, that I am really here for my own purposes. It is a type of survival strategy for forums like this where people do not agree and moreover fundamentally disagree. If you resolve to write and express yourself without concern for what others think it is, perhaps regrettably, a bit like writing on a blog, but in any case it is the strategy I have chosen.

Another item: You, Immanuel, Walker (you three principally) are wonderful teachers. True, you do not achieve the teaching result that you desire -- a sort of conversion to your perspectives -- and you end up, for me in any case, teaching me what perspectives I must not have.

So the way I relate to you is similar to a technique for reading literature that I adopted: to read backwards and against the grain of what the author intended. To recognize their ideological position and the value-set they were operating with and wanting to convince you was *right*, but to read in such a way that it points out and opens up for consideration other perspectives, and perspectives that may have gone directly against the grain of what they wished you to see or believe. We are surrounded by a constant stream of declarative statements. I am reminded of Richard Weaver who said "All speech is sermonic".

The word sermon derives from an Indo-European root:

ser-
To protect.
1. Extended form serw-. conserve, observe, preserve, reserve, reservoir from Latin servāre, to keep, preserve.
2. Perhaps suffixed lengthened-grade form sēr-ōs-. hero from Greek hērōs, "protector" hero.

So the object of sermonic speech is to make statements the intention of which is to influence to a given perspective. Advertising is a use of sermonic speech as is all discourse. It is a wide-ranging idea.

And let me make this plain: I do not have any confidence in your sermons. Nor those of Immanuel Can. Walker is incomprehensible but he is a good example, also of the Boomer age-group, of a terribly confused man. In any case this is what I take away from your discourses in essence. I puncture them like a worn out tire and they deflate.

In your case you point out right at the start that you are *fractured & divided* and I have always valued your honesty. You are, I think it fair to say, a classic "Boomer". You must be of the same generation as Immanuel (if I deduce correctly). In your case your experiences, in combination with your inner predilection, has reduced you to a position of impotence. Yet you are stuck within a progressivist's outlook, stuck in a dilemma which you express (over & over & over again) with a sort of question about "people of color and women and homosexuals and Jews".

You are therefore involved in and aware of the so-called Culture Wars but also the demographic and socio-ideological struggles on-going in the West, and of course you are completely ensconced within the American Reality. What this means, or one thing I believe that it means for you, is that you are deeply divided about how to view your own social and cultural position as a White. I mean, I think it reduces down to this and that this is your *primary conflict*. You have no idea how to view and what relationship to have to your own whiteness.

There is also conflict about the role of woman, about feminist ideology (or the opposite of that ideology which is harder to define, and harder to politicize, because whatever it is it can hardly be expressed today, associated as it is with wrongthink).

Also, you continually bring up the issue of *Jews* but you have no comprehension, on any level, what Jew means on any but the most superficial level. You bring up *Jews* because in every post of yours there is a backdrop, and that backdrop, as is so common today, is the invocation of Nazism and the dreaded Nazi. Every issue for you resolves into a simple binary: if there is opposition to a progressive tenet, thus Nazism. If there is any recoiling from a progressive (or perhaps radical) posture, thus Nazism. It is a shame really, from my perspective, that you have no interest in Jewish history nor do you have any sense at all what a Jew is. You would never be able to understand antisemitism for that reason. And going further you would not be able to understand that Judaism itself, in the most essential sense, contains within itself and indeed cultivates the seeds of antisemitic attitude. True, I have just made a controversial assertion yet it is one I can defend without breathing hard.

Additionally, you are also starkly unaware of Jewish-Zionist co-creation of the conditions that contributed to the European slaughter. And you are starkly unaware of how deeply and commitedly racist is the traditional Judaic doctrine. As I mentioned somewhere else the Nazi's imitated or borrowed from Jewish racial ideology of Jewish racial superiority and turned it against the European Jew. And when the Nazis created no miscegenation laws many traditional Jews wrote that they welcomed them. The object being to keep Jews from *mixing* with Gentile culture.

So, all of this you know nothing about. And your employment of and evocation of the Nazi specter functions for you in your ridiculous pseudo-discourse just as it does popularly today within hysterical progressivism. In no sense do I propose or support Nazism or Nazi policies -- yet you will say such a thing or imply it -- and I say that the way you use the Nazi specter is despicable.

des•pi•ca•ble (ˈdɛs pɪ kə bəl, dɪˈspɪk ə-)

adj.
deserving to be despised; contemptible.

While in truth I do not despise you I do see your usages as contemptible. And as always none of this, literally none, is personal. You are one of a million people who find themselves in your dilemma. I speak to you as if it is personal but for me it all has to do with objective attitude.

You are a man who demonstrates and exemplifies a turning against your own core being. But what do I mean? I definitely mean Occidental culture and those platform that we have developed and carved out. Our institutions and traditions. Even of course our religious institutions and traditions. But I also certainly mean a man who has no other conceptual option but to turn against his own being at a somatic-physical (racial-cultural-social) level. You embody therefore what we are coming to understand as *anti-whiteness*.

One has to seek out the root of this destructive, self-wounding, self-intolerant psychological stance and attitude. This is not easy by any means because so many obstacles have been placed in front of a solid, sound, upstanding, protective and if you will *heroic* self-identification and self-toleration.

Once again I post here a discourse that had and still has a strong effect on the way I think.

Note that I think it is fair to ask and to be concerned about what re-identification or recovery of self-confirmation and self-empowerment entails. But since you are completely unaware of the discourse that the European New Right is based in you would have no way of understanding the degree to which it is anything but Nazism warmed-over. It is far more a synthesis of ideas that span different, and often contradictory, political social and spiritual ideologies. But beyond any doubt it is Eurocentric.

Now you may wonder "Where is the conclusive statement here?" "Where is the Manifesto of the political plan?" "What does all of this mean?"

As I have said -- about a dozen times! -- I am not a political activist and I do not have a program to reveal. I consider myself a researcher. And I also consider myself to be a person in a process of self-education. Part of that involves deprogramming from established perspectives. And these are processes that could well take a lifetime.

[iambiguous]

In other words, let's get back to this:

So, again, you are in a position of power in a community. What, morally and politically, would this fabled white culture of yours embrace in terms of legal prescriptions and proscriptions? And [of course] white European culture itself has changed dramatically in any number of ways down through the ages.

Also, what policies would you pursue in regard to those other than the white folks? Would the races be forcibly separated? Would there be a separate economy, a separate government? Back to "white" and "colored" signs being strewn throughout the community? Back to miscegenation laws? Back to eugenics?

And...

But, in my view, what they won't tell you [there or here] is what actual policies they would pursue if they were in a position of power in a particular community. Would they go as far as, say, the Nazis? Or perhaps something a bit less draconian?

Numerous times I make it plain, and will do so here again, that I am really here for my own purposes. It is a type of survival strategy for forums like this where people do not agree and moreover fundamentally disagree. If you resolve to write and express yourself without concern for what others think it is, perhaps regrettably, a bit like writing on a blog, but in any case it is the strategy I have chosen.

Well, in that case, we are just wasting each other's time. I am only interested in morality to the extent that technical/theoretical assessments/conclusions are brought down out of the didactic -- and in your case, in my opinion, pedantic -- clouds.

And in regard to "survival strategy", I suspect that for those here who are not members of the Northern European white race or who are women or homosexuals or Jews, their main concern would be in regard to those who do act out your own political prejudices qua "my way or the highway" dogmas. And just because you choose not to, doesn't mean that the prejudices you express here won't by acted on by others. Nazis or not.





Note to others:

Well, that ought to be the end of it between him and I. I didn't read the rest of this particular "wall of words", so for those who did, if he did note something you feel ought to be brought to my attention, by all means, note it

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, in that case, we are just wasting each other's time.

No, no one wastes my time. I resolve to maximize all encounters. My purpose is to learn all I can about your (debilitated) way of seeing and thinking. You are an accomplished teacher.

I wrote a careful, considered response to you, or toward you. But you do not care. And I have no problem with that. I am surprised only because in my own case I want to know how people I disagree with or don’t understand think.

I still gained benefit since I resolve not to lose.

[iambiguous]

Well, in that case, we are just wasting each other's time.

No, no one wastes my time. I resolve to maximize all encounters. My purpose is to learn all I can about your (debilitated) way of seeing and thinking. You are an accomplished teacher.

I wrote a careful, considered response to you, or toward you. But you do not care. And I have no problem with that. I am surprised only because in my own case I want to know how people I disagree with or don’t understand think.

I still gained benefit since I resolve not to lose.

Anyone else?

[Dubious]

Well, in that case, we are just wasting each other's time.

No, no one wastes my time. I resolve to maximize all encounters. My purpose is to learn all I can about your (debilitated) way of seeing and thinking. You are an accomplished teacher.

I wrote a careful, considered response to you, or toward you. But you do not care. And I have no problem with that. I am surprised only because in my own case I want to know how people I disagree with or don’t understand think.

I still gained benefit since I resolve not to lose.

Anyone else?

Hard to imagine anything more futile!

[iambiguous]

No, no one wastes my time. I resolve to maximize all encounters. My purpose is to learn all I can about your (debilitated) way of seeing and thinking. You are an accomplished teacher.

I wrote a careful, considered response to you, or toward you. But you do not care. And I have no problem with that. I am surprised only because in my own case I want to know how people I disagree with or don’t understand think.

I still gained benefit since I resolve not to lose.

Anyone else?

Hard to imagine anything more futile!

We'll need a particular context, of course.

[Dubious]

Anyone else?

Hard to imagine anything more futile!

We'll need a particular context, of course.

The particular context, of course, are the chaotic horde of opinions that comprise nothing more than nothing; most of it vastly cliché ridden!