Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Wizard22]

That’s not a denial, dude. Just saying.

And you're a weasly little liar, just like Dpants where you get your reputation smearing from.

Quote me where I've "admitted" such. Or GTFO.


Anyway, enough derailing Alexis' thread and conversation. I'll ignore your vile slander.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That’s not a denial, dude. Just saying.

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

A counter-movement has been successfully initiated against people with distorted minds (Mick, Flash, Sculptor are good examples) who have assumed to themselves a false *moral righteousness*.

I have a strong feeling that the very popular and public rehearsal by Candice Owens in her resistance and opposition to the crushing effect of •cancellation• for wrongthink may have been one of the significant watershed moments.

It is interesting to consider the rallying point: declaiming the symbol of Christ the King as an act of resistance to an entire Hyper-Liberal authoritarian ideological structure.

The accusation that she is an anti-Semite is just the same as Mick’s (Flash’s, Sculptor’s etc) use of Nazi. But it has stopped working as well as it had in the past.

[Gary Childress]

That’s not a denial, dude. Just saying.

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

A counter-movement has been successfully initiated against people with distorted minds (Mick, Flash, Sculptor are good examples) who have assumed to themselves a false *moral righteousness*.

I have a strong feeling that the very popular and public rehearsal by Candice Owens in her resistance and opposition to the crushing effect of •cancellation• for wrongthink may have been one of the significant watershed moments.

It is interesting to consider the rallying point: declaiming the symbol of Christ the King as an act of resistance to an entire Hyper-Liberal authoritarian ideological structure.

The accusation that she is an anti-Semite is just the same as Mick’s (Flash’s, Sculptor’s etc) use of Nazi. But it has stopped working as well as it had in the past.

So now what? What is on the program list of things to do now that the word "Nazi" has lost its effectiveness in containment? Will there be a crackdown on deviant behavior? Or will ridicule alone be sufficient?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Could you repeat that question?

[Gary Childress]

Could you repeat that question?

I could but I'd rather not, since your choice is to mock it.

[Harbal]

That’s not a denial, dude. Just saying.

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

Would you say the same of the standard rhetorical weapon, "You are a paedophile"?

[promethean75]

Just relax for a second and think about this for the first time: if it weren't for the jewish scandal, the nazis wouldn't be thought of as any different than some other short lived political-military power in history.

It's just that becuz of what they did to the jews, the fact that the nazis were der Eindringling was somehow made more offensive.

Also, yes their scientific experiments with humans (jews or otherwise) were way too over the top and we coulda done without those, thank u.

But the german war machine, considered simpliciter, was a brilliant animal worthy only of admiration, reverence and respect. U can't let the fulminating pseudo-scientific mystics behind hitler and the german Reich detract from the other magnificent parts of the weltanschauung

[Alexis Jacobi]

That’s not a denial, dude. Just saying.

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

Would you say the same of the standard rhetorical weapon, "You are a paedophile"?

Obviously, any hot term (arising in cultural wars) can be abused.

There are really no “Nazis” today within conservatism nor even the more radical Dissident Right. And what those more radical Dissident Rightists actually think or write is generally unknown by most, and more often by those like Sculptor and Flash, who are badly informed and are not interested in being informed (nor in productive conversation).

The abuse of children’s sexuality, and the exploitation of it, is an issue predominantly visible in advertising. It is also an inevitability that, with general sexual liberation, that youth generally will desire sexual freedom and resist traditional restraints. And we are all aware that this happened over the last 50-60 years. And when pornography is de-stigmatized it is also inevitable that the subject of pornographic portrayals will gravitate to youth-imagery.

Again, once restraint is lifted, and no sound reason for restraint is believed in, desire careens toward fulfillment. Pornography for example becomes very quickly a psychological addiction. Simply because of the nature of sexuality.

You seem to remain immune to understanding the evolution of desire in the sense of lifting all restrictions. This is an incremental process. And now, more visibly, the adult gaze is being focused on children.

To shout “pedophile” in a too general sense is a form of mere name-calling and is therefore a rhetorical abuse. And most name-calling is of that order.

So the issue of what is pedophilia and who is one and who is not needs to be carefully clarified. Yet of course the whole issue extends out of the problematic issue of sexuality generally in all forms (the so-called Sexual Revolution is usually the referenced term) and if the present evolutions are “good” or have resulted in “bads”.

The nightclub with prancing trannies and children invited (and allowed by their parents) to participate is understood as •abuse• by some. Just a few years back the organizers would have been criminally charged. But now it is different. Boundaries are broken.

But of course, Harbal, little of this is on your radar of concern. The conversation about it might be slightly entertaining but you do not feel the need to engage morally with the issue, seemingly on any level.

[Gary Childress]

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

Would you say the same of the standard rhetorical weapon, "You are a paedophile"?

Obviously, any hot term (arising in cultural wars) can be abused.

There are really no “Nazis” today within conservatism nor even the more radical Dissident Right.

Well, there were a few people waving Nazi flags in Charlottesville at a rally called "Unite the Right". Is it safe to call them "Nazis" if they brandish Nazi flags?

[Harbal]

The standard rhetorical weapon “You are a Nazi!” has had its force drained out of it, I think. It has been useful for a long long time but I have a feeling its usefulness has been used up. Overplayed.

Would you say the same of the standard rhetorical weapon, "You are a paedophile"?

Obviously, any hot term (arising in cultural wars) can be abused.

There are really no “Nazis” today within conservatism nor even the more radical Dissident Right. And what those more radical Dissident Rightists actually think or write is generally unknown by most, and more often by those like Sculptor and Flash, who are badly informed and are not interested in being informed (nor in productive conversation).

The abuse of children’s sexuality, and the exploitation of it, is an issue predominantly visible in advertising. It is also an inevitability that, with general sexual liberation, that youth generally will desire sexual freedom and resist traditional restraints. And we are all aware that this happened over the last 50-60 years. And when pornography is de-stigmatized it is also inevitable that the subject of pornographic portrayals will gravitate to youth-imagery.

Again, once restraint is lifted, and no sound reason for restraint is believed in, desire careens toward fulfillment. Pornography for example becomes very quickly a psychological addiction. Simply because of the nature of sexuality.

You seem to remain immune to understanding the evolution of desire in the sense of lifting all restrictions. This is an incremental process. And now, more visibly, the adult gaze is being focused on children.

To shout “pedophile” in a too general sense is a form of mere name-calling and is therefore a rhetorical abuse. And most name-calling is of that order.

So if I don't happen to suffer a knee-jerk reaction of outrage in response to the thought of children witnessing some men dressed as women, would that warrant my being labelled a paedophile, or supporter of paedophilia? Would I be wrong to interpret it as a mindless, thuggish attempt at shutting me up?

But of course, Harbal, little of this is on your radar of concern. The conversation about it might be slightly entertaining but you do not feel the need to engage morally with the issue, seemingly on any level.

The moral implications of your position concern me quite a lot, as it happens.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, there were a few people waving Nazi flags in Charlottesville at a rally called "Unite the Right". Is it safe to call them "Nazis" if they brandish Nazi flags?

I think there was one person at Charlottesville who brought a swastika flag. No one (of those who organized that rally) knew who that person was. Son it was speculated that he and it was planted there. One photograph, universal condemnation.

Having studied the Alt-Right, and the Dissident Right, I know about them and what they think. And none that I have read could be called Nazis.

There were about 40 different groups that showed up there, and many from the Southern states concerned about •Southern heritage• and the issue of removing and destroying monuments.

To understand these people — their positions, their views — you would have to access and read their writing. Because I have done this I know. You know nothing and have no interest in knowing.

That is strategic but unfortunate. Strategic because by avoiding understanding •they• can be totally rejected. That is how the media universally covered Charlottesville. It is similar to the blanket assessment that all who favor Trump are •deplorables•.

But the real picture when it is fairly depicted and seen is usually always different.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So if I don't happen to suffer a knee-jerk reaction of outrage in response to the thought of children witnessing some men dressed as women, would that warrant my being labelled a paedophile, or supporter of paedophilia?

If you showed no interest in examining the wider issue (I briefly outlined it) you would be •somewhat complicit•.

And since in truth that is your position, I would assess you as •complicit•.

But I also recognize that you do not see yourself that way and you do not accept the set of value- and ethical-judgments that inform my (and “our”) views.

It’s a time of culture wars Old Bean. Wars involving concepts of value.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The issue of Charlottesville is not outside of the general concerns in this thread. Many people, some confused and groping for answers and certainty, gravitate to radical activism.

This book — I read it — offers a different angle of view.

[Harbal]

So if I don't happen to suffer a knee-jerk reaction of outrage in response to the thought of children witnessing some men dressed as women, would that warrant my being labelled a paedophile, or supporter of paedophilia?

If you showed no interest in examining the wider issue (I briefly outlined it) you would be •somewhat complicit•.

And since in truth that is your position, I would assess you as •complicit•.

But I also recognize that you do not see yourself that way and you do not accept the set of value- and ethical-judgments that inform my (and “our”) views.

It’s a time of culture wars Old Bean. Wars involving concepts of value.

I am complicit in what? A particular scenario was brought up. A group of children, accompanied by their parents, were invited to watch a drag performance. I am afraid that, in my shameful ignorance, I can't see the need for a horrified reaction to that. Could you explain why that situation is one of child abuse, and my attitude is one of support and complicity?

[Gary Childress]

Well, there were a few people waving Nazi flags in Charlottesville at a rally called "Unite the Right". Is it safe to call them "Nazis" if they brandish Nazi flags?

I think there was one person at Charlottesville who brought a swastika flag. No one (of those who organized that rally) knew who that person was. Son it was speculated that he and it was planted there. One photograph, universal condemnation.

Having studied the Alt-Right, and the Dissident Right, I know about them and what they think. And none that I have read could be called Nazis.

There were about 40 different groups that showed up there, and many from the Southern states concerned about •Southern heritage• and the issue of removing and destroying monuments.

To understand these people — their positions, their views — you would have to access and read their writing. Because I have done this I know. You know nothing and have no interest in knowing.

That is strategic but unfortunate. Strategic because by avoiding understanding •they• can be totally rejected. That is how the media universally covered Charlottesville. It is similar to the blanket assessment that all who favor Trump are •deplorables•.

But the real picture when it is fairly depicted and seen is usually always different.

Well, you know how us "lefty" "commies" are. But fair enough, if what you say of there being only one Nazi flag and it not having been supported by anyone else on the right.