Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

Finally, how do you, dear reader, as hypothetical victim of this hypothetical quandary, resolve it?

Answer: by not resolving it. The likelihood of those drawn to the polemical and eristic aspect of this metaphysical issue, is a living problem anchored in psychic confusion. (That is my present understanding). To resolve it would represent resolution and thus a solution of that problem itself. But the conflict is too seductive! One is addicted to it. One builds a home in it.

Give up your home?!? Are you mad?!?

[Alexis Jacobi]

(I really really loved those diagrams though. Did they take much time?)

Huar huar huar!

[Harry Baird]

Denial, defensiveness, projection, and character assassination. Reactive assertion of dominance.

Not a productive response but not a surprising one either.

I really really loved those diagrams though.

Neat, huh? Visual aids are a great way of engaging the audience with the ideas in a presentation, don't you think?

[Harry Baird]

Denial, defensiveness, projection, and character assassination. Reactive assertion of dominance.

I forgot to add: confusion and (explicit, unabashed) contradiction.

The full package!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be that as it may I’m going with this:

First error: the assertion that my quandary is unresolved. This is based on the false-assertion that a month, a year or ten years struggling with a huge civilizational issue (a defining metaphysics now in decline in the Occident — but only in the Occident) indicates failure or even an impasse.

You thought you found a crack; and you thought to exploit that crack with various levers. The effort is at its core destructive and undermining: because you live with exactly that sort of space. And that space is shared space. That is the situation we (Occidentals) find ourselves in. And we cannot resolve the conflict.

The real issue here — in the Occident and among Harvey Bard, Iwannaplato and so many others here — is actually your own unresolved relationship to the central issue. You are the Moderns; you are those •extruded• onto and into the present and these issues of metaphysics are ones that you cannot resolve.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: the assassination of character, and frankly any of our characters, has very little to do with the real issue: metaphysical realness and what must be recognized and served.

I will admit that in the examination and consideration of our psychology — these are after all issues pertaining to the soul — that character defects cannot be totally dismissed. And yes they have to be seen holistically as part of a whole.

But to imply that the •assassination of (your) character• was attempted on any level is paranoid and flatly wrong. This is not personal.

To reference your psychic and psychological (or perceptual/existential) position in a type of Manichaeism is realism: that is where you are located (again if your position has not mutated).

Since you have sucked yourself back into the conversation you are committed not to be a part of, my suggestion would be to talk of your own relationship to those core Christian (not to leave out the Catholic) ideas which have been so foundational to our culture.

Crack open a 40 oz caffeine drink and get to work, m’boy!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Visual aids are a great way of engaging the audience with the ideas in a presentation, don't you think?

They are moronic, in the true sense of the word.

[Wizard22]

Note: the assassination of character, and frankly any of our characters, has very little to do with the real issue: metaphysical realness and what must be recognized and served.

I will admit that in the examination and consideration of our psychology — these are after all issues pertaining to the soul — that character defects cannot be totally dismissed. And yes they have to be seen holistically as part of a whole.

But to imply that the •assassination of (your) character• was attempted on any level is paranoid and flatly wrong. This is not personal.

To reference your psychic and psychological (or perceptual/existential) position in a type of Manichaeism is realism: that is where you are located (again if your position has not mutated).

Since you have sucked yourself back into the conversation you are committed not to be a part of, my suggestion would be to talk of your own relationship to those core Christian (not to leave out the Catholic) ideas which have been so foundational to our culture.

Crack open a 40 oz caffeine drink and get to work, m’boy!

You inspire me to add more, Alexis.

It seems to me, the Occident is the way 'forward', into the 'future', a true 'progressivism'. But most of the old, is focused on the Old World. Protestants and Evangelicals, are strongly Zionist Israeli-loyalists. They are looking toward the Past. Zionist Jews and Judaism in general, are looking toward the Past. The Secularists and Atheists are looking...nowhere at all, merely caught up in socially-engineered trends and fads, truly Modern and Modernists. The simplest of minds are chasing the next dopamine-hit, as presented to them by popular television shows, movies, media, etc. The same applies to modern politics.

The problem with these conflicts, about the past and over the past, refuse to learn and appropriate from the past, what has already been won. That's why Iwan repeatedly, rapidly, misses-the-point whenever I reassert it. Catholicism, 'Traditional Christianity', already, very much, reformed, domesticated, and 'shaped' the European masses, peasantry, royalty, and Western Culture in general. In the other thread, Trajik Logic argues against me, 'but what about me and my independence/secular/atheist Morality', without investigating and inquiring where this hypothetical "objective morality" came from, from which societies, and which peoples/origins.

Are secularists parasites of Christians, or Christians parasites of secularists? The Cultural Dominance is clear. Christianity (Catholicism) won. Rome won. European civilization won. For 2000 years, it won, and continues to win.

The 'Protestant' Reformation, and the Enlightenment, are very recent, and in Iwan, or Trajik, or Harry, these are the same old Protestations of the recent century or two centuries. How far and long is your scope??? You think Protests are new? You think pagans and the unwashed masses, rebelling against the control and domination of The Church (Rome), are new? That they haven't been fought before? That they haven't been thought of before?

And yet, Secularism/Protestantism/Atheism/Leftism/Liberalism, for all its 'Liberties', has not produced anything similar, anything better, or anything close to Historical.

No new Moral innovations.

No new Ethical innovations.

No new Western Culture.


The Occident is, most probably, the only path 'Forward', because it does two things:
1) it does not deny what has already worked and is currently successful (because Objective Morality is timeless), and
2) many traditions, histories, and cultural-identities are worth keeping and defending, while moving forward.

[Harbal]

You inspire me to add more, Alexis.

[Wizard gets an erection, and Alexis runs from the room]



The curtain slowly falls.

[Dubious]

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.

Absolutely! We now need something worse to call each other to have a valid philosophic debate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, my insolent, rambunctious childrens, is an interesting topical talk between Adam Green, Keith Woods (moderator) and E. Aarvoll (I know nothing about him, this is the first I’ve heard of him).

You’ve got to remain aware that these are topics and issues being debated and ruminated culturally today. And there are many levels.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

I don’t quote full posts for the sake of the way the threads look — yet I believe that in this post you get to the core of the issue. I think this is because you have been examining the breadth of the cultural conversations occurring, more often than not, among the cancelled and the marginalized. Many are audacious and — at times I think this — not as well polished as they might be, but their concerns are real. And their work productive.

I wonder (for one example) as to where finally Adam Green will get to. He is extremely Christian-critical (and with some good reasons) and definitely Jewish-critical, but engages sincerely and directly with those defending the opposing side. He’s interviewed numerous rabbis as well.

For me the curious element is that — if Dawson is correct — we are in that Sixth Phase of an Occidental and Christian process. We might have our specific commitments in specific areas, but it is the whole picture that must concern us.

[Iwannaplato]

It seems to me, the Occident is the way 'forward', into the 'future', a true 'progressivism'. But most of the old, is focused on the Old World. Protestants and Evangelicals, are strongly Zionist Israeli-loyalists. They are looking toward the Past. Zionist Jews and Judaism in general, are looking toward the Past.

Well, this is a very odd line to take in a thread with a call for a restoration - which is all about bringing back something from...the past - and a restoration based on undoing 'mistakes' made....in the the past. I love also the generalization that Protestants and Evangelicals are strong Zionist Israel-Loyalists. And yes, I am aware of the phenomenon, but it's a poor generalization.

The problem with these conflicts, about the past and over the past, refuse to learn and appropriate from the past, what has already been won. That's why Iwan repeatedly, rapidly, misses-the-point whenever I reassert it. Catholicism, 'Traditional Christianity', already, very much, reformed, domesticated, and 'shaped' the European masses, peasantry, royalty, and Western Culture in general.

Wow. I never knew that. What a deep insight. Poor Wizard seems to forget that much of our earlier 'dialogue' was me trying to get him to look into the past.

In the other thread, Trajik Logic argues against me, 'but what about me and my independence/secular/atheist Morality', without investigating and inquiring where this hypothetical "objective morality" came from, from which societies, and which peoples/origins.

It's fun that you refer to it as 'this' hypothetical 'objective morality'...iow in the singular. Though it's not surprised you don't address 1) how you differ from traditional European morality, and not just a little, nor 2) seem to notice that the thread is focused on the metaphysical core aspect, as AJ sees, it of Catholicism. Which is not mere morality. It is something much more fundamental, for AJ, for believing Catholics, than it could possibly be for a secularist like Wizard.

Are secularists parasites of Christians, or Christians parasites of secularists? The Cultural Dominance is clear. Christianity (Catholicism) won. Rome won. European civilization won. For 2000 years, it won, and continues to win.

Ah, well, then there's no real problem.

The 'Protestant' Reformation, and the Enlightenment, are very recent, and in Iwan, or Trajik, or Harry, these are the same old Protestations of the recent century or two centuries.

The whole US is very recent. Many of the the things conservatives hold dear are very recent.

How far and long is your scope???

Here Wizard forgetting that I have been pointing our for a long time here that his scope was always very short in his pat assumption that conservativism is per se better.

You think Protests are new?

Well, no, lol.

You think pagans and the unwashed masses, rebelling against the control and domination of The Church (Rome), are new?

I love the Church conflated with Rome here. And to tease out the role of Christianity in the Roman Empire would be a large topic in an of itself.

That they haven't been fought before? That they haven't been thought of before?

Just keep on with the strawman questions. You think radicals haven't been co-opted by upcoming conservatives before? You think conservatives didn't hate the Jewish religion, that then separated from Judaism? You think conservatives didn't hate how pagan neosecular philosophy was combined with a non- European religion and used to unify an Empire - and not successfully in the long run - that was already in decline? I mean, I appreciate the inherent multiculturalism in your advocating for a return to a non-European religion, based on the beliefs and teachings of a radical progressive Jew, combined with the beliefs and teachings of someone who believed in reincarnation as did many early Christians.

And yet, Secularism/Protestantism/Atheism/Leftism/Liberalism, for all its 'Liberties', has not produced anything similar, anything better, or anything close to Historical.

Great, that removes the founders of the US, the Constitution, etc. Most of whom were Protestant, though they combined their ideas with...oops...Enlightenment ideas. Now Wizard may say that they did a lot of bad things, but the problem with this is that his vitriol is aimed over and again at the Left. Whereas then his beliefs are certainly not aligned with the vast majority of conservatives and the Right. They should also be toxic in his mind.

[Iwannaplato]

You inspire me to add more, Alexis.

[Wizard gets an erection, and Alexis runs from the room]



The curtain slowly falls.

Yes, I wonder if they are ever going to deal with their own split: Wizard being, at root, a Neo-Nietschzian (read acolyte of Satyr) and AJ being a Catholic mystic (or wanting to be one, I couldn't get clarity on that issue). They are strange bedfellows and at core even more opposed to each other than they are to the people they are tagteaming against.

[Harry Baird]

Be that as it may I’m going with this:

Fine fine. If you have no use for my diagnosis, then: as you were. Further engagement is futile.