Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Ouroboros]

I'm not impressed with all the sophistry when the point is so plainly obvious.

I don't give a shit about Europe beyond the few countries I have relatives in over there but to be clear you want me to be concerned about the cuck boy fantasies some Dissident Whites in Europe are having about maybe one day having the power or balls to do something about the Africans, Muslims and Indians that are just pouring into their countries and setting up communities and popping out European babies? . Like you they still seem to be on the calculating response phase of what is an active and ongoing invasion. Like I said. Good luck.

Because those incidents, like the Capitol riots are useful bits of propaganda. Why would I try to dissuade my enemies of shooting themselves in the foot?

It's you who still hasn't figure out the response is a calculated and engineered out come. Either you don't respond and we're victorious or you do and we get to debate publicly and loudly what affects systemic racism has had on the black community through generations and use your most vocal and hateful supporters of evidence of that very racism we're talking about. And we're victorious. You can't ever know exactly how your opponent is going to reapond but you can try and prepare yourself to benefit from whatever that response ends up ultimately being.

I do.

I've never said anything of the sort.

Yeah, no shit. I've said as much but @Ouroboros I'm sure will eventually be along to hideously demand in provide proof.

It's my honest assessment. I don't think you'll get anywhere with force either but it's more honest and dignified I think, that being a weasel. If defeat and death was the only path forward I still wouldn't pretend or bend the knee, I'd face it like a man, comfortable and at peace with my choices and what I fought for. It's why I don't mince my words here or in real life because I'm not ashamed of any of my beliefs or ashamed to voice them.

Maybe I'm wrong but the people who profess a centrist position seem to me to be like like people who profess to love bland food. No one loves bland food. You it eat bland food because you think it's better for you than want you really want.

It’s only your current contention that the newly introduced position of “White Identitarianism” is identical with the advocacy of a “white ethno state.” If you were as “honest” as you pretend you would have cited chapter and verse back when I asked for proof. But contrary to your prating about scientific method, you don’t care about proof, only ideology.

Your take on centrism is just a deflection from the contradiction AT pointed out.

 

[Master Debator]

It’s only your current contention that the newly introduced position of “White Identitarianism” is identical with the advocacy of a “white ethno state.” If you were as “honest” as you pretend you would have cited chapter and verse back when I asked for proof. But contrary to your prating about scientific method, you don’t care about proof, only ideology.

Your take on centrism is just a deflection from the contradiction AT pointed out.

What contradiction would that be?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Now, you’ve stated that you don’t advocate an “ethno state” based on race, as I assume (say) Richard Spenser does.

I guess the saying ‘mencionas al lobo y está en la puerta’ is applicable here! There is an article about Richard Spencer’s social and legal problems in today’s NYTs.

Allow me to outline as a preamble why I bring this up in the context of this thread.

First, the NYTs article is a mixture, as is typical today, when *smear campaigns* are employed, of both truth and lie, accuracy and deception, fair presentation and twisting of presentation to influence perception.

If one fails to see it in the context of the general *idea wars* going on, and if one fails to see the NYTs as a vehicle for these sorts of ideological struggle-sessions, my understanding is that one fails to notice a crucial element in both intellectual coercion and processes of culture-engineering.

So, one must step back from all of it and try to grasp what is going on tras bambalinas (behind scenes). Presently, there is both an open and a semi-clandestine and also a clandestine war going on in the United States. As it pertains to Spencer it is being carried on by organizations like the SPLC in cooperation with factions within government and the US intelligence community.

But this must be seen in a larger context to fully understand it: the struggle seems to be focused also globally, in Europe specifically, against people and groups who are thinking, and acting (organizing) politically and socially with ideas that are characterized as far right, fringe right, emergent fascism, etc.

Essentially, in speaking this way of the NYTs article in a newspaper that has shifted boldly and dramatically toward the activist left, I refer to what I take away from a consideration of the implication in the rather bold declaration by ‘the father of public relations in America’, Edward Bernays. It is always worth quoting it because the implication is so naked:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

“This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Here el diablo his self speaks!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I don't give a shit about Europe beyond the few countries I have relatives in over there but to be clear you want me to be concerned about the cuck boy fantasies some Dissident Whites in Europe are having about maybe one day having the power or balls to do something about the Africans, Muslims and Indians that are just pouring into their countries and setting up communities and popping out European babies?

You come up with amazing sentences!

Your position is an error on many different levels. Are you concerned about what goes in in neighboring American states? Or in the next county? You say that you are not concerned about the identitarian movement in Europe, yet you do seem if not concerned at least involved emotionally in the cultural projects of those “Africans, Muslims and Indians” who are giving birth in Europe (similar to how your mother brought you to America and gave birth to you I might add).

So, what you are not understanding is that 1) there is an idea-movement in Europe (New European Right) with intellectual figures who are very influential in Europe and whose ideas have certainly, beyond any doubt, influenced the American scene. So realistically you would have to be concerned for this because it is having an impact on the American scene.

Secondly, the movement that exists in Europe is less encumbered in certain ways than its counterpart in America. In France for example (rather gloriously I will add) people discuss ideas all the time in public fora, as for example on TV programs where ideas and events are discussed in depth.

In comparison — and I have said this numbers of times — in America the *conversation* as I have referred to it is always inhibited. It is not allowed, as I say, to take place. I mention this and you have constantly denied it, or excused it, but it is true. And it needs to be understood not by people like you, who do not have issues with social coercion and censorship if it supports your objectives, but for those who want to think about the meaning of events in our present My suggestion is that it must be seen and understood.

Yeah, no shit. I've said as much [responding to: “True indeed that my position have progressed beyond that of more typical Liberalism into other areas. Identitarianism, and White Identitarianism, is something I advocate for even in the face of all the critique that Identity Politics gets.”]

Yes, and the reason I develop this indentitarian position is because it can be defended ethically and moreover morally. It is a good objective, a necessary objective, a moral objective.

One can observe the same tactics as in the NYTs: there is truth, but there is also distortion, and the function is clear: to establish prejudice. To block the consideration of the core ideas.

Another video on the topic

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Maybe I'm wrong but the people who profess a centrist position seem to me to be like like people who profess to love bland food.

Bizarre simile.

What’s in the middle between Stalinist communism and the Third Reich?

 

[Ouroboros]

What contradiction would that be?

More pointless deflection. This is a routine and unimaginative debate ploy: pretend not to understand the argument, get the opponent to waste a lot of time explaining the argument, and then refuse to engage. You did it when I pressed you to show the connection between “Middle East mystics” and philosophers of Individual Rights. You had no answer, so you bailed. You weren’t honest enough to speak to AT’s criticism; why should I believe you’ll get an attack of courage now?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Now, there is another element to all of this. In my view it is the most important, the most profound. It is an idea and a theme which the Dissident Right and the Traditional Right is vitally concerned about, and so it is another pillar in a group of issues and concerns that must be broached: the spiritual condition of *Europe*.

What is interesting is to notice that these two men -- living and thinking within traditional Catholicism (Rod Dreher wrote The Benedict Option) both seem aware that there is more going on (in our very strange present) than what meets the eye.

I place this after mentioning some things about Richard Spencer, who is indeed dealing with oppressive and persecuting power, whose intention of which is to ruin him and exhaust all his resources (some may say 'he deserves it' and will be glad). But the message here has to do with an activist 'progressive' political regime which will use its power to oppress, restrict, block and eliminate core and vital ideas.

If you have the time it is worth listening through to the end because toward the end they approach the *core*.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just to get it off my mind: most people speak of determinism as antithetical to free will, and I generally use it for anyone who asserts that a particular historical development must take place, because the speaker makes the assumption that no random factors can upset his applecart. There are various versions of compatibilism, but to allow for free will they must moderate the absolute certainty of a determining physical or metaphysical matrix. Thus William James called this position “soft determinism.”

 

[Ouroboros]

Bizarre simile.

What’s in the middle between Stalinist communism and the Third Reich?

Sanity.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I think there is plenty of latitude to be very concerned with what is happening to modern thinking about race and identity, to be very concerned about CRT and Frankfurt school thinking, and to be very concerned about the devaluation of the European cultural tradition (including the pre-eminence of science and liberalism and the Christian legacy) without seeing race as an objectively meaningful idea.

If as you say race cannot be believed to be a meaningful category, why then does it remain a meaningful category?

There is much insane talk about the "decolonization" of mathematics and science, and a perilous move toward re-establishing discrimination between races in the name of doing "good". European culture has spread throughout the world, not because of colonialism, but because the ideas are superior (the spread has been faster since the decline of colonialism than during it). To now label that tradition as "white" is a huge mistake, whether it's done as an attack on "whiteness" or a defense of "whiteness".

The problem here is that what you recommend ‘disembodies’ everything that has made Europe and European culture a product of Europe.

It is an ideal — an aspect of specific idealism — to see things in that way. But that way of seeing also has a downside.

There must be some sane and balanced middle-point. I can’t think of a way around this.

 

[TomFitz]

I guess the saying ‘mencionas al lobo y está en la puerta’ is applicable here! There is an article about Richard Spencer’s social and legal problems in today’s NYTs.

Allow me to outline as a preamble why I bring this up in the context of this thread.

First, the NYTs article is a mixture, as is typical today, when *smear campaigns* are employed, of both truth and lie, accuracy and deception, fair presentation and twisting of presentation to influence perception.

If one fails to see it in the context of the general *idea wars* going on, and if one fails to see the NYTs as a vehicle for these sorts of ideological struggle-sessions, my understanding is that one fails to notice a crucial element in both intellectual coercion and processes of culture-engineering.

So, one must step back from all of it and try to grasp what is going on tras bambalinas (behind scenes). Presently, there is both an open and a semi-clandestine and also a clandestine war going on in the United States. As it pertains to Spencer it is being carried on by organizations like the SPLC in cooperation with factions within government and the US intelligence community.

But this must be seen in a larger context to fully understand it: the struggle seems to be focused also globally, in Europe specifically, against people and groups who are thinking, and acting (organizing) politically and socially with ideas that are characterized as far right, fringe right, emergent fascism, etc.

Essentially, in speaking this way of the NYTs article in a newspaper that has shifted boldly and dramatically toward the activist left, I refer to what I take away from a consideration of the implication in the rather bold declaration by ‘the father of public relations in America’, Edward Bernays. It is always worth quoting it because the implication is so naked:


Here el diablo his self speaks!

That was very wordy!

Accusing the NYT of “shift(ing) boldly and dramatically toward the activist left, while at the same time promoting the words of one of most well known neo Nazis in the US doesn’t pass the smell test in any way!

 

[vanceen]

If as you say race cannot be believed to be a meaningful category, why then does it remain a meaningful category?

The problem here is that what you recommend ‘disembodies’ everything that has made Europe and European culture a product of Europe.

It is an ideal — an aspect of specific idealism — to see things in that way. But that way of seeing also has a downside.

There must be some sane and balanced middle-point. I can’t think of a way around this.

As I've written in this thread, a lot of people think that race is meaningful and treat people accordingly. It is only a meaningful category for that reason.

I don't agree that excluding race as an objectively meaningful category "disembodies" anything important about European culture. (Maybe you were alluding to my use of "disembowel" earlier, but I don't think it does that either!)

I don't think the value of European culture derives from the fact that it's a product of Europe. If the great dialog that happened in Europe over the last two and a half milennia or so had happened in some other part of the world, history would have been different, but the value of the ideas would not be different.

I don't see the downside you mention at all, assuming you mean a downside of leaving behind the notion of race. I don't see the necessity of a middle point between believing in a physical ether and accepting the well-established and repeatedly confirmed principles of special relativity. Nor do I see the necessity of some middle ground when it comes to continuing to hold that humans come in "sub-species" called races.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Accusing the NYT of “shift(ing) boldly and dramatically toward the activist left, while at the same time promoting the words of one of most well known neo Nazis in the US doesn’t pass the smell test in any way!

The NYTs has shifted, extremely dramatically and obviously, to the Activist-Left. The term I used is fair and accurate.

I did not *promote* Richard Spencer I made a reference to him in the course of a long conversation about current affairs.

Spencer is definitely not a *neo-Nazi* so this term is very inaccurate. I am certain that he is sympathetic to some political philosophers that have influenced some fascist ideas. But then those ideas are part of the thinking of the Interwar Period (1920-30s).

[One of my favorite video-pieces demonstrating some ideas of Jonathan Bowden which have certainly influenced me. And Spencer prompted Bowden in the US]

A good deal of the *Identitarian* ideas that I speak about have links to these political philosophies. And with that said Catholic identity and Catholic identity movements of the Interwar period are considered by some as fascistic. These are facts. Now, if any part of this you wish to discuss intelligently try to do so. Generally, any ideology or movement that seeks to protect the identity and integrity of a given community against Socialistic or Communist ideology will be labeled as fascistic. But to be fair one would have to have read fascist literature directly oneself to know what it encourages and why.

What I will suggest is that though what I just wrote is reasonable and true, it will be used in devilish and devious ways by devious and devilish individuals who seek to twist things. Yet I believe in seeing things clearly and fairly.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

As I've written in this thread, a lot of people think that race is meaningful and treat people accordingly. It is only a meaningful category for that reason.

But that is a very significant reason. Yet you seem to be saying that it is a 'fantasy'. A false-category. This does not seem right to me. I have wondered if it is aesthetic . . . I am not sure that is an irrelevant category.

I am willing (to a point) to concede that whatever differences may exist between different races (those wide continental areas where these different human types evolved) can be said to be minimal and in that 'meaningless', nevertheless humankind does not regard the physical, visual and cultural differences that surround race, or that extend from it, as being irrelevant. So, it becomes a tenet of a specific modernist ideology to say *race has no meaning*.

The implication in saying "a lot of people think that race is meaningful and treat people accordingly" is that under specific conditions, or specific education, or specific ideology, that many people can be trained not to recognize it or perhaps it is better to say to disregard it.

Still, it keeps popping up and, to be accurate and fair, it may always keep popping up. You say it is not an objective category. Well then, if not objective it is a subjective category, and to all appearances as a subjective category it remains highly relevant.

It is certainly relevant to those who weaponize it (as CRT does and as the Frankfurt School does: turning it into a tool for undermining a given culture).

It seems to me more accurate to say that it is a small minority of people who are the ones who say 'race' (and what is connoted by it) is meaningless! It requires a great deal of a specific cultivated ideology to see things that way.

So, if one were planning an Ideal Society (as in The Republic) I am not sure it would be wise to create a Multi-Cultural society. It could be considered *best* to envision a relatively homogenous society.

In any case, it is definitely true that many many people (I speak of Europe but it could be many places) desire their homogeneous societies. This is also *just a fact*. Are they morally wrong? I do not think so.

 

[TomFitz]

The NYTs has shifted, extremely dramatically and obviously, to the Activist-Left. The term I used is fair and accurate.

I did not *promote* Richard Spencer I made a reference to him in the course of a long conversation about current affairs.

Spencer is definitely not a *neo-Nazi* so this term is very inaccurate. I am certain that he is sympathetic to some political philosophers that have influenced some fascist ideas. But then those ideas are part of the thinking of the Interwar Period (1920-30s).

[One of my favorite video-pieces demonstrating some ideas of Jonathan Bowden which have certainly influenced me. And Spencer prompted Bowden in the US]

A good deal of the *Identitarian* ideas that I speak about have links to these political philosophies. And with that said Catholic identity and Catholic identity movements of the Interwar period are considered by some as fascistic. These are facts. Now, if any part of this you wish to discuss intelligently try to do so. Generally, any ideology or movement that seeks to protect the identity and integrity of a given community against Socialistic or Communist ideology will be labeled as fascistic. But to be fair one would have to have read fascist literature directly oneself to know what it encourages and why.

What I will suggest is that though what I just wrote is reasonable and true, it will be used in devilish and devious ways by devious and devilish individuals who seek to twist things. Yet I believe in seeing things clearly and fairly.

Do you actually ever read the New York Times?????

And Richard Spencer is very well known for his neo Nazi credentials, regardless of how you want to parse them. In fact, he is notorious for them.

Until now, I was not familiar with the term “identarian” until you compelled me to research it.

It’s uber nationalism and race based, and is a tool of far right wing neo fascists in Europe, who have many similarities with the trump crowd in the US.

All of this has a very dark past. Trying to intellectualize them does not change that.

It is sad to see people ignoring, not bothering to learn, or forgetting the lessons the first half of the 20th Century taught us.

 

[vanceen]

But that is a very significant reason. Yet you seem to be saying that it is a 'fantasy'. A false-category. This does not seem right to me. I have wondered if it is aesthetic . . . I am not sure that is an irrelevant category.

[/QUOTE]

I arrive at this point in many discussions about race.

Let's be clear what we're talking about.

On the one hand there is the idea of race as a biologically meaningful way of categorizing humans, something like blood type. Blood type is real whether anyone thinks it's real or not. It's an objective reality. In my view, and in the view of the overwhelming majority of biologists and geneticists, race is not an objective reality like blood type. This is in the realm of facts; it's either true or not, no matter what people think.

On the other hand.... The social phenomenon of "race" is of course real. As I've said, that's because many people have believed in the past that race is an objective reality, and some continue to do so. It's a concept with quite a bit of resilience due to the superficial plausibility it has, since there are differences in appearance between people from different parts of the world, but as I've said above, those superficial differences are due to very small genetic differences, much smaller than would be expected if there were really different types of humans subdivided into the traditional races.

So yes, it's certainly true that the "race" of an American can have an influence on how likely that person is to acquire education and wealth, because of a history of racism and its damage to the culture of people descended from former slaves. But contrast that with the expected outcome for people from modern sub-Saharan African cultures who come to the US; they might suffer from racial prejudice, but in fact they are more likely to succeed economically than "white" Americans. This is exactly what we would expect to see on the assumption that race isn't real, but culture is.

So, saying that a lot of people believe in the objective idea of race, and saying that the idea of race has a real cultural and social impact today does not contradict the idea that race lacks any objective reality as a biological category.

I am willing (to a point) to concede that whatever differences may exist between different races (those wide continental areas where these different human types evolved) can be said to be minimal and in that 'meaningless', nevertheless humankind does not regard the physical, visual and cultural differences that surround race, or that extend from it, as being irrelevant. So, it becomes a tenet of a specific modernist ideology to say *race has no meaning*.

The implication in saying "a lot of people think that race is meaningful and treat people accordingly" is that under specific conditions, or specific education, or specific ideology, that many people can be trained not to recognize it or perhaps it is better to say to disregard it.

Still, it keeps popping up and, to be accurate and fair, it may always keep popping up. You say it is not an objective category. Well then, if not objective it is a subjective category, and to all appearances as a subjective category it remains highly relevant.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, it keeps popping up, and it probably will as long as people look different from each other, and humans are willing to assume that someone who looks different must be different. Young male humans are likely to continue to fight and kill each other and commit crimes, too. Neither is desirable.

It is certainly relevant to those who weaponize it (as CRT does and as the Frankfurt School does: turning it into a tool for undermining a given culture).

[/QUOTE]

Yes it is, and that is one reason I disagree with CRT and the Frankfurt School line.

It seems to me more accurate to say that it is a small minority of people who are the ones who say 'race' (and what is connoted by it) is meaningless! It requires a great deal of a specific cultivated ideology to see things that way.

So, if one were planning an Ideal Society (as in The Republic) I am not sure it would be wise to create a Multi-Cultural society. It could be considered *best* to envision a relatively homogenous society.

In any case, it is definitely true that many many people (I speak of Europe but it could be many places) desire their homogeneous societies. This is also *just a fact*. Are they morally wrong? I do not think so.

No, I don't think wanting to be around similar people is morally wrong in itself. Thinking that there are really different races with different human potential is not morally wrong in itself, either. It's what one does about that wanting and that belief that can be morally wrong.

 

[vanceen]

Continued...

I think Europe might very well be under a threat from high levels of immigration of people from non-European cultures. But it's not because those people are from other "races". It's because many of those people are hostile to the values of European culture and would be happy to destroy it. And of course, many of those immigrants are happy to accept European culture and become good Europeans.

I don't like the term "multi-cultural". I'm not at all sure that it's really possible for a society to be truly "multi-cultural". One distinguishing feature of the US is that it was founded not with the intention of having a "blood and soil" homeland for a particular ethnic group. It was founded with the idea that its culture should be based on ideas that applied to everybody. Yes, it's failed many times in that aspiration, but I think we are getting closer. Or at least we were up until fifteen or twenty years ago.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Do you actually ever read the New York Times?????

I read the NYTs every day.

And Richard Spencer is very well known for his neo Nazi credentials, regardless of how you want to parse them. In fact, he is notorious for them.

Incorrect. Richard Spencer is said to be some sort of Nazi. Views have been ascribed to him that are said to be Nazi-like. As I said, and please pay attention, Spencer and others like him are aware and have read philosophers and political philosophies which have been associated with Nazism. Carl Schmidt for example, and Heidegger. There is also Nietzsche who, when read closely, is extremely to the right. Spencer is hard to pin but I would say he is a Nietzschean more than anything else. He is definitely not of the Christian right and he is not a Christian. But I do not think he has a defined Pagan belief either.

Until now, I was not familiar with the term “identarian” until you compelled me to research it.

There is an active and lively identitarian movement in Europe. The idea of national identity, and cultural identity, and certainly cultural-racial identity, are manifestations of ideas that the Progressive-Left cannot tolerate. The reasons can be investigated and enumerated.

It’s uber nationalism and race based, and is a tool of far right wing neo fascists in Europe, who have many similarities with the trump crowd in the US.

Because your ideas have likely been informed by rather conventional ideas you are repeating here *common tropes*. It is clear to me that this is not an area that you have examined first-hand. Many nationalistic movements of Europe have been, more than anything else, Right-leaning. That is because a turn to the Right is often the only means to confront and oppose Socialistic and Communistic movements and ideology. When people are attacked (when their traditions are attacked for example, their *way of life*) they react -- and the term 'reaction and reactionary derive from that. Christian and Catholic reaction to Communist philosophy and ideology elicited strong reaction often grounded in identity-definitions. If you think about it you will understand this reaction better.

All of this has a very dark past. Trying to intellectualize them does not change that.

Beyond all doubt Europe of the 20th century, on all sides of the political spectrum, has a horrifying past. But the most horrifying, if measured by piles of bodies, has been the Left-Communist regimes. So, it is wise to identify what really and truly has the potential to recreate such atrocity and separate it from what is said to lead to that.

We are now at a period of time -- starkly in the US -- where a different and unexpected neo-totalitarianism is showing itself. This involves a collusion between the managerial governing class and the technological-globalist class. I would advise (you in this case) to consider shunting to the side preconceived ideas and digging in to more serious study. My impression of you is that you are relying on idées reçues.

It is sad to see people ignoring, not bothering to learn, or forgetting the lessons the first half of the 20th Century taught us.

In certain definite ways I agree with this, but for reasons different from what I take it you are referring to.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

One distinguishing feature of the US is that it was founded not with the intention of having a "blood and soil" homeland for a particular ethnic group. It was founded with the idea that its culture should be based on ideas that applied to everybody. Yes, it's failed many times in that aspiration, but I think we are getting closer. Or at least we were up until fifteen or twenty years ago.

Some would disagree with you. You are referring to the Lincolnian definition of *what America is*. The proposition nation. It is a new phenomenon.

The truth about the idea and intention of ‘what America is’ was very different.

“It is hardly encouraging to think of one’s nation as “something offered for consideration” or “a theorem or problem.” As a practical matter, the contemporary meaning would be a nation defined by ideology or legal doctrine, rather than by race, ancestry, religion, and culture. A “proposition nation” therefore has none of the elements that traditionally are required for a people to be considered a nation, so the term is a contradiction.”

“What attracts people to the idea of a propositional nation? Its rejection of the true meaning of nation: common blood, common descent, common culture. Whites — but only whites — believe that rejecting these things is enlightened, progressive, and virtuous. This is because they think a national sense of blood and soil leads to war and Nazism, so eliminating traditional nations is the only way to prevent war and atrocities. Again, this applies only to whites.”

 

[Alizia Tyler]

One distinguishing feature of the US is that it was founded not with the intention of having a "blood and soil" homeland for a particular ethnic group. It was founded with the idea that its culture should be based on ideas that applied to everybody. Yes, it's failed many times in that aspiration, but I think we are getting closer. Or at least we were up until fifteen or twenty years ago.

Some would disagree with you. You are referring to the Lincolnian definition of *what America is*. The propositional nation. It is a newer phenomenon.

It is common to suggest that the United States was founded explicitly as a proposition nation, but this is false. What lead to the Revolution were such issues as representation, voting, taxation, tariffs, etc. Americans were primarily from the British Isles, with a smattering of other European nationalities, and there was never any question that the United States was still tied to Great Britain.

“It is hardly encouraging to think of one’s nation as “something offered for consideration” or “a theorem or problem.” As a practical matter, the contemporary meaning would be a nation defined by ideology or legal doctrine, rather than by race, ancestry, religion, and culture. A “proposition nation” therefore has none of the elements that traditionally are required for a people to be considered a nation, so the term is a contradiction.”

“What attracts people to the idea of a propositional nation? Its rejection of the true meaning of nation: common blood, common descent, common culture. Whites — but only whites — believe that rejecting these things is enlightened, progressive, and virtuous. This is because they think a national sense of blood and soil leads to war and Nazism, so eliminating traditional nations is the only way to prevent war and atrocities. Again, this applies only to whites.”

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yes it is, and that is one reason I disagree with CRT and the Frankfurt School line.

The way I look at this is quite different. First, I believe in seeking, having, and defining identity. I extend that right to all people. Having read what I write for some time I assume that you know that my primary honored category is Europe and the Europe-derived. I do not aspire to be anything else. I wish to crystalize that.

I do not see what Europe is, and what Europe developed, as being merely idea, or exclusively a set of ideas. Europe is that and also people, regions, the land, the accomplishment -- what was built. I gather that when you think of *ideas* you think, perhaps, of mathematical ideas or something somewhat abstract? I associate Europe with its tangible history, its ideas, its traditions, its accomplishments, and also of course its religion and philosophy. And I locate these things within *the body of Europe* and that means within a body. (I must also acknowledge its tragic history, specifically that of the 20th century).

And you know where I am going here.

I disagree -- or more to the point I oppose and countermand -- what CRT and Frankfurt School propose because their basic intentionality is to undermine the core identity that I value. They are after all essentially Marxists, and their ideal is some sort of Marxian universalism. I oppose this idea adamantly. It seems to me that a sort of idealism and universalism can be developed within a specific regionalism. That regionalism must be known, seen, discovered and protected. The identitarian movements of Europe recognize this. They know that there is something to be protected. You say *It is not the racial body* (I paraphrase) and in some sense you are right and I grant this.

But I am more concerned about why I think you are wrong.

The essential object, which to recognize requires recognizing essential problems of definition, is that the major object that at one time was central to America is being deliberately reworked. It definitely seems to have begun with Lincoln's 'proposition nation' so that is a good starting point to back-track.

In any case this is how certain factions see things and, obviously, that is where I locate myself.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

This is the prespective I agree generally with:

 

[Master Debator]

This is the prespective I agree generally with:

That video is hilarious. Are any of those people even still alive? What a collection of clowns. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That video is hilarious. Are any of those people even still alive? What a collection of clowns. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

You are very very welcome!

Here is another talk that will have you rolling on the floor and crying.

 

[Master Debator]

You are very very welcome!

Here is another talk that will have you rolling on the floor and crying.

That one is also funny. It amounts to grown men crying because they can't be racist anymore without people calling them out on it. Boo hoo.