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

[Tigerace117]

good misdirection, but I’m not fooled.

I know what the hellcat is.
that’s not true at all.


You have never communicated any actual morality. You just screech a bunch of negatives about people and don’t respond to argument

Dude, I literally linked you to an exact copy of the image I used. You really need to figure out that your own personal feelings can’t change the facts.

Based on your previous claims, yes, it absolutely is.

It’s always funny watching a Pinochet fanboy try to talk about “morality”.

 

[jaeger19]

Most western states have anywhere from a third to three quarters of public lands managed by the federal government for the benefit of environmentalists in big cities and not the economic development of the people who live there. Seizing the wealth of a territory and using it for the benefit of the Metropole is a classic definition of empire

Okay..thats funny.
1. Western states use federal land for grazing..at a much much cheaper rate than private. They use federal land for timber..for mining..and for oil and gas.
Not to mention the tons of money western states get for recreation like hunting and fishing.
2. Meanwhile..the federal government picks up most of the bill for management like fire suppression

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Okay..thats funny.
1. Western states use federal land for grazing..at a much much cheaper rate than private. They use federal land for timber..for mining..and for oil and gas.

Grazing rights aren’t what they used to be since the endangered species act. Now all kinds of restrictions exist that didn’t used to. People love to claim that Cliven Bundy simply didn’t want to pay grazing fees, actually he stopped paying them as a protest for regulations that would limit his herd sizes far below what he traditionally ranched and far below profitability. Many independent ranchers have been pushed out by these regulations on cheap lands.

As far as Fracking, Biden has ended all new leases and caused a decline in the industry.

When it comes to timber, I’ve seen many PNW communities devasted by federal logging restrictions and mining restrictions.

Not to mention the tons of money western states get for recreation like hunting and fishing.
2. Meanwhile..the federal government picks up most of the bill for management like fire suppression

it’s not really “tons” of money. Many places see hotel stays and incidental purchase during hunting seasons, but most outdoor recreation money is spent in cities. The money spent in REI and Patagonia stores doesn’t go to supporting good jobs in Port Angeles or The Dalles.

As far as federal “costs” much of these costs are born because of bad federal police set in DC.

Wildfires almost never start or occur on private timberlands owned by companies like Weherhauser or Green Diamond. It’s public lands.

There is very little active timber management, which used to be a byproduct of timber industries.

Plus many human fires are caused by recreators being irresponsible. If there was more logging or mining activities fires would be less likely to get big because companies would have an interest in the worksite and product not being lost

 

[phoenix2020]

You are getting closer now. Just a small push more!

I see the South and the era of slavery in a contextual setting. I notice that you wish to ascribe villainy to the South and to the Confederacy -- and then by extension to the entire United States and the *morons* who founded it -- and I think this is a non-productive way to go about things.

I do not deny that the political power of the Confederacy understood the question of slavery as part of the equation, but it was not the entire equation. I do not see it as a moral failing to have desired to 1) secede and 2) simultaneously protect the slave-industry for what would have been a period of time longer. I do not see it as a moral failing that would have deserved the war that was brought against them. And as you well know the war was not provoked nor initiated nor conducted to end slavery. The end of slavery was one of the effects though

What I have a problem with is, as I clearly state, the various policies and shifts that are undermining the *original white demographic* of the United States. What has brought this about is a complex of events. And this is what I often write about and draw attention to. How and why this is coming about is something that needs to be spoken about with more directness and honestly, and I feel that the white demographic needs to have the actual facts of the case, and the ramifications that will flow from it, presented to them in clear terms -- so they can better oppose it and, in the best of circumstances, reverse it. That is, reverse the immigration patterns and strengthen numerically the *original white demographic* of America.

That is just as ethically defensible and as valid a goal as what you call for.

And I feel that *the colored hordes* (I use this term with some underhanded irksome humor) need to understand that this would really be better for all concerned, including all of America's present 'colored' (those who identify as non-white) and for the future of the US.

As I have mentioned, and which you have no way to assimilate because you do not and will not read, I was influenced by Richard Weaver in The Southern Tradition at Bay to see the South in different and counter-established narrative terms. But then it was Weaver who also introduced me to both structured conservative principles and also, indirectly, to traditionalism.

Do you notice that I do not bother to answer your binary, leading question? My entire viewpoint and argument is simply beyond your ken.

Why do you keep persisting with these long essays? You are a white nationalist, you want to Make America White Again (MAWA) because that would be better for you and yours, and you are upset that most of us aren’t going to let you have your way. It’s as simple as that.

Further, you have not proved empirically or objectively that today’s multiethnic America is worse in totality than the mostly White America of yesteryear that you yearn for, which by the way we all know is an arbitrarily selected reference since America even further back was entirely devoid of White people—shouldn’t you perhaps be arguing for a return to the 1600s before the bulk genocide of native Americans was in high gear? What do you have against that definition of America and why are you and your media structures unwilling to have that conversation? Perhaps it is your emotions—you are emotionally vested in MAWA and therefore are not able to look at the matter objectively.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Why do you keep persisting with these long essays? You are a white nationalist, you want to Make America White Again (MAWA) because that would be better for you and yours, and you are upset that most of us aren’t going to let you have your way. It’s as simple as that.

I write because it is a way that I organize my thought. I place myself in situations where I confront other thought, other ideas, other wills, other interpretations, and I simply respond.

What I suggest to you and you-plural is that you allow those that you define to define themselves to you, not you define them to them. You-plural constantly get it wrong. You constantly mis-hear and then mis-restate what you have *interpreted*.

So let me tell you *what I am*. I am someone who has made herself aware of the full range of the social and cultural conversation. I have done this by intimate familiarity with the *discourse* of each side. So, I am aware of bona-fide white nationalists like Greg Johnson, and I am aware of people like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis who painstakingly define a position that reflects their understanding of things. Because I have actually read their writing I know that what they say is not what is said about them! So, at that point I have an advantage that you-plural do not have.

The thoughtcrime of which I am guilty and implicated is that I have done this -- I have given the other side a fair reading. And I see, very clearly, that they have some valid points. That is where my crime lies -- that I have done this. So, I speak from this position.

I am not a *white nationalist*, I am a person who believes in preserving and strengthening Caucasian-European culture. I am aware -- very aware -- that there is a powerful war against *it* and I commit a further crime by simply talking about this, making it conscious, referring to it. I seek to *get out from under* the power and the weight of the *condemnation* of Whites and whiteness, and in order to do this I have to appear on a platform like this one and engage with those who are driven by other ideas, ideas that I have come to understand as 'destructive'. I have to back-track historically to see and talk about when and how these destructive currents began. And by speaking about such things, and this history, I tend to trample over people's sense of rightness & goodness.

Obviously, simply by mentioning any of this I am identified as a 'devil'. But then I know that this is how things work -- and I simply refer to social coercion and intellectual coercion and the processes through which it works.

I do not think that anything I do or say is per se unethical, nor is anything I have said without some level of grounding in reason.

Those who define an explicit *anti-white posture* are in fact, in my way of seeing, in the wrong. They need to see the error of their ways and to change what they do and how they act.

When you say *we are not going to let you have your way* what you mean needs to be examined more closely. Because you have whole sets of predicates, ideology, agenda which you seek to enact. You are virulently activist in this sense. And what you say is quite right: You will simply not allow the existence of people who do not think exactly like you do! And you will stop at nothing to do harm to them.

You see it is you who cannot see yourself. And it is substantially in yourself (yourselves) where a certain center of the problem is to be found.

I do not believe that some sort of pure 'White Nationalism" is possible and it is not really needed or desired. But the opposite of that -- a social ideology that leads to the destruction of the foundations of America and the 'dispossession' of that demographic that founded it -- is definitely not desirable, and it is not defensible ethically.

So my position s really one of *strengthening identity* by getting out from under the power of the sort of condemnations, and hatred, that people like you weild. You are profoundly involved in it -- care in point our own Master Debator who has a chemically-pure version of it -- and yet you refuse to examine it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

Further, you have not proved empirically or objectively that today’s multiethnic America is worse in totality than the mostly White America of yesteryear that you yearn for, which by the way we all know is an arbitrarily selected reference since America even further back was entirely devoid of White people—shouldn’t you perhaps be arguing for a return to the 1600s before the bulk genocide of native Americans was in high gear? What do you have against that definition of America and why are you and your media structures unwilling to have that conversation? Perhaps it is your emotions—you are emotionally vested in MAWA and therefore are not able to look at the matter objectively.

My effort has really only been to expose 'anti-whiteness' and for this reason I have engaged for so long with Mr Fight the Power. I wanted to tease out from him, and from the situation, as much as I could.

I do not know what is *better* nor necessarily *worse*. What I do know is that presently the United States has come into situations of bitter conflict. I am aware of this through my background in The Culture Wars and this conflict is not getting better, it is getting worse. I see things as beginning to disintegrate and I do not think my view is cynical. Much of this fits into larger patterns though.

The rest of your paragraph is *absurdiste* from my perspective. Why not just go back to prehuman times? Like to the age of the dinosaurs?

 

[phoenix2020]

I am not a *white nationalist*, I am a person who believes in preserving and strengthening Caucasian-European culture.

Cool! If this was all you were interested in, you should open a museum. Problem solved! I love going to museums to learn about different cultures. Have you tried doing so? There is a museum called the Smithsonian that has done an excellent job of preserving Caucasian-European culture; you should check it out as it will allay most of your fears.

Perhaps you can even participate in some community events. Before COVID, here in San Jose in which whites are a minority due to the large Asian population, I attended both an Italian festival as well as the Portuguese cultural festival. Both were super cool and helped to preserve and strengthen the cultures without writing long essays that all summarize as “keep the coloreds out” - just think, you could have avoided all this if you’d just gone to some of these festivals. Heck I’m one of those coloreds that offends you and even I was welcomed to them. (though, the Portuguese one got weird when a speaker said “and wherever in the world we went, we were loved!” — that part got awkward)

the other thing you could try doing is writing a book about European culture and traditions. It also would help accomplish your goal without requiring you to be the white segregationist that you currently are. Just think, you could keep your cultural traditions intact even while a colored person sits in the same diner as you or drinks from the same water fountain. It’s possible and I strong suggest that you introspection about how white kids can enjoy their traditions even if there is a black child in the school bus with them.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yes. I recognize your strategy seems to be in trying to take me down rather than explain or promote your ideas which are met with mockery and ridicule whenever you do. And I suppose, considering all the other shitty strategies this is probably the least bad out of them, but it's not a very good one. It continues to amuse me that this is the best you got.

I do not, myself, think this is the case. I certainly agree that the perspectives I have, the ideas I talk about, are now unpopular and in large part because they are misunderstood or, as is more often the case, misstated.

What I actually think is that the idea-base that I have outlined in a social and cultural conservatism is a sounder idea-set taken on the whole. I think that many people have been cowed-down through the sort of assault and vilification that you regularly engage in but that if they really examined things their views would change. I do not think that anything I have spoken about has been other than common-sense(ical).

It is a question of time, as I see things. It is also a question of seeing what comes next.

What you do is to make all efforts to back me (people who think like me) into a specific corner that you define. And you define it through the use of all the terms that you use, all the time. This entire game needs to be seen and exposed. But the onloy way to do it is in the way that I am doing it. By confronting *you* in these sort of exchanges. My assertion is that these needs to be done 'culture-wide'.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Cool! If this was all you were interested in

What I can recommend to you is to get more familiar with what those one my side of the political and social spectrum do say, and then why we say it.

 

[phoenix2020]

What I can recommend to you is to get more familiar with what those one my side of the political and social spectrum do say, and then why we say it.

Why do you think you don’t have a voice? Heck, you just had someone who thinks like you in the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America for four years! Seriously if you think no one listens or no one gives you a loud enough bullhorn, then we are getting into snowflake territory, Alizia Tyler.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Well I'm admittedly not a believer and I haven't been to a church in 20 years and yes the last time I was there it was mostly to hit on women and eat donuts but from my understanding Christians tend to think of Jesus as a hippy type who wanted you to love your neighbor and like George Carlin said in Bill and Ted, be cool to one another. You saying I have that wrong?

This goes well beyond the scope of this particular conversation, but it is all very interesting to me. So I will start by saying that Jesus is really an idea. You know, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This trinitarian concept is very bound up in Indo-European ideation. It is a pattern that is constantly repeated.

So, in my own case, I tend not to relate to Jesus as person but as an 'avatar' [Avatar, Sanskrit avatāra (“descent”)]. This is likely because I have been rather steeped before coming to Christianity in Eastern metaphysical concepts.

The larger *idea* involves the lotion of logos. But what I am talking about here will be -- is -- totally irrelevant to you since you are not interested in historical Christianity. I am interested in the form Christianity took in the pan-Germanic-European world.

I regard the Church is general as *infected* by strains of weak ideas.

Kevin MacDonald wrote a forward to the recent book The Sword of Christ (Giles Corey):

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the Left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. On the other hand, Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel.​

​

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West — Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.​

​

So, when I speak of 'renovation' and 're-identification' I am speaking to something that is very demanding.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Why do you think you don’t have a voice? Heck, you just had someone who thinks like you in the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America for four years! Seriously if you think no one listens or no one gives you a loud enough bullhorn, then we are getting into snowflake territory, Alizia Tyler.

You are, I think, looking at surfaces. I think that Donald Trump can be understood, in a way, as a psychological manifestation or as one of those cultural figures that come forward onto the scene as CG Jung might have described. They come forward in response to something deep and latent. This surely seems to be how DT managed to get into the presidency -- without actually believing, himself, that he would. As Bannon said of Trump -- he is a very imperfect vehicle. But what is interesting about Trump is in the way that the process molded him.

I do not think that *we* have a voice because I think *we* are excluded from the cultural conversation, for reasons that you would consider good and necessary. But why that is is different from what you take it to mean. The entire pole of right-leaning thought is excluded from examination at the universities. The best I can do is direct you to an entire conversation that reveals why this is.

Again, were you to want to get more familiar with the idea-base that I am associated with you'd have to be willing to put aside your established prejudiced views and examine things freshly.

 

[Master Debator]

What I actually think is that the idea-base that I have outlined in a social and cultural conservatism is a sounder idea-set taken on the whole. I think that many people have been cowed-down through the sort of assault and vilification that you regularly engage in but that if they really examined things their views would change. I do not think that anything I have spoken about has been other than common-sense(ical).

You go ahead and keep waiting for that white awakening.

It is a question of time, as I see things. It is also a question of seeing what comes next.

Time has seen this white supremacist ideology of yours wither to the point that it's now in hospice.

What you do is to make all efforts to back me (people who think like me) into a specific corner that you define. And you define it through the use of all the terms that you use, all the time. This entire game needs to be seen and exposed. But the onloy way to do it is in the way that I am doing it. By confronting *you* in these sort of exchanges. My assertion is that these needs to be done 'culture-wide'.

Why? Has it worked in the micro? You can't get people on this board to stop laughing and pointing at you and yet you want to take this failed strategy global?

This goes well beyond the scope of this particular conversation, but it is all very interesting to me. So I will start by saying that Jesus is really an idea. You know, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This trinitarian concept is very bound up in Indo-European ideation. It is a pattern that is constantly repeated.

So, in my own case, I tend not to relate to Jesus as person but as an 'avatar' [Avatar, Sanskrit avatāra (“descent”)]. This is likely because I have been rather steeped before coming to Christianity in Eastern metaphysical concepts.

The larger *idea* involves the lotion of logos. But what I am talking about here will be -- is -- totally irrelevant to you since you are not interested in historical Christianity. I am interested in the form Christianity took in the pan-Germanic-European world.

I regard the Church is general as *infected* by strains of weak ideas.

Kevin MacDonald wrote a forward to the recent book The Sword of Christ (Giles Corey):

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the Left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. On the other hand, Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel.​

​

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West — Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.​

​

So, when I speak of 'renovation' and 're-identification' I am speaking to something that is very demanding.

Do you think the majority of American Christians care about your demands?

 

[jaeger19]

Grazing rights aren’t what they used to be since the endangered species act. Now all kinds of restrictions exist that didn’t used to. People love to claim that Cliven Bundy simply didn’t want to pay grazing fees, actually he stopped paying them as a protest for regulations that would limit his herd sizes far below what he traditionally ranched and far below profitability. Many independent ranchers have been pushed out by these regulations on cheap lands.

As far as Fracking, Biden has ended all new leases and caused a decline in the industry.

When it comes to timber, I’ve seen many PNW communities devasted by federal logging restrictions and mining restrictions.


it’s not really “tons” of money. Many places see hotel stays and incidental purchase during hunting seasons, but most outdoor recreation money is spent in cities. The money spent in REI and Patagonia stores doesn’t go to supporting good jobs in Port Angeles or The Dalles.

As far as federal “costs” much of these costs are born because of bad federal police set in DC.

Wildfires almost never start or occur on private timberlands owned by companies like Weherhauser or Green Diamond. It’s public lands.

There is very little active timber management, which used to be a byproduct of timber industries.

Plus many human fires are caused by recreators being irresponsible. If there was more logging or mining activities fires would be less likely to get big because companies would have an interest in the worksite and product not being lost

Pooh. I run cattle on federal land. A lot of independents depend on federal grazing. Bundy and family were a bunch of welfare ranchers that refused to pay their grazing fees like everyone else and when they saw a blade of grass they went and bought two cows.
Recreation brings in millions to small local communities ..there are whole communities in the west that their very existence depends on hunting and fishing seasons..on ski seasons ..on outdoor recreation.
Logging and mining ..oil and gas continue on public lands as well. And are significant sources of income. The ups and downs of the industries have to do way way way more with supply and demand than " regulations"
Wildfires on public lands are usually caused by lightening or by human activity..like ranchers and farmers burning fields or weeds or ditches and it getting away from them.
Sorry but you are flat out wrong.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Time has seen this white supremacist ideology of yours wither to the point that it's now in hospice.

The way that you define what you ‘hear’ in relation to what I say, and why I say it, and the terms that you apply, are strictly your own, and you use them strictly for your defined purposes. This is the ‘game’ you play, and you will not stop playing in those terms because it works so well for you. (A you-plural I mean).

Time has seen this white supremacist ideology of yours wither to the point that it's now in hospice.

Again, this is your way of ascribing the worst moral sense as is possible for you. The dread ‘white supremacy’. You-plural use these terms in psychological manipulative ways.

Why? Has it worked in the micro? You can't get people on this board to stop laughing and pointing at you and yet you want to take this failed strategy global?

This board, at least I think so, is dominated by Left-Progressive types with a very few who define a Right-oriented political sensibility.

I have my own ideas about these people, and within a cultural context. It does not matter to me what they say or think. It matters the clarity of their positions.

Your tendency to mock is what I’d rather focus on. I think it is a weak ‘front’.

It is impossible to say exactly what comes next — socially and politically.

Do you think the majority of American Christians care about your demands?

I am pretty sure that they do not understand what it is that is ‘demanding’ in the position that Corey and MacDonald are referencing.

 

[jaeger19]

What I can recommend to you is to get more familiar with what those one my side of the political and social spectrum do say, and then why we say it.

Well..we have a number of white supremists groups where I live..so I am pretty familiar with your political and social spectrum says and why
What you perceive as " our culture under attack"
Is nothing more as continued rejection of your outdated hatred and fear. You know that "white" people have used and abused power..and so you fear that if white people become the minority..that the other races will exact revenge.
Of course this is pure paranoia and projection on your part.
Then there is the "defection" of other white people from your ideals. Previously white racism and bigotry could operate in security surrounded by other white people who while not buying into the fear and hate..were willing to look the other way when it comes to yours. That's happening less and less. Particularly in the younger generation.
You are the last gasp of a dying ideology..its going the way of the dodo.

 

[Master Debator]

The way that you define what you ‘hear’ in relation to what I say, and why I say it, and the terms that you apply, are strictly your own, and you use them strictly for your defined purposes. This is the ‘game’ you play, and you will not stop playing in those terms because it works so well for you. (A you-plural I mean).

Not just my own. Plenty of people who you've interacted with on here have come to the same conclusion. If you're not a white supremacist then maybe think about adjusting your message your don't appear that way to nearly everyone who interacts with you.

Again, this is your way of ascribing the worst moral sense as is possible for you. The dread ‘white supremacy’. You-plural use these terms in psychological manipulative ways.

The other posters here a big boys and girls. I don't need to manipulate them and insistening that they can't think for themselves is a poor strategy for drawing people to your cause.

This board, at least I think so, is dominated by Left-Progressive types with a very few who define a Right-oriented political sensibility.

Isn't that the demographic your rhetoric needs to work on if you're going to engineer change? Getting head nods and attaboys from deplorables and mutants isn't going to help you with the general public.

I have my own ideas about these people, and within a cultural context. It does not matter to me what they say or think. It matters the clarity of their positions.

They're pretty clear in thinking you're a white supremacist.

Your tendency to mock is what I’d rather focus on. I think it is a weak ‘front’.

It's a testament to how dismissive I am of you and the dissident whites.

It is impossible to say exactly what comes next — socially and politically.

Impossible for you. I was saying years before BLM cucked corporations that is exactly what they'd do and that the implications of big money betting on BLM and social justice spelled the end for the cultural significance of dissident whites and its exactly what we're witnessing now.

I am pretty sure that they do not understand what it is that is ‘demanding’ in the position that Corey and MacDonald are referencing.

They don't even care to. That doesn't bode well for your cause.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Welll..we have a number of white supremists groups where I live..so I am pretty familiar with your political and social spectrum says and why.

You will have to tell me something about these groups. Do you go to their meetings? Are you friends with them?

I have not defined a position of *white supremacism*, I define a position of awareness about Caucasian-European heritage and a reconnection, a reanimation with it: and I define this within a spiritual awakenIng or revival if you wish.

So, I do not think you are familiar with me and what I think, and value, and like many others here you *hear* what you want to hear, twist it for your own reasons, and then attach the most morally laden terms as you can find to it. All of this happens within a misconstrued tendentiousness.

What you perceive as " our culture under attack" is nothing more as continued rejection of your outdated hatred and fear.

Here, you do again what you have done from the start, and will likely do for all time: You ascribe to me a sort of pastiche that you’ve cobbled together in your imagination. I can assure you that the sense of *culture being under attack* has very different roots than what you assume. So, to say *nothing more* is a givaway that you do not know what you are talking about.

You know that "white" people have used and abused power . . . and so you fear that if white people become the minority . . . that the other races will exact revenge.

You are, obviously, pulling random ideas and thoughts out of your butt-end. This is completely unethical and you should know this. I understand that it is *what goes on around here* and I understand why you do it, but you really shouldn’t do it.

Personally, intellectually and academically, I am interested in understanding how and why cultural authorities have been undermined. So, one of the first books I read that significantly had an impact on me was Robert Bork’s Slouching Toward Gomorrah. It is an idea-filled book and also a reactionary essay. Like genuine conservative ideas it defines something that should and must be protected, and then sets out to counter-attack what is attacking those idea-values.

The loss of cultural authority is tied to a dispiriting process, or a weakening of resolve, in relation to things of value. I refer to these dispiriting influences as *acids* and they have and they are significantly eating away at *structures*. These are various.

What you are on about I really have no idea. You misstate and deliberately misinterpret what I say and turn it into what you want to say.

I do try to point out that men and people who adopt the ideology of people like Master Debator — activist postmodern critical theory — do indeed seem very much to be involved in *exacting revenge*. And I am also aware that this is a natural reaction to people who have been slaves. This is why I refer often to Nietzschean ressentiment and in Geneaology of Morals he writes about ‘slave morality’. That I rfer to this must not be misunderstood, yet you will misunderstand it.

Fight the Power embodies this animus. It is evident in what he writes. But he is only interesting to me insofar as he illustrates larger, social features and on-going currents.

While I certainly understand the origin of it, I am not interested in allowing it to *flourish*. And for this reason, today, surrounding us, all sorts of different people are seeking ways to counter the destructive ideology of Critical Race Theory.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Of course this is pure paranoia and projection on your part.

You are right now involves in *pure projection*. And what you do is part-and-parcel of something larger that surrounds you and us. I suggest that you stop, examine yourself, and try to see it. But I do not think you will — or can.

This I describe as *hysteria*. It possesses you and determines perception.

Then there is the "defection" of other white people from your ideals. Previously white racism and bigotry could operate in security surrounded by other white people who while not buying into the fear and hate . . . were willing to look the other way when it comes to yours. That's happening less and less. Particularly in the younger generation. You are the last gasp of a dying ideology . . . its going the way of the dodo.

You have not described my ideals, you have described some sort of interpretation of what you imagine my ideals to be. And I am a member of the *younger generation*!

But this is how it goes when speaking to people like you (plural). I have said it time and again. You hear what you want, and you twist what is said to conform to what is heard. No matter what is said to you . . . you don’t care to listen.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Not just my own. Plenty of people who you've interacted with on here have come to the same conclusion. If you're not a white supremacist then maybe think about adjusting your message your don't appear that way to nearly everyone who interacts with you.

That is true, but they are often irrational, emotionally-driven people who have staked out a territory in a sort of theatre that they perform here.

*Coming to conclusions* — making wild interpretations, seeing things in the worst light possible, ascribing the most negative terms and designations: this is what is often done on this forum. So what they do, and why they do it, does not have a great deal of weight — at least for me personally.

Often, it is part of a *general derangement* that has swept the land. So, you-plural are not quite like Nazis in terms of managing a certain social indoctrination, though you show certain tendencies that need to be pointed out and watched, and you seem to be more similar to enthusiastic communists under the effect of indoctrination. I say *similar* but ours is a different era. Everything is strangely mixed up. Your power — social power in our present — is real, and you will succeed in doing immense harm before, finally, you are stopped.

You might not agree but mark my words, as the popular phrase goes.

Your term is *white supremacy*. And you use it like a weapon. A sort of abbreviation for intensified moral condemnation. I define the right of a people to define itself and protect itself. Very different from what you assert. And for this reason I take a position in counter to what I refer to as *acids* that seek to break apart the sort of identity and self-appreciation and self-understanding that is important — necessary — for a people to be a people.

I say that your activism is a poisonous activism.And I say that your larger motives are masked. I also say that you are essentially dishonest about what moves and motivates you. I don’t like to use the term *liar* and so I say *you are involved in lies*. But the entire culture has become susceptible to these lies. As is evident today.

I choose to be part of a current that opposes the acid that I recognize as operating in you. You say you (-plural) are *opposed to hated* and yet you are very much involved in focused hatred. And what you hate, knowingly or not, you set out to destroy.

This does not describe every element in you, but it describes elements that you have gotten deeply involved with. And these currents are things that I choose to take issue with, to speak about, to establish alternatives, against an immense wall of lies, misconstruing, and bad-faith.

What I am is exactly what I have stated myself as being. I am certainly not going to *adjust my discourse* at any level. I am going to get better and better at defining it, and I will do this within sensible ethical bounds and within a moralism that accords with my sense of right.

Just as I have said from the beginning. You can come at me in twos in tens in dozens. It is all welcome as far as I am concerned. Otherwise I would not participate here!

 

[Master Debator]

That is true, but they are often irrational, emotionally-driven people who have staked out a territory in a sort of theatre that they perform here.

When posters like @ashurbanipal tried to engage you in rational debate you showed your irrational, emotionally driven self when you huffed and puffed, crossed your arms and refused. You admitted yourself incapable of objective, intellectual debate and that you preferred instead to speak in narratives, your own emotionally driven rhetoric, and so you have no standing to complain about this from others.

*Coming to conclusions* — making wild interpretations, seeing things in the worst light possible, ascribing the most negative terms and designations: this is what is often done on this forum. So what they do, and why they do it, does not have a great deal of weight — at least for me personally.

You mean question premises and narratives you'd rather just have everyone here accept as fact. That's not how debate or life works. No one is under any obligation to delegate their own perspectives to you.

Often, it is part of a *general derangement* that has swept the land. So, you-plural are not quite like Nazis in terms of managing a certain social indoctrination, though you show certain tendencies that need to be pointed out and watched, and you seem to be more similar to enthusiastic communists under the effect of indoctrination. I say *similar* but ours is a different era. Everything is strangely mixed up. Your power — social power in our present — is real, and you will succeed in doing immense harm before, finally, you are stopped.

Oh look, emotional driven personal attacks.

You might not agree but mark my words, as the popular phrase goes.

Sure. We'll see who's predictions hold true.

 

[Master Debator]

Your term is *white supremacy*. And you use it like a weapon. A sort of abbreviation for intensified moral condemnation. I define the right of a people to define itself and protect itself. Very different from what you assert. And for this reason I take a position in counter to what I refer to as *acids* that seek to break apart the sort of identity and self-appreciation and self-understanding that is important — necessary — for a people to be a people.

You keep crying about the white people's right to protect itself but what other rights do you need to do so other than those offered to you by liberty and democracy? It seems clear that those aren't enough for you because you aren't actually talking about defending yourself, you continuously implying a need to use force to assert your cultural dominance on the free will of others. That isn't defense but that is your narrative and you can't debate the issue because you know this to be true, as does everyone who takes two minutes to read any of your posts.

I say that your activism is a poisonous activism.And I say that your larger motives are masked. I also say that you are essentially dishonest about what moves and motivates you. I don’t like to use the term *liar* and so I say *you are involved in lies*. But the entire culture has become susceptible to these lies. As is evident today.

More personal attacks and emotionally driven rhetoric.

I choose to be part of a current that opposes the acid that I recognize as operating in you. You say you (-plural) are *opposed to hated* and yet you are very much involved in focused hatred. And what you hate, knowingly or not, you set out to destroy.

I make no pretenses of my desire to destroy white supremacist culture.

This does not describe every element in you, but it describes elements that you have gotten deeply involved with. And these currents are things that I choose to take issue with, to speak about, to establish alternatives, against an immense wall of lies, misconstruing, and bad-faith.

You can't prove me a liar when you're so obviously afraid to address any criticism of your own rhetoric. Again, what tools other than liberty and democracy do you need to defend white culture?

What I am is exactly what I have stated myself as being. I am certainly not going to *adjust my discourse* at any level. I am going to get better and better at defining it, and I will do this within sensible ethical bounds and within a moralism that accords with my sense of right.

No you won't because you don't understand how to respond to legitimate questions and criticism about your rhetoric. Instead you fall back on personal attacks, calling people deranged and what not. People are always going to question you and if that's your response you will continue to fail.

Just as I have said from the beginning. You can come at me in twos in tens in dozens. It is all welcome as far as I am concerned. Otherwise I would not participate here!

While you encouraging all comers recognize for a moment that your agent growing supporters and that's fine with me as well.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Oh look, emotional driven personal attacks.

No, it is more social commentary.

But nice try!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Sure. We'll see who's predictions hold true.

Now that is a true statement. We will indeed.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No you won't because you don't understand how to respond to legitimate questions and criticism about your rhetoric.

You are describing yourself, I would suggest. Rhetoric? No, ideas. Based in solidities that require intellectual definition. Not emotional defense.

Responding to questions, from you, is absurd. You don’t have questions. You have statements that define your activism. All you see, all you value, is in your activism. Nothing else. You care for nothing else.

You do not have nor do you work with ideas.