White nationalists go wild for Tucker Carlson's "great replacement" theory

[Alizia Tyler]

regardless of border, with less allegiance to the country of one's birth.

I don't think it will be too many generations before nationalism is viewed as a cultural relic.

And you will work to make this so. And you are working to make it so. And there you have a huge difference of 'worldview' from many in the country presently, with a very different sense of ownership and civic relationship.

 

[sanman]

FOX didn't distance itself from Carlson's tinfoil racist beliefs. Oftentimes silence tells you all you need to know.

I'm not white, and I totally agree with Carlson's statements about this. The Democrats are indeed trying to overthrow the existing electorate of the United States, to replace it with some kind of divide-and-rule hegemony.

 

[phoenix2020]

Exactly. The squatter-mindset types are free to believe whatever they like. Regular folks are free to ignore them, and vice versa.

As wealth increases, information about other countries increases, and the costs of international travel become cheaper and more widespread, we can expect more forum-shopping by people looking for the best places to live, regardless of border, with less allegiance to the country of one's birth.

I don't think it will be too many generations before nationalism is viewed as a cultural relic.

Agreed completely. Ironically while I am a solid proponent of renewables and we‘ve spoken with our wallets on this, I feel compelled to support air travel as it exists today—carbon footprint be damned—because it’s one of the key mitigators for nationalistic and ethnic tension. I only wish the bar could be brought even lower.

 

[phoenix2020]

This nicely explains, I think, your particular form of patriotism. Your statement shows what your existential philosophy is. I would not condemn you for it, that is not my role, but it sure does seem strange to me when I compare it to other patriotism.

That’s cool. Your skin color-centric ideas of national identity are strange to me as well when I compare it to other forms identity, patriotism and cultural norms. But to each their own, no?

 

[HangLow]

Continued;
quote
Why America is the World’s Most Uniquely Cruel Society

These emigrants all tended to share a common trait. They were at the very bottom, the lowest rung, of social and economic heirarchies in their own countries. All of them. That has changed a little recently — but America was founded by and for the despised, loathed, hated. People referred to as trash, nobodies, serfs, exiles, outcasts — who were never given an ounce of respect, dignity, or even belonging, in their societies of origin.


So first the English and French settlers supposed that this New World was theirs (and began a kind of genocide against its natives, of course). But it wasn’t just the natives that they came to hate, for threatening their natural right to this Promised Land. It was the next waves of settlers, too. The English settlers hated the French. The French hated the Germans. They all hated the Irish. The Irish hated the Italians. And so on. That much is a historical fact. Do you see the pattern forming yet?

This is very abstract, so let me make it concrete. Here came one wave of settlers — English. They dominated their way to the top of a hierarchy, above natives and blacks. Then came a new wave — German. They were punched down too — and began punching down — to bitterly establish themselves in this hierarchy, as high up as they could. Then another wave — Irish. Punched, punching down. All desperately vying for relative dominance among the rest.

You see, the crucial fact is that this didn’t happen elsewhere in the world — waves of settlers, all desperately trying to establish themselves above the next, last, most recent, in a hierarchy, all the more so, because they were despised, at the bottom, to begin with. In Europe, Asia, South America, hierarchies were long-established — and broken only by revolution. America was the only nation where this constant reconstruction of hierarchy happened to such a degree, over and over again. Hence, the establishment of cruelty as a way of life — how else but to establish one’s self above the next wave of migrants?

Each new tribe that came to this Promised Land brought the burden of being despised, subjugated, oppressed, with them. They were finally above someone else in a social hierarchy. They were not at the bottom anymore. But the above require someone else to be below. And so there was a constant battle for relative position within a growing hierarchy — hence, dominance, competition, conquest soon became the prized cultural values, norms, and institutional goals. Cruelty as a way of life was born.

When we noted that the despised of England hated the newly arrived despised of France hated the newly arrived despised of Germany and so on, not to mentions natives, blacks, and Asians, in an endless vicious circle, we are also saying: America was learning to be cruel, by forever constructing greater heirachies to seize the fruits of a Promised Land. But greater hierarchies require greater cruelty to climb up, too. And the irony is that all this is what the despised came to America to escape.
end quote

Those who came to this land with respect of and respect for American Democracy and chose to educate themselves on the Civic and Civility of American Democracy are the people who are true to respecting American Democracy and the principles of Diversity and the Equality of Person as Individual. Those are the people who don't buy into and don't support racism and do not pander to nor accept racial and ethnic prejudices. These are the people who detest white nationalism, fictions of white supremacy and stand against the ignorance of race and ethnicity bigots who promote such bias and vile.

Trumpism brought out and exposed for the world to see the grouping of those who embrace racist savagery, ethnicity savagery, and anti-democracy. These types do not deserve to be in America, because they have no respect for American Democracy. They have not advanced over centuries, due to their historical pass down of savagery mentality by any means into their offspring's over many many many decades.

We saw the savages charge and attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6th, 2021 !!!! Demonstrating their Ignorance of what is American Democracy. They showed their worship to a belligerent self-consumed glutton, driven by megalomania as the head of the savagery, leading a cult by feeding their savage instincts, trying to install himself an authoritarian dictator.

​

 

[Lisa]

ADL quote from your article:

"The slogan is a reference to the popular white supremacist belief that the white race is in danger of extinction by a rising tide of non-whites who are controlled and manipulated by Jews (in fact, one variant of “You Will Not Replace Us” is “Jews Will Not Replace Us”).

The actual question is not if he or she believes it, but whether those who advocate for it 'believe' it. You kind of have to ask yourself: Where did they get this odd idea that someone is machinating to replace them or alter the structures of their countries?

Lisa, do you have eyes in your head?



The most amazing thing for me is that you people have difficulty in seeing correctly! You see through the structures of your false-impositions on reality. You see what you want to see, and don't see what you don't want to see. Amazing!

All I ask is that you begin to see clearly and honestly, and that you become honest.

Who is Barbara Learner? I had to Wiki her name.

Barbara Lerner Spectre is an academic and philosophy lecturer, who is the founding director of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden, a non-denominational academic institute established in 2001.

Maybe you should cancel her for her non white supremacist opinions? Are you an anti-Semite because you oppose her views?

 

[Yakshi]

And you will work to make this so. And you are working to make it so. And there you have a huge difference of 'worldview' from many in the country presently, with a very different sense of ownership and civic relationship.

Your first two assumptions are inaccurate, by which I mean untrue.

I won't work to make it so, nor am I doing so now, unless I have special mental powers. I am already in my ideal location. Have been for decades.

But trends, and the reasons for them, are easy to spot.

 

[Simpletruther]

Do you agree with the white replacement theory?

Not familiar with it.

 

[Nickyjo]

Sometimes when I game this out in my mind, I wish we had instant low cost travel to anywhere. There would be much less hesitancy on these issues, I think, if everyone spent their first 20 years of life in different places, cultures, and with people every few years. Most would eventually come to recognize that most people are basically the same and that our genomes are mostly identical. I do think it’s getting better, slowly over time, but we are not yet close to that tipping threshold where enough people have seen enough of the world that we stop seeing the balance of the planet’s population as a competitive threat to our local group.

we need Star Trek transporters ASAP!

Good points. I think US size and wealth plus our geography puts us at a certain disadvantage. Our country is warm and generous towards the world, our power has us running a lot of it. Yet generally peaceful borders and two large oceans make us less experienced of other cultures and understanding of some of the world’s complexity. There is a moral clarity that can come from that, but also the appearance of arrogance. I read, albeit some time ago, that most/many passports issued to Americans are used only once for foreign travel. Another factor: many international treaties on human rights or refugees, et al., relevant in the current border situation, were forged by American leadership, yet many Americans are ignorant of them, a factor that works to some politicians’ advantage. Through all the turmoil on the border during the Trump years, I heard no media mention US law and treaty that apply to the situation. My impression is that our European cousins, perhaps thanks to the sad experience of wars, occupations and dictatorships, respect such things so much more. So we can appear hypocritical, others seeing us as having set up so much of the systems and treaties we ignore, unless it suits our purposes.

 

[joluoto]

Tucker's theory isn't new, it's something the White Nationalists has been saying for decades. Tucker just switched the word Jew to Democrat.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

On top of that, understanding that this particular cultural shift and the fight over the cultural shift only matters to these people at this time (meaning that none of this will matter 1000 years from now, except to academics), I choose to look at the deeper things and the things that matter in life. Now I granted that I am a liberal so the harm/care moral pillar is especially important to me (again, recognizing my own inherent human limitations in that and knowing I am going to be especially interested in this particular emotional drive) I choose to try and focus my energies, not on this or that peoples (never cared much about groups) but on what is good for everyone and for me that means looking for things people can agree on. Barring that, I just make fun of people because it amuses me.

Here, by providing background to your ideational structure (sorry if my phrasings seem complex but this is how I understand things) you help me to understand how this goes into the formation of your views.

One of my interests is in trying to understand *what informs people*, what ideas and views they use to form their views and opinions and of course ultimately their actions.

In my own case I was *informed* for a long time by leftist worldview, possibly the strongest influence being Noam Chomsky, At a certain point however, for various reasons, my focus shifted. When I read The Southern Tradition at Bay by Richard Weaver I encountered a man who introduced me to the idea of ‘metaphysics’ as it was his view that the South, for all its ‘scarlet sins’, had a foundation is certain ‘metaphysical principles’. It is hard to understand what he meant but as time goes on I think I see it more clearly. The destruction of the South eventuated a far larger destruction and this destructiveness, as is obvious, plays out within (if you will) *the soul of America*. When one sector of the personality goes into mortal combat with another sector perhaps the meaning is made more clear.

I do not know if what I am alluding to here makes much sense — to most people, especially on a site lite this accessible to all, and to anyone, I do not think that many grasp my orientation — in a philosophical sense of course.

But The Southern Tradition then led me to Ideas Have Consequences, and IHC is a seminal text, a sort of prophetic outline, of Conservatism. The essential idea is that the original metaphysical definitions, such as were outlined by Plato, are where we find the most solid and structured definitions — metaphysical foundations. So then, it is through return to and renewed definition of ‘first principles’ that provide the *proper* foundations to life-lived. Plato dealt with the notion of ‘the mutable’, the mutable, shifting world, in contrast with the world of ‘ideal forms’. Man either seeks and defines solid ideas and values, which are of course ultimately ‘metaphysical’, or on the other extreme simply gives him or herself over to ‘mutable sense experience’.

All of the important religious structures — Vedic, Taoist, Buddhist, Christian — are all grounded in their metaphysical predicates. In contrast, when people surrender their ‘metaphysical foundations’ they always tend to become captured in the currents of mutable process. And mutable process is anti-intellectual because it is ultimately sensual. And when the metaphysical foundations are surrendered, or take away from one, people lose themselves in ‘the mutable’ which in out terms is evidenced by people lost in sense experience, in flickering screens, in sensuous experience, in consumer culture and experience, in unending spectacle. You know: Bread & Circuses.

When you say “I choose to look at the deeper things and the things that matter in life” I find that my interest is aroused, because you are ultimately talking about two things: meaning & value. Meaning is a very interesting topic of consideration. For what is *meaning*? What does meaning refer to? It is always metaphysical! But then so also is ‘value’.

You say “These issues are only important to those living now”. How could this be otherwise? But I would ask: Who is the seer here? Who is seeing? And by *seeing* I mean of course who, steeped in metaphysical categories of meaning & value, is looking at things and making value-assessments and also meaning-assessments? Because it all depends on individuals who are the receptors of meaning & value. But if the receptor is deficient, if the receptor can only appreciate and value mutable process and mutable experience, that receptor certainly will have a hard time discerning ‘the deeper things and the things that matter in life’.

Is this too complex? Too difficult? Too ‘wordy’?

 

[TheParser]

Why are woke Dems so upset?

Mr. Carlson simply stated his opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

If one disagrees with that opinion, fine.

But he should have the right to express it.

Could it be that woke Dems know it's true but are too cowardly to admit it?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

“Now I granted that I am a liberal so the harm/care moral pillar is especially important to me.”

This interests me. Why? Because in many ways I have stripped away from my *concerns* those that are based in mutable categories. How something feels. How I am being treated. What comfort I have or do not have. How I and other people *feel about things*.

In my own case, the most that I investigated Christian categories (which really means Catholic traditional categories since for 1,000 years this is what Christianity was) I discovered at the base of all notions very rigorous and unchanging foundations. So, one either gets onto the *proper foundation*, which is by definition non-mutable, constant and of course eternal, or one does not. But the primary vehicle for leaving or abandoning *foundation* is, of course, the sensual and the sentimental.

So I would be inclined to say that, according to my understanding, it is not proper to say that classic Liberalism is involved in the harm/care pillar as you say, but what I call ‘Hyper-Liberalism’ definitely is. Because it has been seduced away from hard, constant and rigorous foundations, which demand hardness and severity in respect to the self, and becomes susceptible to excessive emotional concerns.

The most revealing emblem of this in our present? The Shrieking Girl.

Now, when you take that Shrieking Girl and you multiply her not a thousand times by millions & millions of times I feel I can assure you, and beyond any doubt, that you are going to witness a mob that is incapable of genuine intellectual thought. They are not going to be able to see or recognize ‘higher metaphysical categories’. They are not going to be able to defend, and not even to recognize, the higher metaphysical dimensions on which our civilization was in fact constructed!

And when that Shrieking Girl, having veered away from *proper foundations* then encounters all that Critical Theory and Applied Postmodernism offers, I feel I can assert, and truthfully, that our culture is really & truly heading in a dangerous and destructive direction. This cannot end well.

And we are watching all of this — the consequences that Weaver spoke of — playing out right in front of our eyes!

But where is the seer who sees? Who grasps the meaning of the moment? And when the meaning is grasped, who will act on the realization? And what does it demand of the self and of the individual — and society and civilization?

All of this of course points in one direction: the restoration of solid metaphysical foundations and the grounding of the self upon those defined foundations.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Richard Weaver wrote this as part of his larger social and cultural criticism:

”There is a certain harrowing alternative to be pointed out as a possibility of our inaction or our failure. It is undeniable that there are numerous resemblances between the Southern agrarian mind and the mind of modern fascism, and I would affirm that fascism too in its ultimate character is a protest against materialist theories of history and society. This is certain despite the fact that fascism immersed itself in materialist techniques for its conquests, and thereby failed. This other society too believes in holiness and heroism; but it is humane, enlightened, and it insists on regard for personality more than do modern forms of statism under liberal and social-democratic banners. Above all, in meeting the problem of motivation it does what social democracy has never been able to do. Now that truth can once more be told, let us admit that fascism had secret sympathizers in every corner of the world and from every social level. It attracted by its call to achievement, by its poetry, by its offer of a dramatic life. It attracted even by its call to men to be hard on themselves. Social democracy will never be able to compete with this by promising to each a vine-covered cottage by the road and cradle-to-grave social security. People who are yet vital want a challenge in life; they want an opportunity to win distinction, and even those societies which permit distinction solely through the accumulation of wealth and its ostentatious display, such as ours has been, are better than those that permit none. From the bleakness of socialist bureaucracy men will sooner or later turn to something stirring; they will decide again to live strenuously, or romantically.”

Does this make sense in the context of our present? If it doesn’t, it should. Because in this specific sense what ‘fascism’ means, and where fascism came from, was indeed from those who desired to ‘restore foundations’.

It has been nearly impossible to engage with anyone on this forum strictly within the realm of ideas. Everyone seems invested in — excuse me for saying it — emotional categories of concern. Sometimes they are as shrill as the Shrieking Girl!

My suggestion is that this *condition* be examined.

And none of this — emotional reaction, mental unbalance, lack of intellectual sobriety — leads in any positive sense to *understanding*. And if one cannot understand how in the name of Heaven could one act constructively?

​

 

[Slartibartfast]

Here, by providing background to your ideational structure (sorry if my phrasings seem complex but this is how I understand things) you help me to understand how this goes into the formation of your views.

One of my interests is in trying to understand *what informs people*, what ideas and views they use to form their views and opinions and of course ultimately their actions.

In my own case I was *informed* for a long time by leftist worldview, possibly the strongest influence being Noam Chomsky, At a certain point however, for various reasons, my focus shifted. When I read The Southern Tradition at Bay by Richard Weaver I encountered a man who introduced me to the idea of ‘metaphysics’ as it was his view that the South, for all its ‘scarlet sins’, had a foundation is certain ‘metaphysical principles’. It is hard to understand what he meant but as time goes on I think I see it more clearly. The destruction of the South eventuated a far larger destruction and this destructiveness, as is obvious, plays out within (if you will) *the soul of America*. When one sector of the personality goes into mortal combat with another sector perhaps the meaning is made more clear.

I do not know if what I am alluding to here makes much sense — to most people, especially on a site lite this accessible to all, and to anyone, I do not think that many grasp my orientation — in a philosophical sense of course.

But The Southern Tradition then led me to Ideas Have Consequences, and IHC is a seminal text, a sort of prophetic outline, of Conservatism. The essential idea is that the original metaphysical definitions, such as were outlined by Plato, are where we find the most solid and structured definitions — metaphysical foundations. So then, it is through return to and renewed definition of ‘first principles’ that provide the *proper* foundations to life-lived. Plato dealt with the notion of ‘the mutable’, the mutable, shifting world, in contrast with the world of ‘ideal forms’. Man either seeks and defines solid ideas and values, which are of course ultimately ‘metaphysical’, or on the other extreme simply gives him or herself over to ‘mutable sense experience’.

All of the important religious structures — Vedic, Taoist, Buddhist, Christian — are all grounded in their metaphysical predicates. In contrast, when people surrender their ‘metaphysical foundations’ they always tend to become captured in the currents of mutable process. And mutable process is anti-intellectual because it is ultimately sensual. And when the metaphysical foundations are surrendered, or take away from one, people lose themselves in ‘the mutable’ which in out terms is evidenced by people lost in sense experience, in flickering screens, in sensuous experience, in consumer culture and experience, in unending spectacle. You know: Bread & Circuses.

When you say “I choose to look at the deeper things and the things that matter in life” I find that my interest is aroused, because you are ultimately talking about two things: meaning & value. Meaning is a very interesting topic of consideration. For what is *meaning*? What does meaning refer to? It is always metaphysical! But then so also is ‘value’.

You say “These issues are only important to those living now”. How could this be otherwise? But I would ask: Who is the seer here? Who is seeing? And by *seeing* I mean of course who, steeped in metaphysical categories of meaning & value, is looking at things and making value-assessments and also meaning-assessments? Because it all depends on individuals who are the receptors of meaning & value. But if the receptor is deficient, if the receptor can only appreciate and value mutable process and mutable experience, that receptor certainly will have a hard time discerning ‘the deeper things and the things that matter in life’.

Is this too complex? Too difficult? Too ‘wordy’?

You might do better if you didn't try to tell me what my words mean. I know what they mean.

 

[Master Debator]

Does this make sense in the context of our present? If it doesn’t, it should. Because in this specific sense what ‘fascism’ means, and where fascism came from, was indeed from those who desired to ‘restore foundations’.

It's not confusing why failed philosophers would turn to fascism to impose on free intellects what they couldn't convince through reasoned argument.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You might do better if you didn't try to tell me what my words mean. I know what they mean.

You mean that in response to:

”So I would be inclined to say that, according to my understanding, it is not proper to say that classic Liberalism is involved in the harm/care pillar as you say, but what I call ‘Hyper-Liberalism’ definitely is. Because it has been seduced away from hard, constant and rigorous foundations, which demand hardness and severity in respect to the self, and becomes susceptible to excessive emotional concerns.”

It does not surprise me that your response is *emotional*. You are just one among dozens here.

I am not telling you what your words mean, I am correcting an erroneous usage common in our present.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It's not confusing why failed philosophers would turn to fascism to impose on free intellects what they couldn't convince through reasoned argument.

That is I think what Weaver suggests when he says that European fascism turned to physical mechanisms to ‘convince’ and as a result ‘thereby failed’.

What you are implying is that the philosophers (who knows who you meant) you refer to could not convince because they did not have good arguments; that the *free intellects* recognized this and chose to go their own way.

But another view is possible: those *free intellects* are not really free and they can no longer *hear* what I might call the ring of truth. That would be more in line with Weaver’s general thrust.

And what you describe there might well be — likely is — your basic relationship to Occidental categories.

You likely find in must of the Occidental methods and approaches an intolerable imposition and ‘epistemic violence’. And in that attitude — I base this on all the wasted, fruitless conversation I’ve had with you — is your core rebellion and bottomless resentment.

Does that sound about right?

 

[Master Debator]

What you are implying is that the philosophers (who knows who you meant) you refer to could not convince because they did not have good arguments; that the *free intellects* recognized this and chose to go their own way.

But another view is possible: those *free intellects* are not really free and they can no longer *hear* what I might call the ring of truth. That would be more in line with Weaver’s general thrust.

Well if you want to argue that instead of hiding behind Weaver who isn't here to respond to a back and forth then let's have at it. What is this ring of truth you speak of and what prevents us from hearing?

And what you describe there might well be — likely is — your basic relationship to Occidental categories.

You likely find in must of the Occidental methods and approaches an intolerable imposition and ‘epistemic violence’. And in that attitude — I base this on all the wasted, fruitless conversation I’ve had with you — is your core rebellion and bottomless resentment.

Does that sound about right?

You trying to frame both sides of the argument does seem par for your course. Maybe resentment over the ideological and political losses suffered by Weaver and his ilk is why you choose mostly to argue with yourself. Safer that way I suppose.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You trying to frame both sides of the argument does seem par for your course. Maybe resentment over the ideological and political losses suffered by Weaver and his ilk is why you choose mostly to argue with yourself. Safer that way I suppose.

Well if you want to argue that instead of hiding behind Weaver who isn't here to respond to a back and forth then let's have at it. What is this ring of truth you speak of and what prevents us from hearing?

We have already been over this. And you want to go through it all over again?!? You must be bored.

First, Weaver is not so much Weaver as Weaver is really the Platonic perspective. People used to study these things, you know. And if I refer to Weaver, or quote Weaver, I am not so much quoting a given man but referring to an Idea.

The ‘ring of truth’ is, of course, the ‘higher metaphysical’ ideas and ideals with which, though which, the Occident was built. But as something that is ‘metaphysical’ it is non-concrete, and yet known in what it produces. All of this, as you well know, you reject. It makes no sense to you.

So — and again referring to Weaver — ‘his’ idea is that the conditions of the present, which means the fallen condition of man and society that he noticed and responded to, has a causation that can be discovered and known. The title of his most famous book Ideas Have Consequences encapsulates his entire idea.

He wrote:

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.

What prevents you (a wide, cultural you-plural) from hearing also prevents you from seeing. But if I offer a way to grasp what is referred to, that too will make no sense to you.

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, they eye.

You can of course read (see) the words, you can recite it in your mind and *hear* it, but it is unintelligible to you.

Would you like me to present this in an alternative form?

 

[Slartibartfast]

You mean that in response to:

”So I would be inclined to say that, according to my understanding, it is not proper to say that classic Liberalism is involved in the harm/care pillar as you say, but what I call ‘Hyper-Liberalism’ definitely is. Because it has been seduced away from hard, constant and rigorous foundations, which demand hardness and severity in respect to the self, and becomes susceptible to excessive emotional concerns.”

It does not surprise me that your response is *emotional*. You are just one among dozens here.

I am not telling you what your words mean, I am correcting an erroneous usage common in our present.

The concern for the harm/care pillar is consistent among pretty much any society measured, so your notion that there was drift is wrong, its just a mode of thought that our brain is templated with.

Also, concern about the drift away from our pure forefathers is something that even Socrates complained about, its another thing we have always done.

Those two observations allude to the greater point I am making, things will play out how they play out and people have been performing their roles for as long as we have had society and those roles tend to rhyme or repeat themselves throughout history.

And that is what I mean about the limits of human perspective and our inherent subjectivity as well.

 

[Master Debator]

We have already been over this. And you want to go through it all over again?!? You must be bored.

I'm more amused by how long you take to say nothing.

And if I refer to Weaver, or quote Weaver, I am not so much quoting a given man but referring to an Idea.

Ideas you have trouble expressing in your own words and that you have trouble defending from criticism.

The ‘ring of truth’ is, of course, the ‘higher metaphysical’ ideas and ideals with which, though which, the Occident was built.

Which are...?

But as something that is ‘metaphysical’ it is non-concrete, and yet known in what it produces.

So far only amusing amounts of self aggrandizement.

All of this, as you well know, you reject. It makes no sense to you.

You're really not that hard to figure out.

So — and again referring to Weaver — ‘his’ idea...

Who couldn't of seen that one coming

...is that the conditions of the present, which means the fallen condition of man and society that he noticed and responded to, has a causation that can be discovered and known. The title of his most famous book Ideas Have Consequences encapsulates his entire idea.

A loser projecting onto society his own failings.

He wrote:

Some loser shit about how the world was going to hell in a hand basket because we turned away from his beloved ideals.

What prevents you (a wide, cultural you-plural) from hearing also prevents you from seeing. But if I offer a way to grasp what is referred to, that too will make no sense to you.

This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, they eye.

You can of course read (see) the words, you can recite it in your mind and *hear* it, but it is unintelligible to you.

Would you like me to present this in an alternative form?

No that's fine. Allow me to respond.

A few beers make his mood pugnacious,
his jokes and stories more salacious,
his eye for nymphets more rapacious,
with older women most ungracious;
his appetite for fat, voracious,
swells his manly gut capacious.
With piety somewhat audacious
he calls upon his saint, Ignatius,
"Save me a bed in Heaven so spacious
that it will hold a hundred geishas."

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'm more amused by how long you take to say nothing.

So, yes, I did read your silly post and it is all to be expected. Your discourse is that you have no discourse at all. You are a walking-talking angry argument looking for a topic!

What I say is that, for some of us and here I obviously mean myself, the object is to describe what happened to you-plural. Because you really do represent a substantial current of ideas (insofar as you deal in ideas and you only sort of do, yet there are people who have become much more pointed in their argument and I can refer to them) or a sort of infliction going on in the world of ideas, that has consequences in society, in life, in our civilization.

Ideas have consequences.

Where you fit into this is as an African American (or Asian-African American-Antillean) who has a developed an intense hatred for Whites, white culture, *our epistemology* *our categories*, if I can put it in that way (and indeed I can) and who forms part of a current of destructive people, a movement in American society, that authors the upset, the rioting, the rebellion that we see going on around us. You are definitely part of that current, and in this sense you are part of a causal chain.

You Fight The Power on numerous levels, but one of them is an epistemological battle against the categories of knowing that you despise.

You see? You are at war with essential categories that inform our society. And I begin to perceive that, with caution and discretion, I must begin to apply the label of ‘enemy’ to you. Why? Because there is a perception, an idea circulating, that there are destructive elements at work who act like termites and who undermine structures. These are of no consequence to you, you simply do.not.care. But others do care. And very much so.

These underminings have to be seen, recognized and stopped. But my argument is not with you-as-person, it is with you as a current of ideas — Applied Postmodernism and Applied Critical Theory. These are further morphs of essentially anti-Liberal ideas and man you are really infected with them.

Have you taken your temperature today?

This likely sounds a bit over the top for a simple political discussion, but I tend to see things in a large frame.

The battle lines are being drawn — everyone needs to see this clearly.

 

[Master Debator]

So, yes, I did read your silly post and it is all to be expected. Your discourse is that you have no discourse at all. You are a walking-talking angry argument looking for a topic!

Let's see how much of your post is substance and how much is petulant name calling. So far, not off to a great start.

What I say is that, for some of us and here I obviously mean myself, the object is to describe what happened to you-plural.

Right. You came here to lecture, not debate. Your beliefs can't stand the scrutiny.

Because you really do represent a substantial current of ideas (insofar as you deal in ideas and you only sort of do, yet there are people who have become much more pointed in their argument and I can refer to them) or a sort of infliction going on in the world of ideas, that has consequences in society, in life, in our civilization.

Ideas have consequences.

And actions have reactions. You ever plan on moving beyond basic physics and getting to the substance of your argument?

Where you fit into this is as an African American (or Asian-African American-Antillean) who has a devloped sense of hatred for Whites, white culture, *our epistemology* if I can put it in that way (and indeed I can) and who forms part of a current of destructive people, a movement in American society, that authors the upset, the rioting, the rebellion that we see going on around us.

Not hatred for whites and white culture. For white supremacist culture.

You Fight The Power on numerous levels, but one of them is an epistemological battle against the categories of knowing that you despise.

Again, you're just cataloging things I have never denied and openly admit.

You see? You are at war with essential categories that inform our society.

You mean I disagree that white supremacy is an essential category of our society. That you now claim it as essential let's see you defend it and prove it as such.

And I begin to perceive that, with caution and discretion, I must begin to apply the label of ‘enemy’ to you. Why? Because there is a perception, an idea circulating, that there are destructive elements at work who act like termites and who undermine structures.

I told you I meant to undermine your ideals and values to destroy white wing elements in our society from our first interaction. Is it just now dawning on you?

They have to be seen, recognized and stopped. But my argument is not with you-as-person, it is with you as a current of ideas — Applied Postmodernism and Applied Critical Theory. These are further morphs of essentially anti-Liberal ideas and man you are really infected with them.

Do you have a counter argument besides claiming I have political cooties?

This likely sounds a bit over the top for a simple political discussion, but I tend to see things in a large frame.

The battle lines are being drawn — everyone needs to see this clearly.

Oh they're clear and getting clearer. Even businesses and corporations are being forced to take sides and they aren't choosing yours.

 

[Acadia]

White nationalists go wild for Tucker Carlson's "great replacement" theory

Tucker Carlson's apparent embrace of a major racist talking point sparks ecstasy among far-right online fanatics

www.salon.com

FOX didn't distance itself from Carlson's tinfoil racist beliefs. Oftentimes silence tells you all you need to know.

Nothing racist about it. You know Tucker's over the target once again when the mobs starts calling for him to be fired, with the usual allegation of racism.