Why does the left support terrorism?
tsarkon
Len McLaughlin
"tsarkon" <tsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SRIhc.204708$oR5.164764@pd7tw3no...
> I want to know. What is it about Osama that they love so much?
Maybe they're not very swift. Maybe they haven't clued in yet. This is not
the old style terrorism, this is a new terrorism, this is a 'clash of
civilizations' and united we stand, divided we fall. It's that simple but
they still playing their petty little political mind games of the last
century.
OBL is counting on the west being divided and the proof is in his tape
offering a truce to those nations not supporting the U.S. Nations like
France and Germany and the left haven't clued in to something that is so
obvious even to OBL. If he takes the US down, they're next and I hope the
US doesn't lift a little finger to help them.
-Len
notritenoteri
Europe isn't all left and it certainly doesn't support OBL. In fact if
there's any place that's xenophobic it has got to be Europe. In non-Moslem
countries the only good mossy is a dead mossy except GB but they'd support a
syphilitic corpse if they thought they could make a profit out of it. Look
at Serbia they're just itching to whack all the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo
who just happen to be Muslim. Germany doesn't allow "guest workers" (read
turks=Muslims) to become citizens. France is going to make Frenchmen out of
the muslim algerians or kill them in trying. Spqain hasn't had a nice thing
to say about Mossies since they kicked em out 800 years ago.
Why not look at Africa and see which countries the west is concerned with
about famines, genocide etc. My guess would be that that no one gives a
sweet rat's ass about the Muslim ones except if there is oil.
One more go-round in USA and all swarthy darkskinned guys with funny names
will be out in sector 51 in white boxcars and wearing a headscarf will get
your head blown clean off.
We're on the edge of a religious war is my guess.
"Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:biQhc.25804$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Peter White
Your problem notritenoteri is that you don't understand 'Len Logic'
Len Logic works thus:
"My president doesn't lie."
"How can you be sure?"
" I have his WORD for it."
Got that?
John Baglow
Smarten up, people. It's the *right* wing that supports terrorism, and
often if not always finances it. Need I remind you about Oklahoma, or
about the US funding of bin Laden before he "turned," or about the
grisly atrocities of the Reagan-backed "contras" in Nicaragua
(including bombing daycare centres), or the state terror in US-backed
dictatorships in Chile and Argentina?
I will at least give you the benefit of the doubt that ignorance and
not deliberate lies are being expressed in your posts, Len (and
Barry): in the case of the stupid anonymoid "tsarkon," however, he is
already a publicly-documented liar on the Svend Robinson question, and
there is no reason to suspect him of attempting to tell the truth
here.
--John Baglow
Unknown
wrote:
>"Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<biQhc.25804$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
>> "tsarkon" <tsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:SRIhc.204708$oR5.164764@pd7tw3no...
>> > I want to know. What is it about Osama that they love so much?
>> ==
>> Maybe they're not very swift. Maybe they haven't clued in yet. This is not
>> the old style terrorism, this is a new terrorism, this is a 'clash of
>> civilizations' and united we stand, divided we fall. It's that simple but
>> they still playing their petty little political mind games of the last
>> century.
>>
>> OBL is counting on the west being divided and the proof is in his tape
>> offering a truce to those nations not supporting the U.S. Nations like
>> France and Germany and the left haven't clued in to something that is so
>> obvious even to OBL. If he takes the US down, they're next and I hope the
>> US doesn't lift a little finger to help them.
>> -Len
>
>Smarten up, people. It's the *right* wing that supports terrorism, and
>often if not always finances it. Need I remind you about Oklahoma, or
>about the US funding of bin Laden before he "turned," or about the
>grisly atrocities of the Reagan-backed "contras" in Nicaragua
>(including bombing daycare centres), or the state terror in US-backed
>dictatorships in Chile and Argentina?
You missed the state funded terrorism supported by the CCCP, Qaddafi
Duck, China, Bulgaria, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea and every
socialist country. Remember?
We are smarter than you. That much is obvious.
notritenoteri
the the 60s or 70s How far back do you want to go?
"E. Barry Bruyea" <sn...@drift.ca> wrote in message
news:gdvf80d2e3eec7hom...@4ax.com...
> Those on the far left have supported terrorism for decades and
> unfortunately, those 'moderate' leftists seem to be coming around with
> their 'extreme' brothers. Don't forget, it was the late, unlamented
> USSR that sponsored, trained and armed most of the groups that sprung
> up in the 60's and 70's.
> >
>
notritenoteri
"Terry Crawford" <tdc...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:40880c9b...@news.gv.shawcable.net...
Len McLaughlin
"John Baglow" <bag...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
news:8b5c46df.04042...@posting.google.com...
John, I never plead ignorance, stupidy maybe but not ignorance. (:-) I said
the left, of any degree, far, center or liberal, doesn't get it and to me
your post is just further verification. There is no relative comparison
between the Oklahoma bit and the terrorisom we're facing today. The
Oklahoma bit was standard past centuries type 'terrorism'. I'm not sure it
can be called terrorism but for argument sake, so be it. There is no state
sponsorship, no funding, no religious fervor, no WMDs, no surrender
demanded.
Likewise for Reagan and the Contras or the CIA and Chile and Argentina. Call
them mistakes , atrocities, etc but life goes on much the same today as
before. As both Terry and Barry pointed out, many nations played a role in
that era of the Cold War, but what we're facing today and maybe tomorrow is
a far different animal.
Others call what we're facing today as a 'clash of civilizations', which is
how I see it. Notritenoteri is at least partially right in calling it a
religious war but I think it is broader than that. Think big, think outside
your normal box.
An Arab expression,'me against my cousin, me and my cousin against the
outsider.' You and I must play the role of 'cousins', if we don't we all
lose.
--
> in the case of the stupid anonymoid "tsarkon," however, he is
> already a publicly-documented liar on the Svend Robinson question, and
> there is no reason to suspect him of attempting to tell the truth
> here.
--
time, but 'tsarkon' could be absolutely right this time. Because you're
wrong most of the time doesn't mean you're wrong all the time.
-Len
> --John Baglow
Tim
> I want to know. What is it about Osama that they love so much?
I think they see someone who is fighting the terrorism of the west with
terrorism. It's a thing of beauty to see something so simple and yet so
reciprocative be so effective.
Unfortunately for him, most westerners are to obtuse to see this.
notritenoteri
religion is economics which is power. That is what the players want is
power and if a religious war will get it so be it. People don't want to
look too deep its very frightening to realize the thing we do best is kill
each other.
"Tim" <noco...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rIWhc.33484$CO3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
John Baglow
Nope. You are essentially a blinkered apologist for US-sponsored
terrorism. Perhaps you call it something else to make you feel better.
Ask the people of Chile, Argentina and Nicaragua about terrorism. Ask
the Palestinians on the West Bank used for target practice by Israeli
settlers. Terrorism exists across the political spectrum. To assign
the label "leftist" to it is dumb--plain dumb. Stupid. Idiotic. Got
it?
--John Baglow
Tim
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:41:37 -0400, "notritenoteri" <colda...@hades.com> wrote:Not to put too small a point on it but so-called terrorism didn't start in the the 60s or 70s How far back do you want to go?
You left off the US government, the British government, the Russian government etc.Many of the organizations alive and well today had their genesis during the late 60's and early 70's and although some now have different names, the core is still the same, not the least of which is the PLO and its offshoots, which today, enjoys some credibility at the U.N. as well as many elements of the Western left.
Tim
And you're too damn obtuse to see that what OBL and his ilk are trying to do, is take the followers of Islam back to the middle ages. And useful idiots in the West are helping him.
That's the thing about self-determination, Barry. I may not agree with how they want to rule their lives, being an atheist myself, but I believe they have a right to rule their lives. I don't know how I can be in favour of peoples right to rule themselves and then expect them to conform to my personal philosophy. At least you acknowledge that they are not trying to take us back to the middle ages, which is a start.
Hartmann Schaffer
Tim <noco...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> ...
>>And you're too damn obtuse to see that what OBL and his ilk are trying
>>to do, is take the followers of Islam back to the middle ages. And
>>useful idiots in the West are helping him.
>
> That's the thing about self-determination, Barry. I may not agree with
> how they want to rule their lives, being an atheist myself, but I
> believe they have a right to rule their lives. I don't know how I can be
> in favour of peoples right to rule themselves and then expect them to
> conform to my personal philosophy. At least you acknowledge that they
> are not trying to take us back to the middle ages, which is a start.
do you have any indication that bin laden implementing his plans would
amount to the people in muslim countries ruling themselves? i have my
doubts
hs
--
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel
Samuel Johnson
Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all
others because you were born in it
George Bernard Shaw
Len McLaughlin
today's terrorism bears little relationship to the past. It's like the
generals always 'fighting the last war'. In WW 1, the generals couldn't
grasp a simple thing like a machine gun changing warfare forever. How many
tens of thousands died because of this failure to foresee the potential of
that machine gun?
--
Today that 'machine gun' has morphed into WMDs. I suppose that if the
generals couldn't grasp such a fundamental change, it's not surprising the
average citizen can't either. Will future generations be saying the same
about us?
--
In our part of the world, the Irish conflict is about the only thing that
can be compared to true terrorism for the past several generations. It had
all the makings including religion, nationalism, a safe state and outside
support from Libya, Kennedy country and Rome. Without the support of all
four, the revolution would have died a natural death.
--
Imagine now the IRA having WMD, suicidal tendencies and the desire to
destroy Northern Ireland and not just regain 'territory.' The outcome could
have been far different. The west is now that imaginary Northern Ireland
with that imaginary IRA.
-Len
John Baglow
> Others call what we're facing today as a 'clash of civilizations', which is
> how I see it. Notritenoteri is at least partially right in calling it a
> religious war but I think it is broader than that. Think big, think outside
> your normal box.
I'm already outside, it, Len. I will not subscribe to this age-old
myth, that finds its origins in the legends of the Crusades. It's
subterranean Christianity in a new guise. In fact, not all that
subterranean in some quarters, and not all that new: just listen to
Bush's speeches (a "crusade" against terrorism; "if you aren't with us
you're against us" [Matthew 12:30]; the free use of metaphysical
concepts like "evil" and "good"; the binary thinking that is inherent
in Christianity) or Ashcroft's nonsense about Jesus being the king of
the US.
People imbued with the Judeo-Christian tradition are easily swept up
into this kind of hysteria. Age-old enemies are invoked, and the
righteous face off against the wicked. And of course, to some of the
resident trolls here, the "left" is wicked, and therefore must be
identical to [of all absurd charges, this has to be the dumbest in a
decade] fundamentalist Islam!
Sorry. I just don't want to play. When you want to discuss
geo-politics instead of metaphysics, let me know.
--John Baglow
Len McLaughlin
You lost me. "Geo-politics'' ,''metaphysics''? I'm only interested in
reality. Theories and philosophy, politics and economics can get a bit deep
and meaningless for this forum. I barely have time to discuss or express my
opinion on current events. I'm not sure how we got here based on your
responses but sorry John, not interested either.
Have a good one.
-Len
Peter White
fucking clue as to what John Baglow means. In much the same way you
don't have a fucking clue as to the meaning of the clichés you drop so
liberally.
John Baglow
He knows perfectly well what I mean, and has no coherent response. No
problem. But I'm still feeling amused at a rightwinger urging other
people to think outside the box.
--John Baglow
C.J.W.
John Baglow wrote:
> Peter White <p...@white.net> wrote in message news:<rmhic.26887$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> > Len McLaughlin wrote:
> > > "John Baglow" <bag...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8b5c46df.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >>"Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > >>I'm already outside, it, Len. I will not subscribe to this age-old
> > >>myth, that finds its origins in the legends of the Crusades. It's
> > >>subterranean Christianity in a new guise. In fact, not all that
> > >>subterranean in some quarters, and not all that new: just listen to
> > >>Bush's speeches (a "crusade" against terrorism; "if you aren't with us
> > >>you're against us" [Matthew 12:30]; the free use of metaphysical
> > >>concepts like "evil" and "good"; the binary thinking that is inherent
> > >>in Christianity)
Are you saying that's wrong?
<snip>
> > >>People imbued with the Judeo-Christian tradition are easily swept up
> > >>into this kind of hysteria.
What kind of hysteria, saying that some things are right and other things are wrong?
<snip>
> He knows perfectly well what I mean, and has no coherent response. No
> problem. But I'm still feeling amused at a rightwinger urging other
> people to think outside the box.
An answer to the current harmony among socialists and Islamists: Socialists can be united with
Islamists in their visceral hatred of the Jews. This is combined with the fact that leftists seem to
dislike conservatives saying that terrorism is "wrong" because they don't believe that conservatives
should say things are "right" and "wrong" as if that is what they are metaphysically. And so leftists
tend to wind up seeking to merely "understand" evil physically instead of admitting that evil is
metaphysical and so demonstrate a vast amount of Sadean ethical incompetence. They will often treat any
metaphysical condemnation of terrorism as something to be more "sensitive" about or critical of than
terrorism itself. Baglow's leftist positions based on the elimination of "subterranean Christianity"
and "Judeo-Christian tradition" have to do with his metaphysics of denial of metaphysics just as
leftists' anti-Semitism does. Elimination of the "Jewish influence" in Christianity by fascist
socialists has had much to do with a denial of focusing on transcendent good and evil just as Baglow
wants to do away with focusing on such a metaphysical Jewish influence altogether. (Note, fascists do
away with metaphysics and all that is left is the physical, which is to be manipulated, conditioned,
etc.)
It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist socialists hate because this is the
metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
"To reduce [Natural Law] to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind
of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot
go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You
cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see
something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden
beyond is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first
principles. If you see through everything then everything is tranparent. But a wholly transparent
world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
(C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)
Thus, the blindness of intellectually vain leftists....
--W
Len McLaughlin
"C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net...
Thanks, W, I wish I could have said this. I know both John and Peter will
understand what is being said and will have a couple of good intelligent
replies. I'll await with bated breath to see how smart they really are.
-Len
John Baglow
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > Peter White <p...@white.net> wrote in message news:<rmhic.26887$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> > > Len McLaughlin wrote:
> > > > "John Baglow" <bag...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8b5c46df.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > >>"Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > > >>I'm already outside, it, Len. I will not subscribe to this age-old
> > > >>myth, that finds its origins in the legends of the Crusades. It's
> > > >>subterranean Christianity in a new guise. In fact, not all that
> > > >>subterranean in some quarters, and not all that new: just listen to
> > > >>Bush's speeches (a "crusade" against terrorism; "if you aren't with us
> > > >>you're against us" [Matthew 12:30]; the free use of metaphysical
> > > >>concepts like "evil" and "good"; the binary thinking that is inherent
> > > >>in Christianity)
>
> Are you saying that's wrong?
> <snip>
I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is what
Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary." The world is composed of
many voices, many perspectives, infinite shadings. That doesn't
necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
opposition and struggle, but it does mean that simplistic black vs.
white ways of looking at the world don't satisfactorily account for
what we observe in and of it.
> > > >>People imbued with the Judeo-Christian tradition are easily swept up
> > > >>into this kind of hysteria.
>
> What kind of hysteria, saying that some things are right and other things are wrong?
Being categorical in that fashion isn't thought; it's a substitute for
thought.
> <snip>
>
> > He knows perfectly well what I mean, and has no coherent response. No
> > problem. But I'm still feeling amused at a rightwinger urging other
> > people to think outside the box.
>
> An answer to the current harmony among socialists and Islamists: Socialists can be united with
> Islamists in their visceral hatred of the Jews.
Nonsense. Pure opportunistic propaganda from the right. Nobody has
been traditionally more visceral in their hatred of the Jews than the
Right, whether of the Christian or the neo-nazi perspectives.
>This is combined with the fact that leftists seem to
> dislike conservatives saying that terrorism is "wrong" because they don't believe that conservatives
> should say things are "right" and "wrong" as if that is what they are metaphysically. And so leftists
> tend to wind up seeking to merely "understand" evil physically instead of admitting that evil is
> metaphysical and so demonstrate a vast amount of Sadean ethical incompetence.
This is pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook. It combines an unproven
article of faith ("evil is metaphysical") with a silly reference to
Sade, but there is no argument in it. And somehow it is a sin, if I
may use the word (when in Rome...) for the left to attempt to
understand this "evil." As though merely accepting the article of
faith is better than honest enquiry. Although, come to think of it,
that's the basis of Chrisitanity, now, isn't it?
> They will often treat any
> metaphysical condemnation of terrorism as something to be more "sensitive"
> about or critical of than
> terrorism itself. Baglow's leftist positions based on the elimination
> of "subterranean Christianity"
> and "Judeo-Christian tradition" have to do with his metaphysics of denial of > metaphysics
More word-salad, I'm afraid. It is a more satisfactory approach
intellectually to look for explanations of events in the world than
merely to attribute them a priori to some metaphysical origin and let
it go at that. "Evil" is an empty signifier and argument on that basis
becomes mere bluster--which I guess sums up your general approach to
things, come to think of it. In any event, Occam's razor, which I am
using here, isn't a metaphysics--it's a method.
> just as
> leftists' anti-Semitism does. Elimination of the "Jewish influence" in
> Christianity by fascist
> socialists has had much to do with a denial of focusing on transcendent good > and evil just as Baglow
> wants to do away with focusing on such a metaphysical Jewish influence
> altogether. (Note, fascists do
> away with metaphysics and all that is left is the physical, which is to be
> manipulated, conditioned,
> etc.)
Good grief, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp. I hardly know
where to start here. The slithery assumption of an alleged leftist
anti-semitism. The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
origins). The oxymoron "fascist socialists." The attribution, in what
I can only regard as a blithely anti-semitic position, of metaphysics
to the Jews. And, last but not least, the quaint notion that fascists
do away with metaphysics. Fascist writing is peppered with it:
everything from the notions of blood, nation and race to the somewhat
larger-than-life attribution of evil to the Jews as a force rather
than a group of individuals.
> It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist socialists
> hate because this is the
> metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
More cant. What, precisely, is this "natural law" you speak of? What
is natural? How (if you can come to grips with that)does law derive
from or inhere in "the natural?" And what the hell do the Jews have to
do with it?
> "To reduce [Natural Law] to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind
> of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot
> go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You
> cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see
> something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden
> beyond is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first
> principles. If you see through everything then everything is tranparent. But a wholly transparent
> world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
> (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)
Ah, you're trotting out the deep philosophers now. Who's next--Norman
Vincent Peale?
> Thus, the blindness of intellectually vain leftists....
And the vacuous pseudo-intellectual posturing arrogance of
rightists....
--John Baglow
C.J.W.
John Baglow wrote:
> John Ross Lambourne's latest simulacrum, "C.J.W.", <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net>...
>
> > John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > > Peter White <p...@white.net> wrote in message news:<rmhic.26887$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> > > > Len McLaughlin wrote:
> > > > > "John Baglow" <bag...@travel-net.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8b5c46df.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>"Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > > >>I'm already outside, it, Len. I will not subscribe to this age-old
> > > > >>myth, that finds its origins in the legends of the Crusades. It's
> > > > >>subterranean Christianity in a new guise. In fact, not all that
> > > > >>subterranean in some quarters, and not all that new: just listen to
> > > > >>Bush's speeches (a "crusade" against terrorism; "if you aren't with us
> > > > >>you're against us" [Matthew 12:30]; the free use of metaphysical
> > > > >>concepts like "evil" and "good"; the binary thinking that is inherent
> > > > >>in Christianity)
> >
> > Are you saying that's wrong?
> > <snip>
>
> I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is what
> Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary."
No, what you just said is outmoded "vocabulary" and so you my as well quit saying it.
It's also typical fascist deconstructionism.
See:
(David H. Hirsch. The Deconstruction of Literature:
Criticism after Auschwitz (Hanover, NH: Brown Univ. Press 1991))
> The world is composed of
> many voices, many perspectives, infinite shadings.
Most are either admitting to common senses typical to all humans as humans or seeking to supress the same. You are on the side of seeking to
supress the common sense typical to conservatives. This is a part of "subterranean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" that must not
be expressed according to fascists.
> That doesn't
> necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
> opposition and struggle,
Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
> but it does mean that simplistic black vs.
> white ways of looking at the world don't satisfactorily account for
> what we observe in and of it.
Are you sure you're right about that? You have refuted your very Self, as well as the humanity of everyone else and then you speak of your
"observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical, biochemical state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let metaphysics back in.
Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
transcendence."
("Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise,
Italian Fascism, National Socialism,
trans. Leila Vennewitz. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1966) :429. See also, section:
"Fascism as a Metapolitical Phenomenon" :429-462)
Yet effete fascists, for all the conditioning and medical "treatment" of the physical, do in fact speak metaphysically. You may rebel against
the metaphysical but all you can do is pervert it, not really deny it.
> > > > >>People imbued with the Judeo-Christian tradition are easily swept up
> > > > >>into this kind of hysteria.
> >
> > What kind of hysteria, saying that some things are right and other things are wrong?
>
> Being categorical in that fashion isn't thought; it's a substitute for
> thought.
You speak of "thought" as if you have a rationale for rationality. You speak of it as if you believe in transcendence enough to admit that a
spiritual, metaphysical mind exists. Fascism has no integrity and merely imitates the integrity that comes with metaphysics.
<snip>
> > An answer to the current harmony among socialists and Islamists: Socialists can be united with
> > Islamists in their visceral hatred of the Jews.
>
> Nonsense. Pure opportunistic propaganda from the right. Nobody has
> been traditionally more visceral in their hatred of the Jews than the
> Right, whether of the Christian or the neo-nazi perspectives.
"Visceral"? That is a fascist imitation of metaphysical transcendence and a disdain for the earthy and crude based on it even as you deny the
Jewish influence and argue for the merely physical. Is there something wrong with being earthy and crass, i.e. visceral? What is wrong with
it? You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine language itself.
You are also historically ignorant.
> >This is combined with the fact that leftists seem to
> > dislike conservatives saying that terrorism is "wrong" because they don't believe that conservatives
> > should say things are "right" and "wrong" as if that is what they are metaphysically. And so leftists
> > tend to wind up seeking to merely "understand" evil physically instead of admitting that evil is
> > metaphysical and so demonstrate a vast amount of Sadean ethical incompetence.
>
> This is pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook.
You try to judge the intellect even as you deny the metaphysical mind and this is why your judgments are so idiotic. (Idiotic in the sense of
your metaphysical ideas being manifested and not in the sense of a naturalistic excuse for your chosen idiocy.)
> It combines an unproven
> article of faith ("evil is metaphysical") with a silly reference to
> Sade, but there is no argument in it. And somehow it is a sin, if I
> may use the word (when in Rome...) for the left to attempt to
> understand this "evil."
Leftists rationalize evil because they have no rationale for rationality.
> As though merely accepting the article of
> faith is better than honest enquiry.
Accepting the common senses that civilization rests on is supported by honest inquiry but not by fascist rebellion against the Jewish
influence. Your pretense to honest inquiry even as you seek to remove metaphysics from discussion is absurd.
> Although, come to think of it,
> that's the basis of Chrisitanity, now, isn't it?
No, it's not. But your sentiment that Christianities admission to the Jewish influence of transcendence is fascist.
"The Christian churches build on the ignorance
of people and are anxious so far as possible to
preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the
populance as possible; only in this way can the
Christian churches retain their power. In
contrast, national socialism rests on scientific
foundations."
(Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under
Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
(Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)
> > They will often treat any
> > metaphysical condemnation of terrorism as something to be more "sensitive"
> > about or critical of than
> > terrorism itself. Baglow's leftist positions based on the elimination
> > of "subterranean Christianity"
> > and "Judeo-Christian tradition" have to do with his metaphysics of denial of > metaphysics
>
> More word-salad, I'm afraid.
No, your fascist deconstructionism is the actually the ultimate word-salad.
But the reader should not the irony:
"He knows perfectly well what I mean,
and has no coherent response. No
problem. But I'm still feeling amused....."
You know perfectly well what is being said.
I amused at a socialist fascist urging other people to
think outside the box even as they put us all in
the box of physical, naturalistic explanation.
> It is a more satisfactory approach
> intellectually to look for explanations of events in the world than
> merely to attribute them a priori to some metaphysical origin
"Intellectually"?? Is there no metaphysical origin of the intellect?
> and let
> it go at that. "Evil" is an empty signifier and argument on that basis
> becomes mere bluster--which I guess sums up your general approach to
> things, come to think of it. In any event, Occam's razor, which I am
> using here, isn't a metaphysics--it's a method.
I suppose as long as a "method" eliminates the Jewish influence a fascist doesn't care that it is Self refuting too.
The view also leads to junk science,
pseudo-science. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
due not to inferior training but to
the mendacity inherent in any
scholarship that overlooks or openly
repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
against the Jewish People. (New York:
The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
Your projections of a "pseudo-intellect" and "word-salad" are amusing. All the while, of the most transcendent things such as mind and word you
mendaciously continue a fascist goal where words have no integrity and medicalization, conditioning and a self refuting "pseudo-intellect" rule
the day.
> > just as
> > leftists' anti-Semitism does. Elimination of the "Jewish influence" in
> > Christianity by fascist
> > socialists has had much to do with a denial of focusing on transcendent good > and evil just as Baglow
> > wants to do away with focusing on such a metaphysical Jewish influence
> > altogether. (Note, fascists do
> > away with metaphysics and all that is left is the physical, which is to be
> > manipulated, conditioned,
> > etc.)
>
> Good grief, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp. I hardly know
> where to start here. The slithery assumption of an alleged leftist
> anti-semitism.
Are you that ignorant?
It's been there from the start.
E.g.
"Sometimes the view of Marx as virulently anti-semitic is
based on a particular reading of his two well-known review
essays, published in 1844 under the general title Die Judenfrage
(On the Jewish Ques tion), one of which emphasizes Marx’s
prediction that Judaism will disappear (“the Jew will become
impossible,” in Marx’s phrase) in a socialist society. But the
view of Marx as anti-semitic rests much more frequently
on his disparaging comments about Jews as a race and
as individuals than on a particular interpretation of the
argument of Die Judenfrage. These unflattering remarks
appear primarily in the second essay of Die Judenfrage;
in Herr Vogt, the manuscript of 1860 still untranslated
(into English) with its extraordinarily tasteless at tack
on Joseph Moses Levy, publisher of the London Daily
Telegraph (the length of whose nose provides the focal
point for three pages of abuse); in several articles
which appeared in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung, the
newspaper edited by Marx and Engels in 1848—49;
and in their private correspondence. .......
The letter, which is actually more
insulting to blacks than to Jews, reads as follows:
'The Jewish nigger Lassalle, who fortunately left at the end of
the week, had, again fortunately, lost 3000 Thaler in a bad
speculation. The fellow would rather throw the money in the
gutter than lend it to a “friend” even if the interest and
capital were guaranteed.'
....Marx’s and Engels’ articles in Die Neue Rheinische
Zeitung include a number of very disparaging
comments about Jews, esp. in Poland. See their
articles of June 8, July 8, July 9, August 9, August 12, August
22, September 1, November 29 (all 1848) and January 8,
February 21, March 18, April 29 (1849). The most virulently
anti-semitic articles to appear in that newspaper were,
however, published by others. Of particular note is the series
of five articles by Ernst Drönke (one of the publishers of the
N.R.Z.) which appeared in July 1848. Mr. Lev Golman of
the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU writes:
“There is no doubt that the point of view represented in this
article, as in other articles by Drönke on the Polish Question,
expressed the general position of the editors of the N.R.Z.
including its chief editor Marx.” Letter to the author,
Feb. 20, 1979."
("In the Interests of Civilization": Marxist Views
of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century
Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 42,
No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1981), pp. 115-138)
"Hugh Lloyd-Jones comments that, 'remarks about Lassalle
sometimes recall the tone of Goebbels.' W. H. Chaloner and
W. 0. Henderson claim that Marx 'detested his own race.'
Max Geltman writes that Jews 'never knew that Marx had
called for their utter disappearance from the face of the earth.'
And Robert Payne remarks that Marx’s 'solution of the
Jewish question was not very different from Adolph Hitler’s.' "
(Ib.)
> The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
> influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
> Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
> origins).
Yes?
> The oxymoron "fascist socialists."
Aka, National Socialists, because fascism is the heretical branch of socialism. But feel free to try to deny this historical fact.
Hitler:
"'I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit....
The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into
practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.
The whole of National Socialism is based on it.... National Socialism
is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its
absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.'"
(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :164)
Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas.
"Mussolini became secretary of the Socialist Federation of Forli
and editor of its paper, La Lotta di Classe ("The Class Struggle"),
from which platform he established himself as a leading voice
of the party's radical left wing, And a strident voice it was.
Propounding proletarian internationalism, he declared: 'The
national flag is for us a rag to be planted on a dunghill.'"
(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :147)
> The attribution, in what
> I can only regard as a blithely anti-semitic position, of metaphysics
> to the Jews.
I said the clearest exposition of metaphysical Natura Law. I didn't say that the Jewish influence is the only exposition of Natural Law. Note
that fascists have always been against the "alienation" that comes with Natural Law and in favor of supposed laws of Nature, radical
environmentalism, inane notions of evolutionism, animal rights, naturalistic Hedonism in sexual perversions, etc. Notions that seem to be more
and more common in Canada.
> And, last but not least, the quaint notion that fascists
> do away with metaphysics.
It's only as quaint and self refuting as your notion that you can possibly do away with metaphysics so you probably shouldn't be too critical.
> Fascist writing is peppered with it:
> everything from the notions of blood, nation and race
All physical.
Your ignorance is telling.
> to the somewhat
> larger-than-life attribution of evil to the Jews as a force rather
> than a group of individuals.
A physical biological force that was to be dealt with in a medical way. This view in socialism is different than other forms of anti-Semitism.
But of course, fascists still often refer to things in a pseudo-religious metaphysical way just as you do. That is because your mendacity has
no integrity.
> > It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist socialists
> > hate because this is the
> > metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
>
> More cant. What, precisely, is this "natural law" you speak of?
Are you that ignorant?
> What
> is natural?
To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature. Therefore, everything that occurs in Nature is not natural just because it
occurs in Nature. You most likely hate Americanism for its foundation on common sense of the metaphysical and self evident truths.
Note that fascists say that nothing is unnatural but the "Jewish influence" which severs man from Nature. You will not really say that anything
is evil other than the conservative common sense notion that some things are evil. That is a manifestation of Sadean philosophy.
> How (if you can come to grips with that)does law derive
> from or inhere in "the natural?"
Good grief, it seems that you have no idea what Natural Law is. Are all Canadians tending towards fascist socialism in this way?
> And what the hell do the Jews have to
> do with it?
How can you speak of "subterranean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" if you are ignorant of it?
> > "To reduce [Natural Law] to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind
> > of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot
> > go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You
> > cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see
> > something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden
> > beyond is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first
> > principles. If you see through everything then everything is tranparent. But a wholly transparent
> > world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
> > (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)
>
> Ah, you're trotting out the deep philosophers now. Who's next--Norman
> Vincent Peale?
I.e. you have nothing to say to a deep philosopher pointing out how shallow your philosophy is. But it doesn't take any deep philosopher to
refute fascist idiocy.
> > Thus, the blindness of intellectually vain leftists....
>
> And the vacuous pseudo-intellectual posturing arrogance of
> rightists....
You claim the "pseudo-intellect," even as your position is based on mendacity and denial of metaphysics? Are you suprised that you wind up
being an ignorant mindless nit wit when you deny the metaphysics and epistemology that sentience rests on? What is your rationale for
rationality?
Don't squirm and rely on some effete fascist deconstructionism by sniveling about supposed "word salad," answer the question or it seems you
must admit to fundamental irrationality that will pervert all your so-called "reason."
--W
EricŽ
> > That doesn't
> > necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
> > opposition and struggle,
> Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
> > but it does mean that simplistic black vs.
> > white ways of looking at the world don't satisfactorily account for
> > what we observe in and of it.
>
> Are you sure you're right about that? You have refuted your very Self, as well as the humanity of everyone else and then you speak of your
> "observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical, biochemical state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
> done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let metaphysics back in.
>
> Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
> transcendence."
[snippage]
Interesting that Baglow has been identified as a fascist at least twice
now in the last ten days.
"Oh but I can't be a fascist- I'm a left-winger"
Gimme a break!
Liked your post.
________________________________________________________________________
"You take a mortal man
And put him in control
Watch him become a god
Watch people's heads roll "
Dave Mustaine (part 2)
John Baglow
Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
I have boiled down his pseudo-intellectual rant as best I can.
"C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net>...
>> John Baglow wrote:
>> I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is
what
>> Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary."
>No, what you just said is outmoded "vocabulary" and so you my as well
quit
>saying it.
Hardly a refutation. Just the sort of bald assertion that you appear
to employ instead of reasoning.
>It's also typical fascist deconstructionism.
>See:
>(David H. Hirsch. The Deconstruction of Literature:
>Criticism after Auschwitz (Hanover, NH: Brown Univ. Press 1991))
Your use of the word "fascist" reveals it to be yet another empty
signifier. And
Hirsch, quite frankly, is almost as silly as you are. Anyone who
conflates
Deconstruction with Nazism is clearly woefully ignorant of both. And
anyone
who believes, as Hirsch does, that literature is dependent upon
critics for its
development is equally ignorant of both literature and literary
criticism.
You're out of your depth here, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
>> The world is composed of
>> many voices, many perspectives, infinite shadings.
>>Most are either admitting to common senses typical to all humans as
humans or se
>>eking to supress the same. You are on the side of seeking to
>>supress the common sense typical to conservatives.
"Suppress," Lenny? How so?
>This is a part of "subterran
>ean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" that must not
>be expressed according to fascists.
And should not, according to non-fascists, be expressed by those
who want to avoid the ridicule due to anti-intellectual
fundamentalists.
>> That doesn't
>> necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
>> opposition and struggle,
>Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
You don't know, evidently, what a "fascist" is. It's just a
mindlessly-
applied label that substitutes for thinking on your part.
>> but it does mean that simplistic black vs.
>> white ways of looking at the world don't satisfactorily account for
>> what we observe in and of it.
>Are you sure you're right about that? You have refuted your very
Self, as well
>as the humanity of everyone else and then you speak of your
>"observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical,
biochemica
>l state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
>done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let
metaphysics back in.
There is a difference between observational realism and reductionism.
You
really need to do a little reading. Daniel Dennett might be a good
beginning.
According to you, in any case, scientists are "fascists" too.
And atheists or agnostics. And materialists, even though
materialism, as opposed to realism, is founded upon a
metaphysical notion. In other words, a "fascist" is anyone
who doesn't believe in a transcendent God. The word loses all
meaning long before you try to stretch it that far.
>Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
>transcendence."
>("Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise,
>Italian Fascism, National Socialism,
>trans. Leila Vennewitz. (New York: Holt,
>Rinehart & Winston, 1966) :429. See also, section:
>"Fascism as a Metapolitical Phenomenon" :429-462)
Fascism as an ideology wasn't even imaginable at the time that de
Sade lived. You play with concepts like a child. (And please give
Nolte the credit he is due for that definition, even if it is
wrong. Learn, in other words, how to record a citation.)
Roger Griffin makes short work of Nolte, incidentally. And Nolte
himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
the so-called "fascist minimum."
For all your bluster, your ignorance shines through like a neon light.
> Yet effete fascists,
Now, *there's* a concept! "Effete fascists." Love it.
> for all the conditioning and medical "treatment" of the phy
>sical, do in fact speak metaphysically. You may rebel against
>the metaphysical but all you can do is pervert it, not really deny
it.
No one can avoid metaphysical thinking all the time. It's a form
of mental shorthand that helps us generalize from our experiences
and observations of the phenomenal world. But metaphysics need
not be transcendental.
[snip]
>You speak of "thought" as if you have a rationale for rationality.
You speak of
> it as if you believe in transcendence enough to admit that a
>spiritual, metaphysical mind exists.
That's gobbledygook. I believe that mind exists. But that hardly
makes me a metaphysician in your sense. I disagree with
epiphenomenalism. But, according to you, that no doubt makes
me a "fascist."
>>Fascism has no integrity and merely imitat
>>es the integrity that comes with metaphysics.
That's just playing with words. Obviously fascism
has an integrity, i.e., a wholeness, as every metanarrative
does. But you're punning on the word: you are referring
at the same time to moral integrity, which is completely
absent from fascism and signally lacking in its practitioners.
[responding to the silly charge that leftism is viscerally
anti-semitic]
>> Nonsense. Pure opportunistic propaganda from the right. Nobody has
>> been traditionally more visceral in their hatred of the Jews than
the
>> Right, whether of the Christian or the neo-nazi perspectives.
>"Visceral"? That is a fascist imitation of metaphysical
transcendence and a dis
>dain for the earthy and crude based on it even as you deny the
>Jewish influence and argue for the merely physical. Is there
something wrong wi
>th being earthy and crass, i.e. visceral? What is wrong with
>it?
You're getting a little confused here. The word "visceral" was yours.
Don't
mystify it—it simply means intuitive as opposed to being based upon
observation
or reason. It's not a "fascist imitation" of anything. Nor is there
anything
inherently wrong with it per se. There can be good intuitions ("She's
the one
for me, I can't live without her") or bad ones ("Blacks and Jews
aren't human.)
Intuition is not any more fundamentally reliable than observation.
>You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine
>language itself.
This is gibberish.
>You are also historically ignorant.
And this, as it happens, is plain wrong.
[snip
>You try to judge the intellect even as you deny the metaphysical mind
and this
> is why your judgments are so idiotic. (Idiotic in the sense of
>your metaphysical ideas being manifested and not in the sense of a
naturalistic
>excuse for your chosen idiocy.)
Very impressive. All pretence at reason having deserted you, you now
resort to this hysterical and baseless abuse. I am not trying to
"judge
the intellect," whatever that means, although I have come to a
judgement
about *your* intellect.
>Leftists rationalize evil because they have no rationale for
rationality.
A very impressive gnomic utterance. Not. You're trying to imitate
wisdom.
Leftists don't like metaphysical concepts like "evil." We like to test
our ideas
against observations of the real world, a task that is never-ending.
"Evil" is a social construct. It doesn't have a lot of explicative
value.
>> As though merely accepting the article of
>> faith is better than honest enquiry.
>Accepting the common senses that civilization rests on is supported
by honest
>inquiry but not by fascist rebellion against the Jewish
>influence.
How do Jews keep getting into the discussion? You're like Mr. Dick,
for crying out loud.
>>Your pretense to honest inquiry even as you seek to remove
>>metaphysics from discussion is absurd.
So you claim. One has to believe in God or one can't be honest,
according to you. I don't agree.
[referring to faith over observation]
>> Although, come to think of it,
> >that's the basis of Christianity, now, isn't it?
>No, it's not. But your sentiment that Christianities admission to
the Jewish in
>fluence of transcendence is fascist.
The above is not very clear, to put it mildly: try working on your
sentence structure. I would certainly claim a Jewish influence on
Christianity. That makes me knowledgeable about the
origins of Christianity, but hardly a "fascist." You're blowing smoke.
[snip]
>> > They will often treat any
>> > metaphysical condemnation of terrorism as something to be more
"sensitive"
>> > about or critical of than
>> > terrorism itself. Baglow's leftist positions based on the
elimination
>> > of "subterranean Christianity"
>> > and "Judeo-Christian tradition" have to do with his metaphysics
of denial of
>> > metaphysics
>
>> More word-salad, I'm afraid.
>No, your fascist deconstructionism is the actually the ultimate
word-salad.
There you go again. "Fascist deconstruction" is no more meaningful
than
"fascist socialism." The word just means you disapprove of something.
When you were a kid you probably pushed your plate away and said,
"fascist
vegetables."
>I amused at a socialist fascist urging other people to
>think outside the box even as they put us all in
>the box of physical, naturalistic explanation.
You really are as foolish as you sound, I suspect. In any
case, the box you mention is a much larger one than
a groundless belief in a transcendent God.
>> It is a more satisfactory approach
>> intellectually to look for explanations of events in the world than
>> merely to attribute them a priori to some metaphysical origin
>"Intellectually"?? Is there no metaphysical origin of the
intellect?
No more than there is a metaphysical "origin" for a rock.
>> and let
>> it go at that. "Evil" is an empty signifier and argument on that
basis
>> becomes mere bluster--which I guess sums up your general approach
to
>> things, come to think of it. In any event, Occam's razor, which I
am
>> using here, isn't a metaphysics--it's a method.
>I suppose as long as a "method" eliminates the Jewish influence a
fascist
>doesn't care that it is Self refuting too.
You're obsessed.
>The view also leads to junk science,
>pseudo-science. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
>due not to inferior training but to
>the mendacity inherent in any
>scholarship that overlooks or openly
>repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
>(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
>Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
>against the Jewish People. (New York:
>The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
So real science is transcendant? Do tell. One
doesn't need to refer to the transcendent in order to
be honest or to do sound research. But in any case:
if "moral" and "spiritual" are signifiers that
refer to concepts such as empathy, conscience
and so on, I might even agree with you, although
I could provide a realist explanation of their etiology.
Fascism is remarkable in the degree to which it
repudiated such notions.
>Your projections of a "pseudo-intellect" and "word-salad" are
amusing. All the
>while, of the most transcendent things such as mind and word you
>mendaciously continue a fascist goal where words have no integrity
and medicaliz
>ation, conditioning and a self refuting "pseudo-intellect" rule
>the day.
I would suggest, speaking of medicalization, that you are overdue for
your pills, if the above is any indication of your thinking processes.
You're breaking up, to put it gently.
[snip]
>> Good grief, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp. I hardly know
>> where to start here. The slithery assumption of an alleged leftist
> >anti-semitism.
>Are you that ignorant?
Are you that benighted?
>It's been there from the start.
[quotes from anti-Marxists purporting to prove that Marx
was an anti-semite snipped]
Then the fact that there have historically been at least
some Jews involved on the Left should be put down to--
what? Ignorance of Karl Marx? Or putting his remarks
in the context of the time? Why were the Nazis rounding up
Communists? According to you, they should have been
running the death camps together. Your knowledge
of history would appear to parallel your knowledge
of philosophy.
>> The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
>> influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
>> Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
>> origins).
>Yes?
So why make that stupid claim? How does one eliminate
the Jewish influence on Christianity? What would be left
of Christianity? You make no sense at all.
>> The oxymoron "fascist socialists."
>Aka, National Socialists, because fascism is the heretical branch of
socialism.
>But feel free to try to deny this historical fact.
>Hitler:
>"'I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to
admit....
>The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into
>practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.
>The whole of National Socialism is based on it.... National Socialism
>is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its
>absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.'"
>(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
>(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :164)
So Marxism, if it just gave up its essence and became Nazism, would
be Nazism. Adolf was never much of a thinker. This kind of tautology
is typical.
In any event, your ability to cite needs a little work. That's from
"Mein Kampf,"
where you can find anything you care to look for. How about these
ones:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the
individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or
not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existence.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true in
regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual
man, the person."
"Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent
men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it
must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as
far as it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the
blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative
brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of
humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative
brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common
interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for
they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case
whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who
have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase to eliminate the dominant
significance of personality in every sphere of human life and replace
it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics
the parlimentary form of government is the expression of this effort.
We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest
parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation.
In the field of economics we see the trades union movement, which does
not serve the real interests of the employees…"
"If [we] should fail to understand the fundamental importance of the
essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external
appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it
would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its
own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of
dominant importance and influence in the community."
Sounds like the very essence of conservative philosophy, now, doesn't
it/
>Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas.
>"Mussolini became secretary of the Socialist Federation of Forli
>and editor of its paper, La Lotta di Classe ("The Class Struggle"),
>from which platform he established himself as a leading voice
>of the party's radical left wing, And a strident voice it was.
>Propounding proletarian internationalism, he declared: 'The
>national flag is for us a rag to be planted on a dunghill.'"
>(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
>(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :147)
So you are also ignorant of the chronology of Mussolini's political
"thought." Quelle surprise.
>> The attribution, in what
>> I can only regard as a blithely anti-semitic position, of
metaphysics
>> to the Jews.
>I said the clearest exposition of metaphysical Natura Law. I didn't
say that
>the Jewish influence is the only exposition of Natural Law. Note
>that fascists have always been against the "alienation" that comes
with Natural
>Law and in favor of supposed laws of Nature, radical
>environmentalism, inane notions of evolutionism, animal rights,
naturalistic Hed
>onism in sexual perversions, etc. Notions that seem to be more
>and more common in Canada.
One can only hope.
>> And, last but not least, the quaint notion that fascists
>> do away with metaphysics.
>It's only as quaint and self refuting as your notion that you can
possibly do aw
>ay with metaphysics so you probably shouldn't be too critical.
>> Fascist writing is peppered with it:
>> everything from the notions of blood, nation and race
>All physical.
>Your ignorance is telling.
<snicker> So tell us, then: what's "physical?" The fascists
could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of race and nation.
>> to the somewhat
>> larger-than-life attribution of evil to the Jews as a force rather
>> than a group of individuals.
>A physical biological force that was to be dealt with in a medical
way. This
> view in socialism is different than other forms of anti-Semitism.
Evasion noted.
>But of course, fascists still often refer to things in a
pseudo-religious
>metaphysical way just as you do. That is because your mendacity has
>no integrity.
You're wandering again. So when fascists actually talk in metaphysical
terms, they must be lying? Your cartwheels are something to behold.
As for "mendacity [that] has no integrity," I suggest you look both
words up.
If you are indeed accusing me of lying, it behooves you to back up
your
claims. You won't, of course: you'll just throw the word "fascist"
around as though you know what you're talking about.
>> > It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist
socialists
>> > hate because this is the
>> > metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
>> More cant. What, precisely, is this "natural law" you speak of?
>Are you that ignorant?
Evasion noted.
>> What
>> is natural?
>To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
Morality cannot be found in nature. It's a useful social construct,
not something that one discovers. Your thinking is actually mediaeval
on this point.
> Therefore,
> everything that occurs in Nature is not natural just because it
>occurs in Nature.
Word-salad alert!
>You most likely hate Americanism
What, precisely, is "Americanism?" Would you provide a definition?
I try to avoid essentialist constructs like this one.
>for its foundation on common
>sense of the metaphysical and self evident truths.
That's just blather.
>Note that fascists say that nothing is unnatural but the "Jewish
influence"
> which severs man from Nature. You will not really say that anything
>is evil other than the conservative common sense notion that some
things are
>evil. That is a manifestation of Sadean philosophy.
You are making no sense here whatsoever.
>> How (if you can come to grips with that)does law derive
>> from or inhere in "the natural?"
>Good grief, it seems that you have no idea what Natural Law is.
It seems that you have no desire to define it or defend it when called
on your use of the term. It's just more of your mystification and
rhetoric
attempting to disguise itself as thought.
>Are all
>Canadians tending towards fascist socialism in this way?
I assume that this is a rhetorical question.
>> And what the hell do the Jews have to
>> do with it?
>How can you speak of "subterranean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian
tradition"
>if you are ignorant of it?
As I recall, I referred to both is the specific context of the current
recrudescence of
what might be called the "crusade mentality." The discussion was about
what
has stupidly been called "the clash of civilizations," a topos that I
believe has
its roots in fairly ancient history. Those who prate about such things
are not
talking geopolitics; they are fishing up Christian topoi.
On one point, I would make an amendment. Conservatives frequently
conflate Judaism and Christianity in the phrase "Judeo-Christian,"
as, for example, in "same-sex marriage is utterly opposed to our J-C
t." But my use of it was in error in the context in which I was
arguing.
I should have simply said "Christian tradition," since we were, after
all,
talking about the Crusades--or, at least, I was.
[snip quote from C.S. Lewis]
>> Ah, you're trotting out the deep philosophers now. Who's
next--Norman
>> Vincent Peale?
>I.e. you have nothing to say to a deep philosopher pointing out how
shallow your
>philosophy is.
Come now. C.S. Lewis was hardly a "deep philosopher." My sarcasm
obviously
went right over your head.
>But it doesn't take any deep philosopher to
>refute fascist idiocy.
On that, I agree with you. Res ipsa loquitur.
>> > Thus, the blindness of intellectually vain leftists....
>>
>> And the vacuous pseudo-intellectual posturing arrogance of
>> rightists....
>You claim the "pseudo-intellect," even as your position is based on
mendacity
There you go again. How, precisely, am I lying? Put up or shut up.
> and denial of metaphysics? Are you suprised that you wind up
>being an ignorant mindless nit wit when you deny the metaphysics and
> epistemology that sentience rests on? What is your rationale for
>rationality?
These are non-problems. You need a good dose of positivism, seems to
me.
Or is that fascist too?
>Don't squirm and rely on some effete fascist
Why do I suddenly have this image of Hitler in pink tights?
>deconstructionism by sniveling
> about supposed "word salad,"
I'm not snivelling, you idiot. I'm describing precisely what is
evident in
your feeble attempts to prove yourself an intellectual.
>answer the question or it seems you
>must admit to fundamental irrationality that will pervert all your
so-called
>"reason."
The question is unanswerable, because it is nonsensical.
--John Baglow
C.J.W.
"EricŽ" wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote...
>
> > > That doesn't
> > > necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
> > > opposition and struggle,
>
> > Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
>
> > > but it does mean that simplistic black vs.
> > > white ways of looking at the world don't satisfactorily account for
> > > what we observe in and of it.
> >
> > Are you sure you're right about that? You have refuted your very Self, as well as the humanity of everyone else and then you speak of your
> > "observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical, biochemical state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
> > done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let metaphysics back in.
> >
> > Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
> > transcendence."
> [snippage]
>
> Interesting that Baglow has been identified as a fascist at least twice
> now in the last ten days.
>
> "Oh but I can't be a fascist- I'm a left-winger"
>
> Gimme a break!
>
> Liked your post.
Thanks. I'm glad to see that Canadian conservatives still exist.
--W
C.J.W.
Len McLaughlin wrote:
> <snip>
> Thanks, W, I wish I could have said this.
Thanks, I'm glad to see that conservatives are willing to attempt to speak up
for common sense even if it's hard to express in words.
All metaphysical means is a sense of the transcendent, putting words to it and
so on and all transcendent means is a sense of non-physical realities. Marxist
socialists emphasis is on the environment, economic class. National socialists
emphasis is on biology, race and nation. Both are based on denial of the
metaphysical in favor of subversion in the physical and both deal with their
enemies in physical way. In contrast, typically Burkean conservatism is based
on judging the physical by the metaphysical which leads to admitting to common
sense and having foresight. In the socialist view human nature can be changed
because it is merely physical and in the conservative view human nature is
metaphysical and so has to be admitted to. Conservatives tend to have foresight
and common sense where socialists have neither.
--W
C.J.W.
John Baglow wrote:
> First, my apologies to John Ross Lambourne. This is our old friend
> Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
>
> I have boiled down his pseudo-intellectual rant as best I can.
>
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net>...
>
> >> John Baglow wrote:
>
> >> I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is
> what
> >> Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary."
>
> >No, what you just said is outmoded "vocabulary" and so you my as well
> quit
> >saying it.
>
> Hardly a refutation.
I don't even need to provide a refutation when you've already refuted your Self. But merely noting
your self refutation is a refutation.
> Just the sort of bald assertion that you appear
> to employ instead of reasoning.
Reasoning is based on common sense of self evident truths. This is why you are irrational. You have
no rationale, only rationalizations ad naseum.
> >It's also typical fascist deconstructionism.
>
> >See:
> >(David H. Hirsch. The Deconstruction of Literature:
> >Criticism after Auschwitz (Hanover, NH: Brown Univ. Press 1991))
>
> Your use of the word "fascist" reveals it to be yet another empty
> signifier.
I have already noted what the general philosophy of fascism is. So its rebellion against the
transcendence of words is of as little surprise as your own self refutating nonsense about
"vocabulary" is. Let's apply your own idiotic standards to you first and other people second. If one
of the very bases of civilization itself, i.e. language, is merely perceptual and not conceptual then
lets apply this deconstructionism to what you say first. After all, if your standard is correct then
you should be the first to abide by it.
> And
> Hirsch, quite frankly, is almost as silly as you are.
"Silly"? As if anyone is as infantile as you or other fascist socialists. Denying the conceptual
meaning of words is a reversion to infantility. Denying the metaphysical in favor of some crass
empiricism is another reversion to an infantile state in which all that is believed in is that which
is immediately observed.
> Anyone who
> conflates
> Deconstruction with Nazism is clearly woefully ignorant of both.
The person who first used the term deconstruction was a Nazi.
"The concept of deconstruction has its philosophical
roots in Heidegger, who first used the term, although
the contemporary theory goes far beyond Heidegger in its
dissolution of language and transcendence. Put
simply, deconstruction begins with the existentialist
dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that
meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists
go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is
through language. Drawing on the work of structural linguists,
deconstructionists then argue that language,
which is based on arbitrary symbolism
and exclusions, is itself problematic."
(Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993 (Concordia Publishing House) :135)
One problem, deconsructionism = the sentiment, "This statement is a lie."
> And
> anyone
> who believes, as Hirsch does, that literature is dependent upon
> critics for its
> development is equally ignorant of both literature and literary
> criticism.
I have to correct Canadian fascist revisionists with respect to the historical reality of the
Holocaust and now correct this deconstrucionist idiocy..... eventually one has to wonder just how far
fascism in Canada has taken hold.
More criticism of your deconstructionism:
"In past human crises, writers and thinkers strained language to the breaking
point to keep alive the memory of the unimaginable, to keep the human
conscience from forgetting. In the current context, however,
intellectuals seem more devoted to abstract assaults on
values than to thoughtful probing of the moral dimensions
of human experience.
"Heirs of the ancient possessions of higher knowledge and literacy
skills," we seem to have lost our nerve........
Less certain about the power of language, that "oldest flame of the
humanist soul," to frame a credo to live by or criteria to judge by,
we are vulnerable even to the discredited Paul de Man's indecent
hint that "wars and revolutions are not empirical events . . . but
'texts' masquerading as facts." Truth and reality seem more
elusive than they ever were in the past; values are pronounced
to be mere fictions of ruling elites to retain power.
We are embarrassed by virtue.
Words collide and crack under these new skeptical strains,
dissolving into banalities the colossal enormity of what must
be expressed lest we forget. Remembering for the future has
become doubly dispiriting by our having to remember for
the present, too, our having to register and confront
what is wrong here and now.
The reality to be fixed in memory shifts as we seek words for
it; the memory we set down is flawed by our subjectivities. It
is selective, deceptive, partial, unreliable, and amoral. It
plays tricks and can be invented. It stops up its ears to
shut out what it does not dare to face.
.....We have to get on with our lives. Besides, memories
reconstructed in words, even when they are documented
by evidence, have not often changed the world or fended
off the powerful seductions to silence, forgetting,
or denying."
(The Annals of The American Academy of Political and
Social Science November, 1996 548 Annals 45
THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR
THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!"
The Power of the Word
By VIOLET B. KETELS)
> You're out of your depth here, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
No conservative who seeks out common senses is out of their depth in dealing with you. How could even
the most shallow person be out of their depth when your so-called "reason" is so crass and mendacious
as to be Self refuting?
> >> The world is composed of
> >> many voices, many perspectives, infinite shadings.
>
> >>Most are either admitting to common senses typical to all humans as
> humans or se
> >>eking to supress the same. You are on the side of seeking to
> >>supress the common sense typical to conservatives.
>
> "Suppress," Lenny? How so?
1. Deconstructionism, the supression of the common sense that words have transcendent conceptual
meaning and not just a vague perceptual meaning. This is such a common sense that deconstructionists
cannot even deny it as they use words as if they have meaning that is transferrable to other people.
2. Fascism, the general Sadean supression and/or perversion of the common senses of transcendence and
metaphysics.
> >This is a part of "subterran
> >ean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" that must not
> >be expressed according to fascists.
>
> And should not, according to non-fascists, be expressed by those
> who want to avoid the ridicule due to anti-intellectual
> fundamentalists.
You project that anyone else is being anti-"intellect" as you deny metaphysics? How absurd.
> >> That doesn't
> >> necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
> >> opposition and struggle,
>
> >Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
>
> You don't know, evidently, what a "fascist" is. It's just a
> mindlessly-
Mindlessly? What do you know of the mind? Didn't you just get done sneering at metaphysics? All you
in your infantile state can "see" is the physical brain. And to change anyone else's ideas based on
that you either have to manipulate through naturalistic methods of conditioning, propaganda, etc., or
physical methods such as liquidation.
> applied label that substitutes for thinking on your part.
As noted philosophically, fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
transcendence."
So a fascist would tend to be a deconstructionist. Surprise, you are a deconstructionist.
"For deconstructiorusts, the concept of transcendence, that
words point to realities beyond themselves, is the ultimate
illusion. Words point only to other words. Language is
a prison-house. ..... To believe in “a transcendental
signified,” that words point ideas that themselves
have an objective, ontological status, is to be
logocentric. Logocentrism “identifies language with
voice, presence, Western metaphysics, and ultimately
derivation from the word God.” The deconstructionist
“tries to topple this hierarchy.”
Deconstruction, like fascism, is a revolt against transcendence.
Its rejection of individual identity, its cultural relativism, its
power reductionism, are all sophisticated developments
of early fascist theory. But the connections between
deconstruction and fascism are more than intellectual
parallels and affinities. .....no fewer than three of the
most sterling careers flanking deconstruction,” as Jeffrey
Mehiman has observed, “were profoundly compromised
by an engagement with fascism.” Heidegger’s fascism
has already been discussed. The French novelist and
literary theorist Maurice Blanchot, part of Charles Maurras’s
circle, wrote anti-Semitic articles and calls for terrorism
in fascist journals. Paul De Man, who has done more than
anyone else to promote deconstruction in the United States,
was a Nazi propagandist. To Mehlman’s three, we might
add a fourth: Hans Robert Jauss, the German receptionist
critic (an approach dif ferent from but related to
deconstruction). He was a member of the Waffen SS."
(Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993 (Concordia Publishing House) :137)
A fascist would tend to hate and seek to supress the metaphysical "Jewish influence" in Christianity.
But since ultimately that cannot be done,
"1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the
exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within
the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be
national churches of the German Reich.
5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably
the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the
ill-omened year 800.
7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests,
but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the
publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany .
14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the
German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampi is
the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but
it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present
and future life of our nation.
18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes,
Bibles and pictures of saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampi (to the
German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and
to the left of the altar a sword.
30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be
removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must
be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :238-40)
<sniP>
> >"observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical,
> biochemica
> >l state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
> >done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let
> metaphysics back in.
>
> There is a difference between observational realism and reductionism.
> You
> really need to do a little reading. Daniel Dennett might be a good
> beginning.
> According to you, in any case, scientists are "fascists" too.
If they believe in a practical and violent resistance to transcendence and elimination of the "Jewish
influence," then yes. If scientists are merely concerned with methodological naturalism in the
context of doing science, then no.
> And atheists or agnostics.
They have a fascist tendency towards the supression of religious expression.
> And materialists, even though
> materialism, as opposed to realism, is founded upon a
> metaphysical notion. In other words, a "fascist" is anyone
> who doesn't believe in a transcendent God.
No, a fascist takes the foolish thought in their heart, "There is no God." and then takes practical
and violent action on it. Fascism is a political philosophy. This is one reason it is important to
at least weaken atheistic kooks' inane belief.
> The word loses all
> meaning long before you try to stretch it that far.
No it doesn't. But for a deconstructionist to be concerned with some sort of correct and true
"meaning" of any "vocabularies" is utterly absurd.
> >Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
> >transcendence."
> >("Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise,
> >Italian Fascism, National Socialism,
> >trans. Leila Vennewitz. (New York: Holt,
> >Rinehart & Winston, 1966) :429. See also, section:
> >"Fascism as a Metapolitical Phenomenon" :429-462)
>
> Fascism as an ideology wasn't even imaginable at the time that de
> Sade lived.
Natural Law and its exposition in the "Jewish influence" were around at the time Sade lived and his
perverse reaction to the common senses was fascist.
> You play with concepts like a child.
Projection. You haven't even shown grounds for the conceptual and sneer at metaphysics. Even as you
back away from such an attitude in the face of pressure towards common sense you still argue that the
metaphysical is merely the physical, which means it's not metaphysical, which is the same inane
position as before.
<snip>
> Roger Griffin makes short work of Nolte, incidentally.
"Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic
core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form
of populist ultra-nationalism." (The Nature of Fascism
by Roger Griffin :26)
Fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
transcendence."
Where is the supposed contradiction?
> And Nolte
> himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
> the so-called "fascist minimum."
And?
> For all your bluster, your ignorance shines through like a neon light.
That's incorrect.
> > Yet effete fascists,
>
> Now, *there's* a concept! "Effete fascists." Love it.
E.g.
“About three years before the Nazis came to power we had
a patient at the Institute who had a liason with Roehm. We
were on good terms with him, and he told us a good deal of
what happened in his circle...He also referred to Adolf Hitler
in the oddest possible manner. ‘Afi is the most perverted of us all.
He is very much like a soft woman, but now he makes
great propaganda in the heroic morale’.”
(Magnus Hirschfeld. Quartet Books, New York,
1986. Wolff, Charlotte M.D. :438)
Effeminates sometimes tend to make a cult of masculinity but it is a perverted masculinity. A lot of
evidence can be cited on this with respect to National Socialism which was even more focused on an
effete immanence and passive Nature than Italian fascism.
<snip>
> >You speak of "thought" as if you have a rationale for rationality.
> You speak of
> > it as if you believe in transcendence enough to admit that a
> >spiritual, metaphysical mind exists.
>
> That's gobbledygook. I believe that mind exists. But that hardly
> makes me a metaphysician in your sense. I disagree with
> epiphenomenalism. But, according to you, that no doubt makes
> me a "fascist."
Still waiting on that rationale for rationality, you're still being irrational.
> >>Fascism has no integrity and merely imitat
> >>es the integrity that comes with metaphysics.
>
> That's just playing with words. Obviously fascism
> has an integrity, i.e., a wholeness, as every metanarrative
> does. But you're punning on the word: you are referring
> at the same time to moral integrity, which is completely
> absent from fascism and signally lacking in its practitioners.
It is absent because its practitioners mendaciously judge the physical merely by the physical and not
the metaphysical.
<snip>
> >"Visceral"? That is a fascist imitation of metaphysical
> transcendence and a dis
> >dain for the earthy and crude based on it even as you deny the
> >Jewish influence and argue for the merely physical. Is there
> something wrong wi
> >th being earthy and crass, i.e. visceral? What is wrong with
> >it?
>
> You're getting a little confused here. The word "visceral" was yours.
> Don't
> mystify it—it simply means intuitive as opposed to being based upon
> observation
> or reason.
No.
Main Entry: vis·cer·al
Pronunciation: 'vi-s&-r&l, 'vis-r&l
Function: adjective
1 : felt in or as if in the viscera :
DEEP <visceral conviction>
2 : not intellectual : INSTINCTIVE,
UNREASONING <visceral drives>
3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions :
EARTHY <a visceral novel>
It refers to animalistic physical intuition based on imagery not civilized and civilizing metaphysical
sense based on word. But note that your fascist deconstructionism pleads to the visceral and supports
it.
> It's not a "fascist imitation" of anything. Nor is there
> anything
> inherently wrong with it per se. There can be good intuitions ("She's
> the one
> for me, I can't live without her") or bad ones ("Blacks and Jews
> aren't human.)
> Intuition is not any more fundamentally reliable than observation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with hate per se. You stated something about a visceral hatred of
the Jews as if that did not come out of fascists' overall practical and violent resistance to
transcendence.
> >You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine
> >language itself.
>
> This is gibberish.
I hope you don't wonder why I note that you are infantile as you regress to a state in which you fail
to understand words.
> >You are also historically ignorant.
>
> And this, as it happens, is plain wrong.
Prove it.
<snip>
> Very impressive. All pretence at reason having deserted you, you now
> resort to this hysterical and baseless abuse.
The basis was you starting in on this thread with the notion that the metaphysical should not be dealt
with and instead supressed.
You keep speaking of and judging so-called "reason" while I'm still waiting on that rationale for
rationality.
<snip>
> >Leftists rationalize evil because they have no rationale for
> rationality.
>
> A very impressive gnomic utterance. Not. You're trying to imitate
> wisdom.
> Leftists don't like metaphysical concepts like "evil." We like to test
> our ideas
> against observations of the real world,
Observation of the world is metaphysical. You're not testing your so-called "ideas" against anything
you're merely denying the metaphysical a priori to looking for evidence of it and so denying that evil
exists.
> a task that is never-ending.
> "Evil" is a social construct. It doesn't have a lot of explicative
> value.
Evil is a metaphysical reality that can be traced in the physical. Your denial of evil in defining it
as merely the rule of men, is itself evil. It is part of the evil of fascism to say that what is evil
is relative to culture and nation.
> >> As though merely accepting the article of
> >> faith is better than honest enquiry.
>
> >Accepting the common senses that civilization rests on is supported
> by honest
> >inquiry but not by fascist rebellion against the Jewish
> >influence.
>
> How do Jews keep getting into the discussion?
Because that was the issue with respect to an increasing association and perhaps even the beginnings
of alliance between Islamists and Leftists.
<snip>
> >No, your fascist deconstructionism is the actually the ultimate
> word-salad.
>
> There you go again. "Fascist deconstruction" is no more meaningful
> than
> "fascist socialism." The word just means you disapprove of something.
I'm reminded of the Holocaust deniers who want to so easily forget history. You want to forget or
obscure the meaning of the term. The very term "deconstruction" was coined by a fascist because the
basic characteristic of fascism is a practical and violent resistance to transcendence. (Nazism more
so than Italian fascism....)
<snip>
> >I amused at a socialist fascist urging other people to
> >think outside the box even as they put us all in
> >the box of physical, naturalistic explanation.
>
> You really are as foolish as you sound, I suspect. In any
> case, the box you mention is a much larger one than
> a groundless belief in a transcendent God.
Groundless belief? What of the observed typology of Nature? What of our own sentience? What of the
common senses and Natural Law?
<snip>
> >"Intellectually"?? Is there no metaphysical origin of the
> intellect?
>
> No more than there is a metaphysical "origin" for a rock.
Then you should have said it is a more "satisfactory" approach in your brain to seek explanations in
the world. Why this is supposedly supposed to be more "satisfactory" for anyone else is not apparent.
<snip>
>
> >I suppose as long as a "method" eliminates the Jewish influence a
> fascist
> >doesn't care that it is Self refuting too.
>
> You're obsessed.
Whatever you would like to say of me or any status you might assign, my views are not self refuting.
Your views are self refuting.
> >The view also leads to junk science,
> >pseudo-science. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
> >due not to inferior training but to
> >the mendacity inherent in any
> >scholarship that overlooks or openly
> >repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
> >(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
> >Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
> >against the Jewish People. (New York:
> >The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
>
> So real science is transcendant? Do tell.
Yes, it's based on common senses, sentience and applies to all people.
> One
> doesn't need to refer to the transcendent in order to
> be honest or to do sound research.
That's incorrect.
> But in any case:
> if "moral" and "spiritual" are signifiers that
> refer to concepts such as empathy, conscience
> and so on, I might even agree with you, although
> I could provide a realist explanation of their etiology.
> Fascism is remarkable in the degree to which it
> repudiated such notions.
And remarkable in the degree in which it sought to liquidate such notions using naturalistic means.
It seems to be typical to socialists to assign their political opponents some naturalistic explanation
and then deal with them in a physical way.
<snip>
> >It's been there from the start.
>
> [quotes from anti-Marxists purporting to prove that Marx
> was an anti-semite snipped]
Marx was an anti-semite, that's just historical fact. Whatever identity or status you or other
fascist socialists would like to assign to those who note this historical fact, it still remains.
> Then the fact that there have historically been at least
> some Jews involved on the Left should be put down to--
> what? Ignorance of Karl Marx?
It can be put down to the difference between the metaphysical viewpoint of Judaism and the physical
status of being a Jew. However, note that socialists conflate metaphysical viewpoint with physical
status often enough and so this distinction often does not hold among socialists such as yourself.
This denial of the metaphysical was especially apparent in Nazism.
> Or putting his remarks
> in the context of the time?
Please. More socialist rationalizations for evil.....
> Why were the Nazis rounding up
> Communists?
The same reason any heretics are rounded up.
> According to you, they should have been
> running the death camps together.
Wrong, I said that Nazism was a heretical branch of socialism. Since when have heretical branches of
any ideology been friends? No, typically the orthodox and the heretic are some of the most visceral
enemies of each other.
> Your knowledge
> of history would appear to parallel your knowledge
> of philosophy.
It is telling that you apparently need to attempt to parlay any idiotic and ignorant claim of yours
that you feel demonstrates something into some broad claim about credibility. Apparently your
philosophy and knowledge is just that weak. You think that you've refuted all the correction of your
philosophy and your ignorance of history by saying idiotic little things like, "[If fascism is a
heretical branch of socialism then] Why were the Nazis rounding up Communists?" as if that contradicts
the facts noted?
> >> The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
> >> influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
> >> Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
> >> origins).
>
> >Yes?
>
> So why make that stupid claim?
Because eliminating the Jewish influence in Christianity in that way is exactly what the Nazis
attempted and is a general tendency of socialists.
> How does one eliminate
> the Jewish influence on Christianity?
By some of the methods you just noted.
> What would be left
> of Christianity?
A more merely social gospel that comports with socialism and liquidation of the "ethical code worship
of the Jews."
> You make no sense at all.
That's incorrect. You have yet to give any indication of even understanding the common "sense" you
keep appealing to. Is it physical or metaphysical?
<snip>
> So Marxism, if it just gave up its essence and became Nazism, would
> be Nazism.
Any explanation as to why the fascist parties branched off of and came out of socialist parties?
<snip>
> "The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
> makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of
> dominant importance and influence in the community."
>
> Sounds like the very essence of conservative philosophy, now, doesn't
> it/
The American conservative John Adams noted the natural aristocracy and was merely noting a natural
fact of life. This can be easily proven and is just as true now as then. However, because he was
guided by transcendent principles and the common sense that came with his strong religious faith he
sought to put the natural aristocracy in competition with other forms of government in a series of
checks and balances. I.e., he took the physical facts and guided by metaphysical principles and
common senses he was able to have the foresight to create a system of which Americans still enjoy some
of the benefits. As a fascist you put the physical before the metaphysical and so disagree with
conservatives.
Another conservative with foresight:
"...Fritz Gerlich [was] a brave Munich journalist who attempted
to expose the brutality of Hitler's regime. "On 9 March 1933
storm troopers burst into Gerlich's offices ... beat him senseless
and dragged him off to Dachau where he was murdered
a year later." They chose to tell his widow, Sophie,
about her husband's death by sending her his
spectacles splattered with blood."
(The European, August 10, 1998
August 10, 1998
SECTION: Zeitgeist
HEADLINE: The mind of the Fuehrer)
The fascists physical solution to metaphysical disagreement.... and it seems to work, doesn't it? By
your fascist tendency towards crass empiricism and pseudo-science it seems so. But note who
ultimately won the war of ideas.
> >Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas.
>
> >"Mussolini became secretary of the Socialist Federation of Forli
> >and editor of its paper, La Lotta di Classe ("The Class Struggle"),
> >from which platform he established himself as a leading voice
> >of the party's radical left wing, And a strident voice it was.
> >Propounding proletarian internationalism, he declared: 'The
> >national flag is for us a rag to be planted on a dunghill.'"
> >(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
> >(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :147)
>
> So you are also ignorant of the chronology of Mussolini's political
> "thought." Quelle surprise.
Drivel. Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas. Mussolini came to the
heretical conclusion of fascist socialism but began in socialism.
"For the proletariat must consider itself anti-patriotic by
definition and necessity and made to realize that nationalism
was a mask for rapacious militarism that should be left to
the masters and that the national flag was, as Gustave
Herve had said, a rag to be planted on a dunghill"
This is a summary of Mussolini's attitudes when he
was aged 25 by Hibbert (1962, p. 14). So although
in his 30s Mussolini become an ardent nationalist, in
his youth he was as anti-nationalist......
"He was coming to the belief which was soon to
dominate his life — that the existing order must
be overthrown by an elite of revolutionaries
acting in the name of the people".
This summary of Mussolini's developing beliefs in
his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly
be a more quintessentially Leftist outlook.
"It contained several demands that were decidedly
radical: A progressive tax on capital and a tax
of eighty-five percent on war profits, universal
franchise for men and women, a national militia,
a minimum wage, nationalization of the munition
industries, worker's participation in the management
of industrial enterprises, the confiscation
of all eccelesiastical property". "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4087
<snip>
> >Law and in favor of supposed laws of Nature, radical
> >environmentalism, inane notions of evolutionism, animal rights,
> naturalistic Hed
> >onism in sexual perversions, etc. Notions that seem to be more
> >and more common in Canada.
>
> One can only hope.
Then you hope for the end of a civilization.
<snip>
> >> Fascist writing is peppered with it:
> >> everything from the notions of blood, nation and race
>
> >All physical.
>
> >Your ignorance is telling.
>
> <snicker> So tell us, then: what's "physical?"
Your ignorance on the issue is telling.
> The fascists
> could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of race and nation.
You could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of idiocy, although idiocy is naturalistic. You think
that your beliefs are matter, therefore they don't matter.
> >> to the somewhat
> >> larger-than-life attribution of evil to the Jews as a force rather
> >> than a group of individuals.
>
> >A physical biological force that was to be dealt with in a medical
> way. This
> > view in socialism is different than other forms of anti-Semitism.
>
> Evasion noted.
The Jews were seen as a physical biological force.
Because,
"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less
under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun
particularly around the middle of the last century, by the
teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards
has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer,
Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,
Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the
courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of
the natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of
heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application
to man could not be delayed any more. It was recognized
that the natural laws discovered for plants and animals
ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully
and completely be confirmed during the last three
decades both through family research (Familienforschung)
and through the study of bastards and twins."
(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
against the Jewish People. (New York:
The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
> >But of course, fascists still often refer to things in a
> pseudo-religious
> >metaphysical way just as you do. That is because your mendacity has
> >no integrity.
>
> You're wandering again. So when fascists actually talk in metaphysical
> terms, they must be lying?
Fascists try to talk in physical terms just as you do because of a visceral hatred for Natural Law and
anyone who dares support it.
> Your cartwheels are something to behold.
You're right to note that I am the only one being active in this little "debate." Apparently you
can't say anything that is not easily demolished philosophically or historically and so I suspect soon
you won't be saying anything at all.
> As for "mendacity [that] has no integrity," I suggest you look both
> words up.
> If you are indeed accusing me of lying, it behooves you to back up
> your
> claims.
I didn't accuse you of purposefully lying.
Mendacious:
given to or characterized by deception
or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
You want to diverge from absolute truth, after all. I accept what you say as if you believe it's true
and most of what you have said supports the notion that you tend towards fascism. But since the
revisionists cannot have their way with the Holocaust the results of fascism are a lesson learned to
recently and so you cannot accept the term no matter how apposite it is. This association of fascism
with evil is only true because evil exists metaphysically and conservatives with common sense see the
metaphysical trail of evil in the physical. Your fascism conveniently blinds you to most metaphysical
realities, in fact it seems to blind you to the philosophy of fascism itself.
> You won't, of course: you'll just throw the word "fascist"
> around as though you know what you're talking about.
You seem to know next to nothing of fascism. If you actually knew what you were talking about you
would have been much more careful to hide certain fascist tendencies such as deconstructionism.
> >> > It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist
> socialists
> >> > hate because this is the
> >> > metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
>
> >> More cant. What, precisely, is this "natural law" you speak of?
>
> >Are you that ignorant?
>
> Evasion noted.
Parts of it:
"6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
‘A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit
of alms by an act of fraud.’ .(Hindu. Janet, i. 6)
‘Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee:
thou burnest their utterance.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. EREv.)
‘With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay?’
(Babylonian. ERE V. 446)
‘I have not spoken falsehood.’ (Ancient Egyptian.
Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE V. 478)
‘I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.’
(Anglo Saxon. Beowulf 2738)
‘The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.’
(Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)
‘In Nástrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.’
(Old Norse. Volospá 39)
‘Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man
who says one thing, and hides another in his heart.’
(Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312)
‘The foundation of justice is good faith.’
(Roman. Cicero, DeOff i.vii)
‘[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to
his superiors and to keep promises.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8)
‘Anything is better than treachery.’ (Old Norse. Hdvamdl
cf. (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)
> >> What
> >> is natural?
>
> >To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
>
> This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
Conservatives exist in Nature. If everything is right then how can they be wrong?
> Morality cannot be found in nature.
The trail of morality can be found in Nature as assuredly as the impact of our own sentience can be.
> It's a useful social construct,
> not something that one discovers. Your thinking is actually mediaeval
> on this point.
It's actually American. And no amount of fascist sneering at conservatism has ever really changed
self evident truths that are evident in the Self.
<snip>
> >You most likely hate Americanism
>
> What, precisely, is "Americanism?" Would you provide a definition?
> I try to avoid essentialist constructs like this one.
But you certainly don't avoid existentialist nonsense. Essence doesn't even seem to exist according
to fascists. Perhaps if you joined the Holocaust deniers on the group then you could be open and
honest about your fascist tendencies as fascist tendencies.
> >for its foundation on common
> >sense of the metaphysical and self evident truths.
>
> That's just blather.
You ultimately have nothing to say to the common sense of conservatives because when you do try to
"say" something about it you only appeal to common senses themselves.
> >Note that fascists say that nothing is unnatural but the "Jewish
> influence"
> > which severs man from Nature. You will not really say that anything
> >is evil other than the conservative common sense notion that some
> things are
> >evil. That is a manifestation of Sadean philosophy.
>
> You are making no sense here whatsoever.
Because you have no common sense.
Sentence one:
Note that fascists say that nothing is
unnatural but the "Jewish influence" which severs man from Nature
E.g.
'"Monotheism furthermore worked against the idea that truth and
moral values are relative. Pound complained that whereas
polytheistic cultures were pluralistic, monotheism asserted
one “universal truth” for everyone.’ He blamed Jewish
monotheism for the West’s “intolerance, monopoly, and uniformity.”’
The irony of a fascist attacking intolerance becomes most grotesque
in Mein Kampf Hitler has been arguing that opposing positions
must not be tolerated; he then backpedals, remembering the notion
that intolerance comes from the Jews:
'The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in
world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part
from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type
of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature.
This may be a thousand times true; we may deeply regret this fact
and establish with justifiable loathing that its appearance in the
history of mankind is something that was previously
alien to history—yet this does not alter the fact that
this condition is with us today.'
In other words, the Jews with their absolute
morality invented intolerance; therefore, they shall not be tolerated.
The Hebraic and Biblical ethic had profound political implications.
There is a higher law than that of the state. Nations, no less than
individuals, are subject to those objective moral absolutes whose
authority is grounded in the transcendent God. Morality is not cultural,
but theological. Because of these transcendent moral standards, it is
possible to criticize the state and its leaders."
(Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993
(Concordia Publishing House) :46)
> >> How (if you can come to grips with that)does law derive
> >> from or inhere in "the natural?"
>
> >Good grief, it seems that you have no idea what Natural Law is.
>
> It seems that you have no desire to define it or defend it when called
> on your use of the term. It's just more of your mystification and
> rhetoric
> attempting to disguise itself as thought.
Drivel, your apparent vast ignorance of that which you criticize, i.e. conservatism, isn't necessarily
my responsibility. One would think that you would know about what you apparently want to
eliminate/liquidate.
<snip>
> Come now. C.S. Lewis was hardly a "deep philosopher." My sarcasm
> obviously
> went right over your head.
Overlooking your silly ad hominem apparently went over your head. You have nothing to say to his
clarity of thought.
<snip>
> >Don't squirm and rely on some effete fascist
>
> Why do I suddenly have this image of Hitler in pink tights?
Because you are ignorant of historical references or ignorant as to the general psychology of
effeminates.
> >deconstructionism by sniveling
> > about supposed "word salad,"
>
> I'm not snivelling, you idiot. I'm describing precisely what is
> evident in
> your feeble attempts to prove yourself an intellectual.
Hmmm.... you say that as if a fascist deconstructionist has any room to quibble about words or "word
salad." First, I'm not trying to prove anything about myself. This isn't about any sort of identity
politics but instead is about transcendently correct philosophical or historical views. Second, you
are sitting back and sniveling, squirming and so on while leaving the active part of this little
"debate" to me, which is fine with me. Third, a philosophy of fascism pervades most of your positions
including this one that shifts to identity politics instead of dealing with views that are either
transcendently correct philosophically and historically or not. My own status or any status you wish
to assign to me has nothing to do with it.
> >answer the question or it seems you
> >must admit to fundamental irrationality that will pervert all your
> so-called
> >"reason."
>
> The question is unanswerable, because it is nonsensical.
You only "feel" that is so because your reason for "reason" is nonsense instead of common sense. You
have yet to give your rationale for rationality. All this lecturing about "reason" and so-called
thinking outside the box and yet it all seems to be based on fundamental irrationality and the
metaphysically blind box of philosophic naturalism.
--W
Steve Smith
Metaphysics eh ..... I read all the words and when I finished I knew
what it was.
I, also, met a lot of diarrhea ..... yours.
Do you use EX-LAX or some other physic?
Must be hard to keep your stick on the ice carrying that load, dangerous
to bend I suspect.
Red
--
to email use past tense
Len McLaughlin
"EricŽ" <haff...@canuckistan.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1af5b51b4...@news.telus.net...
> C.J.W. wrote...
>
> Gimme a break!
>
> Liked your post.
Give me a break, you didn't understand one word the man said. Otherwise
you'd have a longer than your normal 2 or 3 line reply.
John Baglow
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > First, my apologies to John Ross Lambourne. This is our old friend
> > Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
> >
> > I have boiled down his pseudo-intellectual rant as best I can.
> >
> > "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net>...
> >
> > >> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > >> I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is
> what
> > >> Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary."
>
> > >No, what you just said is outmoded "vocabulary" and so you my as well
> quit
> > >saying it.
> >
> > Hardly a refutation.
>
> I don't even need to provide a refutation when you've already refuted your Self. But merely noting
> your self refutation is a refutation.
Playing with words, as the above indicates you are wont to do, is not
a refutation. Your evasion is noted.
> > Just the sort of bald assertion that you appear
> > to employ instead of reasoning.
>
> Reasoning is based on common sense of self evident truths. This is why you are irrational. You have
> no rationale, only rationalizations ad naseum.
That's "nauseam." If you want to use Latin tags, spell them right.
"Common sense," a category that substitutes for actual enquiry, has
been properly defined by Einstein as "the collection of prejudices
acquired by age eighteen." As for "self-evident truths," otherwise
known as axioms, they are prejudices sanctified by thousands of years,
as Eric Bell put it. Axioms are great in math, somewhat less than
satisfactory when dealing with the human reality. Again, though, it's
easier to say of your claims, "It's self-evident!" rather than having
to actually prove or demonstrate anything.
The intellectual laziness of the far right.
> > >It's also typical fascist deconstructionism.
>
> > >See:
> > >(David H. Hirsch. The Deconstruction of Literature:
> > >Criticism after Auschwitz (Hanover, NH: Brown Univ. Press 1991))
> >
> > Your use of the word "fascist" reveals it to be yet another empty
> > signifier.
>
> I have already noted what the general philosophy of fascism is. So its rebellion against the
> transcendence of words is of as little surprise as your own self refutating nonsense about
> "vocabulary" is. Let's apply your own idiotic standards to you first and other people second. If one
> of the very bases of civilization itself, i.e. language, is merely perceptual and not conceptual then
> lets apply this deconstructionism to what you say first. After all, if your standard is correct then
> you should be the first to abide by it.
You insist on a dualism that I. for one, do not accept. But by all
means apply the methods of deconstruction to what I say. It will be
interesting to watch you flounder, because you haven't the slightest
idea of what deconstruction actually is.
> > And
> > Hirsch, quite frankly, is almost as silly as you are.
>
> "Silly"? As if anyone is as infantile as you or other fascist socialists. Denying the conceptual
> meaning of words is a reversion to infantility. Denying the metaphysical in favor of some crass
> empiricism is another reversion to an infantile state in which all that is believed in is that which
> is immediately observed.
I see no argument in the above, just an increasingly desperate
resorting to pompous assertion to mask your intellectual ineptitude.
But, for the record, your claim that I deny "the conceptual meaning of
words" requires a little fleshing out. Your use of the phrase is
woolly, to say the least.
But on antoher front, your charge is correct: I see no reason to
accept transcendance in the religious sense. Nor have you given me any
reason to.
> > Anyone who
> > conflates
> > Deconstruction with Nazism is clearly woefully ignorant of both.
>
> The person who first used the term deconstruction was a Nazi.
>
> "The concept of deconstruction has its philosophical
> roots in Heidegger, who first used the term, although
> the contemporary theory goes far beyond Heidegger in its
> dissolution of language and transcendence. Put
> simply, deconstruction begins with the existentialist
> dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that
> meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists
> go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is
> through language. Drawing on the work of structural linguists,
> deconstructionists then argue that language,
> which is based on arbitrary symbolism
> and exclusions, is itself problematic."
> (Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
> Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993 (Concordia Publishing House) :135)
Deconstruction is all that and much more, but to equate it to fascism
is just stupid. As noted earlier, your reductionist claims would make
fascists of all atheists, materialists and scientists.
> One problem, deconsructionism = the sentiment, "This statement is a lie."
That's a paradox, not a problem. You really are a philosopical tyro,
aren't you?
> > And
> > anyone
> > who believes, as Hirsch does, that literature is dependent upon
> > critics for its
> > development is equally ignorant of both literature and literary
> > criticism.
>
> I have to correct Canadian fascist revisionists with respect to the historical reality of the
> Holocaust and now correct this deconstrucionist idiocy..... eventually one has to wonder just how far
> fascism in Canada has taken hold.
Great answer to my criticism of Hirsch. You don't just evade--you
actually scuttle away noisily.
And to equate Holocaust-denial with deconstructionism indicates at
least to me that you are a crank.
I see no contradiction between the ability to communicate (including
through poetry) and current theories of language. You would be
hard-pressed, I suspect, to contradict this--and cut-and-paste jobs
won't fill the void, I'm afraid.
> > You're out of your depth here, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
>
> No conservative who seeks out common senses is out of their depth in dealing with you. How could even
> the most shallow person be out of their depth when your so-called "reason" is so crass and mendacious
> as to be Self refuting?
More assertion. More blather. Are you incapable of constructing an
argument?
> > >> The world is composed of
> > >> many voices, many perspectives, infinite shadings.
>
> > >>Most are either admitting to common senses typical to all humans as
> humans or se
> > >>eking to supress the same. You are on the side of seeking to
> > >>supress the common sense typical to conservatives.
> >
> > "Suppress," Lenny? How so?
>
> 1. Deconstructionism, the supression of the common sense that words have transcendent conceptual
> meaning and not just a vague perceptual meaning. This is such a common sense that deconstructionists
> cannot even deny it as they use words as if they have meaning that is transferrable to other people.
There is no "suppression" going on here--just a different point of
view being expressed. That does appear to trouble you to the point
that you are incapable of anything but increasingly repetitive abuse
in place of reasoning.
Nor is your plaintive resort to "common sense" going to rescue you.
Signifiers acquire meaning in relation to other signifiers. Discuss.
> 2. Fascism, the general Sadean supression and/or perversion of the common senses of transcendence and
> metaphysics.
Don't mystify fascism. It's a politics, not some diabolus ex machina.
And, once again, you have evaded my objection: if the simple denial of
transcendence = fascism, then the latter loses all meaning.
> > >This is a part of "subterran
> > >ean Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" that must not
> > >be expressed according to fascists.
> >
> > And should not, according to non-fascists, be expressed by those
> > who want to avoid the ridicule due to anti-intellectual
> > fundamentalists.
>
> You project that anyone else is being anti-"intellect" as you deny metaphysics? How absurd.
Not at all. You are substituting naive faith for observation and
reason. I'd call that anti-intellectual.
> > >> That doesn't
> > >> necessarily mean that change doesn't take place through dialectical
> > >> opposition and struggle,
>
> > >Everything you are saying has been said more clearly by fascists.
> >
> > You don't know, evidently, what a "fascist" is. It's just a
> > mindlessly-
>
> Mindlessly? What do you know of the mind? Didn't you just get done sneering > at metaphysics? All you
> in your infantile state can "see" is the physical brain.
As I said before, don't confuse realism with reductionism. And don't
confuse the mind with metaphysics--in both senses.
> And to change
> anyone else's ideas based on
> that you either have to manipulate through naturalistic methods of
> conditioning, propaganda, etc., or
> physical methods such as liquidation.
I'd like to start with reasoning and demonstration, if it's all the
same to you. :)
Try reasoning, Lenny. It's not so difficult once you get used to it,
and it's ultimately much more satisfying than hurling abuse and making
unsubstantiated statements.
> > applied label that substitutes for thinking on your part.
>
> As noted philosophically, fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
> transcendence."
>
> So a fascist would tend to be a deconstructionist. Surprise, you are a deconstructionist.
>
> "For deconstructiorusts, the concept of transcendence, that
> words point to realities beyond themselves, is the ultimate
> illusion. Words point only to other words. Language is
> a prison-house. ..... To believe in ?a transcendental
> signified,? that words point ideas that themselves
> have an objective, ontological status, is to be
> logocentric. Logocentrism ?identifies language with
> voice, presence, Western metaphysics, and ultimately
> derivation from the word God.? The deconstructionist
> ?tries to topple this hierarchy.?
> Deconstruction, like fascism, is a revolt against transcendence.
> Its rejection of individual identity, its cultural relativism, its
> power reductionism, are all sophisticated developments
> of early fascist theory. But the connections between
> deconstruction and fascism are more than intellectual
> parallels and affinities. .....no fewer than three of the
> most sterling careers flanking deconstruction,? as Jeffrey
> Mehiman has observed, ?were profoundly compromised
> by an engagement with fascism.? Heidegger?s fascism
> has already been discussed. The French novelist and
> literary theorist Maurice Blanchot, part of Charles Maurras?s
> circle, wrote anti-Semitic articles and calls for terrorism
> in fascist journals. Paul De Man, who has done more than
> anyone else to promote deconstruction in the United States,
> was a Nazi propagandist. To Mehlman?s three, we might
> add a fourth: Hans Robert Jauss, the German receptionist
> critic (an approach dif ferent from but related to
> deconstruction). He was a member of the Waffen SS."
> (Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
> Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993 (Concordia Publishing House) :137)
This kind of argumentation is tiresome in the extreme. It's like
saying to a vegan, "Hitler was a vegetarian, so eat your damned meat."
It's guilt by association.
Incidentally, Paul de Man's youthful flirtation with fascism was the
subject of deconstruction by the older and wiser de Man.
> A fascist would tend to hate and seek to supress the metaphysical "Jewish influence" in Christianity.
> But since ultimately that cannot be done,
> "1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the
> exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within
> the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be
> national churches of the German Reich.
> 5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably
> the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the
> ill-omened year 800.
> 7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests,
> but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
> 13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the
> publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany .
> 14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the
> German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer?s Mein Kampi is
> the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but
> it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present
> and future life of our nation.
> 18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes,
> Bibles and pictures of saints.
> 19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampi (to the
> German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and
> to the left of the altar a sword.
> 30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be
> removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must
> be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
> (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
> William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :238-40)
>
> <sniP>
And your point is? It seems obvious that Hitler and his fellow pagans
had problems with Christianity per se.
> > >"observation." All your so-called "observation" is, is the physical,
> biochemica
> > >l state of your brain at any given time. Didn't you just get
> > >done sneering at metaphysics? But here somehow you've let
> > metaphysics back in.
> >
> > There is a difference between observational realism and reductionism.
> > You
> > really need to do a little reading. Daniel Dennett might be a good
> > beginning.
> > According to you, in any case, scientists are "fascists" too.
>
> If they believe in a practical and violent resistance to transcendence and
> elimination of the "Jewish
> influence," then yes. If scientists are merely concerned with methodological > naturalism in the
> context of doing science, then no.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Your selective use of Nolte, whose
work has for you been reduced to a mere slogan, will be the touchstone
by which we determine what is fascist--even less than his "fascist
minimum." Good.
"[V]iolent resistance" is, then, an essential element. Also
anti-semitism. Mere denial of transcendence isn't enough. Whew. You
had me worried there for a while.
> > And atheists or agnostics.
>
> They have a fascist tendency towards the supression of religious expression.
You're stepping back into the gloom here. On the face of it, this is a
remarkably reckless assertion. Atheism and agnosticism don't require
the suppression of religious expression. Nor does the latter denote
fascism, unless you want to keep on expanding the concept. But you're
an American; and perhaps one who feels threatened by the First
Amendment. I'm just speculating.
> > And materialists, even though
> > materialism, as opposed to realism, is founded upon a
> > metaphysical notion. In other words, a "fascist" is anyone
> > who doesn't believe in a transcendent God.
>
> No, a fascist takes the foolish thought in their heart, "There is no God." and then takes practical
> and violent action on it. Fascism is a political philosophy. This is one reason it is important to
> at least weaken atheistic kooks' inane belief.
So then, once again, the touchstone of fascism appears to be the
"practical and violent action" part, not the denial of transcendence
itself. So burning down a church would be fascist, but engaging a
far-right nutter like you in exchanges on Usenet would not be. Note I
say "exchanges on Usenet." Nothing "practical" there.
But I'm more interested in how you plan to "weaken" the atheist's
belief-in-the-guise-of-non-belief. Accusations? Shrill abuse? Calling
them "fascists?"
> > The word loses all
> > meaning long before you try to stretch it that far.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
> But for a deconstructionist to be concerned with some sort of correct and true
> "meaning" of any "vocabularies" is utterly absurd.
Put a different way, the signifier "fascism" becomes an empty one in
your hands. Incidentally, Rorty (whose use of the word "vocabularies"
was introduced into this discussion by myself, not as an argument from
authority--your trick--but to illustrate a point of my own) sees
language as socially instrumental. That does not conflict with Culler
or Derrida. Whatever language is, we do *use* it.
Now, I have no difficulty with your idiosyncratic use of the word
"fascist" in itself. It's your less-than-sly suggestion that you have
been using it in the accepted sense that I find dishonest. By all
means, call licorice flavour or a robin's egg "fascist" if you like.
Just be aware--and be upfront--that the signified has shifted.
> > >Note Sadean fascism in its "the practical and violent resistance to
> > >transcendence."
> > >("Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise,
> > >Italian Fascism, National Socialism,
> > >trans. Leila Vennewitz. (New York: Holt,
> > >Rinehart & Winston, 1966) :429. See also, section:
> > >"Fascism as a Metapolitical Phenomenon" :429-462)
> >
> > Fascism as an ideology wasn't even imaginable at the time that de
> > Sade lived.
>
> Natural Law and its exposition in the "Jewish influence" were around at the
> time Sade lived and his
> perverse reaction to the common senses was fascist.
Perhaps a citation or two would be nice. I'm not aware that de Sade
was an anti-semite, but then, I find his books rather boring, and I
might have missed it. But to call him a "fascist" before fascism ever
came to be is plain dumb. At least--if you truly see an unbroken line
from de Sade to Hitler--call him "proto-fascist" or something.
> > You play with concepts like a child.
>
> Projection. You haven't even shown grounds for the conceptual and sneer at
> metaphysics. Even as you
> back away from such an attitude in the face of pressure towards common sense > you still argue that the
> metaphysical is merely the physical, which means it's not metaphysical, which > is the same inane
> position as before.
Not quite right. I would argue for the usefulness of concepts like
"truth," but consider that they are contingent.
> <snip>
>
> > Roger Griffin makes short work of Nolte, incidentally.
>
> "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic
> core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form
> of populist ultra-nationalism." (The Nature of Fascism
> by Roger Griffin :26)
>
> Fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
> transcendence."
>
> Where is the supposed contradiction?
Did I use the word "contradiction?"
"The last paragraph of Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism stated:
'Nevertheless, fascism as a metapolitical phenomenon still serves as a
means of understanding the world today: only when liberal society,
after steadfast and serious reflection, accepts practical
transcendence as its own although no longer exclusive product; when
theoretical transcendence escapes from its ancient political
entanglements into genuine freedom; when Communist society looks at
itself and its past with realistic but not cynical eyes and ceases to
evade either one; when the love of individuality and barriers no
longer assumes political form, and thought has become a friend of man
- only then can man be said to have finally crossed the border into a
postfascist era.'
"I believe this statement smacks of an elitist, ivory-tower isolation
from the ‘real world' that was already reprehensible four decades ago
and would be even more indefensible now given the profound ecological,
demographic, social and cultural crises of the NewWorld Order. A much
more political and less transcendent point of view suggests that human
beings desperately need to become friends, not just of ‘thought', but
of each other and of the planet which sustains our whole species.This
implies an enormous redistribution of economic wealth and economic
power, as well as a vast paradigm shift in the hegemonic cosmology of
Western/‘liberal' modernity. However, it is only then that fascism and
all other forms of politicized racism, whether ethnocentric or
‘differentialist', could ever truly be a thing of the past."
--Roger Griffin, from "Fascism's new faces (and new facelessness) in
the ‘post-fascist' epoch."
> > And Nolte
> > himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
> > the so-called "fascist minimum."
>
> And?
So that the phrase "fascist socialist" would appear moronic as well as
oxymoronic to the man you love to cite.
> > For all your bluster, your ignorance shines through like a neon light.
>
> That's incorrect.
Is not.
> > > Yet effete fascists,
> >
> > Now, *there's* a concept! "Effete fascists." Love it.
>
> E.g.
> ?About three years before the Nazis came to power we had
> a patient at the Institute who had a liason with Roehm. We
> were on good terms with him, and he told us a good deal of
> what happened in his circle...He also referred to Adolf Hitler
> in the oddest possible manner. ?Afi is the most perverted of us all.
> He is very much like a soft woman, but now he makes
> great propaganda in the heroic morale?.?
> (Magnus Hirschfeld. Quartet Books, New York,
> 1986. Wolff, Charlotte M.D. :438)
>
> Effeminates sometimes tend to make a cult of masculinity but it is a
> perverted masculinity. A lot of
> evidence can be cited on this with respect to National Socialism which was
> even more focused on an
> effete immanence and passive Nature than Italian fascism.
> <snip>
I always thought the SS were a bunch of leather boys. Thanks for that.
Now perhaps you would explain your "effete immanence" phrase. That
seems a rather odd yoking.
> > >You speak of "thought" as if you have a rationale for rationality.
> You speak of
> > > it as if you believe in transcendence enough to admit that a
> > >spiritual, metaphysical mind exists.
> >
> > That's gobbledygook. I believe that mind exists. But that hardly
> > makes me a metaphysician in your sense. I disagree with
> > epiphenomenalism. But, according to you, that no doubt makes
> > me a "fascist."
>
> Still waiting on that rationale for rationality, you're still being >irrational.
As noted, this is nonsensical: hence attempting to answer your
question would be equally nonsensical. But if it's "irrantionality"
you want, check out belief in transcendence.
> > >>Fascism has no integrity and merely imitat
> > >>es the integrity that comes with metaphysics.
> >
> > That's just playing with words. Obviously fascism
> > has an integrity, i.e., a wholeness, as every metanarrative
> > does. But you're punning on the word: you are referring
> > at the same time to moral integrity, which is completely
> > absent from fascism and signally lacking in its practitioners.
>
> It is absent because its practitioners mendaciously judge the physical merely > by the physical and not
> the metaphysical.
Why, precisely, is this "mendacious?"
> <snip>
>
> > >"Visceral"? That is a fascist imitation of metaphysical
> transcendence and a dis
> > >dain for the earthy and crude based on it even as you deny the
> > >Jewish influence and argue for the merely physical. Is there
> something wrong wi
> > >th being earthy and crass, i.e. visceral? What is wrong with
> > >it?
> >
> > You're getting a little confused here. The word "visceral" was yours.
> > Don't
> > mystify it?it simply means intuitive as opposed to being based upon
> > observation
> > or reason.
>
> No.
>
> Main Entry: vis·cer·al
> Pronunciation: 'vi-s&-r&l, 'vis-r&l
> Function: adjective
> 1 : felt in or as if in the viscera :
> DEEP <visceral conviction>
> 2 : not intellectual : INSTINCTIVE,
> UNREASONING <visceral drives>
> 3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions :
> EARTHY <a visceral novel>
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"visceral
adjective
Of, relating to, or arising from one's mental or spiritual being:
inner, interior, internal, intimate1, inward.
Slang gut.
See body.
Derived from or prompted by a natural tendency or impulse:
instinctive, instinctual, intuitive.
See thoughts."
I rather like the first definition--don't you?
> It refers to animalistic physical intuition based on imagery not civilized
> and civilizing metaphysical
> sense based on word. But note that your fascist deconstructionism pleads to > the visceral and supports
> it.
It would appear that your illusion of the transcendent is based upon
it as well.
> > It's not a "fascist imitation" of anything. Nor is there
> > anything
> > inherently wrong with it per se. There can be good intuitions ("She's
> > the one
> > for me, I can't live without her") or bad ones ("Blacks and Jews
> > aren't human.)
> > Intuition is not any more fundamentally reliable than observation.
>
> There is nothing inherently wrong with hate per se. You stated something
> about a visceral hatred of
> the Jews as if that did not come out of fascists' overall practical and
> violent resistance to
> transcendence.
I believe that the anti-semitism preceded the theorizing. It's
possible to reject transcendence without being an anti-semite.
> > >You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine
> > >language itself.
> >
> > This is gibberish.
>
> I hope you don't wonder why I note that you are infantile as you regress to a state in which you fail
> to understand words.
Words I understand. But your frequently ungrammatical and irrational
stringing of them together is not always easy to understand.
> > >You are also historically ignorant.
> >
> > And this, as it happens, is plain wrong.
>
> Prove it.
What, prove a negative? You made the original assertion: the onus is
on you to prove it.
> <snip>
>
> > Very impressive. All pretence at reason having deserted you, you now
> > resort to this hysterical and baseless abuse.
>
> The basis was you starting in on this thread with the notion that the
> metaphysical should not be dealt
> with and instead supressed.
I said nothing about "suppression," liar.
> You keep speaking of and judging so-called "reason" while I'm still waiting
> on that rationale for
> rationality.
Rationality does not require a "rationale", and especially not a
transcendent God for it to have instrumental value.
> <snip>
>
> > >Leftists rationalize evil because they have no rationale for
> > rationality.
> >
> > A very impressive gnomic utterance. Not. You're trying to imitate
> > wisdom.
> > Leftists don't like metaphysical concepts like "evil." We like to test
> > our ideas
> > against observations of the real world,
>
> Observation of the world is metaphysical.
Gee, and here you were a few lines ago calling it "crass empiricism."
Make up your mind.
> You're not testing your so-
> called "ideas" against anything
> you're merely denying the metaphysical a priori to looking for evidence of it > and so denying that evil
> exists.
I am denying the usefulness of the category. Better to talk about
right and wrong in terms of the society we want. In that respect,
Griffin's comments above should perhaps be taken to heart.
> > a task that is never-ending.
> > "Evil" is a social construct. It doesn't have a lot of explicative
> > value.
>
> Evil is a metaphysical reality that can be traced in the physical. Your
> denial of evil in defining it
> as merely the rule of men, is itself evil.
Whatever.
> It is part of the evil of fascism to say that what is evil
> is relative to culture and nation.
Just as well I don't say that, then.
> > >> As though merely accepting the article of
> > >> faith is better than honest enquiry.
>
> > >Accepting the common senses that civilization rests on is supported
> by honest
> > >inquiry but not by fascist rebellion against the Jewish
> > >influence.
> >
> > How do Jews keep getting into the discussion?
>
> Because that was the issue with respect to an increasing association and
> perhaps even the beginnings
> of alliance between Islamists and Leftists.
Ah. I see. So that denying any such "alliance" would simply prove it
in your eyes. Prove that any Left support for the Palestinians, for
example, is based fundamentally on anti-semitism. As for alleged Left
support for fundamentalist Islam, prove that bizarre assertion,
please, or retract.
We all know, incidentally, how the Islamists deny transcendence. :)
> <snip>
>
> > >No, your fascist deconstructionism is the actually the ultimate
> > word-salad.
> >
> > There you go again. "Fascist deconstruction" is no more meaningful
> > than
> > "fascist socialism." The word just means you disapprove of something.
>
> I'm reminded of the Holocaust deniers who want to so easily forget history.
So now I'm a Holocaust-denier? Are you mad?
> You want to forget or
> obscure the meaning of the term. The very term "deconstruction" was coined
> by a fascist because the
> basic characteristic of fascism is a practical and violent resistance to
> transcendence. (Nazism more
> so than Italian fascism....)
Your yoking of the word to Nolte's observation is mendacious in the
extreme. Did Nolte talk about deconstruction?
> <snip>
>
> > >I amused at a socialist fascist urging other people to
> > >think outside the box even as they put us all in
> > >the box of physical, naturalistic explanation.
> >
> > You really are as foolish as you sound, I suspect. In any
> > case, the box you mention is a much larger one than
> > a groundless belief in a transcendent God.
>
> Groundless belief? What of the observed typology of Nature?
The "observed typology of nature?" You're really something else.
Possibly one of the last mediaeval thinkers alive.
> What of our own sentience? What of the
> common senses and Natural Law?
What of them?
> <snip>
>
> > >"Intellectually"?? Is there no metaphysical origin of the
> > intellect?
> >
> > No more than there is a metaphysical "origin" for a rock.
>
> Then you should have said it is a more "satisfactory" approach in your brain > to seek explanations in
> the world. Why this is supposedly supposed to be more "satisfactory" for
> anyone else is not apparent.
Maybe not to you.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > >I suppose as long as a "method" eliminates the Jewish influence a
> fascist
> > >doesn't care that it is Self refuting too.
> >
> > You're obsessed.
>
> Whatever you would like to say of me or any status you might assign, my views > are not self refuting.
No, just a mite cranky, though.
> Your views are self refuting.
Nope.
> > >The view also leads to junk science,
> > >pseudo-science. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
> > >due not to inferior training but to
> > >the mendacity inherent in any
> > >scholarship that overlooks or openly
> > >repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
> > >(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
> > >Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
> > >against the Jewish People. (New York:
> > >The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
> >
> > So real science is transcendant? Do tell.
>
> Yes, it's based on common senses, sentience and applies to all people.
And yet most scientists would deny transcendence. What do you think
the attack on so-called "creation science" or "intelligent design" is
all about?
> > One
> > doesn't need to refer to the transcendent in order to
> > be honest or to do sound research.
>
> That's incorrect.
Prove it.
> > But in any case:
> > if "moral" and "spiritual" are signifiers that
> > refer to concepts such as empathy, conscience
> > and so on, I might even agree with you, although
> > I could provide a realist explanation of their etiology.
> > Fascism is remarkable in the degree to which it
> > repudiated such notions.
>
> And remarkable in the degree in which it sought to liquidate such notions
> using naturalistic means.
> It seems to be typical to socialists to assign their political opponents some > naturalistic explanation
> and then deal with them in a physical way.
Hey, I'm just talking here. You and your family are safe. :)
> <snip>
>
> > >It's been there from the start.
> >
> > [quotes from anti-Marxists purporting to prove that Marx
> > was an anti-semite snipped]
>
> Marx was an anti-semite, that's just historical fact. Whatever identity or
> status you or other
> fascist socialists would like to assign to those who note this historical
> fact, it still remains.
So you claim.
> > Then the fact that there have historically been at least
> > some Jews involved on the Left should be put down to--
> > what? Ignorance of Karl Marx?
>
> It can be put down to the difference between the metaphysical viewpoint of
> Judaism and the physical
> status of being a Jew. However, note that socialists conflate metaphysical viewpoint with physical
> status often enough and so this distinction often does not hold among socialists such as yourself.
> This denial of the metaphysical was especially apparent in Nazism.
This is far from a satisfactory explanation for the involvement of
Jews in the history of socialism.
> > Or putting his remarks
> > in the context of the time?
>
> Please. More socialist rationalizations for evil.....
>
> > Why were the Nazis rounding up
> > Communists?
>
> The same reason any heretics are rounded up.
>
> > According to you, they should have been
> > running the death camps together.
>
> Wrong, I said that Nazism was a heretical branch of socialism. Since when
> have heretical branches of
> any ideology been friends? No, typically the orthodox and the heretic are
> some of the most visceral
> enemies of each other.
Nazism opposed Marxism to its core. Note what it was that Hitler
complained about in that quotation you provided: he attacked it for
being wedded to democracy. A reproach I would wear with pride.
> > Your knowledge
> > of history would appear to parallel your knowledge
> > of philosophy.
>
> It is telling that you apparently need to attempt to parlay any idiotic and ignorant claim of yours
> that you feel demonstrates something into some broad claim about credibility. Apparently your
> philosophy and knowledge is just that weak.
Oh, no. "I know you are, but what am I?" I was waiting for that
childish response.
You think that you've refuted all the correction of your
> philosophy and your ignorance of history by saying idiotic little things like, "[If fascism is a
> heretical branch of socialism then] Why were the Nazis rounding up Communists?" as if that contradicts
> the facts noted?
It contradicts your claim that socialism is fascist and anti-semitic.
> > >> The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
> > >> influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
> > >> Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
> > >> origins).
>
> > >Yes?
> >
> > So why make that stupid claim?
>
> Because eliminating the Jewish influence in Christianity in that way is
> exactly what the Nazis
> attempted and is a general tendency of socialists.
Well, no. As even you yourself noted, above, the Jewish influence on
Christianity cannot be removed what what is Christianity. But
socialists, in any event, aren't particularly interested in
transforming Christianity. Where did you get that nonsense?
> > How does one eliminate
> > the Jewish influence on Christianity?
>
> By some of the methods you just noted.
Huh?
> > What would be left
> > of Christianity?
>
> A more merely social gospel that comports with socialism and liquidation of
> the "ethical code worship
> of the Jews."
Come now, it can't do both. The social gospel is based upon an ethics,
and one not dissimilar from that in Judaism.
> > You make no sense at all.
>
> That's incorrect. You have yet to give any indication of even understanding > the common "sense" you
> keep appealing to. Is it physical or metaphysical?
Ah, you have a sense of humour. Who woulda thunk it?
> <snip>
>
> > So Marxism, if it just gave up its essence and became Nazism, would
> > be Nazism.
>
> Any explanation as to why the fascist parties branched off of and came out of > socialist parties?
Very few of them did, in fact; indeed, it was people, not parties, who
transformed themselves in this way (e.g. Mussolini). But even there,
we are talking about a handful of people at most.
> <snip>
>
> > "The best constitution and the best form of government is that which
>
> > makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of
> > dominant importance and influence in the community."
> >
> > Sounds like the very essence of conservative philosophy, now, doesn't
> > it?
>
> The American conservative John Adams noted the natural aristocracy and was merely noting a natural
> fact of life. This can be easily proven and is just as true now as then. However, because he was
> guided by transcendent principles and the common sense that came with his strong religious faith he
> sought to put the natural aristocracy in competition with other forms of government in a series of
> checks and balances. I.e., he took the physical facts and guided by metaphysical principles and
> common senses he was able to have the foresight to create a system of which Americans still enjoy some
> of the benefits. As a fascist you put the physical before the metaphysical and so disagree with
> conservatives.
Nope. I disagree with conservatives because they are wrong-headed.
Hitler, in the quotations I provided, clearly stands for the same kind
of things that you do. Perhaps you're the fascist here.
> Another conservative with foresight:
> "...Fritz Gerlich [was] a brave Munich journalist who attempted
> to expose the brutality of Hitler's regime. "On 9 March 1933
> storm troopers burst into Gerlich's offices ... beat him senseless
> and dragged him off to Dachau where he was murdered
> a year later." They chose to tell his widow, Sophie,
> about her husband's death by sending her his
> spectacles splattered with blood."
> (The European, August 10, 1998
> August 10, 1998
> SECTION: Zeitgeist
> HEADLINE: The mind of the Fuehrer)
>
> The fascists physical solution to metaphysical disagreement.... and it seems > to work, doesn't it? By
> your fascist tendency towards crass empiricism and pseudo-science
What "pseudo-science?" You're raving.
> it seems
> so. But note who
> ultimately won the war of ideas.
Who did? I must have missed it. Did it go into overtime?
> > >Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas.
>
> > >"Mussolini became secretary of the Socialist Federation of Forli
> > >and editor of its paper, La Lotta di Classe ("The Class Struggle"),
> > >from which platform he established himself as a leading voice
> > >of the party's radical left wing, And a strident voice it was.
> > >Propounding proletarian internationalism, he declared: 'The
> > >national flag is for us a rag to be planted on a dunghill.'"
> > >(Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.
> > >(2002: Encounter Books) by Joshua Muravchik :147)
> >
> > So you are also ignorant of the chronology of Mussolini's political
> > "thought." Quelle surprise.
>
> Drivel. Fascists came from socialist parties because of their shared ideas.
Drivel.
> Mussolini came to the
> heretical conclusion of fascist socialism but began in socialism.
>
> "For the proletariat must consider itself anti-patriotic by
> definition and necessity and made to realize that nationalism
> was a mask for rapacious militarism that should be left to
> the masters and that the national flag was, as Gustave
> Herve had said, a rag to be planted on a dunghill"
>
> This is a summary of Mussolini's attitudes when he
> was aged 25 by Hibbert (1962, p. 14). So although
> in his 30s Mussolini become an ardent nationalist, in
> his youth he was as anti-nationalist......
So he was a socialist in his youth, and when he was older he became a
fascist. I know conservatives who were socialists in their youth. Are
they evolving towards fascism?
> "He was coming to the belief which was soon to
> dominate his life ? that the existing order must
> be overthrown by an elite of revolutionaries
> acting in the name of the people".
>
> This summary of Mussolini's developing beliefs in
> his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly
> be a more quintessentially Leftist outlook.
But it proves nothing at all excpet that he had socialist ideas in his
youth.
[snip]
>
> > >Law and in favor of supposed laws of Nature, radical
> > >environmentalism, inane notions of evolutionism, animal rights,
> naturalistic Hed
> > >onism in sexual perversions, etc. Notions that seem to be more
> > >and more common in Canada.
> >
> > One can only hope.
>
> Then you hope for the end of a civilization.
I hope for a more beneficial social arrangement; for healing the
environment; and so on. What you call "civilization" is mediaeval.
> > >> Fascist writing is peppered with it:
> > >> everything from the notions of blood, nation and race
>
> > >All physical.
>
> > >Your ignorance is telling.
> >
> > <snicker> So tell us, then: what's "physical?"
>
> Your ignorance on the issue is telling.
Your inability to answer direct questions is more telling.
> > The fascists
> > could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of race and nation.
>
> You could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of idiocy, although idiocy is > naturalistic. You think
> that your beliefs are matter, therefore they don't matter.
I think that they have a non-transcendent origin. But I believe that
my beliefs matter, or I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.
> > >> to the somewhat
> > >> larger-than-life attribution of evil to the Jews as a force rather
> > >> than a group of individuals.
>
> > >A physical biological force that was to be dealt with in a medical
> way. This
> > > view in socialism is different than other forms of anti-Semitism.
> >
> > Evasion noted.
>
> The Jews were seen as a physical biological force.
Hitler spoke of them in far more metaphysical language.
> Because,
> "Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less
> under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun
> particularly around the middle of the last century, by the
> teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards
> has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer,
> Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,
> Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the
> courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of
> the natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of
> heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application
> to man could not be delayed any more. It was recognized
> that the natural laws discovered for plants and animals
> ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully
> and completely be confirmed during the last three
> decades both through family research (Familienforschung)
> and through the study of bastards and twins."
> (Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
> Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
> against the Jewish People. (New York:
> The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
All this cutting-and-pasting is no substitute for thought.
> > >But of course, fascists still often refer to things in a
> pseudo-religious
> > >metaphysical way just as you do. That is because your mendacity has
> > >no integrity.
> >
> > You're wandering again. So when fascists actually talk in metaphysical
> > terms, they must be lying?
>
> Fascists try to talk in physical terms just as you do because of a visceral
> hatred for Natural Law and
> anyone who dares support it.
You're contradicting yourself. Either they "try to talk in physical
terms" or they "refer to things in a pseudo-religious metaphysical
way." Which is it?
> > Your cartwheels are something to behold.
>
> You're right to note that I am the only one being active in this little "debate." Apparently you
> can't say anything that is not easily demolished philosophically or historically and so I suspect soon
> you won't be saying anything at all.
You have demolished nothing but your own intellectual pretensions. If
I say nothing at all at some point, it will be because of diminishing
returns. I'm still waiting for you to produce something like an
argument. Not accusations; not namecalling; not cutting-and-pasting.
An *argument.*
> > As for "mendacity [that] has no integrity," I suggest you look both
> > words up.
> > If you are indeed accusing me of lying, it behooves you to back up
> > your
> > claims.
>
> I didn't accuse you of purposefully lying.
> Mendacious:
> given to or characterized by deception
> or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
>
> You want to diverge from absolute truth, after all. I accept what you say as > if you believe it's true
> and most of what you have said supports the notion that you tend towards
> fascism. But since the
> revisionists cannot have their way with the Holocaust the results of fascism are a lesson learned to
> recently and so you cannot accept the term no matter how apposite it is. This association of fascism
> with evil is only true because evil exists metaphysically and conservatives with common sense see the
> metaphysical trail of evil in the physical. Your fascism conveniently blinds you to most metaphysical
> realities, in fact it seems to blind you to the philosophy of fascism itself.
There is no argument in the above, only a partia;l retraction of an
earlier accusation. I'm still waiting.
> > You won't, of course: you'll just throw the word "fascist"
> > around as though you know what you're talking about.
>
> You seem to know next to nothing of fascism. If you actually knew what you were talking about you
> would have been much more careful to hide certain fascist tendencies such as deconstructionism.
You're repeating yourself. This is just bald assertion. Still waiting
for an argument.
> > >> > It's the Jewish influence in exposing Natural Law that fascist
> socialists
> > >> > hate because this is the
> > >> > metaphysical "box" which supposedly needs to be escaped from.
>
> > >> More cant. What, precisely, is this "natural law" you speak of?
>
> > >Are you that ignorant?
> >
> > Evasion noted.
>
> Parts of it:
>
> "6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
> ?A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit
> of alms by an act of fraud.? .(Hindu. Janet, i. 6)
>
> ?Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee:
> thou burnest their utterance.? (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. EREv.)
>
> ?With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay??
> (Babylonian. ERE V. 446)
>
> ?I have not spoken falsehood.? (Ancient Egyptian.
> Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE V. 478)
>
> ?I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.?
> (Anglo Saxon. Beowulf 2738)
>
> ?The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.?
> (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)
>
> ?In Nástrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.?
> (Old Norse. Volospá 39)
>
> ?Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man
> who says one thing, and hides another in his heart.?
> (Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312)
>
> ?The foundation of justice is good faith.?
> (Roman. Cicero, DeOff i.vii)
>
> ?[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to
> his superiors and to keep promises.? (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8)
>
> ?Anything is better than treachery.? (Old Norse. Hdvamdl
>
> cf. (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)
And various injunctions not to lie, which have their cause in the
social order, prove the existence of something called "Natural Law?"
Nonsense.
> > >> What
> > >> is natural?
>
> > >To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
> >
> > This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
>
> Conservatives exist in Nature. If everything is right then how can they be
> wrong?
Evasion noted. That wasn't what I said.
> > Morality cannot be found in nature.
>
> The trail of morality can be found in Nature as assuredly as the impact of
> our own sentience can be.
Bullshit.
>
> > It's a useful social construct,
> > not something that one discovers. Your thinking is actually mediaeval
> > on this point.
>
> It's actually American. And no amount of fascist sneering at conservatism
> has ever really changed
> self evident truths that are evident in the Self.
No, it's genuinely mediaeval thinking, akin to believing that palnts
with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
And I'd be a little troubled, if I were you, about the notion of
fascists sneering at conservatives. The only difference in your
positions is one of degree.
> <snip>
>
> > >You most likely hate Americanism
> >
> > What, precisely, is "Americanism?" Would you provide a definition?
> > I try to avoid essentialist constructs like this one.
>
> But you certainly don't avoid existentialist nonsense.
This is another evasion. Aren't you getting a little tired from
wriggling in this fashion?
> Essence doesn't even seem to exist according
> to fascists.
And realists. Is Karl Popper a fascist, btw?
> Perhaps if you joined the Holocaust deniers on the group then you could be
> open and honest about your fascist tendencies as fascist tendencies.
That's an obscene thing to say. The debate ends here, you lying prick.
[rest of Lenny's verbal diarrhea snipped]
--John Baglow
notritenoteri
start your own NG? you could call it alt.big.words.bullshit
John Baglow
>53K of pseudo intellectual bullshit from all concerned. WHy don't
you guys
>start your own NG? you could call it alt.big.words.bullshit
Well, there's *one* "pseudo-intellectual" in this discussion, all
right. It's the one throwing the word "fascist" around like confetti,
and quoting from a couple of tendentious books rather than making
arguments.
But boy, has he taught me a lesson. I seem to recall using the word a
little loosely myself in the past. Never again! as Lenny might say.
To you, in any case, the word "pseudo-intellectuaL" seems to mean "a
discussion I can't understand." And therefore, presumably,
"intellectual" means "a discussion I *can* understand." May I suggest,
ever so gently, that not everyone is prepared to set the bar that low?
No offence.
--John Baglow
Peter White
Moi Aussi.
For the life of me I can't understand people who don't share interest or
knowledge in other peoples discussions and want the discussion to 'go away'.
If two people get sidelined with a talk on the merits of sour dough so
be it.
I have the right to ignore it, to follow it or if it persists look in on
it from time to time.
I also have the right to disagree, agree, abuse or laud one, some or all
participants.
I can also read (often to some edification) and give a bit of lip with
the odd quip.
But to think that I can or would want to deny any expression is well
..... unthinkable.
Le Mod Pol
"C.J.W." wrote:
>
> "EricŽ" wrote:
> > Interesting that Baglow has been identified as a fascist at least
> > twice now in the last ten days.
> > "Oh but I can't be a fascist- I'm a left-winger"
> > Gimme a break!
Baglow is most certainly a fascist, just like Stalin,
Mao and Hoffa.
However we need not concern ourselves with him because
he is totally irrelevant --- just like Joe Clark.
> Thanks. I'm glad to see that Canadian conservatives still exist.
--
>LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
John Baglow
>"C.J.W." wrote:
>> "EricŽ" wrote:
>> > Interesting that Baglow has been identified as a fascist at least
>> > twice now in the last ten days.
>> > "Oh but I can't be a fascist- I'm a left-winger"
>>> Gimme a break!
>Baglow is most certainly a fascist, just like Stalin,
>Mao and Hoffa.
No, Lenny, you are a fascist--just like Ariel Sharon and Baruch Goldstein.
>However we need not concern ourselves with him because
>he is totally irrelevant --- just like Joe Clark.
Run out of people to talk to, Lenny? Have to talk to yourself now?
What a schmuck.
--John Baglow
Le Mod Pol
"C.J.W." wrote:
>
> John Baglow wrote:
>
> > First, my apologies to John Ross Lambourne. This is our old friend
> > Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
>
> > You're out of your depth here, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
Yes you should quit, jackass baglow. You are
hallucinating as usual. My only recent post in this
group was posted at 1630, some 15 hours after yours.
You would be "out of your depth" in a kiddie's wading
pool.
> No conservative who seeks out common senses is out of
> their depth in dealing with you. How could even the
> most shallow person be out of their depth when your
> so-called "reason" is so crass and mendacious
> as to be Self refuting?
John Baglow
>"C.J.W." wrote:
Gee, how did that line get in there, Lenny-poo?
> >John Baglow wrote:
>
> > >First, my apologies to John Ross Lambourne. This is our old friend
> > >Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
>
> > >You're out of your depth here, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
>Yes you should quit, jackass baglow. You are
>hallucinating as usual. My only recent post in this
>group was posted at 1630, some 15 hours after yours.
You're a pretty inept liar, Lenny. I'd quit if I were you.
>You would be "out of your depth" in a kiddie's wading
>pool.
Talking to yourself again?
--John Baglow
C.J.W.
John Baglow wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408C86F7...@bellatlantic.net>...
> > John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > > First, my apologies to John Ross Lambourne. This is our old friend
> > > Lenny Pulver, aka "Le Mod Pol."
> > >
> > > I have boiled down his pseudo-intellectual rant as best I can.
> > >
> > > "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408B1E29...@bellatlantic.net>...
> > >
> > > >> John Baglow wrote:
> >
> > > >> I'm saying it does not correspond to the world I perceive--it is
> > what
> > > >> Rorty would call an outmoded "vocabulary."
> >
> > > >No, what you just said is outmoded "vocabulary" and so you my as well
> > quit
> > > >saying it.
> > >
> > > Hardly a refutation.
> >
> > I don't even need to provide a refutation when you've already refuted your Self. But merely noting
> > your self refutation is a refutation.
>
> Playing with words, as the above indicates you are wont to do,
You have nothing to say to words being used to note your self refuting idiocy and so attack the value of words
themselves. I'm not playing with words nor do I have to rely on manipulation. Words naturally are supportive
of transcendence. It seems that whenever you get in to trouble with being skewered by words you begin to
squirm by deconstructing words.
> is not
> a refutation. Your evasion is noted.
Were you saying that Bush is against you because he's not with you?
> > > Just the sort of bald assertion that you appear
> > > to employ instead of reasoning.
> >
> > Reasoning is based on common sense of self evident truths. This is why you are irrational. You have
> > no rationale, only rationalizations ad naseum.
>
> That's "nauseam." If you want to use Latin tags, spell them right.
Mea culpa.
> "Common sense," a category that substitutes for actual enquiry, has
> been properly defined by Einstein as "the collection of prejudices
> acquired by age eighteen."
Pejudices can be merely learned foresight. The issue is whether they are correct or not and not whether or
not you have them. Common sense isn't necessarily typical to self defined intellectuals and neither is
morality. There are evil geniuses just as there are many good and decent people who are not that
intellectual. I'll take the side of good and decent people, regardless.
> As for "self-evident truths," otherwise
> known as axioms, they are prejudices sanctified by thousands of years,
> as Eric Bell put it.
And? Actually, prejudices are typically foresight sanctified by thousands of years of human experience.
Typically, when a child burns their hand on a stove they form the prejudice that the stove will burn them.
Based on such a prejudice and the common sense that pain is bad they have the foresight not to touch the stove
again. When that person later becomes a parent they might happen to teach their child that the stove is hot
and should not be touched and so pass on their prejudice as tradition. Of course, a leftist would seek to
rebel against all prejudice because they're a self defined "intellectual" and so they know better than the
built up wisdom of their more "primitive" ancestors. It seems that even as their hand burns off on the stove
they will keep insisting that they still know better. They're "intellectuals" don't you know, vive la
revolution and down with such tradition and attempted common sense based foresight/"prejudice"!
> Axioms are great in math, somewhat less than
> satisfactory when dealing with the human reality.
The categorical discrimination of "human" rests on the typology of nature and Natural Law. Leftists undermine
this in the radical animal rights movement so it's not apparent what your so-called "human reality" is.
> Again, though, it's
> easier to say of your claims, "It's self-evident!" rather than having
> to actually prove or demonstrate anything.
What do you want proven or demonstrated? I never said that the fact that some things are self evident as
evident in the Self leads to the conclusion that nothing has to be demonstrated. A metaphysical imprint on
the physical is easy to demonstrate.
> The intellectual laziness of the far right.
Drivel, what is it that you have actually proven or demonstrated other than your leftist arrogance in
questioning everything but answering to nothing?
<sniP>
> You insist on a dualism that I. for one, do not accept.
"You," for "one"???
Why should I care what the biochemical state of your idiotic brain happens to be at the moment? Who are you?
Or how about the leftst sentiment, "Who are you to judge." After all, your status is all that matters. And
why are you supposedly "one" and not more than one? That sounds vaguely discriminatory.
> But by all
> means apply the methods of deconstruction to what I say. It will be
> interesting to watch you flounder, because you haven't the slightest
> idea of what deconstruction actually is.
As I apply your denial of dualism, your fascism, your deconstructionism and so on to you perhaps you will
realize how immoral your philosophy is. It can get a bit rough but it is your own philosophy, after all.
> > > And
> > > Hirsch, quite frankly, is almost as silly as you are.
> >
> > "Silly"? As if anyone is as infantile as you or other fascist socialists. Denying the conceptual
> > meaning of words is a reversion to infantility. Denying the metaphysical in favor of some crass
> > empiricism is another reversion to an infantile state in which all that is believed in is that which
> > is immediately observed.
>
> I see no argument in the above, just an increasingly desperate
> resorting to pompous assertion to mask your intellectual ineptitude.
Denying the metaphysical is akin to a baby crying when their mother leaves the room because when they cannot
observe her she does not exist.
<snip>
> But on antoher front, your charge is correct: I see no reason to
> accept transcendance in the religious sense. Nor have you given me any
> reason to.
You expect me to give you a rationale for rationality? Perhaps that's up to you to figure out.
I keep asking you for it.
<snip>
> Deconstruction is all that and much more, but to equate it to fascism
> is just stupid.
When deconstructionism is applied for the sake of a practical and violent resistance to transcendence it is
fascist deconstructionism. Besides that there is an association not necessarily an equation.
> As noted earlier, your reductionist claims would make
> fascists of all atheists, materialists and scientists.
As noted earlier, my claims do not. We've already been through that straw man.
> > One problem, deconsructionism = the sentiment, "This statement is a lie."
>
> That's a paradox, not a problem.
It is only a problem to people who are concerned with admitting to themselves and communicating the truth to
others. But you are not concerned with the truth because your philosophy is based on lies.
> You really are a philosopical tyro,
> aren't you?
It's likely that if that were true you would be dealing with philosophy instead of dealing with assigning me a
status, little one. There is virtually no "reasoning" that I can think of that is more infantile than your
own.
<snip>
> Great answer to my criticism of Hirsch. You don't just evade--you
> actually scuttle away noisily.
Cite what you disagree with Hirsch about. I didn't deal with your assertions because you are a
deconstructionist and might not actually be saying what Hirch said accurately.
> And to equate Holocaust-denial with deconstructionism indicates at
> least to me that you are a crank.
Straw man.
<snip>
> > .....We have to get on with our lives. Besides, memories
> > reconstructed in words, even when they are documented
> > by evidence, have not often changed the world or fended
> > off the powerful seductions to silence, forgetting,
> > or denying."
> > (The Annals of The American Academy of Political and
> > Social Science November, 1996 548 Annals 45
> > THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR
> > THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!"
> > The Power of the Word
> > By VIOLET B. KETELS)
>
> I see no contradiction between the ability to communicate (including
> through poetry) and current theories of language.
Red herring.
<snip>
> > No conservative who seeks out common senses is out of their depth in dealing with you. How could even
> > the most shallow person be out of their depth when your so-called "reason" is so crass and mendacious
> > as to be Self refuting?
>
> More assertion.
So you don't have an answer. The answer is that virtually no one is out of their "depth" in dealing with your
shallow infantile philosophy.
> More blather.
So you don't have an answer.
<sniP>
> > > "Suppress," Lenny? How so?
> >
> > 1. Deconstructionism, the supression of the common sense that words have transcendent conceptual
> > meaning and not just a vague perceptual meaning. This is such a common sense that deconstructionists
> > cannot even deny it as they use words as if they have meaning that is transferrable to other people.
>
> There is no "suppression" going on here--just a different point of
> view being expressed. That does appear to trouble you to the point
> that you are incapable of anything but increasingly repetitive abuse
> in place of reasoning.
Are you attaching some normative judgment to the term abuse? Remember, I am only applying your own philosophy
to you first, just as you said it was okay to do. If you find such relatively small things to be abuse in the
sense of being evil in some transcendent and transferrable sense it is only evidence that you sense that your
own philosophy is evil.
"Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man
who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s
behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing
to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects
the other man to know about. And the other man very
seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly
always he tries to make out that what he has been doing
does not really go against the standard, or that if it does
there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some
special reason in this particular case why the person who
took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were
quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that
something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.
It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind
some kind of Law or Rules of fair play or decent behavior or
morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.
And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like
animals, but they would not quarrel in the human sense of the word.
Quarrelling means to try to show that the other man is in the wrong.
And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he
had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are;
just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed
a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football."
(C.S. Lews, Mere Christianity)
> Nor is your plaintive resort to "common sense" going to rescue you.
>
> Signifiers acquire meaning in relation to other signifiers. Discuss.
If one thing is relative to another thing which is relative to another thing and so on...... okay then, what
is everything relative to? Or haven't you seen that far as the result of your crass and shallow philosophy?
You might consider Aristotle's answer.
> > 2. Fascism, the general Sadean supression and/or perversion of the common senses of transcendence and
> > metaphysics.
>
> Don't mystify fascism. It's a politics, not some diabolus ex machina.
I.e. Hitler was just insane and not evil. So perhaps he was not guilty by reason of insanity according to
leftists. And as the evidence shows, the more depraved the rebellion to Natural Law by a criminal the more
the leftist logic of "not guilty" by reason of insanity is rationalized. This leftist sentiment is self
refuting drivel. There is no "reason" in the assertion "of insanity." If the person is not guilty then it
seems they are innocent but aren't we all, because we all occur in Nature and have merely naturalistic
explanations too according to leftists.
> And, once again, you have evaded my objection: if the simple denial of
> transcendence = fascism, then the latter loses all meaning.
I said the practical and violent resistance to transcendence is a defining characteristic of fascism. As a
deconstructionist you seem perfectly content for the term "fascism" to loss all meaning as you have argued
that it merely signifies dislike and so on. It seems that the real issue is that you don't like the meaning
of fascism being known.
<snip>
> > You project that anyone else is being anti-"intellect" as you deny metaphysics? How absurd.
>
> Not at all. You are substituting naive faith for observation and
> reason.
Observation of what?
Have you observed reason?
Can we observe your idiotic beliefs?
> I'd call that anti-intellectual.
I really don't care what you label things. It's only your own label, after all. Don't forget your infantile
"standards," little one.
<snip>
> > Mindlessly? What do you know of the mind? Didn't you just get done sneering > at metaphysics? All you
> > in your infantile state can "see" is the physical brain.
>
> As I said before, don't confuse realism with reductionism. And don't
> confuse the mind with metaphysics--in both senses.
Mind refers to the mental which relates to ideas as opposed to matter. I am merely noting your own confusion
that conflates the mind with the brain. This is typical to leftists, as shown in the insanity defense. Note
the leftist notion of "mental illness" which is purposefully oxymoronic. If something is mental, "all in your
head," it is not a disease. If something can be observed physically to be a physical disease then it is not
mental. Yet certain doctors resist accurate terminology such as brain illness and continue using and seeking
to establish the oxymoron "mental illness" because it allows them to medicalize everything in a fascist way,
sans physical proof.
<snip>
> Try reasoning, Lenny. It's not so difficult once you get used to it,
> and it's ultimately much more satisfying than hurling abuse and making
> unsubstantiated statements.
You think that your inane relativism is more substantiated than self evident truths and all the evidence and
demonstration that can be used to illustrate them? Your position is based on mere assertion, just like you've
admitted it is in deconstructionism. Let's apply your own standards to you first, remember..... and it is no
use sniveling at anyone but yourself if you find them "abusive."
<snip>
> This kind of argumentation is tiresome in the extreme. It's like
> saying to a vegan, "Hitler was a vegetarian, so eat your damned meat."
> It's guilt by association.
You're overlooking the fact that a person who associates with fascists is most likely guilty.
I would note to vegans that begin to speak like fascists with respect to "animal rights" as well as speaking
of "flesh eaters" or vegans who begin to speak of the barbarity of kosher laws and the like that they are
illustrating fascist tendencies. The Nazis were pioneers in animal rights, just not human right. No
experiments allowed on animals.... but on humans, okay. Of course you can note that aren't humans animals
too? But just like my noting that don't conservatives occur in Nature and so aren't they just as
natural/right as everything else doesn't change your mind I doubt that would change their mind.
> Incidentally, Paul de Man's youthful flirtation with fascism was the
> subject of deconstruction by the older and wiser de Man.
A compelling argument.
Try again,
"For deconstructiorusts, the concept of transcendence, that
words point to realities beyond themselves, is the ultimate
illusion. Words point only to other words. Language is
a prison-house. ..... To believe in a transcendental
signified, that words point ideas that themselves
have an objective, ontological status, is to be
logocentric. ....
Deconstruction, like fascism, is a revolt against transcendence.
Its rejection of individual identity, its cultural relativism, its
power reductionism, are all sophisticated developments
of early fascist theory."
(Modern Fascism: Liquidating the JudeoChristian
Worldview, Gene Veith, 1993
(Concordia Publishing House) :137)
> > If they believe in a practical and violent resistance to transcendence and
> > elimination of the "Jewish
> > influence," then yes. If scientists are merely concerned with methodological > naturalism in the
> > context of doing science, then no.
>
> Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Your selective use of Nolte, whose
> work has for you been reduced to a mere slogan, will be the touchstone
> by which we determine what is fascist--even less than his "fascist
> minimum." Good.
> "[V]iolent resistance" is, then, an essential element. Also
> anti-semitism. Mere denial of transcendence isn't enough. Whew. You
> had me worried there for a while.
The physical, violent resistance, is typical to those who deny the metaphysical. It seems obvious why this is
so. This is why you find the application of your own crass standards to you "abusive." Your observation is
metaphysical because you are a metaphysical as well as a physical being. But as I noted and you've agreed,
let's apply your own abusive standards to you first and everyone else second.
> > > And atheists or agnostics.
> >
> > They have a fascist tendency towards the supression of religious expression.
>
> You're stepping back into the gloom here. On the face of it, this is a
> remarkably reckless assertion. Atheism and agnosticism don't require
> the suppression of religious expression.
But atheists throughout history and up to the present day have shown a tendency towards using the state in a
totalitarian way to supress religious expression if it is based on the transcendent. They are "offended" by
it, don't you know.
> Nor does the latter denote
> fascism,
Supression of religious expression of the "Jewish influence" (e.g monotheism) does denote fascism and it is
being practiced by socialists.
> unless you want to keep on expanding the concept. But you're
> an American; and perhaps one who feels threatened by the First
> Amendment.
I suspect you know as little about the First Amendment as you know of fascism.
<snip>
> > No, a fascist takes the foolish thought in their heart, "There is no God." and then takes practical
> > and violent action on it. Fascism is a political philosophy. This is one reason it is important to
> > at least weaken atheistic kooks' inane belief.
>
> So then, once again, the touchstone of fascism appears to be the
> "practical and violent action" part, not the denial of transcendence
> itself.
Practical and violent physical action is taken on the basis of metaphysical beliefs, even if it is the
metaphysical belief in belief itself being merely physical.
"And laugh not at my forebodings, the advice of a dreamer who
warns you away....from our philosophers of Nature.
No, laugh not at the visionary who knows that in
the realm of phenomena comes soon the revolution
that has already taken place in the realm of spirit.
For thought goes before deed as lightning thunder....
There will be played in Germany a play compared
to which the French revolution was but an innocent idyll."
(H. Heine. The Works of Heinrich Heine. vol. V (London:
William Heinemann. 1892) :207-9)
Thought matters. This is why it is important to weaken atheistic kooks' inane belief, as I noted.
> So burning down a church would be fascist, but engaging a
> far-right nutter like you in exchanges on Usenet would not be.
So you want to apply your little crass and infantile solvent to wipe away fascism as an metaphysical idea in
exchage for only the physical action. Interesting to note that in doing so you are seeking to protect the
idea from criticism as well as once again draining its meaning in order to obscure it.
<snip>
> But I'm more interested in how you plan to "weaken" the atheist's
> belief-in-the-guise-of-non-belief.
Believing you don't believe something is still a belief in something.
> Accusations? Shrill abuse? Calling
> them "fascists?"
Demonstration and proof based on reason and common sense..... noting history is also important.
<snip>
> It's your less-than-sly suggestion that you have
> been using it in the accepted sense that I find dishonest. By all
> means, call licorice flavour or a robin's egg "fascist" if you like.
> Just be aware--and be upfront--that the signified has shifted.
How can you find something dishonest? What are you being honest to?
I note that once again you are seeking to remove meaning from the term fascist. You have not really ever
debated the meaning, you just seek to remove the meaning. One has to wonder why anyone would be removing the
meaning from the term fascist. Perhaps a fascist who wanted to deny that they are a fascist would want to
remove meaning from the word, eh?
<snip>
> > Natural Law and its exposition in the "Jewish influence" were around at the
> > time Sade lived and his
> > perverse reaction to the common senses was fascist.
>
> Perhaps a citation or two would be nice. I'm not aware that de Sade
> was an anti-semite, but then, I find his books rather boring, and I
> might have missed it. But to call him a "fascist" before fascism ever
> came to be is plain dumb. At least--if you truly see an unbroken line
> from de Sade to Hitler--call him "proto-fascist" or something.
Evil is metaphysical and transcends time.
"[Sade] immediately relativizes, personalizes, narcissizes
the idea of justice. He makes it into a human structure riddled with
egotistical and contradictory impulses, into a sublimation of
our passions:
'let us have the courage to tell men that justice
is a myth, and that each individual never actually heeds
any but his own version of it; let us say so fearlessly.
Declaring it to them, and giving them thus to appreciate
all the dangers of human existence, our warning enables
them to ready a defense and in their turn to forge
themselves the weapon of injustice, since only by
becoming as unjust, as vicious as everybody else
can they hope to elude the traps set by others.'
Sade, in fact, restores tribal law, a world of retaliation.....
.....the rituals of cruelty staged by Sade do not lead to the
accomplishment of any end, nor are they redeemed by any
form of transcendence; their function is one of loss, of waste
for its own sake. They continually repeat the desire to
escape the social order, to liberate the actors from all
social taboos. Sadean atrocities—torture, cannibalism,
murder—are performed in an absolute vacuum of
significance. No mystical transcendence is there to shore it up."
(Original Vengeance: Politics, Anthropology,
and the French Enlightenment
Pierre Saint-Amand
Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 26, No.
3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 399-417)
Here is what Sadean philosophy looks like when taken seriously and
applied to real life.
E.g.
"All this was part of his 'sadistic play,' she believed, because 'every
step Mengele [took] was a psychological basis for torture.' And compared
with other SS doctors Mengele was 'more sadistic, ....more raffiniert
[sophisticated, trick, sly]. He [was] more elaborate.....because he must
know psychology.'
Sometimes the psychological sadism could be naked, as when he spoke to a
Jewish woman doctor pleading unsuccessfully for the life of her elderly
father, also a doctor: 'Your father is seventy years old. Don't you
think he has lived long enough?' Or, to a sick woman: 'Have you ever
been on the 'other side'? What is it like over there? .....You will
know very soon!"
(The Nazi Doctors; Medical Killing and the Psychology
of Genocide, By Robert Lifton :374)
Now you can begin an attempt to remove meaning from, i.e. deny the meaning of sadism and Sadean philosophy.
> > > You play with concepts like a child.
> >
> > Projection. You haven't even shown grounds for the conceptual and sneer at
> > metaphysics. Even as you
> > back away from such an attitude in the face of pressure towards common sense > you still argue that the
> > metaphysical is merely the physical, which means it's not metaphysical, which > is the same inane
> > position as before.
>
> Not quite right. I would argue for the usefulness of concepts like
> "truth," but consider that they are contingent.
Contingent to what?
You my as well just admit that your projections about "It's all assertion!" and "That's just bluster!" and so
on are really about the emptiness of your own inane philosophy. At the end of the line of, well then what's
that relative to, well then what's that contigent on and so on, your answer will be "nothing." And truly it
is nothing.
<snip>
> > Fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
> > transcendence."
> >
> > Where is the supposed contradiction?
>
> Did I use the word "contradiction?"
So you're not dealing with what I said but dealing with a red herring instead.
<snip>
> "I believe this statement smacks of an elitist, ivory-tower isolation
> from the ‘real world'
Oh boy, here we go.... the Soil, the Blood and the Nation can't be far behind now.
> that was already reprehensible four decades ago
> and would be even more indefensible now given the profound ecological,
The Soil.
> demographic,
The Blood.
> social and cultural crises
The Nation.
> of the New World Order. A much
> more political and less transcendent point of view suggests that human
> beings desperately need to become friends, not just of ‘thought', but
> of each other and of the planet which sustains our whole species.
But not all species? Hmmm.... a much less transcendent point of view suggests that human beings need to
become friends of all species. Why not just go all the way....
> This
> implies an enormous redistribution of economic wealth and economic
> power, as well as a vast paradigm shift in the hegemonic cosmology
Why? Too Jewish? Lol. That's right, he can't say that anymore, eh?
> of
> Western/‘liberal' modernity. However, it is only then that fascism and
> all other forms of politicized racism, whether ethnocentric or
> ‘differentialist', could ever truly be a thing of the past."
Notice how when he gets closer to historical reality he gets farther from fascist philosophy but when he
begins to give his own opinions he comes closer.
> --Roger Griffin, from "Fascism's new faces (and new facelessness) in
> the ‘post-fascist' epoch."
>
> > > And Nolte
> > > himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
> > > the so-called "fascist minimum."
> >
> > And?
>
> So that the phrase "fascist socialist" would appear moronic as well as
> oxymoronic to the man you love to cite.
Do you think the terms National Socialist would appear moronic to him?
> > > For all your bluster, your ignorance shines through like a neon light.
> >
> > That's incorrect.
>
> Is not.
So, is Griffin's book the only book you have read about fascism?
> > > > Yet effete fascists,
> > >
> > > Now, *there's* a concept! "Effete fascists." Love it.
> >
> > E.g.
> > ?About three years before the Nazis came to power we had
> > a patient at the Institute who had a liason with Roehm. We
> > were on good terms with him, and he told us a good deal of
> > what happened in his circle...He also referred to Adolf Hitler
> > in the oddest possible manner. ?Afi is the most perverted of us all.
> > He is very much like a soft woman, but now he makes
> > great propaganda in the heroic morale?.?
> > (Magnus Hirschfeld. Quartet Books, New York,
> > 1986. Wolff, Charlotte M.D. :438)
> >
> > Effeminates sometimes tend to make a cult of masculinity but it is a
> > perverted masculinity. A lot of
> > evidence can be cited on this with respect to National Socialism which was
> > even more focused on an
> > effete immanence and passive Nature than Italian fascism.
> > <snip>
>
> I always thought the SS were a bunch of leather boys.
The SA,
"Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops had surrounded
himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs, men of rank of
Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer, commanding units
of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost
without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop
officer were homosexual he had no chance of advancement.”
(Knickerbocker, H.R. Is Tomorrow Hitler’s ? New
York, Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941 p. 55).
> Thanks for that.
No problem.
> Now perhaps you would explain your "effete immanence" phrase. That
> seems a rather odd yoking.
Psychologically effeminacy is passively taking on the mannerism of the mother, the most immediate, the most
observable and then never moving on from a state of arrested development.
<snip>
> > Still waiting on that rationale for rationality, you're still being >irrational.
>
> As noted, this is nonsensical: hence attempting to answer your
> question would be equally nonsensical. But if it's "irrantionality"
> you want, check out belief in transcendence.
Your so-called "rationality" is based on nothing and that is why it is irrational. You admit that you have no
rationale for rationality but keep on pretending to be rational.
<snip>
> > It is absent because its practitioners mendaciously judge the physical merely > by the physical and not
> > the metaphysical.
>
> Why, precisely, is this "mendacious?"
Because it seeks to depart from absolute truth. It seems you shouldn't even quibble over this term because
that is exactly what you seek to do.
<snip>
> > No.
> >
> > Main Entry: vis·cer·al
> > Pronunciation: 'vi-s&-r&l, 'vis-r&l
> > Function: adjective
> > 1 : felt in or as if in the viscera :
> > DEEP <visceral conviction>
> > 2 : not intellectual : INSTINCTIVE,
> > UNREASONING <visceral drives>
> > 3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions :
> > EARTHY <a visceral novel>
>
> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> "visceral
> adjective
> Of, relating to, or arising from one's mental or spiritual being:
> inner, interior, internal, intimate1, inward.
>
> Slang gut.
> See body.
I.e. physical, Webster's is clear and they are not clear. On the one hand it's "mental" and "spiritual being"
and on the other "see body." This contradiction indicates that they are wrong.
<snip>
> I rather like the first definition--don't you?
I don't like contradictory definitions. You do because your goal is to obscure, blur and obliterate the
meaning of words. I haven't checked your reference but if that dictionary says that then it is wrong.
Viscera refers to organs in the body and when Webster's notes that when something is visceral it is by nature
"not intellectual" Webster's is correct.
It's ironic that your pretense is that of being "intellectual" when you are not. Just as when you "see
through" everything you actually see nothing when you say that words are so fluid as to change their meaning
easily you're actually saying nothing.
> > It refers to animalistic physical intuition based on imagery not civilized
> > and civilizing metaphysical
> > sense based on word. But note that your fascist deconstructionism pleads to > the visceral and supports
> > it.
>
> It would appear that your illusion of the transcendent is based upon
> it as well.
No, our sentience, i.e. sense of the physical is based upon the metaphysical.
<snip>
> > I hope you don't wonder why I note that you are infantile as you regress to a state in which you fail
> > to understand words.
>
> Words I understand. But your frequently ungrammatical and irrational
> stringing of them together is not always easy to understand.
I suppose my grammatical and rational use of words is not always easy to understand to people in an infantile
state of arrested development.
> > > >You are also historically ignorant.
> > >
> > > And this, as it happens, is plain wrong.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> What, prove a negative? You made the original assertion: the onus is
> on you to prove it.
Here we go, effete passive agressivity..... well, I will continue to be the active participant in this little
"debate" if you like. Although it would be more interesting if you were more active. Your ignorance of the
historical association between fascism and deconstructionism has already been noted.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Very impressive. All pretence at reason having deserted you, you now
> > > resort to this hysterical and baseless abuse.
> >
> > The basis was you starting in on this thread with the notion that the
> > metaphysical should not be dealt
> > with and instead supressed.
>
> I said nothing about "suppression," liar.
Of course not.... you just said that the metaphysical ought not be discussed. Doh!
It seems you want to be purely passive and so on. Of course you're not really actually doing anything or
ultimately even really saying anything.
> > You keep speaking of and judging so-called "reason" while I'm still waiting
> > on that rationale for
> > rationality.
>
> Rationality does not require a "rationale", and especially not a
> transcendent God for it to have instrumental value.
So your only use for "reason" is as a Machiavellian means to ends and there is no reason for reason if it
doesn't suit the ends. Is it any wonder that your so-called "reason" comes to the conclusions that you
viscerally want it to? Why am I not suprised?
<snip>
> > Observation of the world is metaphysical.
>
> Gee, and here you were a few lines ago calling it "crass empiricism."
> Make up your mind.
Denial that observation of the world is ultimately metaphysical is based on crass empiricism. So,
"essentially"/existentially you're saying that you don't believe that evil exists because you can't directly
observe evil itself? And you wonder why I note your infantility?
> > You're not testing your so-
> > called "ideas" against anything
> > you're merely denying the metaphysical a priori to looking for evidence of it > and so denying that evil
> > exists.
>
> I am denying the usefulness of the category.
Vice and virtue as merely useful categories, note that Machiavellian notions have become associated with evil
just as sadism and fascism have become associated with evil.
> Better to talk about
> right and wrong in terms of the society we want.
Why not Machiavellian self preservation? As he said, you can't speak of right and wrong if you're not alive.
First things first, after all.....
> In that respect,
> Griffin's comments above should perhaps be taken to heart.
Which comments? The pabulum about friendship or the notions that began to put the Soil, Blood and Nation
first?
<snip>
> > Evil is a metaphysical reality that can be traced in the physical. Your
> > denial of evil in defining it
> > as merely the rule of men, is itself evil.
>
> Whatever.
It's not whatever. It's an essence that leaves an impact on existence. It is what it is.
> > It is part of the evil of fascism to say that what is evil
> > is relative to culture and nation.
>
> Just as well I don't say that, then.
Too bad you already did say its merely a social construction, little one. It's time for you to put away
childish things.
<snip>
> > > How do Jews keep getting into the discussion?
> >
> > Because that was the issue with respect to an increasing association and
> > perhaps even the beginnings
> > of alliance between Islamists and Leftists.
>
> Ah. I see. So that denying any such "alliance" would simply prove it
> in your eyes.
Nope.
> Prove that any Left support for the Palestinians, for
> example, is based fundamentally on anti-semitism. As for alleged Left
> support for fundamentalist Islam, prove that bizarre assertion,
> please, or retract.
E.g.
"Not everyone who wants to do this country harm is a Radical
Islamist armed with a box cutter. Some, like bell hooks, use their
academic status to infect students with despair, anger, and
hopelessness about this country and even their own future.
Moral relativism has become a staple of academic life at the
hands of a professorate and staff determined to squeeze the
last vestiges of decency and morality out of their young charges.
After September 11, 2001, a horrible date in our history
when close to 3,000 people perished, Americans once
again came shining through; there was a rejuvenation of the
American spirit as we responded with patriotism, anger,
and a determination to make sure such an attack would
never happen again. We were reminded of every reason
why we should be proud and protective of this country.
The reaction on our campuses, however, was quite different,
with an amazing refusal by both students and professors
to recognize right and wrong, good and evil. It gave average
Americans a shockingly clear picture of the effects of
moral relativism at institutions ranging from the local
community college through four-year state colleges
to the most prestigious universities.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA),
a nonprofit group dedicated to academic freedom, reported
on a whole host of extraordinarily revealing comments
made by faculty and staff at respected universities across
the country. If you’re wondering what mentality drives
those who have been charged with developing and
molding the minds of the next generation, here are
some examples:
“Anybody who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.”
—professor of history, University of New Mexico
“[W]e should be aware that, whatever its proximate
cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign
policy over the past many decades.” —professor of English, Rutgers University
“[The American flag is] a symbol of terrorism and death and fear
and destruction and oppression.” —professor of physics,
University of Massachusetts—Amherst
• “{I]magine the real suffering and grief of people in other
countries. The best way to begin a war on terrorism
might be to look in the mirror.” —professor of
anthropology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
These comments fairly represent an Intellectual Elite that
is completely out of touch with the attitudes and values
of the average person in this country. When faced with a
monumental tragedy, those in charge of higher learning
exposed their moral vacancy by blaming America first.
The Left are no longer able to see the simplest of truths
embodied by 9/11: America stands for progress, equity, and
freedom. We educate people (both men and women, thank
you), help make dreams for the future come true, and
create a society in which individuals can thrive. Radical
Islamists, as a cultural phenomenon, cut people’s throats,
destroy buildings, murder huge numbers of people, and
condemn the future. Anti-Americanism persists, in the face
of such obvious signs of right and wrong, because it is a
requirement of moral relativism. If a student, or any one else,
is to be successfully indoctrinated with the idea that all cultures
and ideas are equal, then pride and loyalty to our nation, her
past, and our heroes be comes anathema and must be eradicated.
The special history, achievement, and greatness of America
prove, simply by counterpoint, the existence of good and
evil, right and wrong. Our history and accomplishments
are the antithesis to the moral relativism of which today’s
professors are so enamored."
(The Death of Right and Wrong. (Random House: 2003)
Tammy Bruce :159-161)
Or shall I begin to cite evidence of an association between Canadian leftists and Islamists? I don't know why
you passively sit back and demand action like that. Actually I do know why but it still just doesn't seem to
make sense to try to make someone you disagree with be the most active person.
> We all know, incidentally, how the Islamists deny transcendence. :)
Islamists go as far in a radical transcendence as you do in your idiotic focus on immanence. Too bad
transcendence and immanence are as complementary as men and women (not contradictory) and so you both wind up
supporting evil. You in your sniveling little effete passive agressive way and they in their hyper-masculine
way of radical action. Notice how every time I ask you to be active you just start snivleling and make
relatively feeble attempts at actually making your case on any issue. Transcendence is necessary but not
sufficient to get to the goal of being ethical. Immanence is necessary but not sufficient to get to that
goal.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >No, your fascist deconstructionism is the actually the ultimate
> > > word-salad.
> > >
> > > There you go again. "Fascist deconstruction" is no more meaningful
> > > than
> > > "fascist socialism." The word just means you disapprove of something.
> >
> > I'm reminded of the Holocaust deniers who want to so easily forget history.
>
> So now I'm a Holocaust-denier? Are you mad?
Strawman.
But note that the memory of the Holocaust is safeguarded by history, i.e. merely words that can supposedly be
deconstructed according to you.
> > You want to forget or
> > obscure the meaning of the term. The very term "deconstruction" was coined
> > by a fascist because the
> > basic characteristic of fascism is a practical and violent resistance to
> > transcendence. (Nazism more
> > so than Italian fascism....)
>
> Your yoking of the word to Nolte's observation is mendacious in the
> extreme. Did Nolte talk about deconstruction?
Why should I focus on an identity rather than views? I would only do so if I wanted to be as myopic and blind
as you are.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >I amused at a socialist fascist urging other people to
> > > >think outside the box even as they put us all in
> > > >the box of physical, naturalistic explanation.
> > >
> > > You really are as foolish as you sound, I suspect. In any
> > > case, the box you mention is a much larger one than
> > > a groundless belief in a transcendent God.
> >
> > Groundless belief? What of the observed typology of Nature?
>
> The "observed typology of nature?" You're really something else.
> Possibly one of the last mediaeval thinkers alive.
So you don't believe in the typology of Nature, little one? So what do you have to say about the perversion
zoophilia? Necrophilia?
> > What of our own sentience? What of the
> > common senses and Natural Law?
>
> What of them?
Common sense of the Law indicates that there must be a Law giver.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >"Intellectually"?? Is there no metaphysical origin of the
> > > intellect?
> > >
> > > No more than there is a metaphysical "origin" for a rock.
> >
> > Then you should have said it is a more "satisfactory" approach in your brain > to seek explanations in
> > the world. Why this is supposedly supposed to be more "satisfactory" for
> > anyone else is not apparent.
>
> Maybe not to you.
It's time for you to put away childish things.
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a
child, I reasoned like a child. When I became
a man, I put childish ways behind me."
1 Corinthians 13:11
<snip>
> > > >The view also leads to junk science,
> > > >pseudo-science. Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
> > > >due not to inferior training but to
> > > >the mendacity inherent in any
> > > >scholarship that overlooks or openly
> > > >repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
> > > >(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
> > > >Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
> > > >against the Jewish People. (New York:
> > > >The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
> > >
> > > So real science is transcendant? Do tell.
> >
> > Yes, it's based on common senses, sentience and applies to all people.
>
> And yet most scientists would deny transcendence.
Most scientists believe in a mythological narrative of, "Once upone a time a group of fish that were mammalian
ancestors jumped out of the water, killing themselves enough times that eventually they grew legs and walked
away." They are merely taking part in a paradigm.
> What do you think
> the attack on so-called "creation science" or "intelligent design" is
> all about?
What do you think the fascist support of an ideology of evolutionism was about?
E.g.
"[Hitler] was captivated by evolutionary
teaching — probably since the time he
was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite
undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is
worst in Mein Kampf -and in his public speeches
…. Hitler reasoned … that a higher
race would always conquer a lower."
(Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After,
Grand Rapids International Press,
Grand Rapids, MI, 1958. :115)
"One of the central planks in Nazi theory and
doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] …
that all biology had evolved … upward, and
that … less evolved types … should be
actively eradicated [and] … that natural
selection could and should be actively aided,
and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political
measures to eradicate … Jews, and …
blacks, whom they considered as 'underdeveloped.'"
(Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany
Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1982 :27)
"… straightforward German social Darwinism of
a type widely known and accepted throughout
Germany and which, more importantly, was considered
by most Germans, scientists included, to be
scientifically true. More recent scholarship
on national socialism and Hitler has begun to
realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory]
was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National
socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based
on a mystical-biological belief in radical
inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism
based on the eternal struggle for existence
and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature,
and the consequent use of state power
for a public policy of natural selection…."
(Stein, G., Biological science and the roots
of Nazism, American Scientist 76(1) 1988. :51)
" … modern eugenics thought arose only in the
nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that
century had multiple roots. The most important
was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s
ideas on eugenics — and it was he who created the
term “eugenics” — were a direct logical outgrowth
of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his
cousin, Charles Darwin."
(Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of
Bioethics, Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free
Press, New York, 1978. :457)
" … struggle, selection, and survival of the
fittest, all notions and observations arrived
at … by Darwin … but already in
luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy
of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed
the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule
the world on the basis of superior strength …
[of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the
Reich and the weaker nations."
(Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics,
G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1946. :230)
"‘ … in their political system, with nothing left out ….
Their political dictionary was replete with words like space, struggle,
selection, and extinction (Ausmerzen). The
syllogism of their logic was clearly stated:
The world is a jungle in which different nations
struggle for space. The stronger win,
the weaker die or are killed …"
(The Nuremberg Trials, Vol. 14, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., :279)
"In the long run nature eliminates the noxious
elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature
which demands that all living things should mutually
devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which
itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim
to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey
them."
(Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944,
With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R.
Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, 1953 :116)
> > > One
> > > doesn't need to refer to the transcendent in order to
> > > be honest or to do sound research.
> >
> > That's incorrect.
>
> Prove it.
Much of science is based on the mathmetization of Nature. Transcendency there.... probably. Then there is
the fact that no scientist ends a lecture with, "So know you know the biochemical state of my brain at this
time." No, instead their texts, their words, their sentience are taken to be transcendent and transferrable
to other people. These are the common senses and assumptions behind the very act of education vs. the type of
indoctrination leftists support.
<snip>
> > And remarkable in the degree in which it sought to liquidate such notions
> > using naturalistic means.
> > It seems to be typical to socialists to assign their political opponents some > naturalistic explanation
> > and then deal with them in a physical way.
>
> Hey, I'm just talking here. You and your family are safe. :)
But granted practical political power the raw, crass, uncivilized and purely physical "reasoning" of fascists
tends to find its expression.
<snip>
> > Marx was an anti-semite, that's just historical fact. Whatever identity or
> > status you or other
> > fascist socialists would like to assign to those who note this historical
> > fact, it still remains.
>
> So you claim.
"Let us consider the actual, wordly Jew, not the
Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion
but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering.
What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation
from huckstering and money, consequently from practical,
real Judaism, would be the self—emancipation of our time."
("In the Interests of Civilization": Marxist Views
of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century
Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 42,
No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1981), pp. 115-138)
". . Now it is completely clear to me that, as his head shape
and hair growth prove, he is descended from the Negroes
who joined Moses on the journey out of Egypt (if not, his
mother or grandmother on his father’s side crossed with
a nigger). Now this combination of Judaism and Teutonism
with a negroid basis must produce a strange product.
The obtrusiveness of the fellow is indeed negroid. . . .
One of the great discoveries of our nigger—which he
shared with me as a ‘most trusted friend’—is that the
Pelagians stemmed from the Semites. . ."
(Ib.)
It is what it is.... not that you're likely to learn the fascist tendencies of leftists from your local
Marxist professor at the University.
> > > Then the fact that there have historically been at least
> > > some Jews involved on the Left should be put down to--
> > > what? Ignorance of Karl Marx?
> >
> > It can be put down to the difference between the metaphysical viewpoint of
> > Judaism and the physical
> > status of being a Jew. However, note that socialists conflate metaphysical viewpoint with physical
> > status often enough and so this distinction often does not hold among socialists such as yourself.
> > This denial of the metaphysical was especially apparent in Nazism.
>
> This is far from a satisfactory explanation for the involvement of
> Jews in the history of socialism.
Of course it's not satisfactory to one that seeks to conflate metaphysical viewpoint with physical status.
It's not meant to be.
<snip>
> > Wrong, I said that Nazism was a heretical branch of socialism. Since when
> > have heretical branches of
> > any ideology been friends? No, typically the orthodox and the heretic are
> > some of the most visceral
> > enemies of each other.
>
> Nazism opposed Marxism to its core. Note what it was that Hitler
> complained about in that quotation you provided: he attacked it for
> being wedded to democracy. A reproach I would wear with pride.
Of course the dictatorship of the proletariat that is meant to come out of democracy (and then never seems to
end in Communist utopia quite the way it's supposed to) has nothing to do with Marxism?
At any rate, on the one hand you show an affinity for Marxism and on the other a disdain for Christianity.
But it seems that Marxism is based on some Christian values.
<snip>
> You think that you've refuted all the correction of your
> > philosophy and your ignorance of history by saying idiotic little things like, "[If fascism is a
> > heretical branch of socialism then] Why were the Nazis rounding up Communists?" as if that contradicts
> > the facts noted?
>
> It contradicts your claim that socialism is fascist and anti-semitic.
The evidence shows that socialism has fascist and anti-semitic tendencies. I didn't say that Marxist
socialism is fascism or any other straw man.
> > > >> The laughable concept of eliminating the Jewish
> > > >> influence in Christianity (which I guess would involve pitching the
> > > >> Old Testament and developing a revisionist account of Christ's
> > > >> origins).
> >
> > > >Yes?
> > >
> > > So why make that stupid claim?
> >
> > Because eliminating the Jewish influence in Christianity in that way is
> > exactly what the Nazis
> > attempted and is a general tendency of socialists.
>
> Well, no. As even you yourself noted, above, the Jewish influence on
> Christianity cannot be removed what what is Christianity.
I said the Nazis attempted it...... blah.
> But
> socialists, in any event, aren't particularly interested in
> transforming Christianity. Where did you get that nonsense?
Socialists will accept some Christian values as a sort of social gospel as long as they aren't too
transcendent and don't have too much of the "Jewish influence."
<snip>
> > The American conservative John Adams noted the natural aristocracy and was merely noting a natural
> > fact of life. This can be easily proven and is just as true now as then. However, because he was
> > guided by transcendent principles and the common sense that came with his strong religious faith he
> > sought to put the natural aristocracy in competition with other forms of government in a series of
> > checks and balances. I.e., he took the physical facts and guided by metaphysical principles and
> > common senses he was able to have the foresight to create a system of which Americans still enjoy some
> > of the benefits. As a fascist you put the physical before the metaphysical and so disagree with
> > conservatives.
>
> Nope. I disagree with conservatives because they are wrong-headed.
Please.... you feel that they are wrong-headed because you place the physical before the metaphysical.
> Hitler, in the quotations I provided, clearly stands for the same kind
> of things that you do.
That's incorrect.
> Perhaps you're the fascist here.
Perhaps not.
<snip>
> > The fascists physical solution to metaphysical disagreement.... and it seems > to work, doesn't it? By
> > your fascist tendency towards crass empiricism and pseudo-science
>
> What "pseudo-science?" You're raving.
Your support of evolutionism based on philsophic naturalism.
<snip>
> > Mussolini came to the
> > heretical conclusion of fascist socialism but began in socialism.
> >
> > "For the proletariat must consider itself anti-patriotic by
> > definition and necessity and made to realize that nationalism
> > was a mask for rapacious militarism that should be left to
> > the masters and that the national flag was, as Gustave
> > Herve had said, a rag to be planted on a dunghill"
> >
> > This is a summary of Mussolini's attitudes when he
> > was aged 25 by Hibbert (1962, p. 14). So although
> > in his 30s Mussolini become an ardent nationalist, in
> > his youth he was as anti-nationalist......
>
> So he was a socialist in his youth, and when he was older he became a
> fascist. I know conservatives who were socialists in their youth. Are
> they evolving towards fascism?
Is that really your attempt to deal with noting the fact that fascism is a modification of, i.e. a heretical
branch of socialism? The unifying philosophy behind fascism and Marxist socialism is still the same despite
this branching off.
<snip>
> > This summary of Mussolini's developing beliefs in
> > his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly
> > be a more quintessentially Leftist outlook.
>
> But it proves nothing at all excpet that he had socialist ideas in his
> youth.
It proves that you had no idea what you were talking about when you brought up chronology as if it refuted the
fact that fascism is a heretical branch of socialism.
> [snip]
>
> >
> > > >Law and in favor of supposed laws of Nature, radical
> > > >environmentalism, inane notions of evolutionism, animal rights,
> > naturalistic Hed
> > > >onism in sexual perversions, etc. Notions that seem to be more
> > > >and more common in Canada.
> > >
> > > One can only hope.
> >
> > Then you hope for the end of a civilization.
>
> I hope for a more beneficial social arrangement; for healing the
> environment; and so on. What you call "civilization" is mediaeval.
The common senses of civilization is ancient but not antiquated.
There is literally nothing to your philosophy. It's all fluff, associations and "observed" imagery. So what
of the evidence of a danger in doing away with civilization by for instance, doing away with the "medieval"
distinction between human and animal as radical environmentalist animal rights activists are wont to do?
> > > >> Fascist writing is peppered with it:
> > > >> everything from the notions of blood, nation and race
> >
> > > >All physical.
> >
> > > >Your ignorance is telling.
> > >
> > > <snicker> So tell us, then: what's "physical?"
> >
> > Your ignorance on the issue is telling.
>
> Your inability to answer direct questions is more telling.
Physical:
a : having material existence : perceptible especially through
the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything
physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance...
b : of or relating to material things
2 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating
to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces
and operations of physics
3 a : of or relating to the body b : concerned or preoccupied
with the body and its needs : CARNAL c : characterized
by especially rugged and forceful physical activity :
> > > The fascists
> > > could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of race and nation.
> >
> > You could rightly be said to have a metaphysics of idiocy, although idiocy is > naturalistic. You think
> > that your beliefs are matter, therefore they don't matter.
>
> I think that they have a non-transcendent origin. But I believe that
> my beliefs matter, or I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.
Why do they matter?
<sniP>
> > The Jews were seen as a physical biological force.
>
> Hitler spoke of them in far more metaphysical language.
When? Once or twice? Rober Lifton documents in chapter after chapter in the Nazi Doctors how the Nazis
viewed the Jews as a physical problem to be dealt with physically. You're either being disingenuous or you
are ignorant.
> > Because,
> > "Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less
> > under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun
> > particularly around the middle of the last century, by the
> > teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards
> > has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer,
> > Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,
> > Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the
> > courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of
> > the natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of
> > heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application
> > to man could not be delayed any more. It was recognized
> > that the natural laws discovered for plants and animals
> > ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully
> > and completely be confirmed during the last three
> > decades both through family research (Familienforschung)
> > and through the study of bastards and twins."
> > (Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
> > Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
> > against the Jewish People. (New York:
> > The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
>
> All this cutting-and-pasting is no substitute for thought.
It's necessary given your vast ignorance. How are we to begin thinking about facts as they stand when you
keep making ignorant assertions or disingenuous claims? It's also necessary to deal with your childish
empiricism first before getting into other thoughts. I wish it was unnecessary, actually.
> > > >But of course, fascists still often refer to things in a
> > pseudo-religious
> > > >metaphysical way just as you do. That is because your mendacity has
> > > >no integrity.
> > >
> > > You're wandering again. So when fascists actually talk in metaphysical
> > > terms, they must be lying?
> >
> > Fascists try to talk in physical terms just as you do because of a visceral
> > hatred for Natural Law and
> > anyone who dares support it.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. Either they "try to talk in physical
> terms" or they "refer to things in a pseudo-religious metaphysical
> way." Which is it?
Effete passive agressives try to talk in merely physical terms but then the metaphysical references slip back
in. This is why you keep slipping metaphysical references into everything you write, after all. All the
while you oxymoronically argue that the metaphysical is physical, which is a total repudiation of the
metaphysical.
<snip>
> argument. Not accusations; not namecalling; not cutting-and-pasting.
> An *argument.*
About what? Numerous arguments have already been made and stand unrefuted.
<snip>
> There is no argument in the above, only a partia;l retraction of an
> earlier accusation. I'm still waiting.
I didn't accuse you of purposefully lying.
Mendacious:
given to or characterized by deception
or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
The self evident truth that you are diverging from is the existence of the metaphysical.
> > > You won't, of course: you'll just throw the word "fascist"
> > > around as though you know what you're talking about.
> >
> > You seem to know next to nothing of fascism. If you actually knew what you were talking about you
> > would have been much more careful to hide certain fascist tendencies such as deconstructionism.
>
> You're repeating yourself. This is just bald assertion.
Your assertion that it is an assertion is just bald assertion, little one. Let's apply your own self refuting
standards to you first, remember.
"You seem to know next to nothing of fascism." This is my informed opinion about things you've said, relevant
here because you think you're qualified to claim that the term fascist is just being thrown around willy
nilly. Note that actually I'm the one supporting part of the meaning of the term while your arguments seek to
drain its meaning.
> Still waiting
> for an argument.
A reason given in proof and rebuttal has been given numerous times on various factual and philosophical
issues.
> <snip>
>
> And various injunctions not to lie, which have their cause in the
> social order,
Ironic, that self defined "progressives" actually don't believe in any moral progress at all. What are we
progressing towards, a "better" moral order? But wait, how can we judge that? That's right we can't because
our sense of morality has been supressed.
> prove the existence of something called "Natural Law?"
> Nonsense.
" ‘Isn’t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention,
something that is put into us by education?’ I think there is a
misunderstanding here. The people who ask that question
are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned
a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must
be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not
so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A
child who grew up alone on a desert island would not
know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication
table is simply a human convention, something human
beings have made up for themselves and might have made
different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the
Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers,
and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But
some of the things we learn are mere conventions which
might have been different— we learn to keep to the left
of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule
to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics,
are real truths. The question is to which class the Law
of Human Nature belongs.
There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same
class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first
chapter, that though there are differences between the
moral ideas of one time or country and those of another,
the differences are not really very great—not nearly
so great as most people imagine—and you can
recognise the same law running through them all: whereas
mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind
of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The
other reason is this. When you think about these differences
between the morality of one people and another, do
you think that the morality of one people is ever better
or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes
been improvements? If not, then of course there could never
be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing,
but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer
or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring
civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to
Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some
moralities are better than others. We do believe that some
of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their
own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers—people
who understood morality better than their neighbours did. Very
well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas
can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them
both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to
that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard
that measures two things is something different from either.
You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real
Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right,
independent of what people think, and that some people’s
ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this
way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis
less true, there must be something—some Real
Morality—for them to be true about."
(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Note that this book is a compilation of radio adresses that Lewis gave to the British people in the war. Its
moral clarity is an interesting contrast with Nazism.
E.g.
"I myself was to experience how easily one is
taken in by a lying and censored press and radio
in a totalitarian state. Though unlike most Germans
I had daily access to foreign newspapers, especially
those of London, Paris and Zurich, which arrived the
day after publication, and though listened regularly to
the BBC and other foreign broadcasts, my job necessitated
the spending of many hours a day in combing the German
press, checking the German radio, conferring with Nazi
officials and going to Party meetings. It was surprising and
sometimes consternating to find that notwithstanding the
opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one’s inherent
distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady
diet over the years of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression
on one s mind and often misled it. No one who has not lived
for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how
difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a
regime’s calculated and incessant propaganda. Often in
a German home or office or sometimes in a casual
conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hail,
a cafe, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions
from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was
obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense
they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers.
Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on
such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity,
such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the
Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to
try to make contact with a mind which had become warped
and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and
Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :247-48)
<snip>
> > > >To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
> > >
> > > This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
> >
> > Conservatives exist in Nature. If everything is right then how can they be
> > wrong?
>
> Evasion noted. That wasn't what I said.
If we are both neither "wrong" nor "right" then why do you keep acting as if you're right?
I know, you're merely passively describing Nature and not actually doing anything. In fact, you're so passive
that you're in some "sense" dead because that's the level of your awareness and sentience.
> > > Morality cannot be found in nature.
> >
> > The trail of morality can be found in Nature as assuredly as the impact of
> > our own sentience can be.
>
> Bullshit.
A compelling argument.
So does our own sentience have an impact or not? Can evil have an impact or not?
<snip>
> No, it's genuinely mediaeval thinking, akin to believing that palnts
> with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
So, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal......"
...is akin to believing that plants with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
Hmmm. Your argument is merely associative. I could just as easily say, "Well, your beliefs are just like
believing in Santa!"
> And I'd be a little troubled, if I were you, about the notion of
> fascists sneering at conservatives. The only difference in your
> positions is one of degree.
Well, I'm not that troubled.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >You most likely hate Americanism
> > >
> > > What, precisely, is "Americanism?" Would you provide a definition?
> > > I try to avoid essentialist constructs like this one.
> >
> > But you certainly don't avoid existentialist nonsense.
>
> This is another evasion. Aren't you getting a little tired from
> wriggling in this fashion?
Just because I choose not to deal with your passive ignorance on every single issue doesn't mean I cannot deal
with it and am avoiding it for that reason, little one. If you're so ignorant that you don't know what
Americanism is and also so stupid as to not be able to cure your ignorance yourself that is not necessarily my
responsibility.
> > Essence doesn't even seem to exist according
> > to fascists.
>
> And realists. Is Karl Popper a fascist, btw?
No. Learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and get back to me.
> > Perhaps if you joined the Holocaust deniers on the group then you could be
> > open and honest about your fascist tendencies as fascist tendencies.
>
> That's an obscene thing to say.
The notion of obscenity is based on Natural Law. There is nothing "obscene" if everything is natural just
because it occurs in Nature. You have already applied your infantile solvent to a sort of "unnatural"
obscenity but now here the notion sneeks back in just as metaphysics did.
> The debate ends here,
Very well. It seems amusing that this little "debate" was so one sided where you actually demanded more and
more action from me, perhaps more often than you tried to prove anything yourself.
> you lying prick.
That's incorrect. Note that your deconstructionism is supportive towards the Holocaust deniers' camp anyway
who also illustrate a cynical disregard for the truth. I will continue to correct you and them, if I have the
time to do so. One would hope that you would just change your mind but those who don't admit they have a
metaphysical mind rarely seem to change it. I don't dislike you or anything of the sort. I just don't
respect you, little one. It's time to stop clinging to childish things.
--W
C.J.W.
Steve Smith wrote:
<snip>
> Metaphysics eh ..... I read all the words and when I finished I knew
> what it was.
> I, also, met a lot of diarrhea ..... yours.
More uncivilized drivel, apparently that's going to be all leftists have to offer.
<snip>
--W
C.J.W.
notritenoteri wrote:
> 53K of pseudo intellectual bullshit from all concerned. WHy don't you guys
> start your own NG? you could call it alt.big.words.bullshit
--W
John Baglow
has to do it.
The slimy bastard who linked me with holocaust-denial, Lenny Pulver aka "Le Mod Pol" aka "C.J.W."<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<408DB00C...@bellatlantic.net>...
> You have nothing to say to words being used to note your self refuting idiocy > and so attack the value of words
> themselves. I'm not playing with words nor do I have to rely on
> manipulation. Words naturally are supportive
> of transcendence. It seems that whenever you get in to trouble with being
> skewered by words you begin to
> squirm by deconstructing words.
Words have, obviously, tremendous value: social communication would be
next to impossible without language. I have neither attacked words per
se, nor have I attempted to "deconstruct" them [I wish you'd look that
word up]. But words are not "supportive of transcendence" except to
the deluded. Merely saying that they are doesn't make it so.
> Were you saying that Bush is against you because he's not with you?
I said no such thing. I try not to talk in that silly way.
> Typically, when a child burns their hand on a stove they form the prejudice
> that the stove will burn them.
> Based on such a prejudice and the common sense that pain is bad they have the > foresight not to touch the stove
> again.
You are misusing the word "prejudice" here, in the most self-serving
way. Observation leading to conclusions is not "prejudice" unless
those conclusions become fixed regardless of further observation. In
the case cited here, if the child refused to touch a stove even it it
were turned off, we would have a case of "prejudice." Prejudice
involves closure against the possibility of further judgement.
> The categorical discrimination of "human" rests on the typology of nature and > Natural Law. Leftists undermine
> this in the radical animal rights movement so it's not apparent what your so-> called "human reality" is.
Very sonorous. Very meaningless. Just repeating yourself doesn't add
value to these empty utterances of yours. "Natural Law" is a fiction.
The so-called "typology of nature" is a mediaeval throwback. Human
beings constuct morality to make their societies function; and they
impose countless taxonomies on the phenomenal world of observation
because it is useful to do so.
You appear to be obsessed with the "animal rights" question. At its
best, all the concept means is not causing animals to suffer. It is an
extension of the empathetic impulse that is part of our genetic
inheritance.
> A metaphysical imprint on
> the physical is easy to demonstrate.
Well, no, it is not. You have failed to do so in hundreds of lines of
postings. It's an article of faith, not something susceptible to
observation.
> Why should I care what the biochemical state of your idiotic brain happens to > be at the moment? Who are you?
> Or how about the leftst sentiment, "Who are you to judge." After all, your
> status is all that matters. And
> why are you supposedly "one" and not more than one? That sounds vaguely
> discriminatory.
And the above paragraph sounds vaguely nutty. Tant pis.
> As I apply your denial of dualism, your fascism, your deconstructionism and
> so on to you perhaps you will
> realize how immoral your philosophy is. It can get a bit rough but it is
> your own philosophy, after all.
You have "applied" nothing, simply uttered a series of assertions in
an increasingly shrill tone. That's not philosophy; it's the
self-assurance of the autodidact.
> Denying the metaphysical is akin to a baby crying when their mother leaves
> the room because when they cannot
> observe her she does not exist.
An interesting choice of illustration. It is precisely that kind of
separation that produces belief in God, the surrogate parent of the
needy, immature individual.
> You expect me to give you a rationale for rationality? Perhaps that's up to > you to figure out.
You keep trotting out this mantra of yours. And I shall keep replying
that rationality doesn't need a rationale: it's a tool that we use to
survive. The question is nonsensical, rather like asking what the
rationale of a mountain is, or of a piece of candy.
> I keep asking you for it.
Well you can't have it.
> When deconstructionism is applied for the sake of a practical and violent
> resistance to transcendence it is
> fascist deconstructionism.
You appear to think in slogans when you think at all. You have yet to
demonstrate any violence on my part, although resistance to the notion
of transcendence is something I have in spades.
> > As noted earlier, your reductionist claims would make
> > fascists of all atheists, materialists and scientists.
>
> As noted earlier, my claims do not. We've already been through that straw
> man.
You don't know what a "straw man" is. You have already stated that
atheists have "fascist tendencies"--are you recanting now?
> > You really are a philosopical tyro,
> > aren't you?
>
> It's likely that if that were true you would be dealing with philosophy
> instead of dealing with assigning me a
> status, little one. There is virtually no "reasoning" that I can think of
> that is more infantile than your
> own.
In other words, you are a philosophical tyro.
> > And to equate Holocaust-denial with deconstructionism indicates at
> > least to me that you are a crank.
>
> Straw man.
As I stated, you don't know what a "straw man" is. I conclude that you
are non compos mentis when you make silly claims like the above. Or
are you retracting that claim too?
> > > .....We have to get on with our lives. Besides, memories
> > > reconstructed in words, even when they are documented
> > > by evidence, have not often changed the world or fended
> > > off the powerful seductions to silence, forgetting,
> > > or denying."
> > > (The Annals of The American Academy of Political and
> > > Social Science November, 1996 548 Annals 45
> > > THE HOLOCAUST: REMEMBERING FOR
> > > THE FUTURE: "Havel to the Castle!"
> > > The Power of the Word
> > > By VIOLET B. KETELS)
> >
> > I see no contradiction between the ability to communicate (including
> > through poetry) and current theories of language.
>
> Red herring.
You really must brush up on your logic. The above is not a "red
herring" at all. You have simply missed my point.
> Are you attaching some normative judgment to the term abuse? Remember, I am > only applying your own philosophy
> to you first, just as you said it was okay to do. If you find such
> relatively small things to be abuse in the
> sense of being evil in some transcendent and transferrable sense it is only
> evidence that you sense that your
> own philosophy is evil.
Gobbledygook. I was merely pointing out that you substitute
name-calling and assertion for reasoning. I am beginning to believe
that you don't know the difference.
> If one thing is relative to another thing which is relative to another thing > and so on...... okay then, what
> is everything relative to?
What a pathetic question. You clearly have not the slightest notion of
what the word "relative" means.
> > Don't mystify fascism. It's a politics, not some diabolus ex machina.
>
> I.e. Hitler was just insane and not evil. So perhaps he was not guilty by
> reason of insanity according to
> leftists.
[blah-blah snipped]
Your "i.e." means you can't follow the simplest of threads, so let me
spell it out for you. Hitler was a wicked individual who was as guilty
of innumerable crimes. You don't need to be a metaphysician to figure
that out. Incidentally, I am not one of those who thinks that Hitler
was insane.
To repeat: fascism is a politics. I'll accept Nolte's "fascist
minimum" for the sake of argument. Nothing in there about transcendent
evil.
> I said the practical and violent resistance to transcendence is a defining
> characteristic of fascism. As a
> deconstructionist you seem perfectly content for the term "fascism" to loss
> all meaning as you have argued
> that it merely signifies dislike and so on. It seems that the real issue is > that you don't like the meaning
> of fascism being known.
a) You have yet to demonstrate any violence on my part. b) it is you
who wants to inflate the term so that it loses all meaning; as noted,
I'm willing to accept Nolte's definition for now, although I see a
problem or two with it.
> > Not at all. You are substituting naive faith for observation and
> > reason.
>
> Observation of what?
>
> Have you observed reason?
Not in your case.
> Can we observe your idiotic beliefs?
Who is "we?"
> Mind refers to the mental which relates to ideas as opposed to matter. I am > merely noting your own confusion
> that conflates the mind with the brain.
Your quaint dualism is noted. But, as I have tried to get through to
you, being a realist does not require reductionism. I don't have to
think too much about quarks and chemical reactions when I am whipping
up a gourmet meal, for example. But you'll miss my point yet again, I
suspect.
> This is typical to leftists, as
> shown in the insanity defense. Note
> the leftist notion of "mental illness" which is purposefully oxymoronic.
So the phrase was invented by "leftists?" Are you really that
pig-ignorant?
> > This kind of argumentation is tiresome in the extreme. It's like
> > saying to a vegan, "Hitler was a vegetarian, so eat your damned meat."
> > It's guilt by association.
> I would note to vegans that begin to speak like fascists with respect
> to "animal rights" as well as speaking
> of "flesh eaters" or vegans who begin to speak of the barbarity of kosher
> laws and the like that they are
> illustrating fascist tendencies.
Good grief. I do believe you're serious.
> But atheists throughout history and up to the present day have shown a
> tendency towards using the state in a
> totalitarian way to supress religious expression if it is based on the
> transcendent. They are "offended" by
> it, don't you know.
More assertion. That First Amendment really rots your socks, doesn't
it? Without it you could have your state-run Inquisition; you could
impose your sense of transcendence on everyone by fire and sword. Not
that some of you people aren't trying to get it all in through the
back door, with anti-abortion laws and such.
> Supression of religious expression of the "Jewish influence" (e.g monotheism) > does denote fascism and it is
> being practiced by socialists.
Now opposition to notions of transcendence is anti-semitic? You're
raving. Jews aren't the only monotheists around.
> I suspect you know as little about the First Amendment as you know of fascism.
Enough to know why it worries you.
> > So burning down a church would be fascist, but engaging a
> > far-right nutter like you in exchanges on Usenet would not be.
>
> So you want to apply your little crass and infantile solvent to wipe away
> fascism as an metaphysical idea in
> exchage for only the physical action. Interesting to note that in doing so
> you are seeking to protect the
> idea from criticism as well as once again draining its meaning in order to
> obscure it.
Nope. Stop projecting: it is you who wants to use the signifier
"fascism" in ways that make it meaningless. I'll start with Nolte's
"fascist minimum." What do you have to say about the latter?
> > But I'm more interested in how you plan to "weaken" the atheist's
> > belief-in-the-guise-of-non-belief.
>
> Believing you don't believe something is still a belief in something.
Well, duh-h. THat's why I used the construction above.
> > Accusations? Shrill abuse? Calling
> > them "fascists?"
>
> Demonstration and proof based on reason and common sense..... noting history > is also important.
Gosh--when are you going to start?
> Evil is metaphysical and transcends time.
>
> "[Sade] immediately relativizes, personalizes, narcissizes
> the idea of justice. He makes it into a human structure riddled with
> egotistical and contradictory impulses, into a sublimation of
> our passions:
> 'let us have the courage to tell men that justice
> is a myth, and that each individual never actually heeds
> any but his own version of it; let us say so fearlessly.
> Declaring it to them, and giving them thus to appreciate
> all the dangers of human existence, our warning enables
> them to ready a defense and in their turn to forge
> themselves the weapon of injustice, since only by
> becoming as unjust, as vicious as everybody else
> can they hope to elude the traps set by others.'
> Sade, in fact, restores tribal law, a world of retaliation.....
>
> .....the rituals of cruelty staged by Sade do not lead to the
> accomplishment of any end, nor are they redeemed by any
> form of transcendence; their function is one of loss, of waste
> for its own sake. They continually repeat the desire to
> escape the social order, to liberate the actors from all
> social taboos. Sadean atrocities?torture, cannibalism,
> murder?are performed in an absolute vacuum of
> significance. No mystical transcendence is there to shore it up."
> (Original Vengeance: Politics, Anthropology,
> and the French Enlightenment
> Pierre Saint-Amand
> Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 26, No.
> 3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 399-417)
I love your use of quotation. Once again, it trips you up. You claim,
above, that evil is transcendent. Yet the last sentence of your most
recent Authority is: "No mystical transcendence is there to shore it
up."
> Now you can begin an attempt to remove meaning from, i.e. deny the meaning of > sadism and Sadean philosophy.
Why would I want to do that? I know perfectly well what they mean.
> > Not quite right. I would argue for the usefulness of concepts like
> > "truth," but consider that they are contingent.
>
> Contingent to what?
<sigh> That's the problem with using technical terms with an amateur.
Try this: "A property of statements or thoughts whose truth or falsity
depends on matters of fact or circumstance; also of matters of fact
whose existence depends on other matters or fact or circumstance. What
is neither logically necessary nor logically impossible is
contingent."
> > > Fascism is "the practical and violent resistance to
> > > transcendence."
> > >
> > > Where is the supposed contradiction?
> >
> > Did I use the word "contradiction?"
>
> So you're not dealing with what I said but dealing with a red herring instead.
You can't even read your own words now. I noted that Griffin had made
short work of Nolte--you selectively quoted both of them approvingly
and then made reference to a "contradiction." The red herring is
yours, and it smells.
And then, when I reveal through a longer quotation precisely what
Griffin thinks of Nolte, you move from quoting him approvingly
to--calling Griffin a fascist too! And an anti-semite! [See your
comments immediately following.] You're full of sound and fury, but
you really don't have a logical bone in your body.
************************
> > "I believe this statement smacks of an elitist, ivory-tower isolation
> > from the ?real world'
>
> Oh boy, here we go.... the Soil, the Blood and the Nation can't be far behind now.
>
> > that was already reprehensible four decades ago
> > and would be even more indefensible now given the profound ecological,
>
> The Soil.
>
> > demographic,
>
> The Blood.
>
> > social and cultural crises
>
> The Nation.
>
> > of the New World Order. A much
> > more political and less transcendent point of view suggests that human
> > beings desperately need to become friends, not just of ?thought', but
> > of each other and of the planet which sustains our whole species.
>
> But not all species? Hmmm.... a much less transcendent point of view suggests that human beings need to
> become friends of all species. Why not just go all the way....
>
> > This
> > implies an enormous redistribution of economic wealth and economic
> > power, as well as a vast paradigm shift in the hegemonic cosmology
>
> Why? Too Jewish? Lol. That's right, he can't say that anymore, eh?
>
> > of
> > Western/?liberal' modernity. However, it is only then that fascism and
> > all other forms of politicized racism, whether ethnocentric or
> > ?differentialist', could ever truly be a thing of the past."
>
> Notice how when he gets closer to historical reality he gets farther from fascist philosophy but when he
> begins to give his own opinions he comes closer.
>
> > --Roger Griffin, from "Fascism's new faces (and new facelessness) in
> > the ?post-fascist' epoch."
******************************************************
> > > > And Nolte
> > > > himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
> > > > the so-called "fascist minimum."
> > >
> > > And?
> >
> > So that the phrase "fascist socialist" would appear moronic as well as
> > oxymoronic to the man you love to cite.
>
> Do you think the terms National Socialist would appear moronic to him?
Oxymoronic.
> > Now perhaps you would explain your "effete immanence" phrase. That
> > seems a rather odd yoking.
>
> Psychologically effeminacy is passively taking on the mannerism of the
> mother, the most immediate, the most
> observable and then never moving on from a state of arrested development.
No, no, stick to the point, don't wander off again. I'm not interested
in your predigested pop psychology. I want to know why immanence is
"effete."
> No, our sentience, i.e. sense of the physical is based upon the metaphysical.
So you claim.
> > Words I understand. But your frequently ungrammatical and irrational
> > stringing of them together is not always easy to understand.
>
> I suppose my grammatical and rational use of words is not always easy to
> understand to people in an infantile
> state of arrested development.
Well, here's an example of what I mean:
"You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine
language itself." [How does one imitate a word?--JB]
Or this:
"But your sentiment that Christianities admission to the Jewish
influence of transcendence is fascist."
Badly-expressed blather. And there are other examples.
> > What, prove a negative? You made the original assertion: the onus is
> > on you to prove it.
>
> Here we go, effete passive agressivity [sic]..... well, I will continue to be > the active participant in this little
> "debate" if you like. Although it would be more interesting if you were more > active. Your ignorance of the
> historical association between fascism and deconstructionism has already been > noted.
Evasion noted.
> > I said nothing about "suppression," liar.
>
> Of course not.... you just said that the metaphysical ought not be discussed. Doh!
Well, no, Lenny, I didn't. I said to Len M. that I would prefer to
discuss geo-politics, and that I myself didn't want to discuss
metaphysics. That's how you came into this conversation, remember?
> So your only use for "reason" is as a Machiavellian means to ends and there
> is no reason for reason if it
> doesn't suit the ends. Is it any wonder that your so-called "reason" comes
> to the conclusions that you
> viscerally want it to? Why am I not suprised?
"Reason is, or should be, the slave of the passions." But I suppose
you would call David Hume a "fascist" too. Nothing at this point would
surprise me.
> Denial that observation of the world is ultimately metaphysical is based on
> crass empiricism.
"Based on" is a little sloppy, here, Lenny.
> Vice and virtue as merely useful categories, note that Machiavellian notions > have become associated with evil
> just as sadism and fascism have become associated with evil.
Only by those who have not actually read Machiavelli.
> > Prove that any Left support for the Palestinians, for
> > example, is based fundamentally on anti-semitism. As for alleged Left
> > support for fundamentalist Islam, prove that bizarre assertion,
> > please, or retract.
[completely irrelevant quote snipped]
> Or shall I begin to cite evidence of an association between Canadian leftists > and Islamists?
Please do. I'm waiting with bated breath. Although your weasel-word
"association" will probably get you off the hook.
>I don't know why
> you passively sit back and demand action like that.
Because you made the assertion without proof in the first place?
> > > I'm reminded of the Holocaust deniers who want to so easily forget history.
> >
> > So now I'm a Holocaust-denier? Are you mad?
>
> Strawman.
Nope. Ad hominem. Yours.
> > > The "observed typology of nature?" You're really something else.
> > >Possibly one of the last mediaeval thinkers alive.
>
> > So you don't believe in the typology of Nature, little one?
No, you poor rambling senile autodidact, I do not. Human beings impose
typologies on nature. They don't discover them.
> So what do you have to say about the perversion
> zoophilia? Necrophilia?
You're wandering again. Please stop losing the plot.
> Common sense of the Law indicates that there must be a Law giver.
No, your hallucinations do. But thanks for sharing.
> Most scientists believe in a mythological narrative of, "Once upone a time a >group of fish that were mammalian
> ancestors jumped out of the water, killing themselves enough times that >eventually they grew legs and walked
> away." They are merely taking part in a paradigm.
>
> > What do you think
> > the attack on so-called "creation science" or "intelligent design" is
> > all about?
>
> What do you think the fascist support of an ideology of evolutionism was >about?
So scientists *are* fascists, after all.
> > It contradicts your claim that socialism is fascist and anti-semitic.
>
> The evidence shows that socialism has fascist and anti-semitic tendencies. I > didn't say that Marxist
> socialism is fascism or any other straw man.
Well, yes you have, Lenny. And, once again, you need to look up the
phrase "straw man." Your ignorance is remarkable.
> > Well, no. As even you yourself noted, above, the Jewish influence on
> > Christianity cannot be removed what what is Christianity.
>
> I said the Nazis attempted it...... blah.
No, you didn't. You said that they brought the churches under their
control because "removing the Jewish influence" from Christianity is
an impossibility. Not at all the same thing.
> > But
> > socialists, in any event, aren't particularly interested in
> > transforming Christianity. Where did you get that nonsense?
>
> Socialists will accept some Christian values as a sort of social gospel as
> long as they aren't too
> transcendent and don't have too much of the "Jewish influence."
Since you are using quotation marks, a citation would be nice. What
socialists have accepted the concept of the social gospel just so long
as "Jewish influence" is removed? Come on, Lenny, don't be shy: give
us a reference or two.
> > Nope. I disagree with conservatives because they are wrong-headed.
>
> Please.... you feel that they are wrong-headed because you place the physical before the metaphysical.
Heh. That's the least of it.
> > Hitler, in the quotations I provided, clearly stands for the same kind
> > of things that you do.
>
> That's incorrect.
Go back and read the passages I quoted.
> > > The fascists physical solution to metaphysical disagreement.... and it seems > to work, doesn't it? By
> > > your fascist tendency towards crass empiricism and pseudo-science
> >
> > What "pseudo-science?" You're raving.
>
> Your support of evolutionism based on philsophic naturalism.
So belief in evolution is "fascist" too? Are you now getting a glimmer
of what I've been saying all along--that you've effectively exploded
the category?
> Is that really your attempt to deal with noting the fact that fascism is a
> modification of, i.e. a heretical
> branch of socialism? The unifying philosophy behind fascism and Marxist
> socialism is still the same despite
> this branching off.
Well no, Lenny, it's not. And quoting from Mussolini's youthful brush
with socialism doesn't prove the contrary.
> > > This summary of Mussolini's developing beliefs in
> > > his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly
> > > be a more quintessentially Leftist outlook.
> >
> > But it proves nothing at all excpet that he had socialist ideas in his
> > youth.
>
> It proves that you had no idea what you were talking about when you brought
> up chronology as if it refuted the
> fact that fascism is a heretical branch of socialism.
Try to keep up, Lenny. Chronology is important, unless you think that
a person never changes their beliefs.
> > > The Jews were seen as a physical biological force.
> >
> > Hitler spoke of them in far more metaphysical language.
>
> When? Once or twice? Rober Lifton documents in chapter after chapter in the >Nazi Doctors how the Nazis
> viewed the Jews as a physical problem to be dealt with physically. You're >either being disingenuous or you
> are ignorant.
I suppose I was thinking of phrases like "der erwige Jude." Has a nice
metaphysical ring to it.
>> argument. Not accusations; not namecalling; not
cutting-and-pasting.
> > An *argument.*
>
> About what? Numerous arguments have already been made and stand unrefuted.
You have made none--assertion is not argument, Lenny.
> I didn't accuse you of purposefully lying.
> Mendacious:
> given to or characterized by deception
> or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
This definition implies conscious deception. Otherwise, the statement
2=2=5 would be considered not a mere error, but "mendacious."
> > And various injunctions not to lie, which have their cause in the
> > social order,
>
> Ironic, that self defined "progressives" actually don't believe in any moral > progress at all.
That's one of the siller claims you've made in this thread. And your
ensuing quotations do not back it up.
> > > > >To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
> > > >
> > > > This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
> > >
> > > Conservatives exist in Nature. If everything is right then how can they > > >be
> > > wrong?
> >
> > Evasion noted. That wasn't what I said.
>
> If we are both neither "wrong" nor "right" then why do you keep acting as if >you're right?
New evasion noted.
> > No, it's genuinely mediaeval thinking, akin to believing that palnts
> > with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
>
> So, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal......"
>
> ...is akin to believing that plants with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
It's a little old-fashioned now. Some of the Founding Fathers owned
slaves, after all, and women are nowhere mentioned in the statement.
> > And I'd be a little troubled, if I were you, about the notion of
> > fascists sneering at conservatives. The only difference in your
> > positions is one of degree.
>
> Well, I'm not that troubled.
Fanatics and the self-deluded seldom are.
> If you're so ignorant that you don't know what
> Americanism is and also so stupid as to not be able to cure your ignorance
> yourself that is not necessarily my
> responsibility.
It's just an essentialist construct, and not one with much utility.
> > > Essence doesn't even seem to exist according
> > > to fascists.
> >
> > And realists. Is Karl Popper a fascist, btw?
>
> No. Learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and get back to me.
Read "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and get back to *me." He
launches a full-scale assault on essentialism.
> That's incorrect. Note that your deconstructionism is supportive towards the >Holocaust deniers' camp anyway
Liar.
And now, Lenny, I'm bored and I should be out making a living, so the
last repetitive, inane, ill-informed and probably misspelled word is
yours.
--John Baglow
C.J.W.
John Baglow wrote:
<snip>
> Words have, obviously, tremendous value: social communication would be
> next to impossible without language. I have neither attacked words per
> se, nor have I attempted to "deconstruct" them [I wish you'd look that
> word up].
Deconstruction is an attack on language's reference to the extratextual, let alone the transcendent. Social communication is not impossible without language. Immanent social communication
takes place through fascist violence and the triumph of the image over the word.
> But words are not "supportive of transcendence" except to
> the deluded.
Now you're just being stupid again, little one. Words, by their existence, are supportive of civilization.
> Merely saying that they are doesn't make it so.
But that's all your philosophy is, that things are merely said and that is all, little one.
> > Were you saying that Bush is against you because he's not with you?
>
> I said no such thing. I try not to talk in that silly way.
So is Bush against you? Why do leftists have a visceral hatred for Bush if he is not against them? Perhaps it is their own arrested development and not so much the fault of Bush?
> > Typically, when a child burns their hand on a stove they form the prejudice
> > that the stove will burn them.
> > Based on such a prejudice and the common sense that pain is bad they have the > foresight not to touch the stove
> > again.
>
> You are misusing the word "prejudice" here, in the most self-serving
> way.
A prejudice can be merely a preconceived judgment or opinion. It is not necessarily wrong.
> Observation leading to conclusions is not "prejudice" unless
> those conclusions become fixed regardless of further observation.
A prejudice can be merely a preconceived judgment or opinion and things do not have to be in a state of constant observation for prejudices to be correct.
> In
> the case cited here, if the child refused to touch a stove even it it
> were turned off, we would have a case of "prejudice."
If the child was honoring their parents (and in so doing taking part in natural law tradition) the prejudice would still be protective of them and the vast majority would need the
prejudice. Consequently, the vast majority of children would be harmed if the prejudice was arbitrarily done away with without looking to the reason for it. If some leftist kook instead
said, "Touch the stove if it is harmless and generally just do whatever you can get away with doing without causing harm to yourself." I.e. they only sought to establish a prejudice against
harm per se they would actually cause harm to the child and society. If the child himself or herself was an intellectual then they could try to figure things out and in general they would
find themselves coming back to the same traditions, backed now by intellectual reasoning. But most children are not intellectuals and instead need to be guided by their parents and
tradition. Similarly, most people in general are not intellectuals and need guidance from tradition. It's also important to note that some children who are not intellectuals might think
that they are intellectuals in an insecure way and since they feel a need to prove it they would be stuck in the position of trying to prove all tradition wrong (because this "proves" they
are an intellectual, don't you know) but never coming back to the point of admitting that most tradition is correct and there for a reason. I.e. if you're going to set about thinking about
the reason for traditions and if they are sound reasons you shouldn't do so to try to prove anything about yourself. It's not about you.
"Burke’s affection for prejudice and prescription
was not new in English thought. Chesterfield had
written, “A prejudice is by no means (though
generally thought so) an error; on the contrary,
it may be a most unquestioned truth, though it be
still a prejudice in those who, without any examination,
take it upon trust and entertain it by habit.... The
bulk of mankind have neither leisure nor knowledge
sufficient to reason right; why should they be taught to
reason at all? Will not honest instinct prompt, and
wholesome prejudices guide them, much better
than half reasoning?” This is precisely what Burke
meant. [...] Courage was required to
make declarations in defense of prejudice; in a lesser
man, such an attitude would have met with the
contempt of the literary public. Burke they could
not scorn, however; for reason was as conspicuous
in him as in any man in England.
[...]
Does the observance of prejudice and prescription, then,
condemn mankind to a perpetual treading in the footsteps
of their ancestors? Burke has no expectation that men
can be kept from social change; neither is rigidity of
form desirable. Change is inevitable, he says, and is
designed providentially for the larger conservation
of society; properly guided, change is a process
of renewal. But let change come as the consequence
of a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun
abstractions. Our part is to patch and polish the
old order of things, trying to discern the difference
between a profound, slow, natural alteration and
some infatuation of the hour. By and large, change
is a process independent of conscious human
endeavor, if it is beneficial change. Human reason
and speculation can assist in the adjustment of the
old order to new things if they are employed in a
spirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility.
Even ancient prejudices and prescriptions must
sometimes shrink before the advance of positive
knowledge; but the Jacobin mind is unable to
distinguish between minor inconvenience and actual
decrepitude. The perceptive reformer combines an
ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the
man who loves change is wholly disqualified, from
his lust, to be the agent of change."
(The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot. Seventh
Revised Edition. (Regnery Publishing: 1985) :43-45)
".....some infatuation of the hour."
That is all your so-called "reasoning" seems to be. Everything that goes against it is old and antiquated according to you as if simply being of antiquity means that something is
antiquated.
> Prejudice
> involves closure against the possibility of further judgement.
Then all the judgments you just made are prejudiced because in making them you sought to close off the possibility of different judgments. Preconceived judgments are not always wrong,
prejudice is not always wrong. If you really thought it was always wrong then you wouldn't be taking part in it.
> > The categorical discrimination of "human" rests on the typology of nature and > Natural Law. Leftists undermine
> > this in the radical animal rights movement so it's not apparent what your so-> called "human reality" is.
>
> Very sonorous. Very meaningless.
Proejection, your own philosophy has no meaning to it.
> Just repeating yourself doesn't add
> value to these empty utterances of yours.
According to your philosophy it actually would. But you're right no repetition adds meaning to anything. Note that I was not repeating something and that was one of the first times I
explicitly brought up the leftist tendency to break down the distinction between human and animal.
> "Natural Law" is a fiction.
Your text is a fiction. Let's apply your standards to you first.
> The so-called "typology of nature" is a mediaeval throwback.
Your "feellings" based need to merge categories is just as ancient as the common sense that some categories cannot be and should not be merged. So what of the distinction between human and
animal? Is it ethical to merge the categories of human and animal as in the sexual perversion zoophilia? I already know what you must "feel" about homophilia so I won't even ask so I won't
have to listen to a neurotic support for it.
> Human
> beings constuct morality to make their societies function; and they
> impose countless taxonomies on the phenomenal world of observation
> because it is useful to do so.
Let's apply your philosophy to the real world. Category one: Human beings don't believe in the categories living and dead because it is useful to do so. They do so because it is true. It
is what it is.
> You appear to be obsessed with the "animal rights" question.
No, I'm just applying your philosophy to the real world and the way that various categorical discriminations are dealt with. If you are right and we can simply manufacture all distinctions
then the uncivilized fascist tendency to suppress common moral senses and merge the categories of human and animal makes "sense." Might makes right and they can do what they will in the
triumph of the will. If the typology of Nature represents "essential" truths then it is up to us to admit to these truths and not try to manufacture new truths through conditioning, etc.
In mentioning some of the categories that civilization rests on I am seeing what your philosophy has to say about the real world and in the process trying to get you to admit to some
truths. Also in the process, anyone who has any amount of common sense will see the absolute moral bankruptcy of your philosophy and how perverse it is.
> At its
> best, all the concept means is not causing animals to suffer. It is an
> extension of the empathetic impulse that is part of our genetic
> inheritance.
Then the impulse to violence that is part of our genetic inheritance has an equal naturalistic claim to fulfillment.
I doubt that there is any visceral empathetic impulse on a par with the visceral tendency towards violence. I am just accepting your notion that is not backed by any observation of an
empathy gene that I know of (nor that I suspect, anyone but you has apparently "observed." What happened to your vaunted observation?) for the sake of argument.
> > A metaphysical imprint on
> > the physical is easy to demonstrate.
>
> Well, no, it is not. You have failed to do so in hundreds of lines of
> postings. It's an article of faith, not something susceptible to
> observation.
The metaphysical is by definition not subject to physical observation, anymore than your idiotic belief that it is not subject to observation is subject to observation. The fact that the
metaphysical leaves an imprint on the physical is an article of reason, not faith. All you are doing is demanding direct physical observation of the non-physical and then in your blindness
saying, "I can't see it!"
> > Why should I care what the biochemical state of your idiotic brain happens to > be at the moment? Who are you?
> > Or how about the leftst sentiment, "Who are you to judge." After all, your
> > status is all that matters. And
> > why are you supposedly "one" and not more than one? That sounds vaguely
> > discriminatory.
>
> And the above paragraph sounds vaguely nutty.
You can't answer to your Self refutation. You never will be able to answer to it until you change your mind, little one. It is time to grow up, to change.
<snip>
> That's not philosophy; it's the
> self-assurance of the autodidact.
Why are you interested in "philosophy" when what you believe in is a rebellion against it? You seek to make the metaphysical physical and then speak of "philosophy." You seek to deny the
reason for reason and then speak of it. I suppose I will just continue to point this out to you, little one. But if you would grow up and begin the process of changing your mind this
little "debate" might be more interesting.
> > Denying the metaphysical is akin to a baby crying when their mother leaves
> > the room because when they cannot
> > observe her she does not exist.
>
> An interesting choice of illustration. It is precisely that kind of
> separation that produces belief in God, the surrogate parent of the
> needy, immature individual.
Please, shall I provide a list of your so-called needy and immature individuals and then compare them with the list of effete atheistic kooks?
> > You expect me to give you a rationale for rationality? Perhaps that's up to > you to figure out.
>
> You keep trotting out this mantra of yours. And I shall keep replying
> that rationality doesn't need a rationale: it's a tool that we use to
> survive.
So its back to Machiavelli.... all is just self preservation. There is no rationale for good standards, only rationalizations for bad standards.
> The question is nonsensical, rather like asking what the
> rationale of a mountain is, or of a piece of candy.
I figured I was asking a sentient being the question. But the more you speak in your cold dead way the more it seems that a comparison of your "sense" to inanimate objects is appropriate.
The only problem is that you can't then turn around and call things "nonsensical" on the basis of your absence of sense. You say that rationales are ultimately nonsense but never deal with
your own sense. There seems to be nothing at the end of your philosophy.
> > I keep asking you for it.
>
> Well you can't have it.
Indeed, not until you become rational and put away childish and irrational notions.
> > When deconstructionism is applied for the sake of a practical and violent
> > resistance to transcendence it is
> > fascist deconstructionism.
>
> You appear to think in slogans when you think at all. You have yet to
> demonstrate any violence on my part, although resistance to the notion
> of transcendence is something I have in spades.
The repudiation of all spiritual values is characteristic of fascism metaphysically. The practical and violent resistance to transcedence is a characteristic of fascism physically. It is
impossible in this type of forum to say anything about what you have done or would do physically. If there is much of a correlation between your metaphysical thought and your physical deed
then your deeds will be fascistic. That is all that can be said about that given the forum.
> > > As noted earlier, your reductionist claims would make
> > > fascists of all atheists, materialists and scientists.
> >
> > As noted earlier, my claims do not. We've already been through that straw
> > man.
>
> You don't know what a "straw man" is. You have already stated that
> atheists have "fascist tendencies"--are you recanting now?
Are you saying that all scientists are atheists? That is a part of your strawman.
Atheists and materialists do have fascist tendencies. It is the atheist who is most likely to desire to supress religious expression of transcendence and so illustrate their fascist
tendency. This is easily demonstrated.
> > > You really are a philosopical tyro,
> > > aren't you?
> >
> > It's likely that if that were true you would be dealing with philosophy
> > instead of dealing with assigning me a
> > status, little one. There is virtually no "reasoning" that I can think of
> > that is more infantile than your
> > own.
>
> In other words, you are a philosophical tyro.
Even a philosophical infant would be better than your type of anti-philosophical denial of metaphysics. I am actually giving you more credit than you deserve, little one. It's more like
you are dead than at the beginning of anything, stuck where you are in non-development rather than changing and growing your mind as an infant does. In your infantility you demand instant
and direct observation and then turn like this to speak of philosophy? In your infantility you assert the contradiction that the metaphysical is the physical and then turn to speak of
"philosophy"? How utterly idiotic.... and if everything us physical, nothing is metaphysical, period.
> > > And to equate Holocaust-denial with deconstructionism indicates at
> > > least to me that you are a crank.
> >
> > Straw man.
>
> As I stated, you don't know what a "straw man" is.
It's a straw man to argue that I have said that scientists have fascist tendencies. It may be true (See: Hitler's Scientists, by John Cromwell) but it is not an argument I have made.
Science when it is defined as philosophic naturalism instead of methodological naturalism does have fascist tendencies and is pseudo-science, not science.
> I conclude that you
> are non compos mentis when you make silly claims like the above. Or
> are you retracting that claim too?
I didn't retract any claim, little one. Unfortunately, apparently it is not going to be necessary when having this little "debate" with you to do so because you have nothing to offer.
Hopefully on some minor point I will learn something from you and so change my mind but I doubt it. So far all I've learned is what I already know, that I sometimes mispell references like
naseum or sequitur. Can you tell me what it is you think I can learn from you? Note that you have no reason to change your mind because you don't believe in ethical, value laden and
metaphysical notion of progress. The merely physical is what it is. There is no "essential" progress, just existence. This is why it is ironic that leftists sometimes self define as
progressives. It is conservatives that believe in a slow and steady progress towards metaphysical ethical goals.
<snip>
> > Red herring.
>
> You really must brush up on your logic. The above is not a "red
> herring" at all. You have simply missed my point.
Your point that unspecified "current theories of language" have something to do with anything that was at issue? That was a red herring.
> > Are you attaching some normative judgment to the term abuse? Remember, I am > only applying your own philosophy
> > to you first, just as you said it was okay to do. If you find such
> > relatively small things to be abuse in the
> > sense of being evil in some transcendent and transferrable sense it is only
> > evidence that you sense that your
> > own philosophy is evil.
>
> Gobbledygook. I was merely pointing out that you substitute
> name-calling and assertion for reasoning.
Wrong. My reasoning is clear and based on Something. Your reasoning is distorted, oxymoronic and blurred and based on nothing.
The term abuse is a value laden term and that is why you used it. Application of your leftist "philosophy" to sentient beings is abusive and so when I say let's apply it to you first you
find it abusive.
> I am beginning to believe
> that you don't know the difference.
If you were merely being descriptive then you wouldn't have used a normative term like abuse, little one. I am going to keep on applying your "philosophy" to you and it is visceral but not
unjustly abusive. You might be tempted to blame me for its visceral nature but it is your own "philosophy" and there is metaphysical justice in applying it to you first and others second.
> > If one thing is relative to another thing which is relative to another thing > and so on...... okay then, what
> > is everything relative to?
>
> What a pathetic question. You clearly have not the slightest notion of
> what the word "relative" means.
Relative:
a thing having a relation to or connection
with or necessary dependence on another thing
So we come across another question you are too philosophically incompetent to answer, little one. If you put away your childish things you would begin the process of finding an answer. I'd
suggest to you Aristotle's answer.
> > > Don't mystify fascism. It's a politics, not some diabolus ex machina.
> >
> > I.e. Hitler was just insane and not evil. So perhaps he was not guilty by
> > reason of insanity according to
> > leftists.
>
> [blah-blah snipped]
>
> Your "i.e." means you can't follow the simplest of threads, so let me
> spell it out for you. Hitler was a wicked individual
But you've already said that you don't believe that a metaphysical evil exists, little one. It's time for you to change your mind and take part in progress.
> who was as guilty
> of innumerable crimes. You don't need to be a metaphysician to figure
> that out.
It's a metaphysical claim to say that Hitler was wicked/evil.
> Incidentally, I am not one of those who thinks that Hitler
> was insane.
Incidentally, you are one who has said that the metaphysical is merely the physical. I.e. the mental does not exist. Therefore, Hitler must of had what we would label some sort of brain
illness. I.e. insanity.
> To repeat: fascism is a politics. I'll accept Nolte's "fascist
> minimum" for the sake of argument. Nothing in there about transcendent
> evil.
Have you begun to notice that your repudiation and resistance to transcendence tends to in one way or another do away with the evil of fascism, little one? This is the interesting thing
about fascism, it is in a constant sort of organic state of self legitimation and growth.
> > I said the practical and violent resistance to transcendence is a defining
> > characteristic of fascism. As a
> > deconstructionist you seem perfectly content for the term "fascism" to loss
> > all meaning as you have argued
> > that it merely signifies dislike and so on. It seems that the real issue is > that you don't like the meaning
> > of fascism being known.
>
> a) You have yet to demonstrate any violence on my part.
Non-issue.
> b) it is you
> who wants to inflate the term so that it loses all meaning;
Wrong. I have explained and demonstrated what one of the defining characteristics of fascism is. This limits me to a meaning that can be criticized and so on. You have drained fasism of
meaning through deconstructionism. Notice your infantile argument before about how the term fascism is supposedly being used in an infantile way to just state dislike. Yet, that is all you
are saying that we say of anything. It is not a metaphysical reference but merely a statement of our dislikes and likes. So supposedly as infant if I didn't like vegetables and so said,
"fascist vegetables" that is in accordance with your notion that words are merely a representation of physical likes and dislikes. I.e. you were projecting your own infantile "philosophy"
onto me.
I may not actually learn much of anything from you Baglow as in you actively imparting knowledge to me but you and your self refuting tendency towards passivity are still fascinating.
> as noted,
> I'm willing to accept Nolte's definition for now, although I see a
> problem or two with it.
It's not really Nolte's definition. It deals with a metaphysical claim for which evidence is to be found in the physical. I.e. it is how we can be aware of fascism. Now, how you're going
to be aware of anything when denying the metaphysical is a problem, let alone an awareness of what fascism is or is not. Others have noted this characteristic of fascism. In citing Nolte
my intent was not to cause you to focus on any person or identity.
> > > Not at all. You are substituting naive faith for observation and
> > > reason.
> >
> > Observation of what?
> >
> > Have you observed reason?
>
> Not in your case.
Have you observed your own reason?
> > Can we observe your idiotic beliefs?
>
> Who is "we?"
Sentient beings, i.e. other people.
But at any rate, the answer is no.... and yet you still have a naive and infantile faith in crass empiricism.
> > Mind refers to the mental which relates to ideas as opposed to matter. I am > merely noting your own confusion
> > that conflates the mind with the brain.
>
> Your quaint dualism is noted.
> But, as I have tried to get through to
> you, being a realist does not require reductionism. I don't have to
> think too much about quarks and chemical reactions when I am whipping
> up a gourmet meal, for example. But you'll miss my point yet again, I
> suspect.
Your denial of the metaphysical and transcendent does require reductionism. That is the only basis you've offered.
As to being a realist, switching the topic now?
> > This is typical to leftists, as
> > shown in the insanity defense. Note
> > the leftist notion of "mental illness" which is purposefully oxymoronic.
>
> So the phrase was invented by "leftists?" Are you really that
> pig-ignorant?
Straw man.
I really don't think I'll learn anything from you, little one.
> > > This kind of argumentation is tiresome in the extreme. It's like
> > > saying to a vegan, "Hitler was a vegetarian, so eat your damned meat."
> > > It's guilt by association.
>
> > I would note to vegans that begin to speak like fascists with respect
> > to "animal rights" as well as speaking
> > of "flesh eaters" or vegans who begin to speak of the barbarity of kosher
> > laws and the like that they are
> > illustrating fascist tendencies.
>
> Good grief. I do believe you're serious.
Of course I am serious about knowledge and awareness, perhaps just as much as you are dead to it.
Hitler was a vegetarian..... but it is the metaphysical reason that is important.
E.g.
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian.
He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is
a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity]
have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in
the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced
vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted
on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable."
--Goebbels
"On one romantic date, his female companion ordered
sausage, at which Hitler looked disgusted and said: 'Go
ahead and have it, but I don't understand why you want
it. I didn't think you wanted to devour a corpse...
the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!'"
http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html
> > But atheists throughout history and up to the present day have shown a
> > tendency towards using the state in a
> > totalitarian way to supress religious expression if it is based on the
> > transcendent. They are "offended" by
> > it, don't you know.
>
> More assertion. That First Amendment really rots your socks, doesn't
> it?
Why would it? What is protects is the free expression of religion in order to safeguard expression of the common senses that you and other totalitarians hate.
> Without it you could have your state-run Inquisition; you could
> impose your sense of transcendence on everyone by fire and sword.
Drivel. Transcendence and immanence are complementary and conservatives seek to understand and conserve both, in moderation. In contrast, you totally deny one in favor of the other and so
turn towards perversion and totalitarianism. A similar contrast is the Islamists who totally deny one in favor of the other and turn towards radicalism and totalitarianism.
Conservatives seek to oppose both.
> Not
> that some of you people aren't trying to get it all in through the
> back door, with anti-abortion laws and such.
Is respect for human life because it has intrinsic worth so alien to you because you only look on people as instrumental means to your own ends, leftist?
> > Supression of religious expression of the "Jewish influence" (e.g monotheism) > does denote fascism and it is
> > being practiced by socialists.
>
> Now opposition to notions of transcendence is anti-semitic? You're
> raving. Jews aren't the only monotheists around.
Note that I didn't say they were, little one.
Perhaps leftists tend focus on supressing the religious "Jewish influence" because it is the best understanding of monotheism. But they also seek to supress Deistic monotheism and so on.
> > I suspect you know as little about the First Amendment as you know of fascism.
>
> Enough to know why it worries you.
As usual, you don't share your supposed knowledge and leave me to be the active person in this little "debate." I question whether you even have it.
> > > So burning down a church would be fascist, but engaging a
> > > far-right nutter like you in exchanges on Usenet would not be.
> >
> > So you want to apply your little crass and infantile solvent to wipe away
> > fascism as an metaphysical idea in
> > exchage for only the physical action. Interesting to note that in doing so
> > you are seeking to protect the
> > idea from criticism as well as once again draining its meaning in order to
> > obscure it.
>
> Nope. Stop projecting: it is you who wants to use the signifier
> "fascism" in ways that make it meaningless.
Noting fascism's metaphysical reality in no way makes it meaningless.
> I'll start with Nolte's
> "fascist minimum." What do you have to say about the latter?
I say that the metaphysical idea of a sort of visceral hatred of transcendence is equally as important as the physical in judging fascism.
<snip>
> > Demonstration and proof based on reason and common sense..... noting history > is also important.
>
> Gosh--when are you going to start?
I suppose you're not aware of your own passivity in this little "debate" anymore than you seem to be aware of my activity. That's alright. I will be active and you can just sit back and
drool as idiots are wont to do and then at the end say, "I can't observe it!"
<snip>
> > .....the rituals of cruelty staged by Sade do not lead to the
> > accomplishment of any end, nor are they redeemed by any
> > form of transcendence; their function is one of loss, of waste
> > for its own sake. They continually repeat the desire to
> > escape the social order, to liberate the actors from all
> > social taboos. Sadean atrocities?torture, cannibalism,
> > murder?are performed in an absolute vacuum of
> > significance. No mystical transcendence is there to shore it up."
> > (Original Vengeance: Politics, Anthropology,
> > and the French Enlightenment
> > Pierre Saint-Amand
> > Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 26, No.
> > 3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 399-417)
>
> I love your use of quotation. Once again, it trips you up. You claim,
> above, that evil is transcendent. Yet the last sentence of your most
> recent Authority is: "No mystical transcendence is there to shore it
> up."
Duh.... immanent physical violence can be redeemed by transcendence. That's why in some movies people say it was just gratuitous violence and in others they make ethical room for
violence. This is the difference between a movie like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List and a Sadean movie like "Natural" Born Killers. This is elementary ethical reasoning. It's a
good thing you don't believe that good and evil exist or else you'd be confronted with just how ethically incompetent you are choosing to be. You're better than this.... or ought to want to
be.
> > Now you can begin an attempt to remove meaning from, i.e. deny the meaning of > sadism and Sadean philosophy.
>
> Why would I want to do that? I know perfectly well what they mean.
By your utterly stupid statments, no you don't. That is clear. I'm sorry it sounds harsh but there is a willful idiocy behind the things you say. You are choosing to be stupid and that's
a problem.
> > > Not quite right. I would argue for the usefulness of concepts like
> > > "truth," but consider that they are contingent.
> >
> > Contingent to what?
>
> <sigh> That's the problem with using technical terms with an amateur.
> Try this: "A property of statements or thoughts whose truth or falsity
> depends on matters of fact or circumstance; also of matters of fact
> whose existence depends on other matters or fact or circumstance. What
> is neither logically necessary nor logically impossible is
> contingent."
Contigent has two meanings.
You either meant that the concept of truth is dependent on or conditioned by something else or you meant that it is not logically necessary. I don't think I've ever heard it argued that the
concept of truth is not logically necessary.
<snip>
> And then, when I reveal through a longer quotation precisely what
> Griffin thinks of Nolte,
Which is irrelevant.
> you move from quoting him approvingly
> to--calling Griffin a fascist too! And an anti-semite! [See your
> comments immediately following.] You're full of sound and fury, but
> you really don't have a logical bone in your body.
I didn't call Giffin a fascist. I am not really interested in his identity one way or another. Once again I am dealing with metaphysics and you are dealing with the physical. The physical
identity of the person saying something is more important than what is said in your idiotic little world. This is why fascists utlimately physically liquidate those who disagree with them
based on the denial and repudiation of the metaphysical.
<sniP>
> > > that was already reprehensible four decades ago
> > > and would be even more indefensible now given the profound ecological,
> >
> > The Soil.
> >
> > > demographic,
> >
> > The Blood.
> >
> > > social and cultural crises
> >
> > The Nation.
> <snip>
> > > Western/?liberal' modernity. However, it is only then that fascism and
> > > all other forms of politicized racism, whether ethnocentric or
> > > ?differentialist', could ever truly be a thing of the past."
> >
> > Notice how when he gets closer to historical reality he gets farther from fascist philosophy but when he
> > begins to give his own opinions he comes closer.
All that sniveling and focus on identity politics and yet you have nothing to say to the substance of what was said.
> > > > > And Nolte
> > > > > himself noted "Anti-Communism" as one of the criteria for
> > > > > the so-called "fascist minimum."
> > > >
> > > > And?
> > >
> > > So that the phrase "fascist socialist" would appear moronic as well as
> > > oxymoronic to the man you love to cite.
> >
> > Do you think the terms National Socialist would appear moronic to him?
>
> Oxymoronic.
Well, it isn't. And I don't really care what "appearance" fascism does or does ont have to one person although any knowledgable person probably has a much better understanding of it than an
ignorant person such as yourself. Fascism as a metaphysical and physical trend was what it was and so is what it is.
> > > Now perhaps you would explain your "effete immanence" phrase. That
> > > seems a rather odd yoking.
> >
> > Psychologically effeminacy is passively taking on the mannerism of the
> > mother, the most immediate, the most
> > observable and then never moving on from a state of arrested development.
>
> No, no, stick to the point, don't wander off again. I'm not interested
> in your predigested pop psychology. I want to know why immanence is
> "effete."
Mothers and the feminine generally deal with the immediate and the emotional world of children. They tends towards nurture and introversion. Fathers and the masculine generally deal with
overcoming the immediate and the rational world. And so on.
These patterns cause effeminates to have an immanent focus, "I was born this way." "We must be passive to follow Nature!" It causes masculine men to have a transcendent focus, "I must
overcome my physical limitations." "We must overcome Nature." And so on.
It's also why you most likely are pro-gun control, support abortion, rabidly support homosexuality, hate George Bush, etc.etc.
> > No, our sentience, i.e. sense of the physical is based upon the metaphysical.
>
> So you claim.
Well..... you certainly haven't "observed" your own sentience, have you? So shall I sneer at your "faith," little one?
> > > Words I understand. But your frequently ungrammatical and irrational
> > > stringing of them together is not always easy to understand.
> >
> > I suppose my grammatical and rational use of words is not always easy to
> > understand to people in an infantile
> > state of arrested development.
>
> Well, here's an example of what I mean:
>
> "You imitate words that undergird civilization even as you undermine
> language itself." [How does one imitate a word?--JB]
In other words, you imitate the metaphysical transcendency of language that undergirds civilization even as you undermine language itself. And therefore undermine civilization itself.
> Or this:
>
> "But your sentiment that Christianities admission to the Jewish
> influence of transcendence is fascist."
>
> Badly-expressed blather. And there are other examples.
A few because I don't bother to proof-read for something like Usenet posts. In other words, your sentiment that the Jewish influence in Christianity is wrong, is fascist.
<snip>
> Your ignorance of the
> > historical association between fascism and deconstructionism has already been > noted.
>
> Evasion noted.
Your historical ignorance on various issues has already been proven.
<snip>
> > So your only use for "reason" is as a Machiavellian means to ends and there
> > is no reason for reason if it
> > doesn't suit the ends. Is it any wonder that your so-called "reason" comes
> > to the conclusions that you
> > viscerally want it to? Why am I not suprised?
>
> "Reason is, or should be, the slave of the passions." But I suppose
> you would call David Hume a "fascist" too. Nothing at this point would
> surprise me.
If that is what you believe then it is no suprise that you come to such infantile conclusions based only on your base and blind likes and dislikes. Nor, I suspect, have you even looked into
the reasons behind why you have the set of likes and dislikes that you do. All is merely blind "feelings" in your infantile state.
> > Denial that observation of the world is ultimately metaphysical is based on
> > crass empiricism.
>
> "Based on" is a little sloppy, here, Lenny.
I don't know why you call me Lenny.
> > Vice and virtue as merely useful categories, note that Machiavellian notions > have become associated with evil
> > just as sadism and fascism have become associated with evil.
>
> Only by those who have not actually read Machiavelli.
This would be much more educational if you actually tried to illustrate all your inane little assertions and back up what you say. I have learned next to nothing *from* you, although you
are quite fascinating. Here, you could say something like, "No, you're wrong because this is what Machiavelli said." Or just cite Machiavelli if you actually know something. But to deny
that one of Machiavelli's most basic tenets is self-preservation with vice and virtue being merely useful categories as a means to ends illustrates a vast ignorance already. In fact, it
could be argued that self-preservation is Machiavelli's sole tenet.
> > > Prove that any Left support for the Palestinians, for
> > > example, is based fundamentally on anti-semitism. As for alleged Left
> > > support for fundamentalist Islam, prove that bizarre assertion,
> > > please, or retract.
>
> [completely irrelevant quote snipped]
Queerly, it's rather appropriate that a person with a crass anti-philosophy of nothing would so often find themselves with nothing to say.
> > Or shall I begin to cite evidence of an association between Canadian leftists > and Islamists?
>
> Please do. I'm waiting with bated breath. Although your weasel-word
> "association" will probably get you off the hook.
A visceral hatred for American causes an association, if not an alliance.
E.g.
"TORONTO - The day after the war started, the People in Favour of
the Continuation of One of the World's Most Brutal Dictatorships made
me an hour late for dinner with my brother. They managed to shut down
Toronto's downtown core. Stuck on a streetcar, I had time to read the
placards of Saddam's fans, many of which read "Bush is a Moron,"
"America is the Real Threat" and similar slobber.
The anti-America/anti-Bush message is endemic in the peace-at-any-cost
movement. The idea that not liking the United States, or George W. Bush,
has nothing to do with whether one ought to support this war, is clearly
too nuanced a thought for the minds of the anti-warniks to grasp. But
they really should exercise their underused grey matter and think this one through.
Last week in this paper, a columnist raided the great crypt of the 1960s,
and -- never letting the facts get in the way of her "arguments" -- opined
that "we" Canadians hate Americans. The reasons she listed were
only vaguely related to the situation in Iraq. She included, of course,
the requisite digs at Bush and the 2000 election. The fact that the
events around Florida 2000 have nothing to do with this war is,
again, a shade of grey beyond the reach of the anti-war crowd.
As is the fact that most of us who are "pro-war" are simply so
because we see the risk of not dealing with Saddam as being
greater than the risk of dealing with him.
Susan McMaster, one of Ottawa's Poets Against the War, a
group that threatens far more painful punishment than a Massive
Ordnance Air Blast ever could, included in her opus, Against the
War, the following lines: "Against the war I'll laugh/ at Bush's
foot-in-mouth." Against the war, she continued, mercilessly and
in blatant disregard for my pain at having to read such efforts,
she would learn to spell "Qur'an."
Ah yes, there it is, Americans are bigots. One wonders whether the anti-war
crowd on the left sees how embarrassing its carriage is, right in goose-step
with the anti-war right. No western boys and girls, no sir, should ever
die to improve the lives of Arabs. For one thing I noticed about the
crowd in Toronto was its shining whiteness. No crosses to bear for
the pasty. We should only be willing to die for our own spoiled selves.
Do these people, most of whom call themselves "liberal," not see their
hypocrisy? They scream about Iraqi babies being killed this week,
scarce giving a thought to the hundreds of thousands of babies who
have died at the hands of Saddam. Should we have not intervened
in Kosovo? Milosevic did nothing to us. Should our soldiers (including
an uncle of mine) not have stopped and helped Holocaust victims
on their march into Germany? Should we have been there at all?
Germany never attacked North America.
.....
What sickens me most is the attempt to portray the Bush administration
as a force more sinister than Saddam or the Islamonazis. One wonders
how long the Poets Against the War would last in Baghdad if any of them
tried to write anything with a title other than "Saddam is Great" and "I Hate
America." Sadly, one suspects many of them wouldn't mind writing such
a poem, if they haven't already.
The contempt many Canadians feel for the United States is nowhere more
evident than on the CBC, which, after Sept. 11, I began to refer to as "the
al-Qaeda Broadcasting Corporation." Watching CBC coverage of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, I think "the Baath Party Broadcasting Corporation" would be
fitting. The barely concealed gloating with every (small) setback, the complete
trivialization of genuine gains, the lack of shame in regards our own lily-livered
leader's lack of commitment to the United States ... it's all there. Our military
may be emasculated, but whatever we have to offer -- one tank, one troop,
one ball -- ought to be offered.
I was once anti-American. I grew out of it when I lived overseas and
realized that in my ideals I was American, and that that was a good thing.
I grew out of it when I realized that American values far outweigh American
flaws, and that those values, when possible, should be exported."
(Ottawa Citizen
April 6, 2003 Sunday Final Edition
News; Rondi Adamson; Pg. A14
HEADLINE: If only all those anti-American Canadians could see the light
BYLINE: Rondi Adamson
DATELINE: TORONTO)
> >I don't know why
> > you passively sit back and demand action like that.
>
> Because you made the assertion without proof in the first place?
You could actively say, "Here is why that's wrong....." and then begin to make a case and so on. Instead, you just sit back and passive agressively try to do something, I'm not quite sure
what. It's rather fascinating though.
> > > > I'm reminded of the Holocaust deniers who want to so easily forget history.
> > >
> > > So now I'm a Holocaust-denier? Are you mad?
> >
> > Strawman.
>
> Nope. Ad hominem. Yours.
Deconstruction is something of use to Holocaust deniers for a reason.
> > > > The "observed typology of nature?" You're really something else.
> > > >Possibly one of the last mediaeval thinkers alive.
> >
> > > So you don't believe in the typology of Nature, little one?
>
> No, you poor rambling senile autodidact, I do not. Human beings impose
> typologies on nature. They don't discover them.
So if we call humans animals then it is okay to treat humans as animals?
> > So what do you have to say about the perversion
> > zoophilia? Necrophilia?
>
> You're wandering again. Please stop losing the plot.
I'm applying your anti-philosophy to the real world. I'm not quite sure what to call your anti-metaphysical type of philosophy other than fascism. It's like the philosophy of
non-philosophy, the mind in denial of its essence.
> > Common sense of the Law indicates that there must be a Law giver.
>
> No, your hallucinations do. But thanks for sharing.
It is interesting that atheistic kooks even have this common sense of the Law. Here is one of their arguments: "God unlawfully and immorally allows too much suffering to exist. Therefore,
I refuse to believe in God. So take that, God!" Hehe.
At any rate, a person who believes that their beliefs are matter has no room to speak of hallucinations.
<snip>
> > What do you think the fascist support of an ideology of evolutionism was >about?
>
> So scientists *are* fascists, after all.
No, pseudo-scientists are fascists. I take it you can't speak to the science and distinguish between pseudo-science and science when it comes to evolutionism. You're not real big on
distinction, after all...
> > > It contradicts your claim that socialism is fascist and anti-semitic.
> >
> > The evidence shows that socialism has fascist and anti-semitic tendencies. I > didn't say that Marxist
> > socialism is fascism or any other straw man.
>
> Well, yes you have, Lenny.
No, I said that fascism is a heretical branch of socialism. They both have the same root. It seems nuance escapes you because all you have is your crude hammer of crass empricism. It's
like dealing with distinctions of ideas with an infant who doesn't even understand basic physical distinctions yet.
<snip>
> > > Well, no. As even you yourself noted, above, the Jewish influence on
> > > Christianity cannot be removed what what is Christianity.
> >
> > I said the Nazis attempted it...... blah.
>
> No, you didn't. You said that they brought the churches under their
> control because "removing the Jewish influence" from Christianity is
> an impossibility. Not at all the same thing.
I said the Nazis first attempted to remove the "Jewish influence" from Christianity. This is where Christianity was to become non-transcendent German Christianity, "essentially" paganism.
But since to truly remove the Jewish influence from Christianity is impossible the Nazis sought to extirpate Christianity.
It's most likely that you have a similar visceral hatred towards Christianity.
> > > But
> > > socialists, in any event, aren't particularly interested in
> > > transforming Christianity. Where did you get that nonsense?
> >
> > Socialists will accept some Christian values as a sort of social gospel as
> > long as they aren't too
> > transcendent and don't have too much of the "Jewish influence."
>
> Since you are using quotation marks, a citation would be nice. What
> socialists have accepted the concept of the social gospel just so long
> as "Jewish influence" is removed? Come on, Lenny, don't be shy: give
> us a reference or two.
Marx said it.
> > > Nope. I disagree with conservatives because they are wrong-headed.
> >
> > Please.... you feel that they are wrong-headed because you place the physical before the metaphysical.
>
> Heh. That's the least of it.
I say, "As a fascist you put the physical before the
metaphysical and so disagree with conservatives."
You say, "Nope. I disagree with conservatives
because they are wrong-headed."
I say, "Please.... you feel that they are wrong-headed
because you place the physical before the metaphysical."
And then you agree that is exactly what you do as an infantile idiot.
> > > Hitler, in the quotations I provided, clearly stands for the same kind
> > > of things that you do.
> >
> > That's incorrect.
>
> Go back and read the passages I quoted.
You need to pick something you're saying is an association between Burkean conservatism and Nazism and make a case on it. I doubt you will do anything similar to what I have done using a
sound definition of fascism and then using it for philosophical, i.e. metaphysical analysis. First things first, you don't even believe in metaphysics.
> > > > The fascists physical solution to metaphysical disagreement.... and it seems > to work, doesn't it? By
> > > > your fascist tendency towards crass empiricism and pseudo-science
> > >
> > > What "pseudo-science?" You're raving.
> >
> > Your support of evolutionism based on philsophic naturalism.
>
> So belief in evolution is "fascist" too?
Belief in mythological narratives based on the pseudo-science of evolutionism can be fascist.
> Are you now getting a glimmer
> of what I've been saying all along--that you've effectively exploded
> the category?
Nope.
> > Is that really your attempt to deal with noting the fact that fascism is a
> > modification of, i.e. a heretical
> > branch of socialism? The unifying philosophy behind fascism and Marxist
> > socialism is still the same despite
> > this branching off.
>
> Well no, Lenny, it's not. And quoting from Mussolini's youthful brush
> with socialism doesn't prove the contrary.
The unifying philosophy is philosophic naturalism. This is why the fascists parties began as socialist parties. This is why Mussolini's fundamental philosophy did not have to change
anymore than all the socialists that turned to fascism had to fundamentally change their philosophy. It seems to me that this heresy of socialism is actually more honest than socialism.
Marxist socialism denies having anything to do with the Christian values of charity, help for the weak, etc. but then turns around and tries to live by those values. Fascist socialism
denies having anything to do with Christian values and then has nothing to do with them.
> > > > This summary of Mussolini's developing beliefs in
> > > > his 20s by Hibbert (1962, p. 17) could hardly
> > > > be a more quintessentially Leftist outlook.
> > >
> > > But it proves nothing at all excpet that he had socialist ideas in his
> > > youth.
> >
> > It proves that you had no idea what you were talking about when you brought
> > up chronology as if it refuted the
> > fact that fascism is a heretical branch of socialism.
>
> Try to keep up, Lenny. Chronology is important, unless you think that
> a person never changes their beliefs.
It seems that people only change their most fundamental philosophies through religious conversion. Fascism did not depart from socialism's fundamental philosophic naturalism.... and I
hesitate to use the word "philosophic."
> > > > The Jews were seen as a physical biological force.
> > >
> > > Hitler spoke of them in far more metaphysical language.
> >
> > When? Once or twice? Rober Lifton documents in chapter after chapter in the >Nazi Doctors how the Nazis
> > viewed the Jews as a physical problem to be dealt with physically. You're >either being disingenuous or you
> > are ignorant.
>
> I suppose I was thinking of phrases like "der erwige Jude." Has a nice
> metaphysical ring to it.
I already said that even fascists who deny the metaphysical let it seep back in, just as it seeps back in to your language. But note that Robert Lifton has documented in chapter after
chapter how the Nazis sought to medicalize everything.
Now your infantile response is, "So now you're saying doctors are Nazis!" You work in the little world of associative argument and identity politics and cannot step back and look at things
philosophically. This is the same weakness of all fascist scholarship.
> >> argument. Not accusations; not namecalling; not
> cutting-and-pasting.
> > > An *argument.*
> >
> > About what? Numerous arguments have already been made and stand unrefuted.
>
> You have made none--assertion is not argument, Lenny.
Your passive agressive assertion that it is an assertion is not an argument, little one. It is time for you to do away with childish things.
> > I didn't accuse you of purposefully lying.
> > Mendacious:
> > given to or characterized by deception
> > or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
>
> This definition implies conscious deception. Otherwise, the statement
> 2=2=5 would be considered not a mere error, but "mendacious."
A deception does not have to be conscious made. Note though, as I try to place the self evident truth of the existence of the metaphysical before you more and more I think that you are more
and more consciously denying it and seeking to repudiate it although you are clearly conscious of it. This is the "mendacious" weakness of fascist scholarship that Max Weinreich referred
to.
> > > And various injunctions not to lie, which have their cause in the
> > > social order,
> >
> > Ironic, that self defined "progressives" actually don't believe in any moral > progress at all.
>
> That's one of the siller claims you've made in this thread.
What are they progressing towards, a social construction.
> And your
> ensuing quotations do not back it up.
Yes they did. That's why you can't deal with them, little one. By the way, C.S. Lewis wrote for the common man in a way that he can understand. Your arrogance in arguing that he didn't
deal with "deep philosophy" even as you repudiate philosophy itself is absurd.
> > > > > >To begin with, the common sense that all is not right in Nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is pure silliness. Nature is neither "wrong" nor "right."
> > > >
> > > > Conservatives exist in Nature. If everything is right then how can they > > >be
> > > > wrong?
> > >
> > > Evasion noted. That wasn't what I said.
> >
> > If we are both neither "wrong" nor "right" then why do you keep acting as if >you're right?
>
> New evasion noted.
Projection. I can't think of a single question you've actually answered, little one. You just sit about drooling and being passive. Care to cite a single example?
> > > No, it's genuinely mediaeval thinking, akin to believing that palnts
> > > with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
> >
> > So, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal......"
> >
> > ...is akin to believing that plants with berries that look like eyes can cure diseases of the eye.
>
> It's a little old-fashioned now. Some of the Founding Fathers owned
> slaves, after all,
They believed in and set down the principles that led to the abolition of slavery.
<snip>
> > Well, I'm not that troubled.
>
> Fanatics and the self-deluded seldom are.
Fanatics aren't troubled..... that's news to me, little one.
> > If you're so ignorant that you don't know what
> > Americanism is and also so stupid as to not be able to cure your ignorance
> > yourself that is not necessarily my
> > responsibility.
>
> It's just an essentialist construct, and not one with much utility.
It is admitting to an essence. This is why America has been accepting towards people of all nationalities. Americanism is metaphysical and not physical. The metaphysical that you seek to
repudiate and deny. Your denial of the essence of Americanism is just an idiotic existentialist construct.
> > > > Essence doesn't even seem to exist according
> > > > to fascists.
> > >
> > > And realists. Is Karl Popper a fascist, btw?
> >
> > No. Learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and get back to me.
>
> Read "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and get back to *me." He
> launches a full-scale assault on essentialism.
You can either cite or summarize whatever it is you want to say.
I know it's probably difficult for you to overcome that effete passivity though. This is why I have learned next to nothing *from* you. But you are a fascinating animal to poke and prod.
Your anti-humanistic and animalistic philosophy is to be applied to you first, remember.
<snip>
--W