Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:35 | #

Of course Dugin does not take the idea of what we would call White Post Modernity nearly far enough.

Kumiko and I had a heated discussion about this post, before she realized what I was doing with it.

Dugin is feeding-back discursive structures that can represent a shared framework for White Nationalists and our allies to shape and craft to proper form.

1. I like the fact that he places liberalism as “the first position” and the most problematic world view for our people. He is correct to cite Enlightenment origins and Protestant overdrive. He is wrong not to cite Christianity, all forms, including the Orthodox Church as another fundamental source of liberalism. He is correct to cite unhinged capitalism as another underpinning; he is wrong to not cite the Jewish part in neo-liberal overdrive.

He names Soros, but that is not nearly enough. Jews have been offering-up Soros as a sacrifice to anti-Semites for a while now (even Glenn Beck did a big show about how Soros was THE evil guy). There is nothing brave about singling out and offering up a man who is about to turn 100 yeas old. That is, Dugin is not exactly naming the Jew.

Kumiko correctly observed that there are positive aspects to liberalism and the Enlightenment; this is one place where Dugin’s understanding of Post Modernity is still well behind the curve. White post modernity makes use of the positive aspects of inherited forms and ways and liberalizing modernist ways, where it should - where it observes innovation that is not destructive to EGI. Dugin’s paradoxic treatment of Orthodox Christianity and almost all Christianity as if that is a tradition that should be preserved provides only a fine example of where liberalism would be a positive force by contrast to “tradition.” His notion of returning to “pre-modernity” is an expression of modernist “wailing” more likely to lead to Pol Pot than it is to grounding in authentic being in the world.

Nevertheless, liberalism is the biggest problem in terms of world view that we are up against and it is correct to forefront that first and foremost. Then to contrast it with two attempts to counter liberalism which were disastrous for our people.

2. That he places communism/ Marxism as the second position and the first response as proposed remedy to liberalism is crucial - socialism is always meant to counter liberalism; and that is something that White Nationalists need to get through their skulls.

WN have been duped by the YKW into confusing leftism with liberalism; i.e., confusing social organization with social disorganization.

They have also been fooled by Jews into thinking that Communist Marxism and its Jewish exponents are THE socialism or THE Left. That is why I am keen to distinguish that version as Red Leftism and to set about distinguishing a White Leftism by contrast. With that, we may wrest and redefine its terms and application; reject the destructive aspects of Red Leftism, Jewish and other bad motivations; while making use of the social organizing function of leftism for Whites and coordination with our allies.

Dugin is correct, of course, to distinguish communism from liberalism (a basic lesson, even though most WN don’t get it); but he does not go far enough in its critique by citing only its liberal, Enlightenment origins.

The Jewish aspect is clear and there are other negative inputs as well.

But, just as it is good to place liberalism as the first and foremost problematic world view, it is good to place Red Leftism (if he went that far in his critique to sort and designate it as such, which he does not) as the second great problem, and a disastrous pseudo means to solve the ravages of liberalism.

White Nationalists need a great deal of help in sorting this matter out and coming to a consensus; but it is not impossible.

We need to sort out the good from the bad of leftist organization; and of course need to do that without the “help” of Jews.

3. Dugin is correct to propose Nazism (if he would call it that) as the third position and another failed attempt to counter liberalism.

But it is not the problem that they were racially organized and looked toward biology and genetics. It was the problem that they were supremacist and imperialist expansionist in terms of how racial organization should count. With that, they went away from praxis and into a deterministic notion of necessity, which treated war and supremacism over others as central way of life. This was catastrophic.

I call it Nazism because it does not deserve to be called National Socialism. Here again, we can make use of some of its good ideas while rejecting other things. The problem for most WN, American ones in particular, is that they seem to have a hard time doing that - as if it was perfect in every way.

I find it extremely helpful thus (even though Dugin clearly has his Russian motives) in service of WN, that Nazism is problematized and placed as the third position as a tried and failed response to liberalism; and to observe that it had disastrous consequences for our people for its epistemological blunders.

But inasmuch as Dugin is against “racism”, as biological categorization in service of necessary discrimination, coherence, accountability, agency and in warrant in human ecologies, he is our enemy.

In fact, he went so far as to say that it is a tradition that foreigners be integrated when they conform to traditions.

Now, in further critique of his proposed solutions.

I think Dugin is correct and makes a good point that Nationalism is not enough - too bureaucratic, non-qualitative, too much a late affectation - a product of liberalism.

That’s not to say that Nationalism isn’t necessary, it is necessary in response to internationalism. However, it’s not enough to gird peoples and their qualitative kinds. The sacral overlay for their orientation and guidance is likely a good idea - as long as it is on the order of paradigmatic conservatism - i.e., protecting the parameters of the E.G.I. as sacred (you must leave if you do not want to treat this group’s E.G.I. as important), while sufficiently liberal to allow for people to opt for different life choices and ways within those social parameters.

That he has begun to acknowledge a difference between the people of America and Russia and their governing regimes (exempting Putin, of course, Dugin does) which are neo-liberal, seems to be a positive development, taking into account our White Left perspective.

These are the features that stand out to begin with as necessary to a common discursive structure -  a specificatory structure - which we might now usefully critique, shape and craft.

Here is another internationally shared aspect: Dugin officially takes a position against imposition on other cultures - and that is good, BUT.

Russia has for years, even in Soviet times, sought to represent itself as the moral and intellectual vanguard. Its words were different than its actions then and are quite likely to be now.

Nevertheless, we do not have to let Dugin decide how this counts. We can make that rule have meaning in its proper form:

If Russia is interfering with the Silk Road to the detriment of other nations, that is a violation. If the Russian Federation is bigger than Pluto because it has aggrandized and imposed itself on other peoples, that is a violation.

If Russia defends and holds in place imperialist projects such as the Abrahamic religions and tyrannical regimes (saliently, North Korea), that is a violation.

The insufficient logic of Dugin’s anti-liberalism treats the Abramic religions and tyrannical regimes not only as if they are just another tradition that can live alongside others, but should be protected and allowed to do so. In fact, they are principle violators of ethno-nationalism and other people’s choice and sovereignty.

Finally, if Moscow is “the third Rome”, it isn’t likely to be in any positive sense, imperial.

White Post Modernity is not obligated to leave people, religions and nations alone that will not leave us alone.

And E.G.I. - Ethnic Genetic Interests (a.k.a., “racism”) - is fundamental.

If Dugin, or anyone else is trying to propose a proposition nation, be it Abrahamic or Enlightenment, in lieu the maintenance of our human biological systems, i.e. racial genetic categories, nations, that is not Post Modern and we are not obliged to accept it as such.

Posted by The Third Rome on Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:12 | #

Dugin vs Post Modernity: If Moscow is the third Rome, it isn’t likely to be in any positive sense, imperial.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:50 | #

I just do not believe there is any intellectual depth to speak of in nationalist thought.  Everything seems to be analysis of “the situation” supplemented not by any powerful, original exposition of our foundational Truth, but only by ideological strategy and political tactics.

God, find me one mind who can actually penetrate!

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:19 | #

GW,

A disposition reflecting resentment of Marxist/Jewish language games received from academia will not “penetrate” by an attempt to birth the empiricist philosophers or the analytical school anew.

Sheer empiricism is incoherent and ever susceptible to dissolution.

Although a recalcitrant disposition to “counter the pseudo-intellectuals of academia with one’s personal psychology and common empirical sense” would be a typical reaction.

To merely use one’s own psychology, senses and empirical judgement in contentious resentment to try to fight the wrong turns in philosophical history and the Jewish manipulations thereof will not suffice.

The combination of that contentious personal psychological approach and resentment of academia can create this kind of arbitrary and summary dismissal of careful and important ideas.

* Contentiousness is argument before you’ve sufficiently considered or understood what you are arguing against.

You have many brilliant thoughts, but rhetoric is not a strong point of yours. I suppose that is because you wish to believe so strongly in your sheer ontology project that you don’t recognize the place of rhetoric.

That failure of recognition results in “argument” anyway but in knee jerk contentious, arbitrary manner.

In refusal to learn the lessons from philosophical history and come to terms with where we are at now (post modernity), you are left a “wailing” modernist, not knowing what else to do but to try harder to repeat the modernist project, sheerly - not appreciating that it failed for good reason.

What is needed is elaboration and refinement, not transformation - sheer tendency for that is a habit and lodged affectation of modernity.

This is a penetrating assessment whether you wish to recognize it or not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:53 | #

There is no “modern” in foundation.  The subsequent is not pre-conditional.  Think.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:54 | #

The modernist quest was for pre-foundations - it has been thought.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:44 | #

There is no pre-foundation but mechanics.  Creation is the moment of continuity.  Indentity is the created.  Identity is in opposition to mechanics.  It’s a cosmic war between the mechanical laws of the universe, or Time and Entropy if you like, and identity and its continuance.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:48 | #

It can take a bit of “mechanics” and social cooperation to maintain and reconstruct identity.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:31 | #

For the organic, the very touch of mechanicity brings decay and dissolution.  To subsist requires actual effort, because the universe is mechanical.  Dealing with it, surviving despite its relentlessness, is Nature’s sole function, and ours too, obviously, as we are but one of her forms.  We have to push it away in every passing moment or it will claim us.  Mechanicity always imposes itself and takes us away into nothingness as soon as we forget.

This idea has a corollary in evolutionary theory as the selection of adaptive traits over maladaptive traits, and in my ontology as attentional consciousness.  It is the source of all teleologies.  In philosophy generally it is the pursuit of the good.  In religion it is the struggle for self-perfectionment and for union with god.  Teleology is framework.  Only the pushing away from mechanicity is foundation.

If this sounds like I am trying to feed you All and Everything, well, I am.  If that is impertinent or in some way inappropriate, I apologise.  But I do want to see the terms in which our struggle is ultimately rooted correctly drawn up; and right now I don’t see anybody at all in nationalist intellectualism who is either able or interested to work this whole matter through.  If we don’t do it we get the Dugins of this world gesturing in the direction of “tradition” and “the spiritual life”, beneath which lies the Christianity and general religiosity which leads only to itself.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:42 | #

Well, I may have triggered you accidentally by not putting the word “spiritual” in quotes in the post originally - I should have, because I am talking about rules, principles, narrative, concepts, hypotheses there - all that is meant to gird the biological system in its protracted form - all of which does not manifest or show itself in a given moment.

So, even as it “is Nature’s sole function (to survive) and ours too” as a part of nature (read, non-Cartesian), we are not exactly single cell organisms in that function, we are part and parcel of complex systems, much of which is hidden to us, and should and must be girded with social rules, principles, narrative, conversation etc, if it is to be successful in surviving.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:55 | #

Just find me someone to interview who can cleave the fundamentals without sliding into religious-speak (and preferably without falling foul of those supposed philosophical rules and artificial dichotomies like Moore’s, which everybody with “education” likes to present as insuperable obstacles to choosing life over death).

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:05 | #

GW, I agree absolutely that principles and guiding rules ought to cleave to our survival as peoples (e.g., the English and their homeland).

That is why I endorse the sacralization thereof - to underwrite that survival principle - not to contradict it.

Believe me, I know how Jewish academics and those “educated” by them can contradict that.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:24 | #

Adding to the conclusion of my first comment (in this thread) above: If Dugin, or anyone else is trying to propose a proposition nation, be it Abrahamic or Enlightenment, in lieu the maintenance of our human biological systems, i.e. racial genetic categories, nations, that is not Post Modern and we are not obliged to accept it as such.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 27 Mar 2016 21:26 | #

“Without a country you have no name, no identity, no voice, no rights, no membership in the brotherhood of nations – you remain just the bastards of humanity. Soldiers without a flag, Jews in a world of Gentiles, you will win neither trust nor protection. You will have no sponsors. Where there is no country, there is no common agreement to which you can appeal; the egoism of self-interest rules alone, and he who has the upper hand keeps it. [Therefore], only your country, the blessed land that stretches spacious and rich…can realize your hopes of a better lot.”

– Giuseppe Mazzini, The Duties of Man (1844-58)

Posted by A nasty 1/16th on Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:45 | #

I (DanielS) agree with the comment, Graham.

Maybe “nation” is more the word than country, but I think we are basically talking about the same thing; and in agreement that the individual needs a kindred realm about that size in order to have a fully meaningful existence.

I am irritated that this post was taken to be anti-nationalist.

Or that I was giving anything like a full endorsement of Dugin.

There is a framework here and certain ideas that are meandering through which are important and worth making common as framework and constituent parts for consideration. That remains true.

On another matter, I should perhaps not have linked to the page in Stark’s site, as if he has a friendly site which would have extended the same courtesy to me. As if directing attention to his site is anything but an inevitable bum-steer on behalf of the right-wing       tentosphere Project Prosthesis.

All he ever does is invite guests on to try to bury what’s being said here, disrupt organizational terms and then call in Jews and liberals to wreak havoc.

He’s done it again, this time having called upon The Tentosphere’s chief proponent of “It’s THE LEFT that is the enemy” - Paul Gottfried and another Jew trying once again to completely obfuscate the terms of our racial defense…

I wonder what is the problem is with Stark.

That 1/16th that he has seems to be a powerful fiber.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:59 | #

Daniel: “I agree absolutely that principles and guiding rules ought to cleave to our survival as people.”

That’s the wrong way round.  Even the survival of our people is not, finally, the foundation.  It has to emerge from ... has to be a natural as well as logical consequence of the foundation to be philosophically legitimate.  To go straight to another point in the logic-chain is to re-work a philosophical issue as a strategy issue.  For example, it’s not because the academic environment is hostile that we should seek such intellectual legitimacy.  We do not merely seek a defensible position.  We seek to explain everything.  That is our work.

By way of further explication, let’s suppose that for the general consumption we do indeed present our ethnic survival as the foundation of all our politics (which we do, of course).  We aver to it.  We might even speak of the fourteen words.  We presume that because ethnocentric instinct is our touchstone and motive, this position is, in some animalistic way, certain to be communicable and knowable to others of our kind.  With a bit of tenacity and intellectual cunning on our part.

But is it?

Surely, the experience of WN advocacy over the last few decades is to the contrary.  In a Christo-liberal thought-world ruled on the one hand by universalising moral convictions held with the strength of faith and, on the other, by a ubiquitous individualism that, in its disruption of the natural relation of self to tribe, you rightly disdain as Cartesian … in this thought-world ethnocentric advocacy is not nearly reliable or articulate enough to persuade.  Even enhanced with uncommonly powerful moral reasoning, which is something I have done routinely in my thread activism, still it struggles to impose a new imperatus on liberal relativism.

The error here is to argue from within the liberal moral and intellectual framework while seeking to knock that framework away.  The message is, from the liberal standpoint, only destructive – even when it is successfully delivered.  There is not enough that is systemic visible to liberalism’s defenders.  There is nothing for them to walk into.

It is the complete system of thought which we lack, and which, alone, can provide a general, popular transmission to the new and true model for life which WN rightly desires.  We must fashion it and war for it, intellectually at least.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:59 | #

GW,

Liberalism is largely a byproduct of Enlightenment - viz. Cartesian - fruition of its classic and Christian forebears: anti racism is Cartesian, it is not innocent; it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people.

Anti-racism is anti social classification, commenced through the empirical philosophy of John Locke and embedded and promulgated through the The US Constitution and the universal declaration of human rights.

Leftism, socialism, is a feedback, a social feedback (which you insist upon denying) against liberalism and a proposition by contrast of a unionized commitment to a praxis (one is in the union or one is out - that is not liberalism) that is of the necessity of social bounds and solidarity, despite recognition that the bounds are not absolute but may be transgressed; nevertheless, finding agency in that interactive relation. Leftism recognizes the fallacy and destruction of those who would prohibit classification altogether (it is you, who are coming from the liberal position, not me) - the prohibition of social classification altogether only serves the disingenuous and hurts the naive; while on the other hand, by recognizing the social classification’s blurry yet interactive boundaries, and asserting its pattern nevertheless, one establishes coherence, accountability, warrant and agency in human ecology.

Jewish interests have weaponized all this and WN (yourself included) remain reactionary by their design; turned-off (by them) to the necessary feedback that is a part of all systemic maintenance as if it is necessarily “inauthentic”, or Jewish chimera.

John Locke (and the early Wittgenstein) was engaged in a project very similar to that which you aspire.

As sine-qua non of liberalism Locke was on par with Descartes. Kant saw the problem of Locke’s empirical philosophy, that it was given to arbitrariness. He attempted to rescue philosophy from this arbitrariness by locating universal foundation principles.

Heidegger, yes Heidegger, recognized and said that Kant’s attempt to rescue coherent principles from Locke’s empirical foundationalism was still Cartesian. Heidegger was right and the following through on that observation for western philosophy is the hermeneutic, social constructionist, post modern turn.

Prior to that full turn, Nazism was, like Red Socialism, held up as an answer to liberalism, but among other problems, it did not sufficiently integrate Aristotle’s idea of praxis and the other non-Cartesian ideas just mentioned.

Re-booting John Locke is not a good philosophical idea let alone “the” philosophy.

I’d be sorry if you can’t be satisfied to make contributions to the more empirical end if that’s the end that interests you; while not subverting the other end, the social end. I am sure that you will continue to contribute many good observations despite being crotchety.

But it sucks when you try to summarily dismiss important ideas, especially when they can work with your preferred line of inquiry.

Hermeneutics can accommodate your meticulous and careful readings. But People are NOT going to just hop-to and do the right thing upon some Tractatus-like language game. You must respect the social systemic end.

Sorry, but there is no more time for nonsense.

You should be satisfied that your voice and intelligent concern is respected, of crucial service in many ways, but also please try to extend respect the other way around:

Our cause is inextricably social and I wish that you would stop treating gold put in your hands as if it is junk.

If you live to be 100, you will never successfully deny the importance of these ideas and you will never say anything more important - perhaps as, but not more.

You can use your high I.Q. to contribute still more careful and important ideas than the one’s that you’ve already contributed or you can you can remain arbitrarily contentious, as if I am representing the anti-racist Jews from university, with whom you incorrectly broad brush all of Western philosophical history and efforts.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 30 Mar 2016 03:30 | #

It’s a cosmic war between the mechanical laws of the universe, or Time and Entropy if you like, and identity and its continuance.

Sounds suspiciously like Nietzsche’s will to power to me.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:04 | #

CC: Sounds suspiciously like Nietzsche’s will to power to me.

Perhaps.  The great northern hemisphere races are very obviously locked in a struggle with Nature for control over their destiny.  They are, after all, surviving in climes which Homo sapiens was never evolved to survive; and have had to evolve the means to do so.  One could conceivably construct a broad-brush portrait of a will to power arisen that way.  But that isn’t very interesting to me.  I don’t see power for the subject’s own sake as a creative principle, but something artificial and gratuitous, divisive and super-elitist ... almost negroidal in a mate-competitive obsession gone viral such that a life of permanent existential dissing (to quote my one-time friend PF) awaits 99% of humanity.

It seems to me that Nietzsche was altogether too keen on formulating a post-Yahweh, post-moral scheme for insects.  But I admit, I am biased about human being.  And I am not a German-American with a driving need to fuse our race’s life and survival with a redemption of the Third Reich, which is a vanity project at best and, given our collective crisis, criminally foolish and irresponsible at worst.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:51 | #

It is indeed the case that human racial systems must be managed - there is necessity of two way feedback from the biology and from shared learning of the people - it will not be merely self corrective any more than a child will be able to raise itself, learn language and the lessons of history by dint of its genetics alone.

Posted by Herodotus: 4 elements of national identity on Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:10 | #

Counter-Currents, “The Four Elements of National Identity in Herodotus”, 15 June 2016: - Martin Aurelio

The Western Classical notion of identity comes to us from Herodotus’ Histories, written in the 5th century B.C. It’s from Herodotus that we have the story of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, told in the broader context of the entire Hellenic world’s successful resistance of the Persian invasion. In order to do that, the Spartans (Dorians) and Athenians (Ionians) had to overcome their differences and join together to defend what was common to both of them as Greeks.

[...]

In this passage are no less than four criteria for being a Greek, or Hellene: common religion, common blood, common language, and common customs.

Posted by Timothy Murray on Thu, 24 Nov 2022 19:16 | #

I listened to it in the truck yesterday and it was very, very informative.

Thank you for doing this.

Of course, The Fourth Political Theory is not available at Amazon, only critiques and histrionics over Dugin daring to propose the end of “modernity”.
Obviously, they are willing to kill over ideas they cannot control.

Your   Comment #9  is helpful.
I look forward to learning your flavor of materialism and I am curious if its presuppositions are the same as the others I have encountered.

From my scribbled notes as I drove in no particular order….

1. Dugin: “Race” in National Socialism is a false theory.
I was surprised by the congruity with EMJ’s position on “Race” . 
Both Dugin and Jone’s are solid thinkers, so their insistence is trying to tell us something important.
I suspect it is a peculiarity of their scientific specialties meeting the definitions of the gene expression folks.

2. What is “Linear Time” in Dugin’s usage?  He used the term twice…
Haretz fears it

Areas where Dugin and I agree

1. Modernity is being rolled back (GW, on the other hand, sees a global plot toward multipolarity and the ‘let us keep the good parts of the project’ ...hmmm)
1.a Good riddance to the protestant heresy
1.b Return of (Imperial) Rome
1,c Different models of man per culture/race
1.d . A return to hierarchy as a correct form of created order
2. The power of a created narrative frame to preclude the very ability to think outside of the frame and the difficulty in getting the “Glenn Beck” ‘s of this world to think correctly.
2.a Kanye West demonstrates that the frame is both structural and fragile. It must be maintained or the edifice falls.
2.b I am curious if “frame” is a construct from some recent science…Linguistics? Bernays?  a project similar to what Freud pulled with his inversion of the human soul, or that boaz guy on race.
or is it something deeper, from long ago.  I haven’t gotten to Revilo P. Oliver yet, but I suspect the former, as the story of Jacob (?) in Egypt demonstrates the economic subjugation of a people. Ergo, the techniques pre-date modernity. Or, modernity itself was just such a project.

Anyway, thanks again for your work.

 

 

 

Posted by Timothy Murray on Thu, 24 Nov 2022 22:15 | #

Dugin also used (roughly) “land power thinking” and “sea power thinking” to describe the Russians and the enemy.*

It is interesting in its own right, but also its correlations….

for example , at thesaker, they often host people who lay the blame on “anglo saxons”, which, as a white guy, catches me off guard, but
which I file in the “Polish plumbers banging German daughters”  file for now

*Bring in “space powers”, thinking 1000 years from now and I will know Christendom has been restored and the futuristic visions of my boyhood have come true.

 

Posted by Timothy Murray on Thu, 24 Nov 2022 22:20 | #

Just find me someone to interview who can cleave the fundamentals without sliding into religious-speak (and preferably without falling foul of those supposed philosophical rules and artificial dichotomies like Moore’s,

Who is Moore?

thx in advance.

 

 

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:21 | #

Gordon Moore was a co - founder of Intel , the chip company . His famous Law , oh please continue this tutorial JB , you are extremely well equipped to provide further and better particulars .

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:39 | #

Once you defeat Dr. Revilo Oliver in logic, you may consider yourself an absolutely Spooneristic, fabulous Trucker . A veritable multimodal JB Hunt ( if you appreciate Cockney rhyming slang).

Posted by timothy murray on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 18:55 | #

A veritable multimodal JB Hunt ( if you appreciate Cockney rhyming slang).

That is very good, appreciate the chuckle.

Also thx for the clarificarion on Moore of Moore’s ’ law.’

 

Posted by timothy murray on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 19:27 | #

Once you defeat Dr. Revilo Oliver in logic, you may consider yourself an absolutely Spooneristic, fabulous Trucker . A veritable multimodal JB Hunt ( if you appreciate Cockney rhyming slang).

As I am confident you know, logic is often correct (True, in the symbolic logic usage), while being incorrect in reality. 
The truth value of a logical argument rests upon its premises and construction; it is the truth value of the premises (and presupposirions underlying the assertion of said premises…(see ‘of course we live in a marerialistic world’) ...that determine (? correct word?)  if the True logical argument cirresponds to reality.

While RPO has been a delightful discovery….like all those jettisoned by buckley at the op that is The National Review….a cursory listen to The Jewish Strategy leaves sad doubts as to his engagement with Religion given his citation of a theosophist and other monied rubes as initial premises.

I am some months away from cutting back on trucking (assuming they agree to it)  so I can give his views on Christianity as a jewish op a fair reading. It certaintly is intriguing….the story of Joseph in Egypt is best read as the jewish conquest of Egyotian wealth and people. The protestant presupposition is that ‘the egyptians had it coming because God’ loves the jews….and ergo….the ‘muh israel’  reflex of protestants.  There are other vignettes of similar character.

Cordially

.

 

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 08 Dec 2022 02:46 | #

Look, Timothy , you seem like an amenable Christian.

The self - realisation that should engage your mind is simply this :

“I have read the entirety of the Old and New Testaments and have internalised the mindset of the Tall Tales’ Semitic authors .”

Merry Xmas.

Posted by Timothy Murray on Sat, 10 Dec 2022 21:02 | #

Look, Timothy , you seem like an amenable Christian.

That’s quite the compliment, thank you.