Kompromat

It is great that we destroyed national socialism in Europe during World War II, it was the only political threat against us as it collectivized the Europeans in a form of organization that threatened our power or influence everywhere.

Being that we control capitalism and marxism we’ve essentially neutered or neutralized European whites where if they keep following both politics they’ll be within our realm of control.

And the Nuremberg Laws when separating?
[/quote]
What about them?
[/quote]
Well, you gotta figure out in your real and then fake Jewish separatisms how to deal with all the boundary cases, grey areas and close relations between races. IOW your own Nuremberg Laws.

Now you’re not making any sense at all.

Wendy has claimed you are a separatist, there are gray areas, hence the Nuremberg laws.

Nuremberg was pretty black and white. I’m unable to follow your rhetoric here.

This is a paradigm of how grey areas can give rise uncertainty, defeating deontological focus, used referentially as if it made some kind of objective sense possible.
A reductive gesture to a black and white argument failing a compromising situation, its a dilusive attempt to bring back to solvency that which can not again appear in concentrated forms.

Literally, Nuremberg could never due justice on what went on in those concentrated concentration camps.
They were not existential contraptions they were not merely metaphors of illness, they were epochs that prevented clarity in movement from sterile nihilism forwards or backwards

They literally and figuratively landed into a definitive black hole , from which escape was not possible or even conceivable.

Both: anti-semite and jew were caught in an inescapable paradoxical situation.

Ref: Sartre, ‘Reflexion sur question juive’.(in broad context) ed.1946 Edition Morihien

I am so glad the Soviets discovered those concentration camps before anybody else including the Americans. Thankfully the Bolsheviks were on our side…

Well, exactly. It was to get rid of gray areas.
The N laws laid out who was considered Jewish - amongst other things it did. Wendy says you are she are racial separatists. What will your parallel to the Nuremberg laws be. IOW how will you separate? What percentages of genes? What about adopted kids of other races? etc.

I fail to see the importance of the comparison.

Again, you are avoiding my point. What interest me about you is the extent to which you have thought through my contention that, with respect to issues like Putin’s hold on Trump [and support for Trump’s policies], your own particular “I” [here and now] is rooted in the manner in which I have come to construe the parameters of human identity [re dasein…an existential contraption] out in the is/ought world. Or, instead, is it anchored more to a philosophical/moral/political assessment that you are able to demonstrate is applicable to all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

Are you willing to concede that perhaps your own values here are just one more example of run-of-the-mill political prejudices rooted largely in the life that you lived? Or are you convinced instead that a reasonable man must accept that those who think like “one of us” are either much closer to the objective truth or do in fact already embody it.

Besides, over and again I make it quite clear that my own understanding of nihilism is no less an existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and new sources of information.

Just like you and your own value judgments.

Choose a context. Choose conflicting assessments of right and wrong behavior.

Then note for us the manner in which a true nihilist would react to that discussion.

More Kid stuff?

I asked Wendy a few questions that might enable us to understand better how and why she came to think and to feel as she does about Trump and Russia.

Then you react to this as you did.

It’s so ludicrous [from my point of view] I can’t help but wonder if the irony on display isn’t perhaps itself just another level of play acting.

Help me to get to the bottom of what actually motivates you to post as you do on threads like this.

^^^^Biggie,

You’re a fake pretentious nihilist (not a real one) that leans politically left and neo liberal in self described values, got it. :wink:

I bet you’re a voter also.

Note to others:

Does he or does he not completely avoid the discussion that I wish to have with him?

This one: An exploration into the existential parameters of his own particular set of political prejudices.

As this relates to his reaction to Trump’s policies relating to, among other things, Russia and race.

Hell, he won’t even bring his contentions regarding “fake pretentious nihilists” down to earth.

And it really makes no difference in what direction “I” lean politically. Why? Because [from my perspective] that is no less itself an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

Though I suspect that what might trouble him the most here is that I will convince him this is applicable to his own political agenda as well.

Then what? How self-righteous can he be about the scumbag liberals if he comes to recognize that had his own life been different he might well be one of them today? Or that the liberals have just as many reasonable assumptions to make regarding their own political prejudices as the conservatives have about theirs.

All moral and political and philosophical objectivists start with one or another set of “givens” regarding the “human condition”.

Go ahead, let him pick an issue so that we might actually explore this more substantively “out in the world” – a world that, historically, culturally and experientially, most of us here are familiar with.

I’ve got to laugh , of course to my distractive self immolation, (purposely I may add) that it is the political middle that I and everyone nowadays is interested interested in.

For some it gives some breathing space, even of, it is the last underlying motive for human existence that’s left.

Other then that, watch the signs along the way, they do tell and show, if constructions do not devolve a grounded nihilism into something less worthy: human existence now and way back in the jungle. It is from the jungle that the lesser of evils-the abyss, which originally the caveman tried to make into his dwelling space.

You gotta get a handle on other people having their own goals in discussions. There is every chance he focuses on what he wants to just as you focus on what you want to.

I don’t think you understand how it comes off like you think other people either are here to serve your purposes or are afraid of doing what is right: iow what you want them to do.

Note: ‘comes off’. It is how you function in a discussion.

Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.

Sigh. Wendy said you and she are racial separatists. It ain’t easy to separate races, give that they are often mixed in a variety of ways in one and hte same person or in families. There are percentages involved. The Nazis being the little drones they were came up with those laws, precisely to make separation and separate treatment easy to apply: you had this much jewish blood, you were Jewish, etc. I am pretty sure they broke up marriages where one was Jewish. I don’t know what they did with adopted Jews or Aryan children adopted by Jews. I am sure they did not care about long term professoinal and personal relatoinships. Those were some of their criteria when enacting racial separation.

So, if she is right and you are a race separatist, what will your Nuremberg laws look like?

True enough. But I make no bones about my own goal here: to be yanked up out of the hole that I am. Pertaining both to this side of the grave [moral nihilism] and to the other side of it [oblivion].

Most folks here know that if they engage me in a discussion and/or a debate, the trajectory will sooner or later get around to “how ought one to live?” in a No God world? As that pertains to either the OP or to any other context in which values come into conflict.

As that relates to this:

An exploration into the existential parameters of ones own particular set of political prejudices.

This part:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This is how I – “I” – think about my own moral and political values as “existential contraptions”. How then do others not think about their own in this manner?

Zero will either go there with respect to his own value judgments or he would be advised to avoid me here altogether.

After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.

And I will be the first one to admit that the problem there revolved around my own failure to grasp that your “pragmatic” frame of mind was more reasonable than my own. It just didn’t sink in. I – “I” – am still as “fractured and fragmented” as ever.

Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won’t.

The “internal lives and goals” that particular individuals have here are in my view largely “existential contraptions” rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.

So, are they moral objectivists more or less than they are moral nihilists? That might be an interesting discussion.

And that closes or tries to close the circle between moral and ethical questions my friend , and that is OUR problem here basically and primarily.

wrong thread

Not if definitions are recalculated according to pragmatic origins.