the climate change scam

kinglear said:
no i'm not anti-immigrant

what i'm saying to you is that MASS immigration is being orchestrated right now by capitalist oligarchs as a way of breaking down national identity so that they can remould the world into a technocratic society that those oligarchs would control with total power

i don't agree with their ideological view and i'm sure many immigrants wouldn't either if they understood the full implications of where it all leads to
Click to expand...
(Also to @Deleted member 16771 @Ren )


Okay...and I’m saying that this a racist viewpoint imho.
IMHO you are anti-immigrant by calling a group of people seeking asylum (from the countries we helped destabilize) a trick by a prominent Jewish investor - George Soros - who is also being scapegoated by you and those who are full blown racists like Neo-nazis as this controller of liberal Zionist technocrats...you are perpetuating the same message.
And this above post clearly has anti-semitic and holocaust denying overtones to it. ^^^^
So yeah...you look pretty racist by the things you post and say sometimes.
Maybe you don’t think you are one, and maybe I am completely wrong?
I won’t take back what I said...and I didn’t call you a racist, I said...”stop being so racist”, as in acting that way, imo.


(Also crossing the border is a misdemeanor...that is not even grounds to detain someone here in the US...except for the illegal immigrants who once were mostly migrant workers caught by tighter and tighter restrictions as they were demonized as the destructors of society over the last several decades...and the majority of whom did NOT come across the border illegally at all but overstayed their visas and became illegal.)

Let me ask you this though?
Ever heard of “Negative Capability” as elaborated by William Bion?
It was first used by Keats when speaking of authors like Shakespeare.

"For Bion, negative capability was the ability to tolerate the pain and confusion of not knowing, rather than imposing ready-made or omnipotent certainties upon an ambiguous situation or emotional challenge.”

As humans we have this capability to a greater or lesser degree I believe...and it probably fluctuates over our lives as experiences changes the self.
I have an entire thread dedicated to trying to encourage negative capability in myself and others.
That is why I even bother with your own threads - you are constantly with your conspiracy theories..."imposing ready-made or omnipotent certainties upon an ambiguous situation or emotional challenge.”
It is my own failing of “emotional challenge” that I even apply labels to someone in this context as well and I can admit that.
So, apologies.

But the majority of what you post is entirely the same message that very much openly racist and hate groups are using as justification against groups of specific people.
“Oh, we don’t hate them....but look how they destroy our country!”
This same “racist?” but definitely separatist argument has been used against the Irish, Blacks, Mexicans, Germans, Chinese, Russians, Polish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc, etc. for a ridiculous number of centuries in humankind...are we not over this shit yet?
This is the same demonizing propaganda that has been used against those with no power by those holding it for a very long time.
And yet...it still works.
*sigh*

You can call me out for implying someone is racist all you want...I’m not going to ignore what he writes when it is what it is.
This is of course my own opinion...and kinglear has every right to disagree and deny that he is perpetuating theories that are unproven and put people at odds with one another as a human species.

Much love.
 
Last edited:
Skarekrow said:
(Also to @Deleted member 16771 @Ren )


Okay...and I’m saying that this a racist viewpoint imho.
IMHO you are anti-immigrant by calling a group of people seeking asylum (from the countries we helped destabilize) a trick by a prominent Jewish investor - George Soros - who is also being scapegoated by you and those who are full blown racists like Neo-nazis as this controller of liberal Zionist technocrats...you are perpetuating the same message.
And this above post clearly has anti-semitic and holocaust denying overtones to it. ^^^^
So yeah...you look pretty racist by the things you post and say sometimes.
Maybe you don’t think you are one, and maybe I am completely wrong?
I won’t take back what I said...and I didn’t call you a racist, I said...”stop being so racist”, as in acting that way, imo.


(Also crossing the border is a misdemeanor...that is not even grounds to detain someone here in the US...except for the illegal immigrants who once were mostly migrant workers caught by tighter and tighter restrictions as they were demonized as the destructors of society over the last several decades...and the majority of whom did NOT come across the border illegally at all but overstayed their visas and became illegal.)

Let me ask you this though?
Ever heard of “Negative Capability” as elaborated by William Bion?
It was first used by Keats when speaking of authors like Shakespeare.

"For Bion, negative capability was the ability to tolerate the pain and confusion of not knowing, rather than imposing ready-made or omnipotent certainties upon an ambiguous situation or emotional challenge.”

As humans we have this capability to a greater or lesser degree I believe...and it probably fluctuates over our lives as experiences changes the self.
I have an entire thread dedicated to trying to encourage negative capability in myself and others.
That is why I even bother with your own threads - you are constantly with your conspiracy theories..."imposing ready-made or omnipotent certainties upon an ambiguous situation or emotional challenge.”
It is my own failing of “emotional challenge” that I even apply labels to someone in this context as well and I can admit that.
So, apologies.

But the majority of what you post is entirely the same message that very much openly racist and hate groups are using as justification against groups of specific people.
“Oh, we don’t hate them....but look how they destroy our country!”
This same “racist?” but definitely separatist argument has been used against the Irish, Blacks, Mexicans, Germans, Chinese, Russians, Polish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc, etc. for a ridiculous number of centuries in humankind...are we not over this shit yet?
This is the same demonizing propaganda that has been used against those with no power by those holding it for a very long time.
And yet...it still works.
*sigh*

You can call me out for implying someone is racist all you want...I’m not going to ignore what he writes when it is what it is.
This is of course my own opinion...and kinglear has every right to disagree and deny that he is perpetuating theories that are unproven and put people at odds with one another as a human species.

Much love.
Click to expand...

This is well argued, Skare, and certainly challenging to my views on the use of the word 'racist'. I'm not sure which one of us is right, if any, so I'll just explain my perspective on this.

I used to be extraordinarily vehement about anything which even sniffed of racialised thinking, used to literally punch people for using racial slurs up to the age of about 17 (mostly because I had been the victim and target of it in childhood).

However, I think that this kind of vehemence has definitely driven some opinions underground and out of the light of critical debate - such ideas have thus survived this 'strategy' rather than being defeated.

The issue is that the label 'racist' carries an enormous amount of power to ostracise whether it is an accurate application or not, and I've come to the point where I privilege the healthy survival of our civil democracy, which means that all sincerely held opinions must be openly discussed.

Yes I am of the left, but I want conservatives to be in my society. I believe in the public forum, the town square, the Parliament, whatever you want to call it - I really do.

To me, ad hominem attacks are 'extremely dangerous to our democracy' because they encourage people to find their own echo chambers and withdraw from the public forum.

I would like to encourage a situation where ideas are not linked to the membership of any particular tribe; where opinions are recognised as transient and subject to change, and are not taken to indicate faults in one's character. Tall order, yes; anthropologically impossible, maybe.

But we must recognise the difference between more and less politically polarised societies, and to me the critical factor is civil discourse.

This is my position at the present moment - I suppose that I fear how divisive the use of the label 'racist' is, how it threatens the civil discourse and tends towards even deeper polarisation.
 
kinglear said:
what's happening though is that people with an ideological agenda are seeking to sow narratives into the minds of college students through a variety of courses that are not designed to prepare those students to be able to get jobs and contribute meaningfully to society

the courses are designed simply to create a victimhood mentality so that the student is set on the war path to seek retribution

So with colonialism for example it was really driven by elites. If you look at regular white folks they were themselves colonised for example britain was colonised in 1066 by outsiders who have occupied it ever since and who still own most of the islands land privately

British people were driven off the land in the agricultural revolution and into the cities where they were exploited for their labour in the industrial revolution

Some people had their roofs set on fire above their heads to force them out of their lands. They were forced onto boats and sent to places like american and australia. Once people lost their land there were famines and poverty which sometimes led to crime as people stole for food and those people were then deported from britain in the tens of thousands and sent to places like the americas and australia. Anyone who resisted through force of arms was also deported often to the west indies.

Many british men were press ganged which is to say knocked unconscious and dragged off to serve in the navy. others were forced into indentured servitude in the americas and indies

Some were left with nothing and no other choice but to 'take the kings shilling' and join the british army so that they could get three square meals a day and not starve.

This idea that 'white people' are behind colonialism needs to be smashed and people need to dig deeper to see that there were elites driving things and that those same elites were also persecuting whites. Also other ethnic groups were most definately upto their own exploitative projects. The slave trade for example was mostly run by arabs and jews and was finally ended by white christians

History needs to be retold with the barebones fleshed out so that people can see the real driving forces behind things but the courses in universities run as part of marxist critical theory like:
-african studies
-islamic studies
-womens studies
-gay studies
etc

will not tell this expansive version of things. they have been crafted to give people the elites narratives and perceptions of what went on ie to make people see things the way the elites want them to see them so of course the courses will never dig down into who those elites are
Click to expand...

The ironic thing about this post is that your historical narrative here is a Marxian one.

I think you ought to seriously consider why 'Marxist' is a pejorative term to you, because as lot of the things you say are explicitly Marxist. This focus on a sinister elite for example.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
The issue is that the label 'racist' carries an enormous amount of power to ostracise whether it is an accurate application or not, and I've come to the point where I privilege the healthy survival of our civil democracy, which means that all sincerely held opinions must be openly discussed.
Click to expand...

People can sincerely hold a lot of entirely useless and even destructive opinions. Engaging them is a waste of time. Discernment is everything.
 
Wyote said:
People can sincerely hold a lot of entirely useless and even destructive opinions. Engaging them is a waste of time. Discernment is everything.
Click to expand...

I was of that view before the electoral disasters of 2016.

This phenomenon of 'shy conservatisms' is of course to some extent natural, but in our recent history has functioned as safe harbour for a lot of such useless/destructive opinions.

And now Trump is the Ecumenemperor.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I was of that view before the electoral disasters of 2016.

This phenomenon of 'shy conservatisms' is of course to some extent natural, but in our recent history has functioned as safe harbour for a lot of such useless/destructive opinions.

And now Trump is the Ecumenemperor.
Click to expand...

I had hope once too. Good luck.
 
Wyote said:
People can sincerely hold a lot of entirely useless and even destructive opinions. Engaging them is a waste of time. Discernment is everything.
Click to expand...
I see your point. Some people hold completely senseless opinions, and on top of that, seem to be impervious to facts and reason. Trying to have a discussion with them is like repeatedly hitting your head against a wall. :expressionless:
But then, what other option do we have?
 
Lady Jolanda said:
But then, what other option do we have?
Click to expand...

robbysmile.png
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
This is well argued, Skare, and certainly challenging to my views on the use of the word 'racist'. I'm not sure which one of us is right, if any, so I'll just explain my perspective on this.

I used to be extraordinarily vehement about anything which even sniffed of racialised thinking, used to literally punch people for using racial slurs up to the age of about 17 (mostly because I had been the victim and target of it in childhood).

However, I think that this kind of vehemence has definitely driven some opinions underground and out of the light of critical debate - such ideas have thus survived this 'strategy' rather than being defeated.

The issue is that the label 'racist' carries an enormous amount of power to ostracise whether it is an accurate application or not, and I've come to the point where I privilege the healthy survival of our civil democracy, which means that all sincerely held opinions must be openly discussed.

Yes I am of the left, but I want conservatives to be in my society. I believe in the public forum, the town square, the Parliament, whatever you want to call it - I really do.

To me, ad hominem attacks are 'extremely dangerous to our democracy' because they encourage people to find their own echo chambers and withdraw from the public forum.

I would like to encourage a situation where ideas are not linked to the membership of any particular tribe; where opinions are recognised as transient and subject to change, and are not taken to indicate faults in one's character. Tall order, yes; anthropologically impossible, maybe.

But we must recognise the difference between more and less politically polarised societies, and to me the critical factor is civil discourse.

This is my position at the present moment - I suppose that I fear how divisive the use of the label 'racist' is, how it threatens the civil discourse and tends towards even deeper polarisation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the further elaboration my friend.
Perhaps he is not a racist...but the political leanings of those who are racist - promote messages that are similar to those posted, if not the same.
The anti-Zionist posts.
The anti-rich-Jew posts.
The posts about Hitler trying to HELP the Jews.
The any and all left or liberal leaning people are communists...and the left only wants the illegal immigrants so they can use them to vote against the right.
The holocaust denying or minimization.
No one needs to use racial slurs to be or act in racist manner.
And one statement does not a racist make of course.
From what I’ve seen him post, it seems to be pretty prejudiced, separatist, anti-immigrant, anti-jew.
With an undertone of the giant conspiracy of the technocrats setting up 5G systems throughout the US to control or fry our brains or something like that.
To me it is important to remember the three recent racially or politically motivated attacks (which of course are all false flags ;) ), are a result of unproven rumors and conspiracy theories being spread without any personal culpability shown to those spreading such crap.
All three attackers believed the conspiracies he is promoting...so yeah, I am going to say something in that case.
What irks me even more is he doesn’t even live in this fucking country and is spreading totally unfounded rumors of political theater.
Those same people who believe everything they read online and have no discerning mind to separate truth from fictional theories - which includes this entire thread and idea of climate change denying - which he doesn’t even deny - it’s just from the elites manipulating the weather not CO2.

So yeah...I agree with you though...it can be a divisive term...I will try to use the label more conservatively. ;)
But just as my Dad always said - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
Sure people are more complex than that highly simplified saying...but so far, the only discourse has been one of political and world domination and nothing more.

Anyhow...thanks for offering up your thoughtful criticism.
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Skarekrow said:
To me it is important to remember the three recent racially or politically motivated attacks (which of course are all false flags ;) ), are a result of unproven rumors and conspiracy theories being spread without any personal culpability shown to those spreading such crap.
All three attackers believed the conspiracies he is promoting...so yeah, I am going to say something in that case.
What irks me even more is he doesn’t even live in this fucking country and is spreading totally unfounded rumors of political theater.
Click to expand...

This in particular is a really strong point, and reminds us that this is not all fun and games, and can have potentially serious consequences. Again I sincerely do not know which is the right course of action in this case:

Untrue and dangerous conspiracy theories are being spread.

Is it better to be blunt? The risk is that the individuals carrying these ideas are ostracised and driven further underground; the potential benefit is that there is no doubt as to what we think of these ideas.

Is it better to engage in civil discourse? The risk is that the individuals carrying these ideas feel a kind of validation, and do not fully understand how fringe they are; the potential benefit is that such individuals are kept on the inside where they can be continually exposed to civil critique, &c.

At the moment I'm opting for the latter based on the progress of polarisation (and now with the emergence of the 'intellectual dark Web', &c.).

But yeah, based on kinglear's post history, it becomes fairly unsustainable to assert that he is not espousing clearly racist views.

There is a difference between the natural and understandable conservative impulse of what we might call 'oikophilia' - the love of the home and one's own culture, and the desire to protect it, as against clear hatred of variously defined alterities.

Of course, the two are often linked, but personally I can understand the former and its implications for a potential viewpoint on mass migration, which is why I would hesitate to use the 'racist' label.

If you opposed mass immigration because you fear the ghettoisation of such immigrants, their lack of integration, the wholesale transformation of certain communities, &c., then I think this is understandable and legitimate, and we would be wrong to label people with such views as 'racist'.

On the other hand, if you're overly concerned with the activities of Jews in particular, then this most probably indicates a quite different concern than 'love of the home'.

It's sticky and it's messy and there is no clarity anywhere.

And by the way I did hesitate for a long time deciding whether or not to quote you directly, but I figured that it might have been passive aggressive to object to the term 'racist' being used and not mention where it had come from, and you would prefer that I just said directly so you could defend your viewpoint (this is what I would prefer in any case). I trusted that you would understand my reasoning and my intent and I'm glad to say that I was right.

As ever, Skare, much love.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
This in particular is a really strong point, and reminds us that this is not all fun and games, and can have potentially serious consequences. Again I sincerely do not know which is the right course of action in this case:

Untrue and dangerous conspiracy theories are being spread.

Is it better to be blunt? The risk is that the individuals carrying these ideas are ostracised and driven further underground; the potential benefit is that there is no doubt as to what we think of these ideas.

Is it better to engage in civil discourse? The risk is that the individuals carrying these ideas feel a kind of validation, and do not fully understand how fringe they are; the potential benefit is that such individuals are kept on the inside where they can be continually exposed to civil critique, &c.

At the moment I'm opting for the latter based on the progress of polarisation (and now with the emergence of the 'intellectual dark Web', &c.).

But yeah, based on kinglear's post history, it becomes fairly unsustainable to assert that he is not espousing clearly racist views.

There is a difference between the natural and understandable conservative impulse of what we might call 'oikophilia' - the love of the home and one's own culture, and the desire to protect it, as against clear hatred of variously defined alterities.

Of course, the two are often linked, but personally I can understand the former and its implications for a potential viewpoint on mass migration, which is why I would hesitate to use the 'racist' label.

If you opposed mass immigration because you fear the ghettoisation of such immigrants, their lack of integration, the wholesale transformation of certain communities, &c., then I think this is understandable and legitimate, and we would be wrong to label people with such views as 'racist'.

On the other hand, if you're overly concerned with the activities of Jews in particular, then this most probably indicates a quite different concern than 'love of the home'.

It's sticky and it's messy and there is no clarity anywhere.

And by the way I did hesitate for a long time deciding whether or not to quote you directly, but I figured that it might have been passive aggressive to object to the term 'racist' being used and not mention where it had come from, and you would prefer that I just said directly so you could defend your viewpoint (this is what I would prefer in any case). I trusted that you would understand my reasoning and my intent and I'm glad to say that I was right.

As ever, Skare, much love.
Click to expand...

I appreciate it, both the thoughts and commentary...thank you!
I understand your position...and do think that civil discourse it better than not.
More than several times I have engaged the person in discussion very civilly only to receive a dismissive wave.
There is zero give and take...his way or the highway.
There is no room for actual discussion.

So yeah...

And the anti-jew, anti-semitic remarks I just cannot ignore.
And in case you hadn’t noticed but this whole nonsense of Trump sending troops to the border is a giant political show.
The “caravan” won’t even get here until January....but OMG, hurry and send 15,000 troops to the border to stop the women with their strollers.
lol

It’s a dog-whistle to the anti-immigrant, racist people who make up part of his base.
And the shite that is being promoted by certain people just perpetuates the idiotic scare tactic.

We have real threats around the world...like Iran being quite pissed that we are reimposing sanctions....and N. Korea saying they are starting their nuke production back up unless we stop sanctioning them...not that they ever stopped as the liar...ahem....President claimed.
But....yeah...immigrants coming to seek asylum...not even that many.
The caravan is so not scary or very important to most people here in the US imho.

Much love...gotta run for now..be back later to catch up more!
Take care all!
 
I just came across this in my reading and thought it was pertinent to what we're discussing. Nntr.

Fritz Heider said:
2. The influence of the origin on the effect. - In social perception the act is in many cases assimilated to the origin. Acts or products are coloured by the qualities of the person to whom they are ascribed. A joke made by a person considered silly will usually seem silly, while the same joke made by a person with the reputation of being witty will arouse laughter.*
Click to expand...

Heider is a rather seminal 'psychologist-philosopher' and the originator of 'attribution theory' (of which the above quote is an example), as well as 'balance theory' and perhaps 'consistency theory' more generally.

I quoted this as I reflected on the power of reputation to influence the way in which one's ideas can be received, and therefore if being branded a racist means that all of your ideas will necessarily be received as racist ones (or at least suspected of racism).

*Fritz Heider, 'Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality', Psychological Review 51.6 (1944), p. 364.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top