First of all Wippy, I rebutted your silly assertion of internal British harmony prior to 1688.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #438047)

Next, you were held up to ridicule by Diademas for your inept knowledge of even the basics of English history.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #438056)

Everybody had a good laugh at your expense over that.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #438074)

Then, you showed everyone you were still stewing away at me over those embarrassing gaffes by trying to score a cheap point over "Brave New World", which only backfired, making you look even more ridiculous.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #440025)

However, instead of having the sense to quit while you're behind, you've now slithered into the Non-PC Free Speech Zone in a pathetic attempt to try and cause dissension here, which I can assure you will not work.

Alright, get up off your knees and stop grovelling. We know it was Nozzle.

Even though this post was also deleted:

<Jul-30-20 optimal play: <Big Pawn: <optimal play: That's why he tried to make a big deal about me letting you know I read "Brave New World" after you recommended it to me.

Now he has a pie in the face over that as well.>

I get the feeling that he's used to being the smartest guy in the room in his little tiny circle, so he's not used to being run over by a Mack truck on the highway as happens to him here.

I think he resents us because he's been served his comeuppance by the sort of people that he fancies as being inferior to him.

You can tell that he's used to debating people who allow him to dominate the debate by using words like "racist" or something like that.

He's not used to the push back.

Indeed, he's not used to the push back.>

Yes, that's a good assessment of him.

He mentioned "his 10th grade class" so I wonder if he is a high school teacher or maybe he is just a kid who's in the 10th grade, unless he was just referring to his class from years ago.

Anyway, he sort of comes across as a high school teacher, like he's talking to his students.

He definitely doesn't like being corrected.

He gets all snarky when you show up his errors and he stews over them for weeks.>

That's all true, isn't it Wippy?

And what about BP's question?

I am not very active here but let me try and produce a bit of counterplay.

First off, a low punch on <OCF>s post <I'll take a shot at this. What changed was Donald J. Trump.> According to the header in the forum, the three pillars of liberalism are <sodomy, abortion, divorce>. I don't know about the first two but certainly Trump is a big fan of number 3. Does that make him a liberal?

A more serious remark on the following post from Aug-07: <No one cares about a woman's intelligence.> I certainly value intelligence when it comes to my spouse. 1) I believe that intelligence is to a large extent hereditary, so an intelligent wife promises me intelligent offspring. 2) A stupid wife would most likely bore me, this is based on my experience with stupid people in general. 3) For your mind to stay sharp, you need to challenge it rather than soothe it. My wife is capable of challenging me intellectually, thus exercising my intellect. All this said, obviously looks matter; but I would say that good looks are a prerequisite for love, if you do not find the woman attractive then nothing will come of it anyway.

https://babylonbee.com/news/shockin...

He will be exposed badly on debates man.

Libs are deluded; as the Russian collusion hoax, , they think they will hide the truth forever..

They are not ready to face the crush Trump will impose him on debates Sad.

And I don't like being corrected by somewhat who doesn't know what they are talking about: quote me one historian who says that Tudor monarchy was in constant state of Civil War. You can't, because there aren't any.

Chicago has mishandled the police response to liberal rioters as though it were located in a third world country.

Here's the "Police chief"

https://hannity.com/media-room/i-qu...

It's the other way around. If you are a weak man then you would seek a <strong woman> because you're not man enough to be the man of the house.

Attractive women find real men attractive, so the real men can pick and choose which woman he wants. Naturally, they pick the most attractive ones and won't put up with any nonsense, because they can get another fine woman in the blink of an eye.

Weak men repulse women, so they have to be clingy and needy and take whatever crap a woman will throw at them, because if she leaves him, he'll cry like a little girl and go without a woman for a long time again, because he's unattractive.

A woman will walk all over a man if he lets her.

<Similarly, if you are afraid of women, do not pick a dominating wife.>

If you are a weak man who fears his wife, then you <will> be dominated by her, and she will find someone who she thinks is a <real man> to sleep with on the side. Happens all the time.

<Strong woman> is a euphemism for the word bitch. Feminism has infected a lot of American women and it turns them into bitches. Nasty, repugnant women who no man in his right mind would want to be around.

Women take on this feminist role and then they wonder why men don't want to get married anymore. So instead of admitting that feminism makes them unattractive, they say, "Oh well, I guess he just can't handle a strong woman."

<For your mind to stay sharp, you need to challenge it rather than soothe it. My wife is capable of challenging me intellectually, thus exercising my intellect. >

You use your wife to keep your mind sharp? You can't keep your mind sharp any other way? Really?

Intelligence is a terrible way to judge a woman's worth. It's an arbitrary criterion. The libs pretend that looks don't matter and pretend to care only about a woman's intelligence as if they think that's what a woman <really> wants to hear.

A liberal guy will think he's wooing a woman by remarking on her exceptional intelligence rather than commenting on her beauty, as if intelligence is not an arbitrary quality but beauty is.

"However, a tough fight is ahead as China, Russia expected to veto UN resolution so they can sell weapons to the Islamic Republic."

https://worldisraelnews.com/israel-...

Interesting that the Iran's Arab neighbors want unity with America and Israel. If we imagine a WW3 scenario breaking out, perhaps these Arab countries would be on the same side as Israel and America.

<The U.S. has welcomed a joint call by Iran’s Arab neighbors endorsing the renewal of the United Nations arms embargo against Iran, Asharq Al-Awsat reported Tuesday.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that comprises Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar sent a letter to the UN Security Council backing an extension of the arms embargo on Iran.

“The GCC’s letter calling on the @UN Security Council to extend the arms embargo on Iran is a bold statement,” said U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “The U.S. will introduce a resolution this week to extend the embargo after years of diplomacy. The [Security] Council must choose between arming terrorists or standing by the Gulf.”

Pompeo noted the unity on the issue from America’s allies in the region.>

That's 6 Arab countries that sent that signed letter to the UN.

<However, Russia and China, both allies of the rogue Iranian regime, have said they oppose the extension and are expected to use their veto – a move that American officials warned poses a danger to the world.

“Russia and China are waiting to be able to sell arms to Iran,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft said in a Fox News interview.>

It's sad to say, but Russia is not a friend of America. They side with the Death To America country.

Imagine, in 2020 we might have a hooker for a president (because Biden isn't going to be the real president.).

After stores were looted, this nitwit started talking about more gun control, not how to stop the looting.

The liberal media wouldn't cover it. It doesn't fit the narrative that it's white attacking blacks. Over 90% of violent crime is black on white.

There used to be a lot of sites discussing the Shifflett murder but they are disappearing. Big Tech is erasing all evidence of non-white on white crime.

<<<An Examination of Satanic Behavior in Action>>>>

Appalling.

The next item on the Liberal agenda appears to be sexualizing children, followed by normalizing pedophilia.

All of these posts of mine from a few years ago foreshadowed the current philosophical-political conversations that are starting to happen now. >

LOL!

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #340002)

< thegoodanarchist: <BP: The key to triumph over cultural marxism is to defeat postmodernism, but to do that, one must know what is at the very core of postmodernism, what justifies it logically and what makes it tic, as well as the assumptions and presuppositions it carries.>

Well, in that case, can you recommend a good internet source for information on what postmodernism is?>

I never answered.

I don't know of any online sources but I'm sure there are many. There are even some very good audio books on postmodernism. Here's a good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQc...

Heh

The first comment:

"June 2020 - very pertinent time to re-listen to this, given the ideology is manifesting now with chaos in the west"

Another comment:

"I just finished listening to this. Really, an amazing six hour adventure."

I agree with both comments, as you might have expected.

I've been observing, researching and studying what I'll call Postmodernism-Creep in our society for a very long time, well over a decade, and I've seen the madness that has become reality coming a long way off.

No one was listening to me then either lol

<Bureaucrat> is always hiding from me. He can't fight back and knows that any intellectual encounter with me will inevitably lead to another horrifying episode of Truth Rape, and he just can't take it anymore.

The libs are cursed with a great burden. The burden is to defend what they know isn't true. It's a tough job. They have to show up to a truth fight with a lie. On top of that, their enormous pride and delicate, inflated egos take a beating when being Truth Raped.

I'm sure it's a horrible experience for them, but at least I wear my cologne.

The liberal media wouldn't cover it. It doesn't fit the narrative that it's white attacking blacks. Over 90% of violent crime is black on white.>

You're talking about the same people who <LOVE> to kill the <unborn child>.

Is it really a surprise that they laugh out loud about black people killing white children?

The bible tells us that there are two kinds of people on this earth:

1. Children of God
2. Children of their father the Devil

The libs are truly Satan's people. Think about it. They mock God, the devise wicked plans, they steal, murder and bear false witness (perjury), they sow chaos and lawlessness and engage in acts of filth and perversion. They worship themselves and sacrifice to themselves and create their own set of morals while rejecting God's.

Yes indeed, often it happens like this in practise; but we can probably agree it is not a good match.

<You use your wife to keep your mind sharp? You can't keep your mind sharp any other way? Really?>

Answer to both questions: Of course. I do not know if you are married yourself, but in my experience marriage comes with a great deal of interaction, so naturally you would want a stimulating partner in your life.

By the way, on <postmodernism> I would say it is not so much a standpoint (i.e. "I believe in postmodernism"), rather than a condition of society since 1990. Postmodernist philosophers were in action before then of course, but only the collapse of the Communist block really triggered postmodernism as an important phenomenon.

I am no fan of postmodern analysis; at its heart it dissolves all set truths and evaluations. But there is no getting around that this is how society works, and really since the Theory of Relativity this development has been inevitable in my opinion. Essentially postmodernism is about relativity and the fact that when you observe an object it apparently changes when you change your own position. So discussing politics, you can claim that from where you stand, things look in a certain way - and this way has just as much weight as the way another person sees it from his point of view. This dissolves the need of rational arguments and consequently discussions can turn futile.

I had a professor once who said that as a historian one could go to the methodology of source analysis as a safe haven from the postmodern soup of relativity. I suppose in general scientific models can be utilized similarly, by the way another example would be chess. What is needed is a generally accepted framework within which certain rules apply.

In real living society things are different, however. Here you see people debating each other but from inside their own framework, so to speak. In order to break free from this, you will need to first accept a common ground for the debate. To put out theological arguments against an atheist would only reinforce the postmodern strangehold on our discussions.

Most famous postmodernist thinker is probably <Michel Foucault>, also <Jaques Derrida> comes to mind. I can recommend Foucault's <Surveillance et Punité> ("Surveillance and Crime Control" I believe the English title is). Even enemies of postmodernism will benefit from this.

Yes indeed, often it happens like this in practise; but we can probably agree it is not a good match.>

It's not that it's not a good match, it's that the roles are reversed and it's unnatural, so in that sense, it's never a good match.

Regarding postmodernism, it's been around a lot longer than the theory of relativity. Some argue that Nietzsche was the first postmodern philosopher, the one who laid down the foundation for it by attempting to rescue nihilism from the abyss. Others argue that postmodern ideas can even be found in Hegel's work, but I think an argument can be made that it goes all the way back to Kant.

With the rise of the Modern Scientific Revolution came the Enlightenment. Among other things, the Enlightenment brought about an new era where the leading thinkers were skeptical about God's existence because of the development of science. Kant didn't like this development at all, so to rescue theism from the clutches of scientific progress and the Enlightenment, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason. The intent was to undermine the strength of the Enlightenment by undermining the very foundation of science, which is built on reason.

Kant argued that there are limits to reason and that we can't "science" our way or "reason" our way into a certainty about God not existing. Kant's basic idea was that there is an impassable gulf between the Subject and the Object where the Subject can never really <know> the Object as it really is (or as Schopenhauer put it, The Thing In Itself) and at best can only experience a perception of it, thus, real truth about the world (reason is built on truth) is unknowable to mankind.

In this sense, I view the Critique of Pure Reason as the first postmodern work. It's interesting that postmodern thought was first used to rescue God from the clutches of reason, but now, Postmoderns are rejecting reason, truth and logic for entirely other reasons, to deny that God exists, or that you can know God exists, and to deny basic truths, to deny sanity and give validity to insanity, to deny good and validate evil.

Ultimately, I think Postmodernism is destined to share the same fate as logical positivism, verificationism and falsificationism. They were all towering, dominating philosophies of their time, but now amount to no more than a footnote in a history of philosophy text - because they were self-refuting.

Fascinating story.

"A private girl’s school in Indonesia was filled with screaming students in July of 2018 after one of them allegedly found herself “looking into the 'otherworld’", with “scenes of blood, gore and violence” swirling around her. 17 year-old Siti Nurannisaa said that this was followed by a vision of “the face of pure evil.”

Soon, at least 39 other students at the Islamic religious institution were in hysterics, fainting and crying out in fear and panic. Others, including teachers, claimed to have seen a “dark figure” lurking about the school campus. The educational authorities sent in Islamic spiritual leaders and counselors to perform exorcisms and calm those affected by the outbreak. "

has mishandled the police response to liberal rioters>

Mishandled?
I thought it was, "the plan?"

<Here's "the "Police chief" Liberal chickens are coming home to roost.>

I see <Liberal chickens are coming home to roost> if the Mayors/Governors pay a price.

The Police chief resignation is probably normal. Resigning because she wants law and order. It looks to me like another case of the party of skin color/gender, throwing a black female under the bus.

(Remember when those qualifications were important for a VP?)

https://scontent.fbed1-1.fna.fbcdn....

17 year-old Siti Nurannisaa said that this was followed by a vision of “the face of pure evil.”>