Race, Gender and Identity

[Magic Poriferan]

I wouldn't call myself a subjectivist, I think objective truth can be grasped, but people don't realize that it's faith along with rationality that enables them to grasp objective truth.

Faith is an expedient that is unfortunately sometimes necessary. But I prefer minimizing it and maximizing inferable knowledge where feasible.

I think when someone attempts to grasp the truth from faith, the basically just function as a subjectivist, because faith is removed from virtually any objective evidence.

I don't see what your example has to do with anything, but I'll answer anyway. It sounds as if his delusion only affected why he was doing something and not what he was doing. He's still guilty of murder because he intended to kill someone. If he had thought the gun was a magic squirt gun that shot rainbows that made people fall in love then he might not have had the requisite intent to commit murder.

If I were to consider this man's beliefs so clearly removed from the facts that I would just assert he is crazy and his ideas not worth giving serious consideration (if any), would that be intolerant of me?

 

[Beorn]

This...

And the objection to pondering Valiants mental condition on the basis that doing so would be "othering" or "dehumanizing" him.

Very postmodern.

I don't think Pseudo is showing an over-appreciation for rationalization. Our inability to hold opinions we do not believe is simply the nature of the beast, and it follows that we are not entitled to that ability either, even in a sense of moral absolutism. If one is to play the devil's advocate, a measure of distance must come between one's actual stance and the lie they are pushing. The whole activity comprises the totality of one's relationship the the truth, which is dynamic, but remains the same in principle.

My views are not postmodern. I would agree with some postmodern critiques of modernity and maybe that's why you're identifying my statements with postmodernism. My point is just that rationality is not an authority in and of itself, but must rely on or have faith in some other authority or standard in order to draw conclusions. Valiant places his faith in authorities most of the rest of us reject. He's wrong because the authorities he trusts have misled him from the objective truth.

He may be delusional, but calling him delusional seems to be pointless as a persuasive measure. It seems to me that it's mostly an effort for people to comfort themselves with the idea that as long they are rational then they won't believe or do anything horrible. I think that's quite the error and just a continuation of the modernist lie that rationality can save humanity.

 

[Beorn]

Of course the unknowns and undefineds are a huge category. which is why i am accepting of a variety of viewpoints. I would go as far as to say most things fit into acceptable. However, there are some views that are unacceptable. fo instance, Is the idea that women and men typically have the same number of teeth based on an unprovable presumption? I would say no.

It seems the result of this thinking is that everything important is unknowable yet many things worth censuring people are trivial (Obviously NOT including the holocaust in this).

 

[Beorn]

Faith is an expedient that is unfortunately sometimes necessary. But I prefer minimizing it and maximizing inferable knowledge where feasible.

I think when someone attempts to grasp the truth from faith, the basically just function as a subjectivist, because faith is removed from virtually any objective evidence.

You don't understand what I'm talking about. I think faith is the basis of knowledge, not just a component.

If I were to consider this man's beliefs so clearly removed from the facts that I would just assert he is crazy and his ideas not worth giving serious consideration (if any), would that be intolerant of me?

No. Again, that's exactly what I've done with Valiant. I haven't engaged him at all and I have no intention of engaging him. Except that it doesn't matter to me whether or not Valiant is crazy. It seems to me some people need to believe he's crazy. That's just my gut feeling on the issue.

 

[Nicodemus]

That is not the same thing, and there were never ordered to be killed. Prove it.
Show me the order where they are ordered to be killed.

I am certain you will reject all proof as faked, coerced, or otherwise tampered with. Nevertheless, I will rest assured in the knowledge that what I believe is in line with what the majority of historians have concluded about what is perhaps the most- and best-studied subject in history. You, on the other hand, hold a minority position defended by people who, like Germar Rudolf, find it necessary to quote themselves under different aliases, invent or misconstrue quotes, ignore or alter facts - all in an effort to muster just the appearance of scientificity, and yet fail miserably.

I spent the afternoon researching the methods and practices of your cult. Very illuminating, almost as sad as funny.

I could pass for northern italian, yes. If you don't look at facial features.
Facial-wise i'm of trönder type. Norwegian.
I used to color my hair black, if that's what you mean. It's medium brown/reddish with light streaks.
Don't have any unusual facial features, though.
When I don't color my hair or go tanning in the winter, I look pretty damn normal. :b

Besides. Italians are part of the white race. Turks are mixed.
Not the same thing.

You did not answer the question. Was it really your appearance that gave you away as a proper target?

Anyway, fire away. I know you're just trying to probe me for weakness, being the person you are.
I'm going to bed now. Have fun slandering me and trying to destroy my reputation in whatever petty way you decide to go about it.

I was trying to figure out how close your way of arguing is to the standard of the cult. It is probably not your fault that there is so much similarity among you soldiers (although that awful way of structuring your posts is all yours), because there really are but a few authors selling the lies you look for to support your beliefs. Being as clever as you are, you might be more useful to the cause making up history. I bet you can do a better job than many of the current prophets.

 

[Pseudo]

It seems the result of this thinking is that everything important is unknowable yet many things worth censuring people are trivial (Obviously NOT including the holocaust in this).

Yeah exactly. And we're all just trying to get more of the unknowns into the knowns. But that's probably why the unknowns are the big questions. If they were obvious we wouldn't get so hung up on them.


(Just a point of distinction: I feel people should be censured for willfully expousing what they know to be false, not for just being wrong)

 

[Nicodemus]

He may be delusional, but calling him delusional seems to be pointless as a persuasive measure. It seems to me that it's mostly an effort for people to comfort themselves with the idea that as long they are rational then they won't believe or do anything horrible. I think that's quite the error and just a continuation of the modernist lie that rationality can save humanity.

He is an ever-flowing fountain of poisonous lies. Calling him delusional is a way to detox the lies. The alternative is bottling them up until the end of happiness.

Surely there is something in the Bible about punishing false prophets that you can use to calm your consciousness.

 

[Ginkgo]

My views are not postmodern. I would agree with some postmodern critiques of modernity and maybe that's why you're identifying my statements with postmodernism. My point is just that rationality is not an authority in and of itself, but must rely on or have faith in some other authority or standard in order to draw conclusions. Valiant places his faith in authorities most of the rest of us reject. He's wrong because the authorities he trusts have misled him from the objective truth.

He may be delusional, but calling him delusional seems to be pointless as a persuasive measure. It seems to me that it's mostly an effort for people to comfort themselves with the idea that as long they are rational then they won't believe or do anything horrible. I think that's quite the error and just a continuation of the modernist lie that rationality can save humanity.

I agree with the first paragraph. I don't agree that it's a pointless persuasive measure since it's the essence of saying "you're wrong". The point, I believe, is that it would be wrong to be silent about the issue. Whether he figures that out or not is a different issue entirely. At this juncture, he's placed his faith in a number of esoteric stances about the nature of historical events; he believes that character is determined by race and that the enemy is cosmopolitanism, when well managed cosmopolitan actions would yield benefits to white people and everyone involved. The interesting thing about rationalization - you can deduce people's unsaid viewpoints. This guy's a white supremacist, plain and simple. I don't think it's fine to say that his beliefs are justified or imply it by defaulting on an irrelevant tangent about how so-and-so isn't accepting him as a person.

 

[violet_crown]

If you think about it really, this is all [MENTION=6168]Bamboo[/MENTION]'s fault.

 

[Ivy]

Isn't everything?

 

[Ginkgo]

Not all taxidermy is good taxidermy, [MENTION=6168]Bamboo[/MENTION]. Let this be a warning to you:

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You don't understand what I'm talking about. I think faith is the basis of knowledge, not just a component.

Even better. Making faith the basis of knowledge is very subjective because faith is very subjective.

No. Again, that's exactly what I've done with Valiant. I haven't engaged him at all and I have no intention of engaging him. Except that it doesn't matter to me whether or not Valiant is crazy. It seems to me some people need to believe he's crazy. That's just my gut feeling on the issue.

For me it's something of a compulsion to respond to people being incredibly wrong. At least in this case I can count on plenty of other people criticizing him. It's worst when no one else is, then I feel I have to respond because saying bullshit go unanswered is just too uncomfortable.

That fact that what he's saying is so awful is actually more important than his mental wealth when it comes to whether or not I should respond to him. You're the one that became particularly fixated on the observation. I don't think anyone here who's calling him crazy is doing so because they need something to discredit his statements. It's the other way around. His statements and his reasoning have so little credit that it is suspected he is mentally ill. Why would anyone need to make that accusation anyhow? If someone said all these things, but then a psychiatrist told us that he was certifiably sane, would we all say "oh, well then I guess it's okay"?

Lastly, even if people did need him to be crazy, how that make him any less crazy?

 

[Cellmold]

It could have been done better, that's for sure.

I know...very sloppy work. They could have been doling out dead jews by the millions, instead they only got 60,000? Useless.

 

[Orangey]

YIt seems to me some people need to believe he's crazy. That's just my gut feeling on the issue.

It's not possible to hold the kinds of beliefs that he does and NOT be crazy. The only other option is that he's a troll, but given his history and the tone of his posts in this thread, that option seems unlikely.

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] probably isn't mentally ill just because you don't agree with him; entire countries of people are racist nationalists, white nationalism is not comparable to a serial killer in San Francisco thinking a homeless man was a Biblical prophet who told him to murder.

I don't support his views at all, but describing him as psychotic is probably not at all true.

 

[Thalassa]

Also, halocaust denying is NOT a feature of psychosis, it's a feature of extreme white nationalism.

You guys all seem really uneducated to me right now, I'm sorry, but you can't call people insane because you don't agree with, know about, or understand something.

I am NOT defending him in any way, even on European preservation forums, people like him are viewed as racists and extremists, rather than having a simple interest in European history and culture.

However, this conversation is crap. [MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] is right.

 

[cafe]

I still can't get past the idea that there is a magical country where white people do not do bad stuff. I mean I know a lot of white people.

 

[Ivy]

Please do cease with the "crazy" invective, folks.

 

[Thalassa]

In the past year I've begun to grasp more and more how the human mind and education works. When people are educated into a certain framework, say Western logic or even ethical racial tolerance, they find it very hard to believe that some people would rather embrace Eastern philosophy instead, or could be nationalists or believe in racial purity.

What's fascinating is that these people believe themselves to be more educated or open-minded than people with staunch religious beliefs or other civilizations from the past, completely unaware of their own conceptual biases.

 

[Mole]

faith is the basis of knowledge.

Faith is believing something we know isn't true.

So Faith requires us to suspend our disbelief like the movies or art. So we can talk about the art of Faith. So Faith is as much the basis of knowledge as art.

Fortunately we do know the basis of knowledge and it is the scientific method.