Church statement on Charlottesville, Virginia

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church's statement was cute - "we're not racists. we condemn it."  Was somebody questioning the Church or something?  Were there a bunch of members of the Church involved in this?  Did the SP organize a group of protesters?  Odd that the church responded, odd more that it felt the need to tell everyone it's not racist. 

From previous experience, I can guarantee that if the church was silent, there would have been protesters on this board condemning them for their silence.   

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

Does somebody have to question the church before they condemn something?  Isn't it too little too late by that point?

[Helmuth]

Whoa, glitches!

Edited August 14, 2017 by Helmuth

[Helmuth]

...

Edited August 14, 2017 by Helmuth

[Helmuth]

...

Edited August 14, 2017 by Helmuth

[Helmuth]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I wondered if this might serve as a honeypot thread for closet white supremacists, sorry, Euroculture supremacists. Sad to see I was right.

I can understand LDS and Christians selling their birthright for money, sex, glory, and power. I have a hard time understanding why people would sell it for such a stupid and childish ideology. I really suspect the other kids burning in hell are going to spend a long time laughing at them.

The Nehor, I love you, too, believe it or not!  We have had many, many threads about which we have agreed passionately and fought together against the wrong-thinking hordes.  You perhaps do not remember them, nor remember me at all, since you have stayed active on these boards all these years, while I have faded away into inactivity (and no home teacher to bring me back!), and so I still remember it all like yesterday.

We are very much intellectually similar.

You are accusing me of being a closet white supremacist, or, at least, euroculture supremacist.  I think those are just swear words, right?  Am I understanding that correctly?  If they have a meaning to you that you're trying to convey, you'll have to actually convey it, by explaining what you mean.

But I'm a good archeologist, and I'll help the discussion along, in case you don't want to explain.  I appears, reconstructing from your post, that a "Euroculture supremacist" is a subscriber to a "stupid and childish ideology" that, filling in the blanks, probably believes in the supremacy of European culture.  Is the horseshoe on the sand?

So, here I stand accused.  Should I be candid?  Why not!  I am lucky in that I am not going to lose my employment over this if you decide to dox me as your daily Good Turn (for God, you understand).  The worst that could happen is to lose my membership on this forum, which I am not exactly heavily availing myself of anyway.  So, Helmuth, let's go for it!  Move that Overton Window!  Candor and Honesty!

I am a fan of rationality.  I'm even an occasional practitioner, at least for a pick-up game.  But certainly avidly a fan.  And yes, I see that European civilization has pushed the sport far further than anyone else, and played the game far better, for the past two and a half thousand years.  With lapses.  Of course, always with lapses and doldrums.  But yes, I see something of value there.  Like Kenneth Clark, I realize this view is unpopular, that our civilization is currently racked with unfathomably deep self-hatred.  But I'm.... not.  So you'll have to excuse me for being terribly unfashionable.

Socrates.  Plato.  Aristotle especially.  Euclid.  Pythagoras (& cult).  The astoundingly brilliant Archimedes!  Verrocchio.  Bernini.  All the turtles.  Watt.  Edison.  Newton.  The story of history is mostly the story of great, heroic men (another impossibly backwards and horrible Neanderthal view -- where am I picking up this poisonous rot?) and the Europe has had some of the best (counting her outposts, naturally, as part of her).  Europe, stretching from Berlin to Perth (and, for a while, also including Johannessburg), is where everyone wants to live.  All the best places.  Some of that is mere materialist excess, a consequence of brilliance, but much of it is rooted in the spiritual.  The Europeans are a highly refined, civilized people, with a lofty and sophisticated spirituality.  And of course the material is connected to the spiritual anyway, as we Mormons (even unorthodox Catholic Mormons) know, and so it's all part of a unified whole.

Is it "supreme"?  Perhaps.  Probably not.  Actually, it depends what you mean by supreme.  But is it sublime?  Absolutely.

Of course, it's all collapsing.  Though it's not all the fault of the left, they are busy doing their best to make it happen and accelerate it.  One cannot help but feel overwhelming awe gazing up at the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.  I have done so for, well, hours.  And at the same time, should you visit, you will not be able to avoid the feeling of jarring juxtaposition.  Over the loudspeaker, cranked up to full volume you will hear endlessly repeated (but live, not a recording, so at least a human touch):

"Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures.  Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures."

And all around you the loud, uncouth hordes of tourists stream quickly through, definitely not silent, definitely constantly taking pictures, and looking briefly up only because they know they're supposed to.  But at the same time wondering, for sure, just what all the fuss is about.

Our civilization is collapsing.  The Left is trying to push it.  The establishment "Right" is content to lose forever and rake in donor dollars.  The alt-Right is trying to save it.  We should have their backs.  They are our allies in the fight for Western Civilization.

The Church is, in our current mileu, unquestionably an extremely traditionalist organization, and that means it is a fundamentally Rightist organization.  Perhaps even so far Right it could be considered a Reactionary one.  I mean, not only do we not have transgender apostles and bathrooms in our temples, which would really be the only socially and ideologically acceptable thing to do, we are trying to go back to women staying at home out of the workplace, raising children.  And, come to that, telling them they should be having them in the first place, many of them!  But only with husbands, after they are married!  This really is all far beyond the pale.  Far, far beyond.  I know we all pine for normalcy and "fitting in," but at some point you've got to give up the charade admit the left will never love you.  Plus, normalcy is a moving target.  The normal acceptable opinions of today, like the ones you hold, Nehor, would be seen as out-of-your-mind deranged to the normal acceptable people of just a hundred years ago.  Presentism, eh?  There's no virtue in 2017 normal.  It's depraved.  The Church says it's depraved.  That puts us on the Right.  In fact it actively condemns the depravity, rejects it, and lives in an utterly different manner.  That makes us Far Right.  The LDS lifestyle is just as reactionary as the Amish, just plus a few hundred years.

You doubtless disagree, Nehor.  That's fine.  I won't dox you.    I won't tell your employer to fire you.  I won't muse about how I would excommunicate you, if only I had the position over you.  I won't even think poorly of you!  I'll just talk.  I'll just reason.  That's, like, the European Way!

Edited August 14, 2017 by Helmuth

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I'm curious why the church needed to put out a statement at all. 

The church now has a fully functional PR department. and it appears to be growing.

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by cdowis

[Dexter Eli]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

There's no need to post them. Everyone already knows them, ad nauseum. My point (which you understand, I think) is that the simple existence of statements explaining the ban are not disparaging, in and of themselves. 

I would like to know if anyone (i.e., not you, or not just you) can articulate what is disparaging about them? Actually disparaging --- beyond, "Denying the priesthood is racist and unfair!"

I'm not aware of any actually disparaging remarks. It seems like what the argument boils down to is that simply allowing and explaining the ban by itself was disparaging.

You say there's no need to post them and that everyone already knows them and then you say you are not aware of any disparaging remarks. 

HUH?

If you want to become aware, disparaging remarks are super easy to find. Try a few of Mark E. Petersen's quotes, and many others. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

The Nehor, I love you, too, believe it or not!  We have had many, many threads about which we have agreed passionately and fought together against the wrong-thinking hordes.  You perhaps do not remember them, nor remember me at all, since you have stayed active on these boards all these years while I have faded away into inactivity (and no home teacher to bring me back!), and so I still remember it all like yesterday.

We are very much intellectually similar.

You are accusing me of being a closet white supremacist, or, at least, euroculture supremacist.  I think those are just swear words, right?  Am I understanding that correctly?  If they have a meaning to you that you're trying to convey, you'll have to actually convey it, by explaining what you mean.

But I'm a good archeologist, and I'll help the discussion along, in case you don't want to explain.  I appears, reconstructing from your post, that a "Euroculture supremacist" is a subscriber to a "stupid and childish ideology" that, filling in the blanks, probably believes in the supremacy of European culture.  Is the horseshoe on the sand?

So, here I stand accused.  Should I be candid?  Why not!  I am lucky in that I am not going to lose my employment over this if you decide to dox me as your daily Good Turn (for God, you understand).  The worst that could happen is to lose my membership on this forum, which I am not exactly heavily availing myself of anyway.  So, Helmuth, let's go for it!  Move that Overton Window!  Candor and Honesty!

I am a fan of rationality.  I'm even an occasional practitioner, at least for a pick-up game.  But certainly avidly a fan.  And yes, I see that European civilization has pushed the sport far further than anyone else, and played the game far better, for the past two and a half thousand years.  With lapses.  Of course, always with lapses and doldrums.  But yes, I see something of value there.  Like Kenneth Clark, I realize this view is unpopular, that our civilization is currently racked with unfathomably deep self-hatred.  But I'm.... not.  So you'll have to excuse me for being terribly unfashionable.

Socrates.  Plato.  Aristotle especially.  Euclid.  Pythagoras (& cult).  The astoundingly brilliant Archimedes!  Verrocchio.  Bernini.  All the turtles.  Watt.  Edison.  Newton.  The story of history is mostly the story of great, heroic men (another impossibly backwards and horrible Neanderthal view -- where am I picking up this poisonous rot?) and the Europe has had some of the best (counting her outposts, naturally, as part of her).  Europe, stretching from Berlin to Perth (and, for a while, also including Johannessburg), is where everyone wants to live.  All the best places.  Some of that is mere materialist excess, a consequence of brilliance, but much of it is rooted in the spiritual.  The Europeans are a highly refined, civilized people, with a lofty and sophisticated spirituality.  And of course the material is connected to the spiritual anyway, as we Mormons (even unorthodox Catholic Mormons) know, and so it's all part of a unified whole.

Is it "supreme"?  Perhaps.  Probably not.  Actually, it depends what you mean by supreme.  But is it sublime?  Absolutely.

 

 

Of course, it's all collapsing.  Though it's not all the fault of the left, they are busy doing their best to make it happen and accelerate it.  One cannot help but feel overwhelming awe gazing up at the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.  I have done so for, well, hours.  And at the same time, should you visit, you will not be able to avoid the feeling of jarring juxtaposition.  Over the loudspeaker, cranked up to full volume you will hear endlessly repeated (but live, not a recording, so at least a human touch):

"Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures.  Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures."

And all around you the loud, uncouth hordes of tourists stream quickly through, definitely not silent, definitely constantly taking pictures, and looking briefly up only because they know they're supposed to.  But at the same time wondering, for sure, just what all the fuss is about.

Our civilization is collapsing.  The Left is trying to push it.  The establishment "Right" is content to lose forever and rake in donor dollars.  The alt-Right is trying to save it.  We should have their backs.  They are our allies in the fight for Western Civilization.

The Church is, in our current mileu, unquestionably an extremely traditionalist organization, and that means it is a fundamentally Rightist organization.  Perhaps even so far Right it could be considered a Reactionary one.  I mean, not only do we not have transgender apostles and bathrooms in our temples, which would really be the only socially and ideologically acceptable thing to do, we are trying to go back to women staying at home out of the workplace, raising children.  And, come to that, telling them they should be having them in the first place, many of them!  But only with husbands, after they are married!  This really is all far beyond the pale.  Far, far beyond.  I know we all pine for normalcy and "fitting in," but at some point you've got to give up the charade admit the left will never love you.  Plus, normalcy is a moving target.  The normal acceptable opinions of today, like the ones you hold, Nehor, would be seen as out-of-your-mind deranged to the normal acceptable people of just a hundred years ago.  Presentism, eh?  There's no virtue in 2017 normal.  It's depraved.  The Church says it's depraved.  That puts us on the Right.  In fact it actively condemns the depravity, rejects it, and lives in an utterly different manner.  That makes us Far Right.  The LDS lifestyle is just as reactionary as the Amish, just plus a few hundred years.

You doubtless disagree, Nehor.  That's fine.  I won't dox you.    I won't tell your employer to fire you.  I won't muse about how I would excommunicate you, if only I had the position over you.  I won't even think poorly of you!  I'll just talk.  I'll just reason.  That's, like, the European Way!

While I cannot dispute many of the great minds you herald this culture moved forward in oppressive darkness for many. The Roman Empire and the Greek states were built on the backs of slaves. The feudal era was an era of oppression for all but a few. After the Renaissance the European states spread across the globe but colonialism has its dark side. The battles with the natives in the Americas. The apartheidism throughout Africa. The struggles in India. The oppression and driving out of the Australian aborigines. The mass collection of slaves in Africa to feed the engines of empire. Children practically living in coal mines to fuel said empires.

Not all the people involved were evil and some of these empires had a modicum of morality of a very rough level but that was cold comfort to those on the bottom rungs of society. Good came out of it too but I think you are focusing only on the positive benefits and not the costs.

Or, to quote President Hinckley:

"We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure."

[mapman]

20 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

The Nehor, I love you, too, believe it or not!  We have had many, many threads about which we have agreed passionately and fought together against the wrong-thinking hordes.  You perhaps do not remember them, nor remember me at all, since you have stayed active on these boards all these years while I have faded away into inactivity (and no home teacher to bring me back!), and so I still remember it all like yesterday.

We are very much intellectually similar.

You are accusing me of being a closet white supremacist, or, at least, euroculture supremacist.  I think those are just swear words, right?  Am I understanding that correctly?  If they have a meaning to you that you're trying to convey, you'll have to actually convey it, by explaining what you mean.

But I'm a good archeologist, and I'll help the discussion along, in case you don't want to explain.  I appears, reconstructing from your post, that a "Euroculture supremacist" is a subscriber to a "stupid and childish ideology" that, filling in the blanks, probably believes in the supremacy of European culture.  Is the horseshoe on the sand?

So, here I stand accused.  Should I be candid?  Why not!  I am lucky in that I am not going to lose my employment over this if you decide to dox me as your daily Good Turn (for God, you understand).  The worst that could happen is to lose my membership on this forum, which I am not exactly heavily availing myself of anyway.  So, Helmuth, let's go for it!  Move that Overton Window!  Candor and Honesty!

I am a fan of rationality.  I'm even an occasional practitioner, at least for a pick-up game.  But certainly avidly a fan.  And yes, I see that European civilization has pushed the sport far further than anyone else, and played the game far better, for the past two and a half thousand years.  With lapses.  Of course, always with lapses and doldrums.  But yes, I see something of value there.  Like Kenneth Clark, I realize this view is unpopular, that our civilization is currently racked with unfathomably deep self-hatred.  But I'm.... not.  So you'll have to excuse me for being terribly unfashionable.

Socrates.  Plato.  Aristotle especially.  Euclid.  Pythagoras (& cult).  The astoundingly brilliant Archimedes!  Verrocchio.  Bernini.  All the turtles.  Watt.  Edison.  Newton.  The story of history is mostly the story of great, heroic men (another impossibly backwards and horrible Neanderthal view -- where am I picking up this poisonous rot?) and the Europe has had some of the best (counting her outposts, naturally, as part of her).  Europe, stretching from Berlin to Perth (and, for a while, also including Johannessburg), is where everyone wants to live.  All the best places.  Some of that is mere materialist excess, a consequence of brilliance, but much of it is rooted in the spiritual.  The Europeans are a highly refined, civilized people, with a lofty and sophisticated spirituality.  And of course the material is connected to the spiritual anyway, as we Mormons (even unorthodox Catholic Mormons) know, and so it's all part of a unified whole.

Is it "supreme"?  Perhaps.  Probably not.  Actually, it depends what you mean by supreme.  But is it sublime?  Absolutely.

 

 

Of course, it's all collapsing.  Though it's not all the fault of the left, they are busy doing their best to make it happen and accelerate it.  One cannot help but feel overwhelming awe gazing up at the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.  I have done so for, well, hours.  And at the same time, should you visit, you will not be able to avoid the feeling of jarring juxtaposition.  Over the loudspeaker, cranked up to full volume you will hear endlessly repeated (but live, not a recording, so at least a human touch):

"Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures.  Silencio.  Silence.  No cameras, no pictures."

And all around you the loud, uncouth hordes of tourists stream quickly through, definitely not silent, definitely constantly taking pictures, and looking briefly up only because they know they're supposed to.  But at the same time wondering, for sure, just what all the fuss is about.

Our civilization is collapsing.  The Left is trying to push it.  The establishment "Right" is content to lose forever and rake in donor dollars.  The alt-Right is trying to save it.  We should have their backs.  They are our allies in the fight for Western Civilization.

The Church is, in our current mileu, unquestionably an extremely traditionalist organization, and that means it is a fundamentally Rightist organization.  Perhaps even so far Right it could be considered a Reactionary one.  I mean, not only do we not have transgender apostles and bathrooms in our temples, which would really be the only socially and ideologically acceptable thing to do, we are trying to go back to women staying at home out of the workplace, raising children.  And, come to that, telling them they should be having them in the first place, many of them!  But only with husbands, after they are married!  This really is all far beyond the pale.  Far, far beyond.  I know we all pine for normalcy and "fitting in," but at some point you've got to give up the charade admit the left will never love you.  Plus, normalcy is a moving target.  The normal acceptable opinions of today, like the ones you hold, Nehor, would be seen as out-of-your-mind deranged to the normal acceptable people of just a hundred years ago.  Presentism, eh?  There's no virtue in 2017 normal.  It's depraved.  The Church says it's depraved.  That puts us on the Right.  In fact it actively condemns the depravity, rejects it, and lives in an utterly different manner.  That makes us Far Right.  The LDS lifestyle is just as reactionary as the Amish, just plus a few hundred years.

You doubtless disagree, Nehor.  That's fine.  I won't dox you.    I won't tell your employer to fire you.  I won't muse about how I would excommunicate you, if only I had the position over you.  I won't even think poorly of you!  I'll just talk.  I'll just reason.  That's, like, the White-Supremacist / European Way!

I just got to say that the narrative that Europeans invented rationality all by themselves is just straight up wrong. The ancient Greeks were eager to attribute their wisdom and science to esteemed ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia or Egypt and demonized northern Europeans as uncivilized barbarians. For example, Pythagoras and Euclid were said to have been instructed by ancient Egyptian priests. Now, whether those specific stories are actually true or not, its hard to deny the heritage of science and religion inherited from ancient Asian and African civilizations. Throughout European history, many of the renaissances and times of progress were initiated in moments of interaction with other civilizations. Europeans wouldn't have even had most of the writings of Classical philosophers if it weren't for interactions with Muslim scholars during the Middle Ages. No civilization will thrive forever by trying to keep itself pure from mixing with other cultures. I think WWII and the Nazis show that Western Civilization (if it even makes sense to talk about it as a monolithic thing) is threatened more by self-destruction by racists and fascists, than it is by other peoples.

I have no idea if you're American or not, but it is also worth pointing out that Europeans weren't the first people here, and white people have absolutely no justification to claim this as exclusively their turf based off of "heritage."

Edited August 14, 2017 by mapman

[Helmuth]

45 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Their ideology is false. And more-so it is dangerous.

Oh?  Can you tell me what it is that makes one ideology "true" and one "false"?

Could you explain "their" ideology to me in your own words?  That's usually a good test of whether you understand something.  Explain it to me, as if I were a smart 10-year-old.  You don't have to say why it's "false" or whatever, just explain to me, accurately, what it is. 

[Helmuth]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not all the people involved were evil and some of these empires had a modicum of morality of a very rough level but that was cold comfort to those on the bottom rungs of society. Good came out of it too but I think you are focusing only on the positive benefits and not the costs.

Umm...... so?  I don't think you've thought this through.

Quote

 

While I cannot dispute many of the great minds you herald this culture moved forward in oppressive darkness for many. The Roman Empire and the Greek states were built on the backs of slaves. The feudal era was an era of oppression for all but a few. After the Renaissance the European states spread across the globe but colonialism has its dark side. The battles with the natives in the Americas. The apartheidism throughout Africa. The struggles in India. The oppression and driving out of the Australian aborigines. The mass collection of slaves in Africa to feed the engines of empire. Children practically living in coal mines to fuel said empires.

Like Kenneth Clark, I realize that our civilization is currently racked with unfathomably deep self-hatred.  But I'm.... not.  So you'll have to excuse me for being terribly unfashionable.

[BlueDreams]

4 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Oh?  Can you tell me what it is that makes one ideology "true" and one "false"?

Could you explain "their" ideology to me in your own words?  That's usually a good test of whether you understand something.  Explain it to me, as if I were a smart 10-year-old.  You don't have to say why it's "false" or whatever, just explain to me, accurately, what it is. 

I have a client coming in. Hopefully I can get to this before the thread closes. The short answer is the gospel is how I know

[The Nehor]

Here is a fun take on the rally.

Warning: Strong Language

 

[longview]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you now arguing that their reporting is "fair and balanced"?

I think you must concede that KSL's reporting was not some liberal partisan attack on conservative leadership, as you suggested. 

KSL and Deseret News are "church" business units (or were before being sold off).  Regardless, they cannot ignore either the conservative or liberal segments and must put in a modicum of "mainstreaming" for the most part.  However, there are occasional annoying news items such as including the irrational narrative of "Russian Collusion" which (as far as I can tell only Hillary and Ted Kennedy were guilty of).

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Helmuth said:

Umm...... so?  I don't think you've thought this through.

Like Kenneth Clark, I realize that our civilization is currently racked with unfathomably deep self-hatred.  But I'm.... not.  So you'll have to excuse me for being terribly unfashionable.

I haven't thought it through because I looked at the downside?

Self-hatred? What? I do not get it. Because I do not look at the history of western civilization as an unending series of rainbows, ponies, and gumdrops I hate myself? Are you sure we have talked before? If anything I think way too much of myself. 

Also, tell me that Pic in your avatar is not the Helmuth I think it is from the Second World War. Please.........

[mapman]

The picture is of the Mormon youth who stood up to the Nazis and was murdered by them.

Edited August 14, 2017 by mapman

[Darren10]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the Right did as good a job as the Left in isolating their fringe whackos instead of making them presidential candidates the distinction might be easier to see.

The Left are far better propagandists and with perhaps the exception of gun rights, which has significantly improved over the past decade, and pro life messaging, here too I think people are making better opinions on this issue, the Right does a horrible job education the public what they believe and why it's good for the country. 

The link between Trump and racism is folly and the Right has good reason not to fully like or support Trump. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, mapman said:

The picture is of the Mormon youth who stood up to the Nazis and was murdered by them.

Oh....whew. He looked a little like a uboat captain I remembered seeing a picture of (I know way too much WWII trivia) with a similar name. I looked it up. Helmut Witte was his name.

[Dexter Eli]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If anything I think way too much of myself. 

 

Hey, I agree with Nehor! First time ever!  

All kidding aside, I also agree with Nehor on most issues discussed throughout this thread.

Helmuth, I don't see how thinking it through more will somehow move people to your side of this issue. I also disagree with you. I am open to hearing more of an explanation. Please explain with more clarity and less anecdotes about staring at the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. And many of your heroes would argue that their success stemmed from reason, not spirituality. So what do you mean? 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I watched on the news that the male was a neo nazi out in public, at school etc. He even went on a school trip or something and made fun of something about the Holocaust I believe. I'll have to find a link. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/virginia-unite-the-right-rally-protest-violence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/one-dead-as-car-strikes-crowds-amid-protests-of-white-nationalist-gathering-in-charlottesville-two-police-die-in-helicopter-crash/2017/08/13/3590b3ce-8021-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html?utm_term=.de01a000fc59

True. All of it; but you do not know that that is why he drove into a crowd of anti protesters. 

[longview]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is okay. Sometimes they realize what is going wrong. You can too.

So you are calling me a nazi too.   You have totally disregarded my personal deeply principled conservatism and my statements abhorring racial prejudice.  I guess when we come before the "Judgement Bar" you will stand there stridently denouncing me for being "extreme alt right."

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The Left are far better propagandists and with perhaps the exception of gun rights, which has significantly improved over the past decade, and pro life messaging, here too I think people are making better opinions on this issue, the Right does a horrible job education the public what they believe and why it's good for the country. 

The link between Trump and racism is folly and the Right has good reason not to fully like or support Trump. 

Then why, when given the opportunity to denounce white supremacy at a press conference after this tragedy, did Donald Trump choose instead to walk away? White supremacists were rejoicing at the lack of condemnation. The link is there. Later he gave a half-baked condemnation after intense pressure. He is either even more clueless then even I think he is or he does not want to denounce them.

[Helmuth]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So yes. Vilify them. Take their jobs and their LDS membership. Do not invite them to parties. They are not just sinners. They are predatory sinners and not just social outcasts like those the Savior ate with. They do not just want back in; they want in and to thrust others out. Let them eat husks with the swine in the hopes that they will come to themselves and repent and return home so we can all welcome them with tears of joy. Until then, we should not let them in lest they throw the older faithful brother out and end up ruling the house.

I don't think you're quite keeping track of what you're saying.  I assume you believe everything you have written in this thread is right and correct (as indeed you have explicitly stated), as of course is typical of us all.  You have written:

1. I am a white supremacist.

2. I am a predatory sinner.

3. You vilify me, and, not content with that, demand that all others do likewise.

4. You call on all under your influence to take away my job.

5. You (and Dr. Peterson) want to take away my LDS membership.

This accurate synopsis of your actual words and what you are actually calling for probably does not easily comport with your self-image of who you think you are and what kind of beliefs and opinions you think you hold, and, indeed what kind of a person you think you are and how you think you treat other people.

You've made this very personal, The Nehor.  Which is OK -- that makes it interesting!  And, hopefully, enlightening for you and me and all of us on the thread.

But, again, I would love to pull this mostly away from your very strong emotions about my worthlessness (as exciting as that does make the conversation!) and back into the realm of rationality.  You haven't answered my question as to what you think white / Euro Supremacy actually is.  How then can we talk about it rationally?  I have to fill in too many holes, and doubtless with stereotypes which are surely inaccurate -- doubly sure with you, who hardly fit into any ready-made box such as "typical liberal."

So let's answer that question.  What is White Supremacy?  And, if you feel up to it (though then you risk having massive super-posts like mine) what exactly is so wrong and sinful about it that its adherents should live worthless, destitute lives in pig pens, alone, sub-human, and universally shunned by all?

[The Nehor]

Just now, longview said:

So you are calling me a nazi too.   You have totally disregarded my personal deeply principled conservatism and my statements abhorring racial prejudice.  I guess when we come before the "Judgement Bar" you will stand there stridently denouncing me for being "extreme alt right."

At the Judgement Bar I will be too busy trying to explain my own idiocy to worry about yours.

You claim to abhor racial prejudice but defend literal Nazis. Not sure how you square those two but I sure hope at the Judgement Bar you have a good explanation for that deeply principled stance.

[Dexter Eli]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

True. All of it; but you do not know that that is why he drove into a crowd of anti protesters. 

If we can't conclude there is a connection between being a Neo-nazi and driving your car into a crowd of people protesting against Neo-nazis then we would have to throw hour hands in the air and admit we do not know anything about anyone's motives ever.