Seated at a table in a Chester restaurant some years back were two bloggers ... the peerless Tom Paine, plus your humble blogger here. Said Tom to me that I was a very personalised blogger, wasn't I, i.e. not shy to give my opinion on something, something also picked up on by another libertarian blogger:
To compound the dilemma, another comment on Mr. Higham:
I'd characterise it by saying our minds are patchwork quilts ... bits of this, bits of that, overlapping in many ways but quite different in others ... both can be of great value but gaps in knowledge and mindset set both at each other's throats. Yes, I am leading up to something, but first a mini-glossary for the above:
Acute? Then why so disagreed with? This one was in OoL comments:
Yesterday, two mutual followers got into a possible fight to the death, had I engaged, and the sad part as I said to him was we were both dissident right, so there was zero percentage value fighting in front of Globo-psycho, the Woke left, Demrats and RINOs, who'd simply lap it up with big grins.
Thus I refused to engage. What was it over?
This:
More than that ... RdeS's WEF wife, protégée of Globo-psycho, who runs RdeS, had just tweeted that Ron had won the debate and over a million dollars had poured in following said "debate". Here's one take on that "debate".
I'd responded to her: "Delusional," which set off the walrus (read from the foot of the screenshot back up to the top):
I replied: "Sigh," then joined the fight with the WEF wife's antecedents, plus RdeS's funding. My fellow walrus then promptly blocked me, lol.
Our headbutting may have been mildly entertaining in a minor way, however the Trump RdeS thing is of inestimably more damage to America and the world. All down to one ignorant little black lives matter female who decides to abuse the power she should never have been given in the first place ... totally out of her depth, in thrall to her patrons who'd paid her attention, just like Heels Up, AOC, Cressida Dick.
Where's all this lead us? To the opening contention in this post ... we're products of our perceptions ... therefore there's little point dividing into camps in an adversarial manner, when the better model is to have a round-table, with each allowed, respectfully, to bring something intelligent to the table, which is then discussed and the outcome emerges from that.
Unless it's manipulated of course, through NLP and psy-ops.
James, to rub salt into the lefties wounds, I believe that our country will not begin its restoration to something resembling normality until patriotic, white, English, Christian men are governing us.
ReplyDeleteWe are being destroyed by weak men; which is why there are so many women in so many positions of power and influence. Strong men would resume their rightful place as leaders.
Are there any left in England?
DeleteTake it further, it’s not just perception, how they see things, but the why.
ReplyDeleteFor decades (after some years of baffled consideration and finally developing a theory) I have stated (and been roundly attacked from all sides for doing so) that “We all judge others opinions, behaviours, choices and actions based on … ‘our’ own knowledge and experience, not theirs”. That so many, most, judge not by reality, but the automatic assumption that ‘they’ would have to be, not just wrong but ‘evil’ to say/think such a thing, so you must be.
Consider your examples, on the whole you aren’t tarred, labelled and categorized, and being attacked for what you actually said, but for what they ‘think’ you said and ‘their’ assumed motivations for doing so (i.e. what it would need to make ‘them’, with their experiences and assumptions, say or think such a thing. They simply, obviously, cannot conceive that others may be, in fact always are, different).
Yes, we all delude ourselves in the belief that we understand that others have differing interpretations based on knowledge and experience, but … we assume a ‘base level’ of common, shared, both that (especially now, and increasing) is unfortunately no longer true. (A possible non sequiteur, example. I recently had an ‘argument’ with individuals about actions, and specifically navigation, in a survival situation. Judging them ‘harshly’, only to realise afterwards that the reason they believed as they did was … they hadn’t the slightest, even most basic idea, how to use … a compass, a level of such foundational knowledge, to me, that I couldn’t even conceive that anybody ‘could’ not know it. You now ‘must’ assume that everything, be it the most widespread of “common knowledge”, shared experience, point of view … isn’t).
(continued)
ReplyDeleteTo me it, at its root, all goes back to the ever increasing “feminisation” of our culture. The ‘relativism’ and ‘faux empathy’ (empathy, by definition includes the thoughts, knowledge and experiences of others, not just as is now believed, the feelings).
In the past (even “When I were a lad” – I feel old!) we would automatically assume some “common ground” and that different choices and opinions were, in part, based on differing knowledge and experience and … seek to learn what (challenge and/or maybe even learn from it). Now? The knowledge and experience of even the most naive and uninformed is seen as ‘just as good and relevant’ (and don’t you dare challenge, or even point it out, you hater!) and that differences are due, only to ‘ill intent’.
It’s yet more of the ‘collectivism’ of modern society and culture, where we are all assumed to be interchangeable widgets (with minor separate categories defined by one, often irrelevant, aspect of our person or character – you’re a “right winger”, “gay”, etc. and all other myriad aspects of you, the individual, are, must be, identical to others in your category. Variance makes you, by their definition, evil). None of this has arisen spontaneously or independently, it has been imposed, there has been a ‘targeted’ destruction of any uniting element in every aspect of our culture. Why? To deliberately divide and weaken us, cultures and countries, as a prelude to … ?
Your “round table” would be eminently sensible and reasonable … in the past, but today, I fear, without the most basic of shared aims or even understanding, without a shred of actual empathy, with even the most basic tenets, not just varying but diametrically opposite to each other, with ‘them’ not just believing but ‘knowing’ any variance or opposition is evil, it’s … a pipe-dream.
I fear we are far past the point where any talking will be allowed, let alone have an effect. I suspect we are now into territory where only a ‘civil war’ (which will make ours and Americas look like a minor spat) will allow a ‘resolution’ (where the few weary, battered survivors settle their differences only because they are too beaten-down to continue – to be left, like Union and Confederate ‘retirees’ sitting on the same porch, not speaking, still hating but too old to keep fighting).
My one 'happy thought' is that rather than ending up ruling, those who planned, organised, funded and implemented this cultural genocide will ... be first against the wall.
"all goes back to the ever increasing “feminisation” of our culture." SPOT ON!
Delete