Utopia Talk / Politics / Russian false flags

Seb Member	Mon Feb 24 02:40:18 For a couple of weeks Russia has been dropping hints that it's embassies in Europe are threatened, like statements on how "for peace talks, our embassies functions must not be disrupted". Today a petrol bomb on a consulate in Marseilles. Who falls for this shit? Yaaawn.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 24 02:55:15 Jergul.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 07:18:21 Cutie, I am glad you think about me so often <3. Seb Kind of a stretch. 3 year anniversary. Many people are pissed off. A petrol bomb at a random consulate is indeed yawn and means neither here nor there for peace talks. That is not the GRU that poisoned Skripal at all. It is has wat more showmanship, even for off the books activity. A dirty bomb cessna drone would be the false flag you would be looking for. Or a school massacre. Sommething with the drama that would actually cause Russia to stomp off from the negotiating table. And besides, do you think a peace deal now on Trump and Putin's terms is something you want?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 24 07:47:31 Only when the topic is "the enemies of the west, foreign and domestic". Also, I called it :)
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 08:08:37 Cutie, it was a pretty easy call to make. Seb said something silly. Perhaps next you can wow us with your prediction on if the sun will rise tomorrow <3? However, inferring I think Russia is incapable of false flag attack is incorrect. I simply find a petrol bomb against a consulate in a city more Arab than Gotenburg to be very yawn indeed. It is the 3 year mark after all and many people are pissed off. Civil disobedience that got a bit out of hand is nothing. GRU is capable of something more spectacular and imaginiative if the need were to arise.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 08:12:46 What Russia has actually been signalling recently is that it wants its consulate properties back in the US. They were confiscated some years ago by the US gov.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 24 08:54:49 "Perhaps next you can wow us with your prediction on if the sun will rise tomorrow" I have to give you a point here, you being an enemy of the west is obvious like the sun is on the sky. You have to be blind to now see it. However, "Called it" it's just something the kids say, you autistic little putinbot.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 09:09:34 Cutie, I have taken a much firmer anti-putin stance than you ever have <3. Thing is, I know Russia is never as strong as it looks, nor as weak as it seems. So yes, reality does have a pro-jergul bias. And indeed. "Called it" is something kids say. This thread a case in point <3.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 09:14:24 What is even "The West" these days? You would think a true enemy of it would have some idea of what the concept is. I frankly don't have a clue, nor does any reasonable person.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 24 10:17:55 "I frankly don't have a clue" Totally, how can you have a relationship negative or positive towards something that does not even exist.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 10:24:30 Well, I know you have an AfD understanding of "The West" cutie, but that is the problem. Everyone has their own tailored version of what the West is <3. We tried defining ourselves by way of Ukraine, but Trump has kind of ended that endevour. So indeed, what is the West? Again, I would vastly prefer to have a strong idea of a Western secular democratic tradition, but alas, reality intervenes.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 24 10:37:17 Hey Jergul, looks like Norway might be buying Type 26 frigates. Bit of a north Atlantic club forming. Maybe we can get Ireland to step up.
Forwyn Member	Mon Feb 24 11:01:42 I wonder if Russia would oppose an international investigation, as 12/15 UNSC members did with Nord Stream?
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 11:35:45 Seb Problem is like with everything. We want them soon.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 24 11:42:23 Jergul: You have shipyards right? Other places building under license. And with enough orders capacity expansion. The main thing though is if there are enough orders globally, collectively we can do iterative development rather than batch production going forward. Would be pretty cool.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 24 11:48:31 As I understand it, we want a hull earmarked the British navy in order to commit.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 24 13:11:01 Jergul: We would probably go for that, shortage of sailors, so likely one way or another we'd get an extra sub hunter operational in theatre.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 25 13:59:10 Jergul, The West, at its core, is the fusion of Greco Roman philosophy and Judeo Christian morality. Secularism is merely one of many fruits of that tree. Scientific rationalism, democracy, the separation of church and state, and universal human rights etc etc are all the products of a constant dialog between those two pillars. Any custom tailored version that does not take that into account, is by definition outside the western framework.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 25 18:14:18 Nim: "West, at its core, is the fusion of Greco Roman philosophy and Judeo Christian morality" That's so ridiculously reductionist I don't know where to begin. That's the kind of GCSE bullshit that medicine public school kids like Johnson come up with.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 25 18:18:54 Separation of church and state doesn't come from some derivative dialogue between Greek philosophy and Christian morality. Trying to tie everything back to antiquity as though nobody in Europe ever had a fresh idea or perspective is daft as fuck. Separation of church and state came specifically from people who had seen what a terrible fucking idea the fusion of church and state was to actually live through when theologians started killing people in their thousands or more over obscure shit like whether or not the eucharist was actually, of merely figuratively the body of Christ.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 25 18:19:24 *Mediocre public school kids
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 26 05:07:14 Seb, Your response is more emotive than substantive. You’re confusing reductive with fundamental, a framework is necessarily a simplification, just as any historical model is. What I wrote wasn’t meant to be a comprehensive historical account for all that is the west, but the foundational influences AKA the “pillars” of the western world. >>Separation of church and state doesn’t come from some derivative dialogue between Greek philosophy and Christian morality.<< The concept most certainly is uniquely a western one and deeply rooted in the greeco-roman and Christian tradition. You have to actively not pay attention to believe otherwise. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." That principle was there from the start of the “church” from the lips the Christian God himself. Furthermore, Roman law did not derive legitimacy from divine mandate, and Augustine’s City of God explicitly distinguished the church’s divine mission from earthly rule. Plato’s Philosopher-King anyone? You seem unaware that in fact these very texts and passages were used as arguments in by later intellectual to argue and settle these issues from The Reformation and on to the American revolution. "when theologians started killing people in their thousands or more over obscure shit like whether or not the eucharist was actually, of merely figuratively the body of Christ" 1. If your point is that religious conflicts accelerated the process, fine, but compared to what? The Islamic world, for example, never produced a separation of religious and political authority. Not only was the process not accelerated, but it moved in the opposite direction, resulting in the concept of the Islamic state/caliphate/Imamate. Why? Becauyse the necessary philosophical and theological foundation simply is not in the tradition. 2. You also seem to misunderstand the historical dynamics of the Church in Europe. Its power waxed and waned, it was often a *rival* to kings rather than fused with them. The Pope could challenge monarchs, excommunicate rulers, and incite revolts, but he was never the king. Compare this with the Islamic Caliphate, where religious and political authority were explicitly merged into a single authority. 3. Ultimately however the religious wars in Europe were not in principle about the separation of the church and state, it was about WHICH church/faith/interpretation should dominate the state and society. The death and mayhem just exposed the dangers. In conclusion: A far more rational reading, grounded in the Christian and Greco-Roman traditions, is that the overreach of the Church and the resulting religious wars represented a straying away from the Westerrn tradition, rather than its natural evolution. The power of the church in Europe ultimately deviated from these principles laid out by Jesus himself, resulting in its attempts to merge religious and political authority (unlike Islam where the merger is the work of Muhammed himself and foundational). This fusion led to the excesses that sparked religious wars. The roots of secularism are thus a return to traditional Christian values.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 06:23:41 No definitely reductive, not fundamental.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 06:29:59 "deeply rooted in the greeco-roman and Christian tradition." Are you kidding me? The Roman Imperial cult held the Emperor was divinely sanctioned, and that's *why* throughout most of the entirety of European civilization until reformation you have the Pope as head of the church and kings ruled with divine right which the pope would occasionally take away. Separation of church & state (despite 'render unto Cesar') is rooted in a culture created in opposition to the traditional classical and early Christian view that the state existed *by* divine sanction.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 06:32:03 Honestly go talk to some proper historians and philosophers not these demented US culture warriors trying to find roots for their watered down white supremacism with what amounts to fanfic accounts of European history.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 26 06:37:18 "The Roman Imperial cult held the Emperor was divinely sanctioned, and that's *why* throughout most of the entirety of European civilization until reformation you have the Pope as head of the church and kings ruled with divine right which the pope would occasionally take away." This is more reflective of the conflict between religion and state, which I already covered and was really contained within "dialogue between two pillars". You are clearly not equipped to have this conversation, however unwittingly, I respect that you are honest about it.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 06:48:36 A conflict by both for earthly power, often resolved by unifying the church and the state rather than a formal philosophy arguing for the separation of secular and spiritual. To argue that because you can identify church and state as distinct if intertwined institutions that this the *same thing* as a tradition of separation of church and state, as understood, is farcically illiterate.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 06:55:04 I mean seriously: arguing that the ability of the pope to deliberately intervene and effectively fire a king too effect regime change indicates a separation of earthly power and religious matters by virtue of one protagonist being formally "church" and the other formally "stare" is the most moronic argument I've heard. Explicitly: the king is king because God (the pope) says so, and if he doesn't display alignment to religion (or the concerns of matters if state that the pope cares about) he can be formally sacked. This is "separation" is it? Really?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 26 06:55:24 Here is a challenge: Name me a single intellectual in this area that contributed to secularism that was not influenced by the two pillars I mentioned. Hume? Locke? Kant? Jefferson? And we can go through where and when these people reference St Augustine or invoked natural law from Aquinas (Aristotelian logic + christian morality... shocking!) or whatever else from the tradition *explicitly*. The problem is that people are immersed in it, like a fish, they don't see the water. For me it helps that I was not born in this water I have something else to directly compare to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 26 06:58:09 seb...sigh again you confuse conflict between the church and state, with separation of the two. It is astonishing that you do not understand that a conflict between two entities, necessarily means they are separate entities. I give up.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 11:37:52 Nim: What do you mean, exactly, by influenced? You could (I wouldn't) argue that Marxism is very much in the tradition of Roman and Christian thought because Marx was "influenced" by those pillars.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 26 11:40:46 The idea that it was necessary and desirable for religious matters and government to be separated is certainly not an idea with roots in traditional Roman or Christian thought; and the fact that the people who introduced that idea had a deep knowledge of Roman and Christian philosophies, teachings etc. do not mean the idea is rooted in those. Innovation happens Nim.
jergul large member	Thu Feb 27 03:03:42 Cutie, how on earth did you manage to pry the arab world out of that analysis?
jergul large member	Thu Feb 27 03:04:14 <3
williamthebastard Member	Thu Feb 27 08:15:43 "or a couple of weeks Russia has been dropping hints that it's embassies in Europe are threatened, like statements on how "for peace talks, our embassies functions must not be disrupted". Today a petrol bomb on a consulate in Marseilles. Who falls for this shit? Yaaawn." Living not far from Marseilles, Ive actually seen several hostels that have been erected for Ukrainian refugees dotted around the South of France.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Feb 27 08:20:15 Russian millionaires have also had a reputation for having a presence on the Riviera for a century and Im suprised to now and then still hear loud Russians proudly making sure everyone can hear theyre superior Russians with nothing to be ashamed of. There could be some tension going on between Russians and Ukrainian refugees in the region.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 03:03:42 Seb, Do all Muslims rape all the time seb, and does every idea arising in the west, align with western values? You're missing the point. I never argued that every idea that arises in the West aligns with its foundational traditions. I specifically argued that secularism has a clear intellectual lineage tied to the Greco-Roman and Christian traditions. I named specific thinkers, referenced their ideas, and connected them to earlier philosophical and theological influences. If you want to dispute that, you need to present an alternative historical lineage, one that explains how secularism emerged independently of these traditions. Otherwise, you're just hand-waving and dodging the argument. I will do Marxism as an added bonus. Marxism *explicitly* rejects much of the Greek Roman and Christian intellectual traditions. It is a materialist philosophy that denies the metaphysical and moral foundations those traditions established! In contrast, the peoplewho laid the groundwork for secularism: Locke, Kant, Hume, Jefferson, etc were deeply engaged with those traditions, even when they were challenging them. When you read a bit more about Marx the person, you find that in his yopung days he wrote some dark Demonic peotry and his well attested admiration for Mephistopheles from Faust, the destroyer of all things good. This is how Marx viewed himself as the destroyer of everything that came before, namely those Western traditions. I would stick to secularism if I were you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 03:12:04 To get back on topic, restate and flesh out some stuff. You do not understand that two entities in conflict are still two distinct entities, even when the entagle and claim the same domain. Thus trying one way or another to claim the rigthts of the other for themselves. I even provided you with a historically contemporary example of how these dynamics developed in Islam, yet you persist in your failure to grasp the distinction. Islamic thinkers encountered these philosophical ideas through Greek texts, they were not ignored, they engaged with them were explicitly and systematically rejected. A prime example is The Incoherence of the Philosophers by Al-Ghazali, which directly attacked Avicenna and Al-Farabi’s attempts to integrate Aristoteliaan and Neoplatonic ideas into Islamic theology. The Al-Ghazali school of thought won this philosophical battle, and the dialogue between reason and revelation in the Islamic world never truly recovered. Unlike in Europe, where the friction between Church and state forced an ongoing negotiation between theology and philosophy, the Islamic world closed that door. Al-Ghazali, alongside Nizam al-Mulk, institutionalized his approach through the Nizamiyeh *madrasah* system, which centered education around Islamic theology and Sharia, at the cost natural and rationalist philosophy and the sciences. This institutional shift marked the decline of the so-called "Islamic Golden Age". Furthermore, you *ironically* view religion reductively, as merely the institutional power play failing to distinguish it from the broader idea complex—its texts, its thinkers, and its philosophical foundations, completely missing the point of the dynamic with the chruch as well as those between the chruch and the state. It is precisely this failure that prevents you from recognizing why secularism emerged in Christian Europe and not in Islamic civilization. It was precisely the product of a uniquely Western friction between two spheres of authority that never fully fused.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 03:18:36 Jergul That is a good point, the view is corroborated by Muslim scholars (but this goes almost a thousand years as I explain above). I am aided by me heritage having had one foot in another culture, one that has yet to settle this battle fully. I am indeed a fish who can step out of the water you people were born and raised in.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 05:57:43 You argued specifically that separation of church and state has roots in Roman and traditionally Christian thought. It really doesn't.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 05:59:56 And no, I don't have to present a counterfactual explanation of how such ideas emerged: you are making the positive claim here, and it is transparently obvious that neither the Romans nor Christian civilization up until the reformation had any belief whatsoever that religion and state should be self-consciously separate domains. They constantly vied with eachother for power.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 06:18:02 "you are making the positive claim here" You also made a positive claim. "Separation of church and state came specifically from people who had seen what a terrible fucking idea the fusion of church and state was to actually live through when theologians started killing people in their thousands or more over obscure shit like whether or not the eucharist was actually, of merely figuratively the body of Christ." You have abandoned your assertion. Fair enough. "Romans nor Christian civilization up until the reformation had any belief whatsoever that religion and state should be self-consciously separate domains." They absolutely had beliefs and conceptions about religion and state as different domains, I have provided the references going back to Jesus. Your misunderstanding here is that you seem to think that evolution of concepts and institutions must look like modern versions to count, which is a pretty simplistic view of intellectual history. You have yet to appreciate how rich the analogy of fruits of a tree and dialogue between two pillars was and literally not made any head way in challenging my initial post. Good game.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 07:15:20 Nim: I stand by that. The doctrine of separation has its roots in the renaissance and enlightenment rejecting and moving beyond traditional Christian/Classical thought. I don't however *need* to do this to point out the claim that the separation of church dvd state was in no way part of Christian or Roman thought up until the renaissance.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 07:30:44 " have provided the references going back to Jesus." Render unto Cesar ignores precisely the fact that the question posed to Jesus was by a Pharisees (who advocated Torah and religious law application 'outside the temple', resentful of Jesus usurpation of their religious authority). The question was trying to force him to take a stance against a Jews obligation to the Roman empire in which the Jewish state sat, and religious law and duties to the Jewish state. Jesus answer was do dodge a rhetorical trap by saying - effectively - respect both. It was definitely not - in context - meaning the state should be secular. "Render unto god" in context means "pay taxes and fidelity to the Jewish state *who claims divine authority*." Not "conscience is a private matter". While cited in support of renaissance thought, it's by no means the same thing.
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 07:33:00 And the idea that c. 1000 years of European history where church and state where highly interwined and at times totally indistinguishable was somehow thought of as "wrong" or against Jesus's teaching or correct understanding of classical thought is frankly a bizarre proposition.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 08:15:59 You’re contradicting yourself. You say you don’t need to argue for your claim, but then you make a counterclaim that the doctrine of separation of church and state only emerged in the Renaissance/Enlightenment as a rejection of prior thought. Whether you appreciate it or now that’s a positive claim, which *does* require support. Handing waving that this or the other is "obvious" or "transparent" does not change this. You are fixated on "Render unto Caesar" as if it is a fully developed secular doctrine, that I did not claim, but that it is part of a broader Christian thought, the earliest, that acknowledges limits on religious authority over earthly matters. 1. It is fascinating that you are, perhaps unintentionally, re-interpreting this quote in a different way to suits your limping narrative, contrary to the likes of enlightment thinkers you appeal to. 2.It astonishing that you write "respect both", but you do not seem to understand what "respect" or "both" means in a broader intellectual or even literal sense. He acknowledges both! 1+1=2. Not 1. The most charitable reading I can make, is that you do not understand intellectual evolution. The idea of distinct spheres exited in various forms long before the Renaissance. Just like democracy has roots in Athen, Roman republican, Magna Carta etc, despite not being identical to modern liberal democracy. Regarding Augustine’s "City of God": "It would be read in various ways, at some points virtually as a founding document for a political order of kings and popes that Augustine could hardly have imagined. Indeed, his famous theory that people need government because they are sinful *served as a model for church-state relations* in medieval times." -Britannica What does it mean to serve as a model for church-state relations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy This is Popes and Emperors fighting over the *boundary* between the religious and political, while these conflicts were not framed in modern secularist terms, they were without a dbout about the seperation of saiod domains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_two_swords "In Catholicism, the doctrine (or theory) of the two swords is an exegesis of Luke 22:38 elaborated in the Middle Ages. It can be understood as a particular justification for the Gelasian doctrine of "the sacred authority of the priesthood and the royal power".[1]" "By the early 13th century, the two swords were the subject of serious study and debate among canon lawyers and decretalists. The main question was whether Bernard was right. Had God given each sword to its rightful bearer, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope, or had he given both to the Pope, who then bestowed the material sword on the emperor?" Centuries before the enlightment. For anything you say to make sen, we have ignore how idea evolve over time and like I have mentioned how the Islamic world, in medieval times digested these very same ideas and concept. We litterally have a parallel going on at the same time in a different culture with a totally different result. As I explained above, several middle eastern philosophers and scientist merged the work of the greeks with Islamic theology, it was hoever rejected by the consensus. I'm sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are not dealing with anything I am saying but pin pricking details reductively and missing the bigger picture.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:22:20 Oh God, Marx was a secret satanist, eh? Someone's been getting his philosophy classes from fascist idiots on reddit. Oh lord, I see now that the extrem rightwing corners of the internet are awash in the laughable idiocy that he was a secret satanist lol...and they're all using the same line "Marx had a favorite line from Mephistopheles, the devil character in Goethe's Faust", so theyre all getting it from the same Qanon source http://www...s/1dgdwio/marx_mephistopheles/ Marx is precisely criticized in philosophical circles for rejecting religion while not realizing that the ethics he espoused were firmly grounded in religion.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:26:01 It all seems to come from a christian pinkohatin' stetson-wearin' six shootin' nut called Paul Kengor
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 08:34:20 I am frankly disappointed given your review of what I am saying as "mediocre public school take". To remove any and all doubt about Seb's upper class upgringing. However, public schools, are infested with the marxist destroyer mentality, the same mentality that erases cultural memory, leading to historical and intellectual amnesia. They produce people like you who indulge themselves in insults like "mediocer public schools take" while at the same time wallowing in perfect ignorance about a topic. Had you even heard of Al-Ghazali? Possibly only because I have brought up the name on this forums. You can't surf your own bullshit through this stuff. I have made my case and given you multiple chances to behave, but you so far have only produced ad homs, emotional outburst and unfounded assertions. I have built a clear geneology of ideas, you have merely asserted that history started at some arbitrary point of your liking. I mean you are not trying to downplay the influences, you are erasing everything that was before. Which brings me back to your example of Marx. There is a clear difference between being inspired to destroy as Marx did, and influenced to evolve as the fathers of secularism did based on the works of Christian and Greek thinkers before them. Take the consequences of his idea when put into practice and all the misery, death and destruction it led to, in light of his favorite quote from Faust: "Everything that exists deserves to perish". Demonic, nihilist, those are the words that come to mind. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 As I tell my children, real monsters don't look scary and evil, they will come and give you gifts and say nice things. Who knew it was already in the bible? I understand that the wisdome of Jesus and the ubiquity of Christian ethics haunts the likes of you and Jergul, but you will never escape its mercy and grace. In other words, Jesus loves you, even if you reject him. :o In summary seb, you are: 1. Intellecutally cowardly, hiding your ignorance behidn arrogance. 2. Historically illiterate/oblivious, showing zero undertanding for the world you live in and the evolution of thoughts. 3. The destroyer that CC accuses you of, by not undertanding the foundations of western thought, you are perpetuting the very ignorance the likes of Marx thrived on: destroying rather building knowledge and understanding. And throughout our time on UP you have time after time supported such destructive ideas and policies. I am glad we have to some degree established the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of your sickeness, or lack there of. It occurs to me that you and WTB are the two sides of the same coin. He obviously has some things deeply wrong in his head, making him dysfunctional in most social circumstances, I am not accusing you of that. But the both of you are metaphysically and spiritually inert, exceptionally uneducated and yet think of yourself as some sort of generalists, if not polymaths. Yet neither of you rise above Reddit-tier, pop-understanding of the world.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:38:43 This whole Qanon nonsense about Marx worshiping Faust becomes even stupider considering that Marx actually de facto wrote a poem criticizing Goethe and Faust. Paul Kengor quickly hopped over that one in his religious fervour
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 08:48:30 He was also an "affectionate father and husband", while cheating on his wife and siring a bastard child. What conclusions should we draw from his contradictory saying and behavior?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:54:11 Youre an uneducated little qanon troll. What conclusions should we draw from that? That your qanon brain is not worth anything other than scorn and mockery.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:54:42 marx was a satanist lmfao
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 08:54:52 It's like a I have a line in a movie I love, but then I also criticize the movie as a movie. WTB is too smooth brained two hold two, seemingly, contradictory positions in his head at once. It would just slip off his brain into the void in his skull. Karl Marx was a filthy hobo and mooched of Engels, while he laid the ground works for what would become the most murderous ideology in human history. When Paul Kengor cites his friends saying that he loved that line, even if it was not true literally, which I have no reason to doubt, it was true metaphorically. His ideas are responsibly for death of 100 million people and the misery of billions.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:55:45 his entire criticism of Faust was that faust believed in a devil when he should have realized that his problems actually came from his debts, you fucking monkey
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 08:57:43 Incorrect. I said "Demonic, nihilist, those are the words that come to mind." I have no information on Marx being part of a satanic cult or "satanist".
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 08:59:44 youre straight out of Bob Jones University, you stupid little child
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 09:00:51 And how does that contradict the idea that he loved the line from Faust? And also, you don't think Marx was talking to himself via his criticism of "Faust and his debt", given that Marx himself was living off his wife's or Engels and was basically a hobo his entire life?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 09:02:01 wtb, I am running circles around a guy with a PhD in physics, what chance do you have? Know your place.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 09:04:20 So the christian qanon world has concocted this entire conspiracy that when Marx said "religion is the opium of the people", by which the entire world knows he meant that religion was used to control people, he was actually carrying out a secret satanic mission to get people to doubt the existence of God so that Satan could take over the world. Ive never heard of this one before, but its as moronic a C-movie plot as everything else they hallucinate.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 09:04:50 You think it a frivolous insult when I call you inferior. I don't take any pride in having broken you. I swear, by the time I had pieced together your wreteched and pitiful life, it was already too late. Honestly I want to have mercy on you, I do not think you deserve what I do to you... but I am but flesh and weak. You catch me on a bad day and I will turn you into minced meat. I'm sorry. Jesus loves you.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 09:09:15 You fucking moron lol
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 09:09:27 "he was actually carrying out a secret satanic mission to get people to doubt the existence of God so that Satan could take over the world." This is one way to present it as part of a Christian narrative. Sure. It is metaphorically true, when viewed in the shadow of the terrible evil that his ideology cast upon this world. Hence why I cited: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 In fact what makes Marxist ideas so insidious and difficult is because they present themselves as righteous and out to correct injustice. Am I saying that Marx was literally worshiping the devil? I do not think the question deserves an answer, it is too low resolution.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 09:14:11 Anyway, ignoring the village idiot's religious war, and back on subject "Two French researchers admit carrying out attack on Russian consulate in Marseille"
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 09:14:31 http://www...russian-consulate-in-marseille
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 28 09:21:42 lol like he has a choice in the matter. When I, the alpha monkey look into your eyes, little chimp, you will lower you gaze. Or I will tear you limb from limb. Then feast on your liver!
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 09:24:44 One of them is married to a Ukrainian woman and they claim the chemicals used were harmless and their motive was to bring attention to the war. Theyve already been sentenced to 8 months, which is bloody fast work, I have to say
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 10:13:23 Nimatzo is a perfect example of how the stupidest qanon/bigfoot idiocy gets exported to other countries via American owned social media and why their social media is dangerous at a global level. This dogshit he's spamming comes directly from weirdo Bob Jones/Qanon sites and is founded directly in contemporary american chistianity's utter perversion of what Jesus said. He spends his life hanging about on American quasi-christian sites, laps their insanity up like a starving dog and then spreads it on Swedish sites, and thus, the worst and stupidest of American fake-moonlanding culture that we all used to just laugh and shake our heads at is introduced into other countries and cultures, and slowly grows as it finds other recipients at the same embarrassingly low intellectual level
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 10:25:10 Nim: "Whether you appreciate it or now that’s a positive claim, which *does* require support." If it was my intent to convince you if the correct origin, yes. But that's not my intent. My intent is to mock you for you obviously incorrect idea that it's traditional Roman and Christian thought or in some way a product thereof (other than in being a rejection of it).
Seb Member	Fri Feb 28 10:33:05 "You are fixated on "Render unto Caesar" "I have provided the references going back to Jesus." That would be the bit going back to Jesus you have presented here. Seems odd to say I'm "obsessed" with it given you considered it important enough to raise twice. I merely offer it as an example of how you have misunderstood these things in order to give a faux sense of antiquity and deep lineage to a far more modern set of thinking. "Indeed, his famous theory that people need government because they are sinful" I.e. the state should use temporal power to enforce and police spiritual demands. How exactly does this indicate the idea that the doctrine of separation of church and state, which means precisely the opposite? This is looney tunes stuff.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 10:59:29 ""Indeed, his famous theory that people need government because they are sinful" I.e. the state should use temporal power to enforce and police spiritual demands." Christ almighty, this fucking lunatic. All he was saying is the oh so often quoted conservative belief that we need law and order, else, to quote Hobbes, we would live "“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives” If you disagree with that, youre what is called an anarchist
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 11:02:29 And even anarchists, and Marx who only wanted local small town-based authorities, believe in local authority to punish crime and protect victims of crime
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 11:06:16 Communism, as he formulated it, referred to COMMUNES, duh. I.e. small towns that look after themselves and help all the members of that small town. This is what he thought of national governments "Originating from the Middle Ages, there developed in the 19th century "the centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature." With the development of class antagonisms between capital and labor, "state power assumed more and more the character of a public force organized for the suppression of the working class, of a machine of class rule. After every revolution, which marks an advance in the class struggle, the purely coercive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief."
williamthebastard Member	Fri Feb 28 11:23:15 That could just as well be a quote from any "libertarian" that ever existed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 04 03:54:48 Seb Intention in no way changes the fundamental rule that positive claims carry a burden of proof. You just failed fundamental principles of epistemology and argumentation. You dug this hole, you fell into it and now you are frantically try to dig yourself out of it. "obviously" Obviously. "with it given you considered it important enough to raise twice." Yes fixated on it "as if it is a fully developed secular doctrine". You decided to double down on your basic reading comprehension failure. Classic seb. I cite "Render unto Caesar" because the very Enlightenment thinkers (e.g John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) you believe innovated secularism ex nihilo *themselves* cited it among other things. You can wave your hands all you like, but I have traced an iterative intellectual tradition, citing works from the centuries after Jesus and before the Enlightenment that demonstrates a clear dialogue between the two pillars I mentioned. All you have done is show that you do not understand words, can't pass basics reading comprehension and follow along in the thread, let alone appreciate the evolution of ideas as part of intellectual history. "I.e. the state should use temporal power to enforce and police spiritual demands." This is a caricature that you understandably need to make, but he was not advocating for a theocracy. However, just like "render unto Caesar" your caricature of St Augustine's writings does not reflect the broader dialogue of his contemporaries nor those that followed. Your tactic is to reinterpret everything orthogonal to how it was understood in the historical and intellectual context. A very crude form of contrarianism that any moron can engage in on any topic. Speaking of morons, I'm reminded that you are the same person who for 2 threads tried to tell me that you did not understand the continuity problems of random black elves in Middle earth. You have a problem with thinking in general.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 04 04:20:41 williamthebastard Member Fri Feb 28 10:59:29 >>Christ almighty, this fucking lunatic. All he was saying is the oh so often quoted conservative belief that we need law and order, else, to quote Hobbes, we would live "“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives” If you disagree with that, youre what is called an anarchist<< You are completely lost, so let me guide you. *I* don’t disagree with this, it’s straightforward. However, Seb is attempting to portray St. Augustine as arguing for a theocracy or some form of direct unification between church and state. Seb fails to grasp that in Augustine’s view, the state is the creator and enforcer of laws, while the church provides the moral and ethical framework from which those laws are derived. Obviously he misses the basic checks and balances this relationship establishes.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Mar 04 04:41:58 marx sakrifishulysd babis! i knoe becuz i em edjikatifyed!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 04 05:03:37 i dunt undrstend methafors becuz i em a returd!!
williamthebastard Member	Tue Mar 04 05:04:45 Engels wos a seekrit homysexy woodoo preest! I readed this on the internet cos i em inteligefied!
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 12 06:53:16 "It is a materialist philosophy that denies the metaphysical and moral foundations those traditions established! " You fucking illiterate lmao, thats not what historical materialism means...lmao
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 12 06:54:01 Good god, these Qanon experts are beyond illiterate lol
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 12 07:01:01 I had to study and take exams in all that shit in political philosphy classes, and if you'd been there all the students, rightwing and leftwing students would have looked at each other embarrassedly every time you opened your mouth, and one of the professors would probably have asked you to visit his office afterwards to gently tell you that you might want to reconsider your choice of subject to one where youre not assured to get an F
jergul large member	Wed Mar 12 12:42:43 Anywhu. Russia is likely to mirror Ukraine's demand for agreeing to a cf. Ukraine wanted renewed supplies of US weapons for a cf. Russia wants those supplies stopped again for a cf. That is how I think Russia will play it.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 12 13:14:33 Perhaps also tacking on a demand that Ukraine hold presidential elections during the cf. Mostly because it knows Trump wants Zelenskij gone anyway, so the US might favour a demand Ukraine will never accept.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Mar 13 09:41:23 Y’see, moron, when you talk about Marx being a materialist - historical materialism being a fundamental key term in Marxist theory that means nothing like what you think it means - youre exactly like someone who spent 2 minutes googling Freud and finding the term “super ego” and deducting that “Yeah, Freud was super egotistical. I dun nead to spend years studyering wot he ment cos Im smart, I lerned he was super egotistical in 2 minutes on Reddit!” You spend 2 minutes googling topics that people spend a decade studying and after that, just like Trump, think you know better than anyone else about subjects of which he is appallingly ignorant. The arrogance of you utterly ignorant Trumpian Dunning-Kruger schmucks who know everything about nothing is beyond the pall. You are a low information mockery of the concept of knowledge that is a blight on contemporary society and the future of mankind.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: