A whites-only community in Arkansas looking to start a franchise in Missouri

[essentialsaltes]

Don't we the people do that through our government?

Well, we used to do more. Now many of these things have been curtailed or ended.

 

[rjs330]

Well, we used to do more. Now many of these things have been curtailed or ended.

Whats been ended?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not the white supremacist?

I believe strongly that I am to love my enemy, so as St. Paul writes if I see my enemy hungry or thirsty, I give them food and drink. My compassion doesn't stop at only those who return love for love; but even those whose response to love is hate--to love those who hate me.

But what that doesn't mean is that I excuse white supremacy itself as though it is acceptable. If I see a white supremacist starving, then I give them food--even if that runs contrary to my own "instincts"; to overcome my impulses which say I should only offer kindness to the kind, or only show mercy to the merciful. It's why the ancient fathers of the Church often spoke of the appropriate way of responding to their Roman persecutors with compassion; but that compassion does not mean the failure to call evil evil; forgiveness is not forgetfulness nor excusing the wrong that has been done; turning the other cheek is not compliance with evil, but an active rejection of evil without furthering evil or reciprocating evil with evil.

What I'm seeing in this thread however isn't showing mercy to the merciless, or kindness to the unkind; but a moral complicity that seems far more concerned with the desires of the belligerent than the needs of the suffering. If I see the strong bullying the weak, do I believe I am to love both the bully and the bullied? Yes; but the difference is that my love for the bullied is to compel me to act on behalf of the bullied; not defending the bully--whereas my love of the bully is not complicity with their action but to not reciprocate evil with evil--I am morally obligated to intervene on the side of the weak; even as I refuse to become evil toward the evil. I must call evil what it is, and speak and act in such a way that conviction isn't meaningless, while defending the weak, calling the strong to repentance and grief over their actions, with the ultimate desire to see peace and reconciliation. But peace and reconciliation cannot exist where the strong bully the weak without consequence; nor can I be a servant of peace if I fail to speak against evil and injustice, and to call evil evil. "Can't we all just get along?" Is meaningless unless the one who does evil ceases to do evil; there can be no peace while the aggressor continues to be aggressive; while the victim continues to be a victim.

So while I believe in peace, in reconciliation, in mercy, and forgiveness--even toward the worst; it can never be a complicity that amounts to collaboration with evil.

But this thread is full of just that: Complicity. Saying that one must tolerate the intolerable; to "live and let live" with those whose entire paradigm is one in which other human beings are less-than and who, if granted power to do it, would see the subjugation and eradication of others. This isn't hyperbole, that is what white supremacy of this caliber looks like--that is the mental space in which persons such as this inhabit. This isn't the neighbor who holds evil thoughts but keeps them tucked away and hidden (though that too is bad), this is pride and hate mixed to create an environment of hate that breeds violence. And even if we permit that it is their right to be evil as long as they do not act or actually do that which is evil and result in material harm; that does not provide a moral excuse.

I can love the white supremacist; but I should not tolerate the white supremacist, excuse the white supremacist, or justify that they should be white supremacists. I do not believe that white supremacists ought to exist, even as I do not believe the murderer should exist, the rapist, or the one who preys on children; not meaning the termination of their life; but rather the termination of what they do, how they think, and their entire disfigured and grotesque view of the world and how they engage the world producing and creating harm and perpetual evil. The white supremacist should not exist, because none ought be one.

And if one suggests that to claim "no one ought to be a white supremacist" is of a kind of intolerance equal or of like-kind to those same white supremacists who say "no one ought to be black" or "no one ought to be a Jew" then that is itself white supremacy, evil, and intolerable. It is not like for like; one is not a white supremacist because that is what they are in their humanity--but in their rejection of their own humanity. I believe that to hate other human beings is a fundamental rejection of one's own humanity; it is a self-dehumanization. There are theological reasons for why I believe this, namely the idea of the Image of God; but even if one wishes to speak purely in a pragmatic sense--such things are injurious to the ordinary course of building human communities in which, by necessity, we must get along because we survive together, rather than alone. I believe that society-building and mutual survival are good, but as a religious person I think it is also much bigger than that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

The outspoken co-founder of Return to the Land, a relatively new whites-only group based in northern Arkansas, said the group could be expanding to Missouri.

Eric Orwoll, co-founder of Return to the Land (RTTL), told Nexstar’s KOLR that a group of people is considering developing an RTTL community near Springfield.

According to RTTL’s website, RTTL is a private member association exclusively made for white people. Jewish people are also barred from membership. Members are vetted through an application process based on European ancestry.

Orwoll contends RTTL’s criteria reflect “shared ancestral values,” not hatred or violence.

[Orwoll also contends it's a private club and they don't sell real estate, so it doesn't fall afoul of housing laws.]

“Whites should have the ability to live among their own people if that’s what they want to do, and mass immigration is quickly making that nearly impossible in many Western nations,” Orwoll said.

I have no words. Just. I’m speechless.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have no words. Just. I’m speechless.

So clearly you just had to bump the thread to say nothing.

 

[RileyG]

So clearly you just had to bump the thread to say nothing.

Other than I’m disgusted with people who are racist? I can never wrap my head around it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Other than I’m disgusted with people who are racist? I can never wrap my head around it.

Well, I can agree with that. So have a "like".

 

[RileyG]

Well, I can agree with that. So have a "like".

I cannot understand the hatred of people who are racists. No one is superior to the other. I have nothing further to add.

 

[Pommer]

I cannot understand the hatred of people who are racists.

Syntax is vitally important.

No one is superior to the other. I have nothing further to add.

Whew!

 

[ralliann]

Give me a quantifiable number of Palestinian children that need to starve to death for that debt to be paid?

Ask Hamas.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ask Hamas.

Hamas is just as evil as Israel, so just as untrustworthy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tropical Wilds]

If it fits why not? Who are you?

You’re blaming witches and pagans for the formation of the KKK…? What do you mean “who am I?”

Don't tell people you alone know the problem.

Oh no, I would never claim that I’m the only one who knows the problem. I think several of us are seeing the problem *just* fine.

 

[MrMoe]

Sure I can. If sympathy arises from empathy, it's still sympathy.

The empathy doesn’t just go away, so it’s still empathy too.

But this is irrelevant - you're the one who presented it as an example of "suicidal empathy." If it's impossible to tell whether it's sympathy or empathy, how could it be a good example of empathy?

Gad Saad uses the phrase suicidal empathy as a catch-all term to describe when people have the overwhelming desire to be a good person at the detriment of theirs and others safety or wellbeing. This woman’s story would fall under that.

 

[MrMoe]

Hamas is just as evil as Israel, so just as untrustworthy.

-CryptoLutheran

Israel doesn’t use its own citizens as human shields.

 

[Bradskii]

Israel doesn’t use its own citizens as human shields.

So if a bad guy is holed up in your house with your family as hostages, it's ok to bomb the house?

 

[MrMoe]

So if a bad guy is holed up in your house with your family as hostages, it's ok to bomb the house?

Israel's official position is that it does not deliberately target civilians and that it takes precautions to minimize civilian casualties, such as issuing warnings before strikes. So to say Israel is just as evil as Hamas is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Bradskii]

Israel's official position is that it does not deliberately target civilians and that it takes precautions to minimize civilian casualties, such as issuing warnings before strikes. So to say Israel is just as evil as Hamas is a ridiculous statement.

I shall just note that you didn't answer the question. But I'll also note that no sane person would allow someone to destroy their house and kill their wife and children just to take out one bad guy. On the other hand, if it's someone else's decision then fire up that rocket launcher boys! You're now the proud owner of a pile of rubble. Thoughts and prayers for your wife and kids.

 

[MrMoe]

I shall just note that you didn't answer the question. But I'll also note that no sane person would allow someone to destroy their house and kill their wife and children just to take out one bad guy. On the other hand, if it's someone else's decision then fire up that rocket launcher boys! You're now the proud owner of a pile of rubble. Thoughts and prayers for your wife and kids.

Okay, I’ll answer your question. No it’s not okay to bomb my house if a bad guy is holed up in it with my family as hostages. My question to you is what does that have to do with my comment about Israel?

 

[MrMoe]

I believe strongly that I am to love my enemy, so as St. Paul writes if I see my enemy hungry or thirsty, I give them food and drink. My compassion doesn't stop at only those who return love for love; but even those whose response to love is hate--to love those who hate me.

But what that doesn't mean is that I excuse white supremacy itself as though it is acceptable. If I see a white supremacist starving, then I give them food--even if that runs contrary to my own "instincts"; to overcome my impulses which say I should only offer kindness to the kind, or only show mercy to the merciful. It's why the ancient fathers of the Church often spoke of the appropriate way of responding to their Roman persecutors with compassion; but that compassion does not mean the failure to call evil evil; forgiveness is not forgetfulness nor excusing the wrong that has been done; turning the other cheek is not compliance with evil, but an active rejection of evil without furthering evil or reciprocating evil with evil.

What I'm seeing in this thread however isn't showing mercy to the merciless, or kindness to the unkind; but a moral complicity that seems far more concerned with the desires of the belligerent than the needs of the suffering. If I see the strong bullying the weak, do I believe I am to love both the bully and the bullied? Yes; but the difference is that my love for the bullied is to compel me to act on behalf of the bullied; not defending the bully--whereas my love of the bully is not complicity with their action but to not reciprocate evil with evil--I am morally obligated to intervene on the side of the weak; even as I refuse to become evil toward the evil. I must call evil what it is, and speak and act in such a way that conviction isn't meaningless, while defending the weak, calling the strong to repentance and grief over their actions, with the ultimate desire to see peace and reconciliation. But peace and reconciliation cannot exist where the strong bully the weak without consequence; nor can I be a servant of peace if I fail to speak against evil and injustice, and to call evil evil. "Can't we all just get along?" Is meaningless unless the one who does evil ceases to do evil; there can be no peace while the aggressor continues to be aggressive; while the victim continues to be a victim.

So while I believe in peace, in reconciliation, in mercy, and forgiveness--even toward the worst; it can never be a complicity that amounts to collaboration with evil.

But this thread is full of just that: Complicity. Saying that one must tolerate the intolerable; to "live and let live" with those whose entire paradigm is one in which other human beings are less-than and who, if granted power to do it, would see the subjugation and eradication of others. This isn't hyperbole, that is what white supremacy of this caliber looks like--that is the mental space in which persons such as this inhabit. This isn't the neighbor who holds evil thoughts but keeps them tucked away and hidden (though that too is bad), this is pride and hate mixed to create an environment of hate that breeds violence. And even if we permit that it is their right to be evil as long as they do not act or actually do that which is evil and result in material harm; that does not provide a moral excuse.

I can love the white supremacist; but I should not tolerate the white supremacist, excuse the white supremacist, or justify that they should be white supremacists. I do not believe that white supremacists ought to exist, even as I do not believe the murderer should exist, the rapist, or the one who preys on children; not meaning the termination of their life; but rather the termination of what they do, how they think, and their entire disfigured and grotesque view of the world and how they engage the world producing and creating harm and perpetual evil. The white supremacist should not exist, because none ought be one.

And if one suggests that to claim "no one ought to be a white supremacist" is of a kind of intolerance equal or of like-kind to those same white supremacists who say "no one ought to be black" or "no one ought to be a Jew" then that is itself white supremacy, evil, and intolerable. It is not like for like; one is not a white supremacist because that is what they are in their humanity--but in their rejection of their own humanity. I believe that to hate other human beings is a fundamental rejection of one's own humanity; it is a self-dehumanization. There are theological reasons for why I believe this, namely the idea of the Image of God; but even if one wishes to speak purely in a pragmatic sense--such things are injurious to the ordinary course of building human communities in which, by necessity, we must get along because we survive together, rather than alone. I believe that society-building and mutual survival are good, but as a religious person I think it is also much bigger than that.

-CryptoLutheran

That’s a lot of platitudes but little in the way of explaining what the actual issue is or how to solve it. Surely a bunch of racist, antisemites self segregated away from society where they will have little to no interaction with the people they supposedly dislike is a good thing. This seems like a problem solving itself.

 

[ozso]

So clearly you just had to bump the thread to say nothing.

68 minutes after the last post is not a bump.