My original post was not addressed to you. Your original post was addressed to me. Then, you quote me using words that I never wrote. This is not just bad manners and poor writing, it is a lie.
Your writing is so full of fallacies that it would take up too much time, energy and space to point them out and then repudiate them.
I stand by my original post. The purpose of the story was to draw attention to WHY this obviously educated man killed himself. You trivialize his death and call him a carcass. What a shameful thing to do.
You make my point for me. In a discussion concerning a man’s decision to commit suicide, you go off topic to show us how much you know about a completely different topic. In reasoned discussion, it is expected that you will stick to the topic.
If you want me to save Western Civilization, then read ALL my previous writing here at Free Republic. If you want me to educate you, then I suggest you do some self-examination first.
That matters not one whit on this forum.
Excuse me?
Here's the quote again, addressed to your own comment #19.
Go back and review that (I even provided the link), then tell me that phrase is not found there. You accused me of misquoting you, even lying. Apologize for that, the better for us to move forward.
I chose to focus upon it in particular, for as you reword it in this last "attack response" to my own comments;
Yes, like I said above. I wasn't disputing that. I read the article, briefly scanned through links for a more a than a few provided in this thread, read a few more articles from elsewhere, etc.
Right out of the gate you have already stumbled. I didn't misquote you. Apologize for calling me a liar. If it had been a mistake, I would have owned up to it. Check again for fallacies, conduct some of that self-examination you proscribed for me...
And what topic was that? Preaching the gospel? Or was it the off-hand chiding I delivered about clinking glasses as "toasts" to one selves? That last one left a little dent, did it? Is that what this is all about?
Isn't that much the subject of the thread? That the guy shot himself over what he saw as serious challenge to the continuation of civilization as he knew of such in France in particular? If there are "previous writings of yours" that have the magic formula, it's up to you to bring forth any treasures which may be found there. Since you couldn't remember what you said just the other day...perhaps you should reread them yourself. As for self-examination, take a deep breath, go back over the comments here, see where you have falsely accused me, then go back over the whole thing again and see if we though perhaps not precisely on the same page in all things...might be reading out of adjacent chapters of the same book.
For my own, I don't think I could convince very many lefty losers of the dangers to civilization of their own ways, even by using guy's like Venner, his work as historian, and the reasons for his own taking his life as he did. Though I can see how that may be tempting, perhaps better his story could set among various items of consideration which could be pointed to.
If others can, and convince more than a bare few of the sort who already need little or no further convincing, then go for it. Is that the answer? A new nationalism, a national tribalism aimed against who precisely? But it's not enough to wake many of the rest of them from their stupor, AFAIKT. My own preaching at them too, could be counter-productive at some points. Wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves is a directive that may apply along about here...
Would they repent at the news of his death, once the "saw" why, once they were shown the bigger picture? Would they suddenly realize ---they have been somewhat wrong all along? Or would they simply continue on in their own pride of being the (all things modernist lefty) enlightened ones? But you force me to repeat that question...
For my own part, I do see storm clouds on the horizon. In fact, there are scattered storms right now. Bigger ones to come? Even a clash of civilizations? Or will such clash not occur due to muzzies and faggots taking over the West, leaving us go out with a whimper, and the retrograde force that is Islam spread still further? Is this last the real fear? The fear that those whom are too accommodating will weaken us to point of collapse, or at least to point we will no longer be able to match the "them", war for bloody war?
Meanwhile, I cannot proscribe the cure. But I can preach the gospel, yet realize that using 'church language' can be counter-productive with many, hence my inclusion of recommendation of using words that people can understand, words that won't turn them off...but not at the price of compromising the gospel. If that sort of thing is part of that which you declare so full of fallacies that it would take up too much time, energy and space to point them out and then repudiate them. then spare yourself the effort, for I doubt I would hear a word, even AFTER the apology due was forthcoming...but which I rather suspect will not be.