They’ve done it again: another embarrassing moment for the skeptic movement

They’ve done it again: another embarrassing moment for the skeptic movement
— Read on

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

29 thoughts on “They’ve done it again: another embarrassing moment for the skeptic movement”

  1. OK; first off I hate fucking iPhones because I can’t tell who the fuck comments is saying what.

    So looking back it appears that Quinn: you seem very opinionated. And Signature 103. I made other comments to so hopefully you guys can sort out who the fuck I’m talking to and makes a meeting from it. Because I hate this stupid iPhone and I’m a total dork. 😜


  2. Oh wait. It is just you Quin. I’m a total freak 😛

    Signature 103: of course the offer is open to you also.

    But I was going to add to your latest comment, That it seems you are vehemently opinionated. So I’m not really sure what I can say to your comments without agreeing with you or being totally antagonistic and oppositional to you. I’m not really sure how to approach your comments.


    1. That is interesting. I’m not really a Marxist though. And my reading of Marx think falls outside of typical readings of Marx. And I think one of the problem is is that people already know what marks is saying and so anything that I say about him automatically gets commandeered into wet people already know.

      To me, that is what problem arises with postmodernism. It is this problem that marks all the “hi debate“ about political moves and power structures and ideology… but, that is what I save my books for. The irony involved in maintaining the very power structure through critiquing it. My work center is on debunking that kind of irony, I guess it would be one way of putting it. Lol
      I think you might get something out of what I have written. Just judging from your interests I’d say it’s 60/40that you would find my writings worth the time.

      So when I publish the latest book I will make a post of it.


      1. Zizek is my dude, Though. Strangely enough. Lol. Because he’s a kind of Marxist in his own admitting.

        But Graham Harmon is my other dude.

        And then actually before them, Kierkegaard. So; do what thy wilt. 😝



      2. Zizek is bluntly against political correctness and explores that space insightfully.


      3. Im on my computer now. I dont know who I was responding to. I think your (quin) earier posts appeared to me very opinionated so I wasnt sure how to respond. but then your other replies seems more “sensibly posed” lol.

        but I did confuse you and the other commenter. I wish I could delete comments. lol


      4. Lol. I think I thought two of you commenters were the same person. At Quinn. And Signature 103.

        But that’s fine. My offer is to both of you.

        My dilemma is how to Get a philosophy book that is written by someone who is not a PhD in philosophy into the hands of people who are interested and involved with Philosophy, I mean people like yourselves.

        I mean the professors already got a marketing system working for them in the fact of their peers and other professors they know and the universities and just everyone.

        So my dilemma is really not to sell books as much as to get people to read my work. Because I feel that People will be interested if I can just get the book in front of their faces.

        So my dilemma is how to go about that, how to market our philosophy book to people that really only read books by accredited academic philosophers?

        So the first part will be published in a week or so and it’s about 100 pages and it’s a trade paperback to keep the cost down so it’ll be about five or six bucks.

        Hopefully people will spend five or six bucks to take a chance on a philosophy book. 🙂. I mean, someone is more likely not to drop 40 or $50 on a philosopher of that they’ve never heard of, but they might spend five bucks.

        And that’s pretty much just the cost to print the book, mainly because my personal preference is to actually read a physical copy of a book, and so I figure maybe other people are like that.

        But if you guys don’t want to spend five or six bucks on a book where I’m not making any profit from, I’d be happy to send you the PDF or maybe I’ll even publish it on script like I did my last book.

        So if you guys got any ideas, let me know.


    2. I mean for example: I understand the idea of cultural Marxism. But I’m not really sure it is necessary, because Marxism itself already inscribes the subject into its discourse of power, so to then make a subcategory and talk about cultural Marxism, Timmy kind of compromise is the strength of Marxism itself, by implicitly you telling me that Marxism needed an amendment, or it needed to be explained further based it behind the present conditions.

      I would argue that these present conditions are them selves surplus value created by the capitalist. And so kind of Innoway, I feel that the subsequent theoretical applications and packaged discourses really serve the only aggravate the topic that they are trying to address.

      I mean I understand what’s going on with them and I think they’re interesting…

      So… yeah. 😄


  3. Post Modernism next steps: Minor Attracted Persons

    Perhaps the most important subjective/objective moral tipping point differentiating and personifying good and evil and the Spengerlian end of or prolonging of the West is the will of decadent adults hell bent on defiling children for their insatiable Foucault DeSade hedonistic nihilistic sexual gratification (and worse – unspeakably) NARRATIVE and those that oppose them. Anyone that harms children will never be forgiven by the fantasy of a scapegoat. Or the fantasy of real self delusion – that the defiler of oneself through children can escape into the abyss of unconscious death: there is no escape. Defilers of children will pay that eye for eye for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction invoice forever until that act is undone with the infinite Eternal Return undo key. Right now the see-saw is balanced between Pedophila and Minor Attracted Persons. The former is a crime. The latter is a preference seeking protected minority status to prey upon the innocent THROUGH LGBTQ POST MODERNISM.

    Invisible forces. Conscious or unconscious. Personified or non-personified will take ruthless vengeance upon these individuals committing crimes against children. The paradox is that no ones hands are clean (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Marxism, Secularism). No one is pure. There are only those that are less evil by comparison. Every individual must choose, Wisely. There are two paths you can go by. Fear can be a great motivator to do no wrong. The wicked should be counseled to go out and buy some fear. Take it for a test drive, wake up and change their behavior. Now.


    1. You are very opinionated.
      For sure, my morality is concords the with the law. And it is indeed striking that those intellectuals advocated lowering the age of consent. I do not know all the facets involved, so I can’t really comment beyond what our current conditions are.

      Indeed; for pretty much the whole of human history before 100 years ago, the age of consent was the age when human beings could reproduce. So there is something to say about the coincidence of modern society, Christianity, capitalism and morality.

      Also, for sure, I am no disciple of the mid-late century intellencia even while I understand much of thier philosophy. But likewise I can understand the situation in a larger context than the progressive humanity.

      I did not know that those people signed the pedophilia petition in the 60’s. So thank you for that information. It adds to thier context of thier ideas.

      But it sounds like you are on some sort of evangelistic crusade at times. Ironically, Your interpretation and reaction appears quite Postmodern, if I may say so. Though.


      1. Yes my interpretation and reaction is quite ECLECTIC to the extent that we live in the post-Christian West in terms of representative government being secular. Christ’s sales reps are pedophiles in tendency as well. Buy they are the repressed repentant type. When exposed they are sorry. Weaklings. Christianity culturally appropriated Judaism (see Joseph Atwill – Caesar’s Messiah – Flavian’s). For the Jews not to believe in Christ is proof of its Roman origin. Marxists are soulless secular Totalitarian State murderers that out perform Christians in kill count scorecard. They are overt public in your face not sorry. Like that heart warming Sodom Biblical narrative.

        This world ought not to have been. That’s not pessimism. That’s a technical statement. It’s up to every inquiring individual to question the cause and to solve this morality problem and dedicate themselves to participate in redemptive right living.


  4. I still think something good can come out of postmodernism, that the hijacking of pomo is a modernist project. What is done in its name is what I will call “dirty postmodernism” in that their tactics were the very ones that early postmodernism had criticised and highlighted. In other words, modernists in postmodernist disguise.

    The modernists who are criticising the fakery in 21st century pomo are in fact real postmodernists who use the same (but pure) tactics used by the those they criticising and exposing.

    Lyotard called these “grandnarratives”. They are constantly with us. To hold onto a “clean postmodernism” position is near impossible, and is what first generation postmodernists, in my opinion, taught.

    This is “the corruption of postmodernism” that we have expected and can expect. Nothing stays pure.

    Sorry for the spill.


    1. “Dirty postmodernism”. Lol

      I just see it always a general ability for people to see meaning. Ironically, I think this is what Postmodernism opened the door for: everyone gets to draw its meaning to what ever they want: whatever “works”.

      I am not sure if I would be able to define schools, personally. It is the nature of philosophy and critical theory to yield a vast array of meaning that cannot be pinned back down to say “this is true”.

      Alain Badiou addresses this aspect. I think.

      And… I think you are conflating structuralism and post-structuralist ideas in there. Technically. Lol .


      1. Conflate. Hmm. Strucuturalism is a Modernism.

        Poststructuralism and postmodernism perhaps. These two are similar and share a history.

        I don’t believe postmodernism means “anything goes”. That is what dirty postmodernists do. Strong postmodernism is firmly against that. But neither does it shy away from specific instances as the start of an analysis.

        I got a whole bunch of SR and OOO books for Christmas. Fun fun fun. Haha.


      2. Yes. The “dirty pm”. Would you like a copy of my new book. That will be published in a couple weeks for Christmas? I think where Ooo. And sr miss. My book fills in 😄

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Pm opens the door for its own arguments to be used in accordance with their arguments, but nevertheless contrary to them.

        I would say that the big three or four post modern names whatever they may have meant open the door to the possibility while addressing the possibility of an inconsistency between what is meant by the author and what the reader actually understands the author saying.

        Derrida specifically talks about this problem and tries to reconcile it in at least one way. Deleuze incorporates this problem for his metaphysics and then extends it out into the political world as like machines and schizophrenia and stuff. And Lyotard specifically addresses the problem involved in the active communication; namely that what the author is attempting to communicate the reader is Miss appropriating.

        At least that’s how I see it.

        The “corresponding polemics” of any worldview or reality or vocality is a structuralism.

        I would say that in p.m., if we are even able to define a category — because as soon as we define a category called postmodernism we have basically involved ourselves The infamous “metanarrative” that we are attempting to “deterritorializd” —

        Pm is a move of “ non-polemics” if I could put it that way.

        Anyways, my book deals with all these issues that it seems like you’re interested in, and since you’re also interested in Speculator realism and 000 my book takes up what the past 50 years including all the way up to our present time Mrs. in the overt arguments philosophy. That is, if I can be so bold as to make such a strong statement. 🤘🏾

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I mean, I will give you a pdf copy of THE FIRST PART. For Christmas if you are interested.

        I don’t remember if I’ve asked you whether not you wanted to read my book before. Ive asked so many people and on the Internet I’m not really sure who is who sometimes. Lol. Maybe I should make a list.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s