|
|
|
Suicide, Genocide and Rational Blindness It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities. On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide). Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/641/show_7641145_2015_05_25_04_37_05.mp3 Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
For a curious example of White passivity of my own recent experience, I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or manifestly impressive. I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, given it to an ape!” The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle. It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. The inquiry into our own responses or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might suppress and obstruct them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. Moreover, it would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing. Nevertheless, I hear Tan referring to other causes, some of our own making, for example my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible. Objectivism, as I have been saying, has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, but leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences. That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism. Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary; Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?). As for looking at ourselves… GW’s ontology project advocates evincing our authentic natural systems such that we may proceed by our own lights, not largely react and mirror the Jews as has been known to happen (in the case of the Nazis). This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form. Has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation? I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide. I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al). In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul. But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict. Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Here is the comment which seems to have had an instigating effect, (from May 6th): Tanstaafl’s paranoia: Age of Treason Radio http://age-of-treason.com/category/age-of-treason-radio/ Tan says:
Wrong, Tan. Think about what I am saying: we will do best to set about with two poles, one Jewish, the other our susceptibility for objectivism (objectivism as opposed to looking after our relative group interests as we should). From there, we may attend to Jewish power and influence and our systemic maintenance most often; and in process attend to other problems as well - other non-White imposers and traitors high and low. You may not like the term monocuasalism* and it may be used by people who are trying to distract from the J.Q., but there is NO suggestion here that we are crazy and that Jews are not hostile, powerful antagonists requiring acute and priority focus (again, keeping ongoing and most frequent vigil with regard to 7 key niches, while perhaps not giving them ALL attention ALL of the time). Next, you quote the feeble minded and dishonest Katana to concur where he is totally wrong:
Totally wrong. I am clear in what I think**, and clear enough in how I say it for anyone, but perhaps those, like Katana, who want to believe in Hitler’s perfection (and for people to not hear what people like myself are saying). Tan, the messiness, the less than perfectly clear causality of the multi-interactive social world must be why you prefer to cite John Friend (with his neat but absurd conspiracy theories to explain all) as a definitive authority. What you do in focusing on Jews is a good thing, but you are taking it to paranoia when you suggest that someone (e.g. myself) is not using his brain and trying to obfuscate the Jewish role when he looks at our susceptibilities and philosophical corrections thereof. I can hope for better from you, but if you are endorsing Katana’s BS and John Friend, then perhaps the William Pierce perspective has you held too captive to let go.
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
I have now experienced the kind of hair trigger reaction to a social meandering by computer nerds too many times now - sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zigs and zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false/either/or of their theoretical mindset (as misapplied to praxis - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency).
Comments:2
Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 25 May 2015 16:05 | # My response to Daniel: http://age-of-treason.com/2015/05/23/catching-up-with-kyle-hunt/#comment-14579 3
Posted by Daniel response to Tanstaafl on Mon, 25 May 2015 16:29 | #
Monocausalism is NOT the important term with me. The important issue is systemic maintenance and homeostasis in leverage against our enemies attacks. And we are not only attacked by Jews. For you to focus on them is fine. But when you try to suggest that someone like me is following the likes of Auster or trying to distract from the Jews or falling for their tricks that’s paranoid. 7 key points where Jews have overriding power: finance, religion, media, academia, politics, international business, law. Their use of these power positions against us is second to none in importance. That is what I say!
On the contrary, that is where the Hitler worshiper’s brains shut down. As if we need to resurrect him to think for us! He is a permanently divisive figure - he is unnecessary to redeem. That’s it.
Because you don’t get it man, you see everyone as on just two sides - the Hitler/Nazi side or the Jew side and it isn’t that way.
It doesn’t sting. You might try a little harder. Or not try, but don’t bullshit me like Duke tries, that Hitler was so perfect, didn’t do anything bad, that he was defending all Whites and we can’t live without him.
I HAVE organized my thoughts.
It isn’t exotic or arbitrary jargon that I am using. It is based on Aristotle, biological philosophy and more recent post modern philosophy.
No, I am incensed that you are reconstructing the The Nazi/Jew diatribe, and the Nazi mirror of the Jews as the chosen people, pure light unto the world and eternal ex nihlo victims.
And I have been talking about it since the 1990’s; have done so with Meztzger, on VoR and just recently in comments in criticism of you. I would not have objected if you had said something like, and similar as what our friend over there at MR, DanielS is saying about Objectivism being a problem for us, I have been thinking as well, that it has yields but entails susceptibilities.. ...if you had been talking to Friends who care more about European peoples than Hitler and the Nazis: You are not comforting friends when you are unanimity with Kyle who can see no wrong in Hitler, who is tight with this Markus guy who hates Poland and has a long list of reasons why he supposes war should be instigated with them Again! etc.
I don’t tend to use the word monocausalist, Tan. I have probably less than ten times in my life. Citing reasons and things he had right is one thing. Making excuses, covering-up and lying for him, quite another. When you try to bury what I am saying under the rubric of Hitler as the grand unifier, getting all cool with Hitler worshipers, I do have a problem with that. Go back and re-listen to some of table talk; and if you can’t find it in yourself, the way Duke et. al, can’t find it in himself to look at him critically and reject him as a proposed unifying figure, if you think he’s cool then you are the one who is screwed up. I think you can understand this: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/suicide_genocide_and_rational_blindness
4
Posted by comment on Tan from May 6th on Mon, 25 May 2015 17:39 | # This comment was from May 6th: Tanstaafl’s paranoia: Age of Treason Radio http://age-of-treason.com/category/age-of-treason-radio/ Tan says:
Wrong, Tan. Think about what I am saying: we will do best to set about with two poles, one Jewish, the other our susceptibility for objectivism (objectivism as opposed to looking after our relative group interests as we should). From there, we may attend to Jewish power and influence and our systemic maintenance most often; and in process attend to other problems as well - other non-White imposers and traitors high and low. You may not like the term monocuasalism* and it may be used by people who are trying to distract from the J.Q., but there is NO suggestion here that we are crazy and that Jews are not hostile, powerful antagonists requiring acute and priority focus (again, keeping ongoing and most frequent vigil with regard to 7 key niches, while perhaps not giving them ALL attention ALL of the time). Next, you quote the feeble minded and dishonest Katana to concur where he is totally wrong:
Totally wrong. I am clear in what I think**, and clear enough in how I say it for anyone, but perhaps those, like Katana, who want to believe in Hitler’s perfection (and for people to not hear what people like myself are saying). Tan, the messiness, the less than perfectly clear causality of the multi-interactive social world must be why you prefer to cite John Friend (with his neat but absurd conspiracy theories to explain all) as a definitive authority. What you do in focusing on Jews is a good thing, but you are taking it to paranoia when you suggest that someone (e.g. myself) is not using his brain and trying to obfuscate the Jewish role when he looks at our susceptibilities and philosophical corrections thereof. I can hope for better from you, but if you are endorsing Katana’s BS and John Friend, then perhaps the William Pierce perspective has you held too captive to let go.
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopoic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
5
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 May 2015 17:42 | # This comment was from May 6th that seemed to have an instigating effect: Tanstaafl’s paranoia: Age of Treason Radio http://age-of-treason.com/category/age-of-treason-radio/ Tan says:
Wrong, Tan. Think about what I am saying: we will do best to set about with two poles, one Jewish, the other our susceptibility for objectivism (objectivism as opposed to looking after our relative group interests as we should). From there, we may attend to Jewish power and influence and our systemic maintenance most often; and in process attend to other problems as well - other non-White imposers and traitors high and low. You may not like the term monocuasalism* and it may be used by people who are trying to distract from the J.Q., but there is NO suggestion here that we are crazy and that Jews are not hostile, powerful antagonists requiring acute and priority focus (again, keeping ongoing and most frequent vigil with regard to 7 key niches, while perhaps not giving them ALL attention ALL of the time). Next, you quote the feeble minded and dishonest Katana to concur where he is totally wrong:
Totally wrong. I am clear in what I think**, and clear enough in how I say it for anyone, but perhaps those, like Katana, who want to believe in Hitler’s perfection (and for people to not hear what people like myself are saying). Tan, the messiness, the less than perfectly clear causality of the multi-interactive social world must be why you prefer to cite John Friend (with his neat but absurd conspiracy theories to explain all) as a definitive authority. What you do in focusing on Jews is a good thing, but you are taking it to paranoia when you suggest that someone (e.g. myself) is not using his brain and trying to obfuscate the Jewish role when he looks at our susceptibilities and philosophical corrections thereof. I can hope for better from you, but if you are endorsing Katana’s BS and John Friend, then perhaps the William Pierce perspective has you held too captive to let go.
Not that computer training is the only thing playing into monocausality or even that there is anything wrong with focusing on the Jews; but that he is taking too myopic a perspective and that (computer training) might be one factor..
6
Posted by Duke's Undying Commitment to Hitler on Tue, 26 May 2015 06:13 | # David Duke’s undying commitment to Adolf Hitler On this show (David Duke Archives:Date: 05-25-15) the used-car salesman says that there is “no argument” that Hitler tried to offer peace. Perhaps card-tricks are an even more clear analogy. The hand he plays: Completely ignores, and asks you to ignore, the fact these “peace offers” were just words and that his war-like intentions, expansionist ambitions at the expense of peoples to the east, were evident before and after the ostensibly just proposals. Duke ignores, and asks you to ignore, the fact that while the then German population of Gdansk may have voted on a referendum to become part of Germany, that it was not Hitler’s prerogative, let alone unilateral prerogative, to order that a referendum be held to undo the results of World War I and the Versailles committee’s decision to make Gdansk a neutral city again. Further, their decision was not groundless - it was a strategic city which if in exclusively hostile hands could threaten to eclipse Poland’s sea access. Moreover, it was a historically disputed city, at times a Polish city, with a Polish population that was violently displaced by Germanics, and at times a neutral city. However, Hitler’s taking all of Czechoslovakia after having been conceded the Sudetanland makes this a moot point. His expansionist ambitions and disrespect for nationals to his east were more than clear. Perhaps worst of all, Duke tries to play-up Polish victimization at the hands of The Soviets and portray Nazi Germany as if it was on Poland’s side against the Soviets, when Polish nationalism had already shown its resolve and ability to fight the Soviets - in the end, with absolutely no thanks from Nazi-Berlin to Poland for turning away Soviet troops headed its way. On the contrary, Poland was subject to utter betrayal and destruction with the intent of ending its nationhood - that was the appreciation that Nazi Germany gave to Poland for its clear resistance to The Soviet.
And so Duke wants to install perpetual Nazi victimhood and portray them as perfectly virtuous. No thanks.
7
Posted by The Key to "Right and Left" on Tue, 26 May 2015 07:29 | # I took the way that I distinguish “left and right” so for granted that I did not render it sufficiently a day ago. It is fixed now: The niches are generally treated as characteristically incommensurate to comparison. That, as opposed to vain and false comparisons which tend to instigate conflict rather than complementarity. The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by The White Left. 8
Posted by Diatribe with Tan on Tue, 26 May 2015 13:48 | # Tanstaafl quotes me: DanielS, when you try to suggest that someone like me is following the likes of Auster or trying to distract from the Jews or falling for their tricks that’s paranoid I’m paranoid? Where did I suggest what you claim?
Tan The national socialists recognized the jews as mortal racial enemies. You imagine you’re somehow above or outside this conflict, No, I recognize the Jews as a mortal enemy but the problem is that Hitler also made Slavs of nations to his east into enemies. He was not an advocate of all Whites in defense against Jews, as simple as that. that you can finesse your way around reality and history by finding some different words or thinking to describe it. I advocate all Europeans and the maintenance of their discreet kinds. Jews are no part of that. Where is the finesse? I get that in your mind Hitler “is a permanently divisive figure – Its not only in my mind son, it is reality.
No, not even for Germans. What did Germans of this generation have to do with any alleged crimes of Hitler or Nazi Germany? Nothing. They are perfectly warranted to defend themselves and I am perfectly willing to help. These are your terms and they reflect your own binary thinking on the subject. My thinking is not binary on the subject. Not even regarding Hitler. But I recognize that on balance, he is divisive and not a good idea to try to hold him up and redeem him as a unifying figure. Again, it is not in my “mind” and who is doing the Jewy psychoanalytic thing? There were things that NS did right and things that they did wrong. I have nothing against people discussing some things that they did right; but some people can’t find it in themselves to be critical and recognize that AH and Nazi Germany were not things to show unanimity with if you are an advocate of all European peoples. If you are not, if you want to antagonize huge tracts of Europeans, that’s your prerogative. I have registered my rejection of your position. don’t bullshit me like Duke tries, that Hitler was so perfect, didn’t do anything bad, that he was defending all Whites and we can’t live without him Yes. Tan says: It is an example of what is going on in right wing WN circles. Listen to his memorial day discussion and you would have an idea. You will never hear Duke say anything critical of Hitler. It may have something to do with America’s demographics and the internet creating a self buffering system endorsing a pro-Hitler point of view that could stand some critique. When you left Carolyn Yeager, I though you did so because you saw the obvious fact that his plans for Ukraine and Ukrainians were foul. I guess that you just bought back into the false either or of the self satisfied system of American demographics and right wing internet WN. I’m not really sure what you mean here. But I can assure you that I am not the only one who sees Hitler as permanently divisive. It isn’t in my mind. I don’t know what YOU are thinking. I would not have objected if you had said something like, and similar as what our friend over there at MR, DanielS is saying about Objectivism being a problem for us, I have been thinking as well, that it has yields but entails susceptibilities.. Tan OK, you are smart enough to come to ideas by yourself, but the fact is that I WAS TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS CLEARLY AT VOR BACK IN 2011 (BEFORE THE DATE YOU CITE as your initiation) AND MANY YEARS BEFORE. YOU SAID THAT I WAS NOT THINKING CLEARLY, NOT USING MY BRAIN, THEN YOU WENT AHEAD AND STARTED SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE PARADIGM THAT I WAS USING - AT RENEGADE, A PLACE THAT SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH HITLER. BTW, I HAD OFFERED TO TALK TO THEM. THEY DECLINED TO DISCUSS MY DISSENTING VIEW, THUS I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THESE IDEAS HAVE CURRENCY AMONG PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BUY THEIR HITLER PLATFORM. Hitler is your bugbear, your litmus test. That’s your idea. Again, I don’t share it. He is not my bugbear, he is the security blanket for some. And the Jewy unanimity for Hitler is a tedious bore. For me, he is just an irritant. But when I know that someone endorses him on balance or even uncritically, I can look upon them as having a serious flaw in their outlook. Tanstaafl DanielS, I do not think and have not argued that everyone who uses the word “suicide” is trying to excuse the jews – it is only the first and most insidious use of that term that I noticed and called “the suicide meme”. OK. monocausalism is not my word. It is a term that has been used at MR. I have picked it up a bit recently as a stop gap. It has merit as a criticism when you are looking to help Europeans defend themselves as a system, as I am. Tan or “myopic”, but with the same basic thrust. He, like you, agree with some of what I say, Probably more like MOST of what you say. That is why it is disturbing when you reacted in a shrill way when I tried to explain why I consider it valid to have a more rounded look at our problems - emphasizing that it is not about taking eyes off of Jewish power and influence, not for me, and I don’t think for MacDonald either.
For me its a little more both/and, that’s all. That’s a bit more true. I don’t like Nazi advocates. You say “tough” and that’s that. But I just wanted you to know, that I’m here and Hitler and Hitler advocates do not get credit for being the all of thinking. Tan Obviously I cannot control you or tell you what to do. But what I am saying is not unwarranted. You deserved feedback at least once. Bizarrely, you both dress up this desire of yours as my problem, that I’m the one being too simplistic or narrow-minded. It isn’t my problem, especially not now. But I would say that you are being simplistic. Can anyone really be critical of Hitler, Nazi Germany or of “revisionism” etc, at Renegade? No, they cannot. Apparently you have the same position - on the side of the Jews or the Nazis. That’s a simplistic, false and dangerous either/or.
I’m not playing any Jewish tricks with you. It’s clear, Hitler and the Nazis were not friends of all European peoples. If you try to say that they were, you would have to start resorting to tricks. Many WN try, in fact. They were representing “White” people. No they were not. They represented only a part of Euroepans and they were antagonistic to others. It is quite possible to be against Jews, to look upon them as an entirely other people who are antagonistic and dangerous to Europeans in a way second to none, and recognize that Hitler is not on your side either. The essense of psychoanalysis is: “You like what I don’t like, therefore you must be stupid or crazy”. You certainly aren’t stupid, maybe a tad crazy from the hell of Jew-made America (it certainly made me a little crazy), but it is probably more the case that you are not familiar enough with Eastern European peoples and history. That you haven’t had time to see that there is a deeper history even of Germany, which can be drawn upon to cooperate in defense against Jews. I know Germans. They are good people. We all have our bad apples, but on balance, all Europeans are good people. I know that we can cooperate. The fighting is history.
I am not against your criticism of the Jews, even your focus on them. I am critical of a knee jerk reaction to looking at those who look at other problems and antagonists among a system of concerns, especially when I agree that Jews merit attention second to none in priority. I am critical of Hitler and Nazi Germany as divisive. It should be obvious and is not “my psychological problem” because I cannot see what a great guy he was, the Nazi regime was. etc. Tan: Maybe they do. I am not afraid of appearing anti-Jew. but I would not want to tactlessly announce a wish to genocide them - that’s not fear, that’s discretion.
I’m open to that, and I would tend to think that’s true. I have always maintained that no Jews should be included in our advocacy group. Obviously some deserve a worse fate than being ostracized. 1/4 and 1/8 Jews do bear discussion. But Hitler advocacy and attempts at his redemption are not going to unify and facilitate good coordination among Europeans It is really very simple, Tan. If you were to say, NS Germany had their reasons, they had some things right, they had some things wrong, but if we, as Europeans (including Russians) are to work together as we should to defend ourselves, we have got to think as European advocates and care more about Europeans, including Germans, of course, more than Hitler. 9
Posted by monocausal proclivity of computer nerds on Thu, 28 May 2015 05:16 | # Adding the part in bold to the post above:
For example, lets say KM wants to connect with Jarod Taylor and, to see if he can bring him along to achieve more alignment and coordination, shares empathically in Taylor’s way of talking, says “yes, it’s suicidal to do this..” (all the while KM has already argued conclusively for himself that what is going on is genocide not suicide). I have now experienced the kind of hair trigger reaction to a social meandering by computer nerds too many times now - sudden conclusive reactions to innocent zigs and zags and the merest theoretical ambiguity, even if a part of a process wholly intended to be corrected in fairly short order to alignment with what the nerd might wish as a result; but he will treat it (the slight zig zag meander) rather as unbearably pernicious because it does not fit into the false/either/or of their theoretical mindset (as misapplied to praxis - viz., the social, interactive, negotiated world corrected through human interactive agency). Note that in this I am not saying Tan is crazy or applying psychoanalysis to him, I am suggesting, as per Aristotle, that he is over applying lineal, either/or theory (which Aristotle designated “Theoria”) to the more ambiguous social world - which Aristotle called “Praxis.” ...which Tan and Katana might, in turn, want to call “jargon” 10
Posted by Rambling with Tan on Thu, 28 May 2015 08:51 | # I have added some transitional phrases since Tanstaafl tried to divert from the obvious sense that I was making, by saying I was “rambling” (taking a page right-out of Jewish-journalese psychobabble). 11
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 May 2015 07:14 | # I had a sense that I took something essential for granted and forgot to mention it - I’m adding it to the post now: The inquiry into our own responses, or lack thereof, WILL NECESSARILY BE connected with the inquiry of those who might obstruct and suppress them - hence it cannot distract from the J.Q. ultimately. Rightfully angered response and resistance to it would provoke inquiry as to who is resisting and promoting our dispossession. 12
Posted by Greg Johnson on pathological altruism on Sat, 30 May 2015 09:04 | # Greg Johnson discussing the “pathological altruism of northerners” issue: 13
Posted by MOB on Sat, 30 May 2015 21:15 | # __________ Alex Linder, VNN Audio Dietrich Eckart - Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me http://vnnforum.com/video.php?do=viewdetails&videoid=5532 __________ 14
Posted by Heidegger's obit on Sat, 30 May 2015 22:32 | # Wilmot Robertson’s Obituary for Martin Heidegger 391 words Although Instauration pieces are not signed, based on style and content, I believe this obituary for Martin Heidegger was written by Wilmot Robertson. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
15
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:01 | # “Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought”. 16
Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 01:10 | # Heidegger would argue that modern philosophy didn’t really abandon Aristotelianism. 17
Posted by unpc dowunder on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:50 | # The author of this article suggests there are 41,000 years of racial separation between blacks and whites, but the latest Out of Africa theory suggests that modern humans have been ‘“Out of Africa” for at least 130,000 years:
There are probably 40,000 years of separation between whites and arabs, rather than between whites and blacks (assuming the Out of Africa theory is correct). 18
Posted by That's good news. on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:01 | # That’s good news. Thank you. I tend to go with the out of Africa theory because scientific evidence points to its being the case somewhere along the line, even if it is farther back than normally taken. Of course it does not mean that significant and precious mutations did not occur after exit from Africa. I have tended to focus on the 41,000 years figure normally cited by scientists as corresponding with our Euro-specific evolution because it is both a long time evolutionarily speaking, enough for those significant mutations to take form and express themselves, but also a short time in an evolutionary sense - highlighting the fragility, the precariousness, the urgency we face in maintaining our differences against the pre-evolution of African bio-power and the atavistic stability that it can have; and as opposed to which we need to protect ourselves. I.e., it would be dangerous hubris to look upon ourselves as at an advantage over them across the board. Thus, I try to discourage such hubris. Our people need to be prepared and they are much better off if they do not think blacks are a piece of cake. Out of Africa is better argumentatively in that regard - and it is unnecessary to disprove from an rhetorical standpoint as we can make arguments just as persuasive, if not better warranted, in our defense inasmuch as it is true. It not only has scientific backing, it will help us with the public in general to maintain it as a working hypothesis, because out of Africa also corresponds with common sense - It is apparent from what one might commonly observe. Thus, we are less prone to look and in fact to act foolishly with a basic outlook of out of Africa. With regard to Africans, 130,000 years wouldn’t change the basis of my argument - it isn’t geared to anything like scientific precision - it is still both a short and a long time for the preciousness and precariousness of our differences to have to take precautious measure against African pre-evolution. However, while perhaps underscoring a more optimistic prognosis for those not concerned with maintaining our quintessential European differences, it may call for some fundamental re-thinking about our (perhaps I should say my) thinking about middle-easterners. 19
Posted by JEWS DO NOT WANT A WHITE LEFT on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:40 | # Jewish Rachel Haywire and “The Truth Will Live” Are now trying to pawn themselves-off as ‘the Alternative Right, right-wingers” They want to say that THE Left is the establishment (the White Left is the establishment? I don’t thinks so): http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1319 Is there anybody who can get it through their skull that Jews do not want us to be a White Left? And that the reason that they do not want that is because it is our best position? Sure, these Jews are the right, “I’m like reading Spengler and Evola…just so wild and crazy…but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”... They’re so in touch with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT. “The Left is the establishment”...and the Jews are just such rebellious trend setters.. “I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried” It figures Mark Dyal would be at Haywire’s site.. Haywire wants to create “new species”...
It’s psychic, like Evola People coming together to form new species” (mulattoes) Haywire is not really into the race thing, “race’ is a mental thing…it’s about people who are on like the same wave length.” 20
Posted by Red Cross blows half mil in Haiti on Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:32 | # Red Cross Spent Half a Billion Dollars to Build Six Homes in Haiti Despite taking in more than $500 million in donations, the Red Cross has only built six houses in Haiti http://time.com/3908457/red-cross-six-homes-haiti/
21
Posted by Vet suicides troubling but not 22 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:36 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: Computer-Nerd Tanstaafl confusing Praxis w “Jargon,” psychopathologizing
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by "the blitzkrieg was being so nice" on Mon, 25 May 2015 09:10 | #
“The blitzkrieg was such a nice way to do things” Kyle unt