Posted by Twisted Terms on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:37 | #

Discourse, media and propaganda analysis certainly is worthy intellectual inquiry.

Hermeneutics is NOT anti-science, although one of the features of engaging this non-Cartesian process is its anecdote to scientism.

Science is crucial for uncovering fundamental facts of physics and biology.

However, science can become scientistic when over-applied to the social world —as Aristotle would say, the reality of our social existence requires that we not remain locked in the close readings of scientific logic, but that we also make practical judgments and take broad views of our system and history with imaginative comprehension - that we draw lines, theories to be tested and working hypotheses to go by.

A classic example of scientism is the statement that “we are all so closely related genetically that there is hardly any difference between us and no reason to discriminate.”

As Aristotle would add, it is not science in the moment we try to capture a practical hypothesis about our social world - but it is necessary to comprehend its broad systemic reach beyond what may be observable in a moment; more, it is also necessary to take into account that we are involved with the human agency of the social world and therefore its lack of perfect lineal predictability. We must, rather, feel our way and negotiate a bit toward and through our working hypotheses.

We are in the world of praxis, which, because it is interactive and agentive requires judgement and argument - rhetoric. Rhetoric does not necessarily espouse what is not true. Its art means making the best argument for the perspective on truth that you want to advocate.

For example, the scientific observation that outbreeding tends to occur by females going from out of the tribe would provide valuable rhetorical material for a male looking to connect with a female who does not want someone 100 percent of her genetic background.

Allowing for the imagination to theorize and draw lines in this relative flux is not anti-truth or anti-science. Quite the opposite, it is a necessary complement - whether to tracing DNA migration or what we might find and designate authentic brain structures and functioning for given European populations.

When up against the manichean trickery of Jews, with their twisting every term around, it is more than tempting for Whites to cling rigidly to a sheer pursuit of science; to pursue unassailable foundations.

We cling more fervently to our European evolution as it has been in relation to having to deal with Augustinian problems - the natural challenges we specialize in solving, which don’t change (just to foil us) when solved.

This gives us a bad turn, directing us away from the social world of praxis, where we need to spend the bulk of our time, and into a kind of socially blind (and unaccountable) “physics envy.”

....as misapplied to creatura generally, and humans especially.

We become so myopic of the way “nature really works” that we go below the social world which is peopled with agentive creatures, a world of negotiation…and are determined to impose the laws of nature as strict cause and effect.

We begin to engage in what was idiotic about Adolf Hitler.

A subtle thinker, he was one who became popular through left cover - he cared about the social world of Germans, to an extent.

But because he was at heart a right-winger, he became enamored of “natural law” as superordinate of social law - he held it to be objectively transcendent of the relative concerns of the social world.

Nature was war. It was inevitable.

Therefore negotiation was trivial and natural law, more like forces and impacts, was the guide. The social world of European neighbors was not to be negotiated but rather, might made right, the borders and relations to neighbors were sheerly a matter of power, force and will.

With the Germans being as successful as they were, that might have seemed like a good idea. “Nature” was apparently on their side. One significant problem with Hitler’s world view thus, is that it was not Aristotlean enough. He was over-applying theoria to praxis.

Again, it’s tempting to make this mistake when up against the manichean trickery of Jews, with their twisting every term around; more than tempting for Whites to cling rigidly to a sheer pursuit of science; to pursue unassailable foundations.

Here are some terms twisted by Jewish manicheanism:

Hermeneutics - a process of inquiry conceived to join and manage what would otherwise be Cartesian duality, by deliberately taking inquiry instead into a socially engaged back and forth process between broad and imaginative views and closer, more rigorous examinations of the facts. A very good, White concept, which, along with social constructionism, has been misrepresented by Jews in a deliberately absurd way, mostly on the imaginative end, to suggest that people and events can be almost anything imagined.

Equality - obviously a straw man, propped-up by Jews, knowing that arguing against equality looks (and is) bad.

Andrew Anglin is in the process of taking this bait with regard to the gender issue.

The issue is quality and difference - paradigms and commensurability thereof.

Arguing against equality can only be, in practical terms, insulting, demeaning and antagonistic (as opposed to complementary), prone to instigate unnecessary and unproductive conflict from the start; but it is also theoretically misleading as it falsely compares qualitatively different systems and different stages in process. One who is “better” might find themselves in for an unpleasant surprise when suddenly involved in the logics of a different paradigm and may wish that they’d not encouraged a simple “better or worse” comparison.

Social constructionism - also conceived to bridge Cartesian divide, it takes the obvious position that we are never outside of interaction or relationships. Arguing against social consructionism is to (falsely believe) that it maintains (in its proper form) that physical reality and constraints are not observed and observable - and, at the price of arguing against agency, our capacity to do something about managing, and indeed, reconstructing our human ecological systems.

The Left - a social union of people which includes some and not others. Twisted by Jewish terminology to mean universal, open-ended liberalism for Whites and anti-White unions only.

The Right - objectivism: they want to identify us as “the right” to prevent us from unionizing as a people, from being relatively organized and accountable to our people.

Marginals - a good concept proposed by Gadamer inasmuch as these were taken to be those just within the system, close within the boundaries and at risk to systemic breach - as positioned, having sense and perspective to feedback on systemic maintenance. Instead, Jewish academia has perverted marginals to mean outsiders, union busters.

Multi-culturalism - argue against it and you are arguing for integration.

Diversity - same thing.

Social justice (warriors) - you want to argue against those terms? A sucker is born every day.

Objectivism - is very appealing in the power of its conclusive warrants, its purity and innocence of subjective and relative motives. But while there are objective facts and we are co-evolved to understand these objective facts, we are never able to fully escape our subjective and relative social group interests. Objectivity can yield spectacular results in factual information, some of it very useful. However, it can be taken too far, to where one attempts to divorce subjective and relative social interests - to where they are not taken into account and to where one sees oneself as not being accountable to and for these interests and concerns - whereas, in truth, we are influenced and beholden to these motives to some extent as well.

Posted by neil vodavzny on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:20 | #

As far as the terms I feel there is something missing which is vital, and that is content (which you might call ontology). On the other hand all terms are partial, but this is quite vital.

Greece is the fountainhead not just of Europe but of much of the Middle East. Hence it’s a good idea to develop that as a pro-European one.
Classical is built on a fine balance between techne and expression, resembling tribes to that extent. One can compare to advanced tribes like the Iroquoi. Once the expressive or Dionysic is lost, the preformulated robots take over.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.txt&ei=DiOEVYG2J5Kp7Aa6zLTwCg&usg=AFQjCNHzDygp8mDyXNjPNZMYYL8-rPNu5A&bvm=bv.96042044,d.ZGU

That is a tribal balance between tribe and nature, and between individual and tribe.
If that is content then without it everything tends to junk. Even Enyclical is saying the Earth has become a giant rubbish tip. Similar things apply to minds.
Content is also what you see in a garden, especially French gardens which seem to be the best. 4 seasons, 4 elements, root, flower, seed, leaf.

I’m not saying systems are necessarily wrong, just as long as they’re aware that they are systems and dependent on content. This has to involve anarchy and free-expression, not thought and preformulation. This is something my ‘zine is pursuing, probably from the next post up.

Posted by theory and content on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:41 | #

Neil, I don’t disagree with you. My department was rated in a survey of American university departments in our field:

We were ranked number one in theory

While the department of another university was ranked number one in practical application.

For us - to our “theory” - the separation of theoretical merit from content was an absurdity.

Posted by neil vodavzny on Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:49 | #

http://www.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1171741¤tSection=1161468
Just a note on the Iroquois constitution which influenced Franklin. These warlike tribes formed a confederation to preside over a fair degree of peace. The longhouse is a symbol of ideas put into action - praxis - by a free people.

The Greeks called themselves free men, and I see that as a quality of balance between techne and expression. One the one side you have robots, on the other chaos.
What I see today is a complete lack of content, a mixture of robots and chaos (this was covered by Les Humanoides in France).
Eco-societies that are semi-racial (the 5 tribes) as was the case in America are fairly informal, confederations, and that is a quality of freedom. As Seymour says in Ghost World of Southern racism, “it’s complex”. Damn right, same as you see in Mark Twain.

Without content of that type, everything becomes a type of junk, of nothingness every which way, including liberal thought processes. So, praxis and content are obviously closely linked.

Posted by neil vodavzny on Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:54 | #

http://www.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1171741
This should be the link

Posted by Compulsory Separation News on Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:08 | #

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/06/dylann-roofs-manifesto/#more-55958

Roof’s manifesto shows that while he had developed a decent understanding of some things happening to Whites that he had a ways to go to achieve understanding sufficient for worthy activism.

Of course it is not advisable to throw one’s young life away and especially not by killing a small group of people who were not responsible for crimes against Whites.

Having said that, I must disagree with those who say that this is necessarily a set-back to White activism. On the contrary, if agitations are increased between blacks and Whites this will create a more timely and accurate awareness of what is ultimately the case - that living with blacks is destructive to Whites. This more keen and acute awareness will serve to undo the decades of YKW media brain-washing, covering-up black violence, depiction of blacks as perfectly nice people, race mixing as a positive solution.

There is a perfidy in the WN right which takes the position that the YKW are trying to divide us against blacks - as if we should not want to be divided from blacks; and as if we do not need to increase awareness of the importance of dividing from blacks. On the contrary, the worst thing that YKW can and have done with their power and influence is to force integration with blacks.

Does there need to be more awareness of the YKW and objectivist role in inflicting blacks upon us? Of course. It is evident in Roof’s insufficient understanding of YKW, for example, as “White” and as if they are not the biological system that they are, but a people who can be brought around if they can be persuaded to drop their nepotistic identity.

Roof also uses the insufficient term “Hispanic.” This is a right-wing coinage which egregiously lumps Spanish-speaking European people with Spanish-speaking non-Whites.

Roof goes on to say that they are our enemies. That’s ridiculous. Some of my greatest rage has come at times in evidence where a lovely European woman is being thrown to the apes simply because of right wing hubris which denies her Europeanness under the facile and disingenuous rubric of “Hispanic.”

He also says that some in WN are upset by race-mixing White women and that we should “stop! We should not blame them, they are victims.” There is a great deal of truth to their being victims and conditioned, but they do have some responsibility and agency which needs to be acknowledged as well. Public criticism of their behavior is necessary in order to un-do the conditioning that this behavior is normal and good so that young White girls who still have the chance to see another way, and the good reasons for it, can take the alternative course - loyal to Whites.

Roof’s criticism that American patriotism has become absurd and needs to be replaced by White patriotism is accurate.

Roof’s understanding that it is not too late and that it is possible for Whites to take control of their destiny is also quite good. Along with that, that we do not have to give up our countries, ultimately, even if we are greatly outnumbered for a time.

In sum, while I certainly do not advocate Roof’s actions, I believe that proper White advocacy will see that this does more good than harm to our cause - which is separatism - as it makes it that much more difficult to deny the destruction to our people of being forced to live with blacks; indeed the destruction of blacks; for his experience and immersion with them, Roof had a better understanding of blacks than other issues (their low I.Q., low impulse control, higher testosterone levels = aggression). Pathetic though his attempt at heroism was, it was a low and inarticulate act of White patriotism, obviously meant to be symbolic - saying to all parties, “if Whites and blacks were separated, if Whites had their own sovereign nations, things like ‘this’ would not be happening.”

Thus, while Roof’s act was ill advised, his concern for his people as distinct was not even so much betrayed by the innocence of his particular targets, as he was illustrating the entire difference of the pattern of which they were part, that there are none who are entirely harmless to us as they carry the pattern with them which is harmful to us whether deliberate or inadvertent.

In that regard, Compulsory Diversity News‘s Adrean Arlott had one of the best comments:

adreancdn

Posted June 21, 2015 at 1:18 am | Permalink

Perhaps he wanted to accelerate the conflict of races that he saw as inevitable. He may have thought that if the conflict did not start soon, there would be no White people left who would be willing to fight it at all.

Adrean is probably giving Roof a bit too much tactical credit, but the idea is “in the DNA” of Roof’s act.

Posted by certifiably: crazy and conflict of interests on Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:48 | #

GW and I just completed a discussion with Colin Liddell. The first topic that came up was the Roof massacre. Colin is running this video over at Alternative Right which shows a black friend of Roof avowing that he never heard Roof say anything racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKSsY5rHNu0

Colin proposes that he may have been under post hypnotic suggestion. I concur that is possible. I’d not seen this video but only saw the manifesto, apparently Roof’s account of his act - an event which I took little interest in initially.

However, I maintain my hypothesis, as valid. It is not only that Roof could have been cultivating a side unbeknownst to his black friend, but it is the best angle for White Nationalists to take on the matter.

His shootings of blacks, perhaps especially because they were innocent ones, can contribute in cutting through decades of media brainwashing that there is no danger in proximity and cohabitation with blacks and instigate enough tension and conflict to stimulate increased separatist action.

GW thinks that Roof was essentially crazy and I can agree that throwing your life away at 21 to kill some basically harmless blacks is certifiably crazy - but crazy as it was, the connection to racial reality, the hazard, stress and destruction of forcing Whites and blacks into incommensurate relations, as he alludes to in his manifesto, is equally certifiable as true.

He was certifiably crazy but there is also a certifiable conflict of interests between the races as alluded to in his manifesto and a certifiable motive to instigate conflict, divisiveness and separatism - even if he was a tool of hypnosis.

Posted by Not so innocent black church on Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:29 | #

Charleston Mother Emanuel AME Church Shooting – Discussion Thread…
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/18/charleston-mother-emanuel-ame-church-shooting-discussion-thread/

“...the AME church network is the most politically -and racially- connected network of affiliates in the nation.  The AME network is the faith based power structure for the professional Black Grievance Industry.”

Posted by Squelch75 on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:57 | #

In 1987 David Burke caused crash of Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, killing 43
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966292,00.html

Documentation showing Burke had racist chip on shoulder:

Family Defends Burke Despite Evidence With AM-Plane Crash, Bjt
AP , Associated Press
Dec. 11, 1987 7:39 PM ET

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Family-Defends-Burke-Despite-Evidence-With-AM-Plane-Crash-Bjt/id-182c56b24a9193a46125a9b756b3a574

“On July 15, Burke complained to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing that he had been passed over twice for promotion to customer service supervisor.

“Burke alleged white workers with less experience were promoted to the supervisory positions and blamed Thomson for the alleged discrimination. But he decided against filing a formal complaint, said Annabella Hwa, the department’s district manager in Los Angeles.”

Posted by "only" seven kids on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:11 | #

Burke alleged white workers with less experience were promoted to the supervisory positions and blamed Thomson for the alleged discrimination. But he decided against filing a formal complaint, said Annabella Hwa, the department’s district manager in Los Angeles.

Although investigated several times for alleged drug involvement and auto theft in New York, Burke was never charged.

Burke’s last will, dated Nov. 30, named six children as beneficiaries, although Burke was never married, Altamont Burke said. The Burke brothers said David Burke cared for 13 children, although he fathered only seven.

Beatrice Burke, who identified herself as his common-law wife, and Ms. Camacho filed reports with police alleging they were assaulted by Burke. In 1985, Beatrice Burke’s case in Rochester was dismissed when she failed to appear in court. Ms. Camacho’s case was pending when Burke died.

Real estate records in Rochester show Burke was given his first home by his Jamaican-born, taxi-cab-driver father as a high school graduation gift. Burke used the profits from its sale to buy other property and made a $200,000 profit from the sale of two homes this year.

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:13 | #

Pope Francis sundering reason and faith while reportedly doing the opposite:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-climate-change-doubters-lost-a-papal-fight/2015/06/20/86af3182-15ce-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html

The Pope wants the west to commit economic and social suicide with this environmental encyclical endorsing climate change.

He wants racial suicide of The Camp of the Saints kind wrt “migrants” (non-white invaders) coming into Europe.

With heroes like these who needs villains:

http://www.exposethebastards.com/heroes

“Created with NationBuilder”.

More like NationWrecker, amirite?

Posted by Wrong place at wrong time on Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:33 | #

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny37AcUDqQE

...at least Ramspaul is being consistent.

Of course David Duke and Patrick Slattery are all sanctimonious about how this is supposed to set the struggle back hundreds of years…

Meanwhile Duke never says a negative word about AH and the millions of Slavs, Germans, Italians and other Western Europeans killed by his war program; no, in that case Duke makes endless excuses or distracts from the issue.

But he’ll offer no excuses for Roof. We are supposed to feel so guilty about this and express deepest regret that he could not have found Brahman road in Charleston.

Well, if Whites cared about other Whites instead of pandering to negrophilic females, as Duke and Slattery do, then maybe he’d have had a better chance of finding Brahaman road.

But since a White left has not crystallized yet to serve in outreach, we might offer this advice in contrast to Right wing indifference to the real world problems of White males.

Let’s repeat: it is not advisable to throw one’s life away at age 21 - even if it were picked up a notch to a JPF level, even if he had chosen to slay a criminal having world scale impact.

But this is not going to set the struggle back.

David Duke and Patrick Slattery have this ridiculous idea that we are being tricked into being divided from blacks as if separatism is not something we should strive to invoke. Again, one of the worst things that the YKW do to us is impose blacks upon us. These two espouse more concern for the feelings of blacks than they do for the White men getting hammered by this onslaught.

Events like this and surrounding discussion only serve to bolster the argument of separatism - and separatism is what we want.

Oh no! How horrible! They are trying to divide us from blacks!

That’s the Duke/Slattery angle - so ridiculous that it’s not worth elaborating further.

Posted by comment by Andrew at Radix on Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:46 | #

The other side of the story by Andrew at Radix

I don’t understand what all the excitement is about. It is to be expected that people who are abused and mistreated will act out violently against their oppressors. It may not be the most rational thing to do, but humans are emotional creatures. When we are treated unjustly, we feel anger, and men often act on that. Young white men are essentially demonized, degraded and psychologically abused by this grossly immoral society, which is dispossessing them of everything. I could go on and on about the injustices, but its unnecessary. Others have commented that the most surprising thing about the incident is that it doesn’t happen more often. There are vast numbers of people who have a vast range of mental health issues, including impulse control, taking psychoactive medications, anger control problems, violent tendencies, and so forth.

While Europeans have many strengths and virtues, we also have certain vulnerabilities. One Achilles heel working against us is our obsessive need to justify everything morally, and be forever subject to guilt and shame by the conduct of others. This is what I see in Mr. Spencer’s essay. He feels Mr. Roof’s actions bring “shame and horror” to the entire movement. Why? What gives you or I responsibility for Mr. Roof’s actions? If he was a Democrat, would it bring shame and horror to all Democrats? If a black person did it to Whites, would Blacks feel any collective shame for it? (And there are many incidents of that type). Europeans get that dysfunctional shame/guilt reaction when they see costumed nationalists marching around as well. Why?

If we are to succeed, we need confidence, absolute iron-clad confidence in our cause, an unshakable belief that it is absolutely just, moral and right. Ultimately we need to believe that our cause is one with God’s will. The future is going to bring much, much more conflict, massacres, brutality and violence as we move further into the multicultural nightmare. We need leaders that are unshakable, unwavering, completely steadfast and immune to shame and guilt for being part of the identitarian project.

Mr. Roof’s case is a tragedy, similar in nature to an abused spouse who kills the abuser, or a mercilessly bullied child who takes a gun and shoots the tormentors. The churchgoers for the most part black radicals who were actively involved in anti-White ethnic campaigning. They have been quite busy championing black thugs, burdening Whites with guilt trips, protecting the thugs and criminals of their community and much else. They were busy tormenting us, and it came back to bite them. This is something that I expect to see more and more of.

I guess the as yet inarticulate excitement in WN is more or less meant to provide advice in regard to the fact that there are more productive ways, means and targets against which to channel one’s rage.

Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:00 | #

Soulless Jewish fembot Claire Cohen on the Toragraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11712922/Womens-World-Cup-2015-Our-sympathy-for-Laura-Bassett-is-sexist.html

One of the Lionesses was in tears - had a thorn in her paw - when she deflected a slanted cross from an opponent into her own goal.

Usual British brly ltr8 hashtag emotional incontinence with “poor Laura” “absolutely gutted” “so, so proud” “U R A TRU champion” and other remote, faggoty boosterism.

It’s silly season and bread and circus sports time.

Posted by Arch Hades on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:56 | #

She’s a Jew and that’s not surprising, but what also not surprising is the actual mother of the biracial child featured in the Cheerios commercial is of British decent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4zSkcF4SVc

Posted by Eric Bloodaxe on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:29 | #

Claire Cohen needs the Luciana Berger treatment that Andrew Anglin unleashed.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:14 | #

Well, Eric, sounds like a good idea….what do you have to say about the “The Telegraph’s Wonder Women” MS. Cohen?

.................................

Claire Cohen is Deputy Women’s Editor of The Telegraph

Posted by The question is.. on Thu, 06 Aug 2015 15:44 | #

The question is, how do they get White actors to complay with race mixing propaganda, especially at this level of travesty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdIRmDmDUnk

Posted by Kike leads charge against racism on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:43 | #

Kike Ojo, 40, is leading a charge to reduce the number of black children in the care of Ontario children’s aid societies. “There are people who think I am as rogue as they come,” she says.

“There’s a saying in the black community,” she adds, “that when you make it, always reach back and give a hand up. This is who Kike is.”

Nicole Bonnie, senior manager of community engagement at Peel children’s aid, adds that “Kike is a passionate advocate for marginalized communities,” noting her society was the first in Ontario to establish the kind of anti-oppression job Ojo held.

Posted by (((Hollywood))) on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:31 | #

Posted by Who's behind race-mixing in advertising? on Wed, 29 Aug 2018 12:23 | #

Who’s behind race-mixing in advertising?